On Netnography: Initial Reflections on Consumer

Research Investigations of Cyberculture

by
Robert V. Kozinets
Assistant Professor
J. L. Kellogg Graduate School of Management
Northwestern University
Evanston, Illinois

One methodology recently introduced in the consumer research literature is that of

netnography, an interpretive method devised specifically to investigate the consumer behavior of

cultures and communities present on the Internet. Netnography can be defined as a written

account resulting from fieldwork studying the cultures and communities that emerge from on-line,

computer mediated, or Internet-based communications, where both the field work and the textual

account are methodologically informed by the traditions and techniques of cultural anthropology.

Judging from the wide-ranging interest in mainstream publications (e.g., Armstrong and

Hagel 1996) from conference presentations and papers (e.g., Fischer, Bristor and Gainer 1995;

Muniz 1997), and from the content of burgeoning electronic mailing lists, a wide number of the

methodological tools that arm consumer and marketing researchers are currently in the process of

being adapted and applied to understanding consumer behavior as it occurs over and is affected

by the Internet.

Netnography investigates the specific instance in which community is produced through

computer-mediated communications (CMC). Groups of people numbering in the tens of millions

–and rapidly growing—are now utilizing CMC mediated by electronic mail and specialized
networks, usually linked through Internet, Bitnet and Usenet connections, to build community

(Baym 1995). The term gaining currency to refer to this type of social group is a “virtual

community” (Rheingold 1993, Wilbur 1997). There has already been some debate regarding the

desirability and “reality” of virtual communities (Jones 1995). Yet these social groups have a

“real” existence for their participants, and thus have consequential effects on many aspects of

behavior, including consumer behavior (Baym 1995, Turkle 1995). Several scholars argue that

culture and community are created through communication, and that these virtual communities

demonstrate more than the simple transmission of information, but “the sacred ceremony that

draws persons together in fellowship and commonality” (Carey 1989, p. 18; see also Fischer,

Bristor and Gainer 1995). Virtual communities are “vibrant new villages of activity within the

larger cultures of computing” (Laurel, 1990, p. 93).

Internet communities may also be said to form or manifest cultures, in the Geertzian

sense of the term as “historically transmitted patterns of meanings embodied in symbols”

(Geertz 1973, Porter 1997). The term given to Internet-created culture is cyberculture. In

anthropology, cyberculture has been conceptualized as the complex field of social forces in which

human bodies, machines, and scientific discourses intersect (Escobar 1994). For the purposes of

this paper, cyberculture is more narrowly conceptualized as the shared patterns of behavior and

their associated symbolic meanings expressed primarily through computer-mediated

communications. It has been recognized in cultural anthropology that cyberculture represents an

important new locus of human cultural activity. As Escobar (1994, p. 218) notes:

Anthropological analysis can be important not only for understanding what these
new “villages” and “communities” are but, equally important, for imagining the
kinds of communities that human groups can create with the help of emerging
2
 technologies. Again, research in this area is just beginning. We can anticipate active
discussion on the proper methods for studying these communities, including
questions of on-line/off-line fieldwork, the boundaries of the group to be studied,
interpretation, and ethics.

As of this writing, I have researched and written three consumer research netnographies

over the last two years, with more planned in the near future. The mistakes and the successful

decisions I made along the way inform this paper and I hope that it can provide others with some

initial ideas regarding the project of ethnographically exploring cyberculture, focusing particularly

on the consumer research context. The following sets of ideas take the form of a combination of

some initial and tentative terminological and investigative boundaries, some fairly brief

explications of my initial and faltering steps in netnographic field methodology, and some

personal observations and examples. Most of this paper will be taken up with explications of

netnographic field research methods as they have been developed “on-line” in “real-time.” Due to

the newness of the methodology, and to tight space limitations, these guidelines and this

discussion are of only the most preliminary constitution. This paper is thus intended to provide

an introduction to the topic, perhaps to spur further methodological development. It is certainly

not able to serve as a comprehensive methodological source.

Netnography: Origins and Uses

The above-mentioned definition of netnography stresses that both its field work and its

textual account be methodologically informed by the traditions and techniques of cultural

anthropology. Observing the general guidelines and traditions of ethnography while adapting

3
them to the unique circumstances of cyberculture, netnography may be empowered and

legitimated through building on anthropological tradition, adapting and drawing on its

consensually-derived standards of evaluation where necessary.

Netnography is an adaptation of the qualitative methods utilized in consumer research

(e.g., Belk, Sherry and Wallendorf 1988), cultural anthropology (e.g., Geertz 1973, Altheide and

Johnson 1994, Marcus 1994), and cultural studies (e.g, Jenkins 1995), with the express aim of

enabling a contextually-situated study of the consumer behavior of virtual communities and

cyberculture. These methods require an immersive combination of cultural participation and

observation, resulting in the researcher becoming “for a time and in an unpredictable way, an

active part of the face-to-face relationships in that community” (Van Maanen 1988, p.9). Thus

netnography, like ethnography in cultural anthropology and cultural studies, strongly emphasizes

full participation in the culture being studied, as a recognized cultural member. This participation

constitutes an important element of the field work.

The “data” collected during a netnography, as in other types of ethnography, consists of

the researcher’s fieldnotes about her cybercultural field experiences, combined with the

“artifacts” of the culture or community. In a typical netnography, circa 1997, this data will be

mainly textual, consisting of downloaded files of newsgroup postings, transcripts of MUD or

IRC sessions, and e-mail exchanges. There may also be some picture files (photographs and

artwork) and sound files. In the near future, they may also include digital recordings of

teleconferenced gatherings. Netnographic interviews and exchanges have some distinct advantages

over their ethnographic counterparts in that they emerge “already transcribed” and thus may be

less subject to the vagaries of memory (freeing the researcher’s use of fieldnotes for more
4
introspective, rather than retrospective, reflection). Netnographic data is thus particularly

focused upon textual data, and the limitations and requirements of producing and communicating

textual information obviously structure virtual relationships in many ways, including: eliminating

and simulating physicality and body [e.g., body language has been virtually replaced by

(deliberately) shared (emot)icons], privileging verbal-rational states and skills over nonverbal-

emotional ones, and allowing more “pre-editing” of expressed thoughts and thus more

opportunities for strategic self-presentation efforts.1

Consumer Research Uses of Netnography

I believe that netnography may prove useful for three general types of studies, and in

three general types of ways: (1) as a methodology to study “pure” cybercultures and virtual

communities, (2) as a methodological tool to study “derived” cybercultures and virtual

communities, and (3) as an exploratory tool to study general topics.

Turkle (1995) self-consciously uses the valorizing acronym RL, popular among many

members of the virtual community, to reference “real life” in opposition to “life on the

[computer] screen.” I herein define “pure” cybercultures and virtual communities as those

cultures and communities which do not exist in RL, but are manifest exclusively through CMC.

For example, consumer researchers may wish to study the increasingly important and varied

1
I wish to acknowledge the useful comments of an anonymous reviewer for suggesting these important

concerns.

5
consumption of different type of “virtual reality” experience which happen exclusively “on the

screen.”

New forms of consumptive experience are carried through electronic means such as multi-

user domains (also called multi-user dungeons, and abbreviated as MUDs) where people will

interact as groups and dyads, through role-playing and game-playing in different computer-

created environments, and will also “produce,” through programming, new experiences for one

another to consume (see Ito 1997). Still largely a textual experience (they are mainly formed of

words flowing on screen), these habitats are becoming increasingly sophisticated and graphical,

even enabling the user to construct “avatars” or pictorial representation of themselves (for

example, you might want to visually represent yourself to other MUD users as a lizard dressed

in a tuxedo). Virtual experiences that occur over these MUDS, and in other virtual domains,

include “TinySex,” which Turkle (1995, p. 21) refers to as “sexual encounters in cyberspace,”

and one of her informant elaborates upon as “people typing messages with erotic content to each

other, ‘sometimes with one hand on the keyset, sometimes, with two.’”

TinySex, avatars and the wide variety of other experiences offered by the MUD

environment and collectively consumed by virtual community members exemplify “pure”

cyberculture with no RL analogs. Another set of communities especially interesting to marketers

might be those groups of peoples present exclusively on the Internet that use brands and product

classes as the basis for their interaction (see Armstrong and Hagel 1996, Muniz 1997), but which

have no RL counterpart where people meet “in-person.” For example, a number of technically-

specific groups have emerged on the Internet to share information and insights regarding various

aspects of the consumption of computer technology. While these pure cybercultural groups have
6
no RL complement, they constitute an important consumer behavior phenomenon in their own

right.

I believe that the use of netnography for the study of these pure cybercultural groups and

manifestations is most appropriate in this context as a methodology in and of itself. Because

these phenomena are exclusively based on communities formed from CMC, the use of immersive

netnographic techniques allows a researcher to comprehensively cover the entire social context of

“life on the screen.” Thus, netnography is methodologically very defensible as a necessary part,

if not the major part, of any explication of consumer behavior manifested in a pure cyberculture

or pure virtual community context.

This is not to deny the utility of adjunct methods of inquiry, such as in-person or

telephone interviews with persons participating as members of the virtual community. Face-to-

face contact offers some clear advantages, especially in making tangible amorphous virtual

identities. Interviews open to interpretive scrutiny details that may appear hazily or infrequently

in the hurly-burly of “everyday” cultural life. A fascinating topography can be explored in the

interactions between RL and life on the screen (e.g., do the “gender-bending” activities that

frequently transpire on-line translate to more exploratory, “actual,” RL sexual behavior in their

participants?, see McRae 1997, Turkle 1995). Given the above, my take on whether or not to

supplement netnography with other “off-line” methods is that studies of pure virtual

communities should probably be based on a foundation of direct participation and immersion in

the relevant cybercultures and virtual communities. It seems sensible to argue that methods other

than Internet-based fieldwork can also be appropriate as adjuncts to this work, particularly

depending on their research focus.

7
 Adjunct methods seem to make even more sense when studying “derived” cybercultures

or virtual communities, which I define as cultures and communities that exist in RL as well as

manifesting through CMC. For example, Schouten and McAlexander (1995, p. 49) noted and

efficaciously studied the presence of “a Harley-oriented computer bulletin board on Internet”

that existed in addition to the physical sites of community constituted by bike rallies, swap

meets, road trips, and other gatherings. As Internet participation grows, groups which previously

existed exclusively in RL are increasingly taking their communities “on-line” and gaining new

membership and new experiences. Among studies of these “derived” virtual communities,

netnography may prove most valuable as an adjunct methodological tool, used in concert with

corresponding field work in the RL culture and community, as well as the face-to-face and

telephone interviews mentioned above.

Finally, there are a wide range of general consumer behavior topics that might profitably

be explored on-line through CMC. The Internet offers easy contact with members of consumer

society who might answer general consumer behavior questions. As well, general topics of

interest to consumer researchers are manifest in the behavior of many on-line groups. For

example, the impact of cross-cultural international membership, the communal mediation of

advertising and other promotions through CMC, and a variety of other sociocultural consumer

research topics, such as reference groups, expertise, word-of-mouth, and opinion leadership, are

manifest in virtual communities.

Some caution may be wise when undertaking netnographic research over the Internet and

intending to transfer its conclusions to more widespread (i.e., not necessarily Internet-related)

consumer behavior topics. First, there is definitely some “social specificity” in the types of
8
persons regularly using Internet resources, and thus some concern about drawing conclusions

from their study that can usefully be applied to other groups. Notions of representativeness,

while not paramount to ethnographic studies in general, may nonetheless limit the potential

usefulness and decrease the transferability of netnographic findings.

Secondly, it is important to ascertain that the group being studied is, arguably, a

cyberculture or virtual community, as defined above (or a conceptualization of one’s choice).

There are a number of ways one could determine if this is the case. In my research, I looked for

(1) individuals that are familiar with one another, (2) communications that are identity-specific,

and thus not anonymous, (3) group-specific language, symbols and norms, and (4) the

maintenance and enforcement of in-group/out-group boundaries through, for example, “anti-

newbie” postings, “trolling” and “flaming” (see Tepper 1997).2 The intention of utilizing these

four criteria was to ensure that I was indeed studying a culture or community –dictated by my

anthropologically-based definition—and not simply examining a temporary gathering.

I raise these red flags not to be preachy, fussy, or nit-picking, but because I believe that,

by virtue of its incredible accessibility, the Internet offers an extraordinary number of

opportunities for poorly-devised and poorly-conducted research. Especially because this is new

(trendy?) terrain, these concerns and cautions are warranted. It is simply too easy and too

convenient for a (perhaps nascent) qualitative researcher to go on-line, download a hundred

2
A “newbie” is a newcomer to a virtual community. “Trolling” is the practice of trying to lure those who

unaware of the in-group’s rules to reveal their ignorance. “Flaming” is an on-line (usually public) vicious, insulting

verbal attack.

9
postings or so, write a couple of postings of their own, and claim that they have “done

netnography,” all in a single week or two.3 Unfortunately, I speak from experience: I have been

expedient in my (ab)use of the method once before, and my research findings suffered.

That said, I believe that with the proper preparation, awareness, and a sufficient

investment of time, consumer researchers will find the Internet to be an incredibly useful media

through which to conduct a wide range of cultural research. A general rule which might be helpful

would be that the closer to a “pure” cyberculture the culture one is studying, the more

methodologically defensible (necessary?) the inclusion of netnography. The converse is that the

more “general” or exclusively RL the consumption phenomenon, the less dependable and less

convincing will be the netnographic component of the research. I do not mean, however, to deny

the utility of netnographic research findings on general consumer topics as they manifest among

Internet users (e.g., race and consumption) –only to complicate positions that unquestioningly

generalize them to contexts beyond cyberspace.

Computer-Mediated Field Research

In ethnography, a set of common issues and obstacles faced by nearly all ethnographers

have been identified and have gained considerable familiarity (although no clear-cut consensus has

evolved regarding their resolution). These issues and obstacles include: cultural entrée, dishonesty

3
This is not to say that excellent, quality content analyses, surveys, experiments etc. can not be conducted

on-line in a very quick and efficient manner, without any foreknowledge of anthropology. It is only to netnography,

as a method of virtual cultural study, that I refer here.

10
and misrepresentation, and a host of other pragmatic topics (Altheide and Johnson 1994, Van

Maanen 1988).4

As this narrative will relate, the Internet is a very strange, even surreal, “space” in which

to be conducting research because of the medium’s profound effects on human identity and sense

of place. Questions abound about the actual “site” of the research (your own home? a computer

server somewhere in Delaware? “cyberspace”?), about who constitutes the base of culture

members and informants (their avatar? their “disembodied and decentered self”? their remote

physical body?), and about ensuring honesty in answers among a base of faceless and

unaccountable informants. In the following sections I share some introductory thoughts about the

ways in which these important questions and processes interact with netnographic research

techniques, and perhaps open these issues to wider discussion.

Cultural Entrée

Many of the obstacles to cultural entrée faced by ethnographers are seemingly eliminated

in the netnographic entrée into cyberculture. Long distance journeys, unfamiliar languages,

personal sacrifices and often dangerous political situations abound in traditional anthropological

entrée into the culture of a distant land. Even in sociological studies of groups and organizations,

4
Other important issues include approach, self-presentation, and the researcher’s role; gaining trust and

rapport; mistakes, misconceptions, and surprises; interview methodology; field notes, data collection and recording;

data analysis; researcher introspection; member checks; and cultural exit. Netnography uniquely inflects all of these

field research techniques. Unfortunately, due to space limitations, these other topics will not be treated here.

11
difficult circumstances, politics and power often present immanent hazards that careful cultural

entrée choices may help navigate.

In marked contrast, the netnographer can join a culture from the comfort of her own

home. As already mentioned, joining cyberculture is frightfully easy: turning on a computer,

going to a group, downloading a bunch of information, and posting some opinions or observations

to others on the newsgroups. People speak more or less in English, they all seem to be of the

same “status,” and there are no formal “gatekeepers” monitoring communications (aside from the

often formidable flamers and trolls). Eventually, after several days or weeks of this behavior, one

has not only collected hundreds of pages of automatically-transcribed qualitative “data,” but one

has become “known” as a culture member. Entrée has been achieved. However, as with any type

of cultural research, the greater the front-end preparation and field immersion the more

convincing, “thick” or rich, and potentially useful the findings. Like ethnography, netnography

requires methodological sophistication in the understanding of the techniques and traditions of

cultural anthropology as they affect the conduct of field research. I believe it to be advantageous

to predicate cybercultural research upon a significant mobilizing for field work.

Not because it is immaculate (far from it), but because it is immanent, I give the example

of one of most extensive netnography. In that research, I spent six months investigating the

available cybercultures and virtual communities daily before ever posting my first message or e-

mailing a single culture member. I non-obtrusively observed, or as CMC users term it, “lurked,”

different CMC-oriented areas in order to learn the language, the sensitizing concepts, the content

matter and the identities of culture participants that were familiar to members of their

communities. I investigated many of the different formats that are possible forums of
12
netnographic investigation. The five main areas I examined are: (1) World Wide Web homepages,

where people post their interests and personal information, and provide links to other on-line

pages and areas of interest to them; (2) Usenets, a multifarious collection of interest-specific

“bulletin boards” where people can post messages and reply to “threads” of discussion on topics

related to the community’s interests; (3) commercial on-line services, such as America Online

(“AOL”), Compuserve, and Prodigy which, as well as providing a range of commercial services

for their subscribers, provide various forums for (usually moderated) communal interaction and

the posting of interest-specific messages; (4) Internet Relay Chat (“IRC”) chat rooms, interest

specific areas where people can converse in “real time,” in a process analogous to a telephone

call, but in typewritten form, and (5) MUDs, which have been described above.

Each of these “cyber-places” offered different types and levels of interaction and

inter(net)activity –each seemed suited for the pursuit of different types of guiding research

questions. For example, in my two investigations into media consumption cultures, I investigated

their cyberculture while also engaged in a full-time, in-person ethnography of the corresponding

RL cultural sites. For the initial, pre-contact phase of the netnography, I used search engines such

as Yahoo and Alta Vista, then followed relevant home pages and their links, frequently visiting

relevant Usenets, lurking and wandering, reading, downloading, writing reflective ethnographic

field notes, and investigating the entire phenomenon while attempting to gain a cultural insider’s

perspective.

From what I learned through intensive lurking, I proceeded to construct my own

“research home page,” and to contact other people through their home pages. On my World Wide

Web home page, I asked people to contact me with answers to several questions about their
13
consumption behavior, which I termed a “cyber-interview.” I described my research (in general

terms, i.e., as best as I could without offering leading questions), guaranteed them anonymity, and

asked for their assistance.

Thus, my entrée process evolved through the following five fairly distinct activities: (1)

lurking, (2) surfing others’ home pages, (3) creation of my own “research home page,” (4) cyber-

interviews (with e-mail follow-up), and (5) Usenet postings. This is certainly only one way to

approach entrée. I might have used chat rooms more, for a more “real time” interview feel.

However, I opted for a more circumspect, depth, and long-term interview style via e-mail

correspondence. If I were studying the interactions of multiple-player combat gamers, a more

defensible netnographic research design would stress participation such as spending several

months in relevant MUDs, playing the game, and then contacting players through pertinent

Usenets, homepages, and e-mail.

After a few more months of making contact in my research, I had formed relationships

with several key informants. Initially, culture members wrote me with answers to my cyber-

interview questions, I responded with comments and further topics for discussion, and offered to

“continue the dialog.” If a member did not respond, I did not pursue it –the signal was clear

enough. Of those who did respond, a number explained the conduct and language of the virtual

community to me, electronically “showing me the ropes.”5 Armed with this information, I began

entering the relevant newsgroups, and responding to some posts. After several weeks, I felt

5
Some time can also be saved by reading the burgeoning literature on rules of CMC conduct (e.g.,

McLaughlin, Osborne, and Smith 1995).

14
familiar enough with the process to attempt original posts without feeling that I was “intruding”

or “steering” the newsgroup to my research interests. My guiding objective was authentic

ethnography: to fit in as a cultural insider, and gain the perspective and experience of a member of

the virtual community I was investigating, while clearly pursing a goal of cultural research.

Dishonesty and Misrepresentation

A major concern in all research is the honesty of the responses upon which a researcher

bases her or his conclusions. In netnographic research, this concern is amplified by the uncertain

nature of the interactions and respondents. Virtual communities are composed of people who

rarely meet face to face, who are largely (but probably not totally) unaccountable for the

information they share, and whose identities may be kept permanently anonymous. Because the

virtual self is separate from the physical body, and thus apparently from “material”

consequences, it might be assumed that this self-simulation is more likely to engage in self-

dissimulation. Turkle (1995) argues that Internet identity is constructed, multiple, decentered,

and often considered a work-in-progress –and thus manifests in explicitly observable form a

postmodern sensibility previously only accessible through theory. To traditional scholarship

–even to commonsensical understanding—the extreme immateriality of Internet identity can seem

almost intractable.

Our understanding of the ways in which virtual identities interact in virtual communities

(and, on the larger stage, in a virtual world) is at a very early stage of understanding. One of my

own observations is that there is a tradeoff effect at work: the same freedom which inspires

people to mischievously construct deliberate falsehoods about themselves and their opinions also

15
allows them and others the freedom to express aspects of themselves, their ambitions and inner

conflicts, that they would otherwise keep deeply hidden (see also Turkle 1995).

Devoid of the kinesthetic clues of body language, netnographers may be blinded in a way

that in-person researchers are not. However, netnographers may need to develop compensatory

technical and interpretive skills in order to offset this blindness. Ethnography and netnography

do not judge veracity, nor depend on it, so much as they study interpretations. Certainly

netnographic research will be affected negatively if fictive interpretations are carelessly added to

more faithful expositions –however, subject to sufficiently probing analysis, these untruths may

well reveal interpretive insights of their own.

Vigilance is never a bad idea. Methodologically, Wallendorf and Belk (1989) note that

ethnographic research “integrity,” the lack of impairment by “misinformation” and

“misrepresentation,” can be facilitated by well-developed field research techniques such as

prolonged engagement, persistent observation, gaining rapport and trust, triangulating across sites

and sources, using good interview techniques, and researcher introspection. These sound

methodological guidelines apply also to netnography. Over time, with patient observation of any

virtual community, with a few key informants with whom one has built a strong and trusting

relationship, and with a deep understanding of one’s own inner identification as a culture

member, a netnographer is likely to be able to separate the wheat from the chaff, and construct a

representation faithful to the interpretations of bona fide culture members.

Conclusion

16
 As this brief methodological overview suggests, netnography offers a qualitative

technique by which consumer researchers may investigate cyberculture, virtual community, and a

wide range of consumer experiences that manifest in and through them. There are numerous

methodological, ethical and representational topics associated with netnography that remain to be

explicated. Below, I will deal with a few I feel are most immediate.

In an information-drenched society, netnography offers an extremely easy way to gather

data, and thus can be critiqued as an expedient technique. Critiques of rigor should rest, however,

not in the apparent accessibility of the field techniques involved, but in how the research is

actually performed (rigorous methodological guidelines), and how its outcomes are to be

evaluated (rigorous judgmental standards). Ease of data collection may contribute to trivializing

Internet-based technique until some early methodological guidelines are negotiated for its use, and

some early standards for quality evaluations are developed and agreed upon. At the same time, it

is also important at this early stage to encourage experimentation and innovation in the

construction of a wide-range of interlocking interlocutory Internet-based methods.

To promote such an outcome for netnography, experimental freedom and concerns about

legitimacy must be woven together in investigations that both conform to and, where necessary,

deliberately stretch widely-accepted standards governing quality evaluations of ethnography in

consumer research, as well as adding several from cultural anthropology (e.g., Altheide and

Johnson 1994, Marcus 1994). Prolonged engagement and persistent observation, triangulation of

sources, recording of field notes, and member checks seem to me to be the most important

methodological techniques (see Belk, Sherry and Wallendorf 1988, Wallendorf and Belk 1989).

17
Demonstrating that these techniques are being applied may help netnographers convince others

that their field research is being conducted in a serious, long-term, and accountable manner.

From the interpretive techniques used in cultural anthropology, there are a number of

widely accepted conventions that lead to additional quality judgments of the text (Altheide and

Johnson 1994, Marcus 1994). I believe the notions of verisimilitude (providing a lifelike

simulation of the culture), reflexivity (consciously recounting the inevitable effects of the

researcher participating in the culture), and authenticity (giving proof that one was actually

accepted as, and felt oneself to be, a culture member) also need to be treated in the netnographic

text.

Ethical concerns must be addressed by specifying how informed consent was obtained,

how the dignity and interests of community members were respected, and by ensuring

anonymity and confidentiality where required. This is especially important in the downloading

and use of ostensibly “public” postings –I have found that people have somewhat paradoxically

refused me permission to anonymously quote their posts. Others, who have posted their

writings but are unreachable, are still legally and morally in possession of the copyright on their

productions (i.e., researchers can not “appropriate” apparently public postings without

permission).

Finally, the textual representation of netnography presents new challenges for traditional

techniques, and opportunities for new representational styles such as poststructural

anthropological “messy texts” (Marcus 1994) and evolving textual representational methods such

as hypertext and hypermedia. One very interesting opportunity is for multiple researchers to

study “the same” virtual community independently at the same time (although this community,
18
like the proverbial river, is constantly changing). Rather than aiming at an objective “researcher

triangulation” on the way “things really are” in cyberspace (Woolgar 1988), such investigations

could enrich our field by exploring the different interpretations bound to emerge from the

investigation.6

In short, I believe it very helpful for aspiring netnographers to immerse themselves not

only in “virtual fields” but in the history and methods of cultural anthropology. Sherry (1991)

coined the apropos term “the researcher as instrument” to refer to the individualistically unique

set of observational and hermeneutic skills needed by interpretive researchers, a term which refers

no less to netnographers than ethnographers. As the methodology continues to develop, it is

possible that the netnographic technique may evolve to become a useful tool of twenty-first

century consumer research.

References
Altheide, David L. and John M. Johnson (1994), “Criteria for Assessing Interpretive Validity in
Qualitative Research,” in Handbook of Qualitative Research, ed. Norman K. Denzin and
Yvonna S. Lincoln, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 485-499.

Armstrong, Arthur and Hagel, John, III (1996), “The Real Value of On-Line Communities,”
Harvard Business Review, May-June, 134-141.

Baym, Nancy K. (1995), “The Emergence of Community in Computer-Mediated

Communication,” in Cybersociety, ed. Stephen G. Jones, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Belk, Russell W., John F. Sherry, Jr. and Melanie Wallendorf (1988), "A Naturalistic Inquiry into
Buyer and Seller Behavior at a Swap Meet," Journal of Consumer Research, 14 (March),
449-470.

6
I wish to acknowledge and thank an anonymous reviewer for suggesting this very exciting possibility.

19
Carey, James W. (1989), Communication as Culture: Essays on Media and Society, Boston, MA:
Unwin-Hyman.

Escobar, Arturo (1994), "Welcome To Cyberia: Notes on the Anthropology of Cyberculture,"

Current Anthropology, 35 (June), 211-231.

Fischer, Eileen, Bristor, Julia, and Brenda Gainer (1995), "Creating or Escaping Community? An
Exploratory Study of Internet Consumers' Behaviors." Paper presented at the 1995
Association for Consumer Research Annual Conference.

Geertz, Clifford (1973), The Interpretation of Cultures, New York: Basic Books.

Ito, Mizuko (1997), “Virtually Embodied: The Reality of Fantasy in a Multi-User Dungeon,” in
Internet Culture, ed. David Porter, New York: Routledge, 87-110.

Jenkins, Henry (1995), "Do You Enjoy Making the Rest of Us Feel Stupid?: alt.tv.twinpeaks,
The Trickster Author and Viewer Mastery," in 'Full of Secrets': Critical Approaches to
Twin Peaks, ed., David Lavery, Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 51-69.

Jones, Stephen G. (1995), “Understanding Community in the Information Age,” in Cybersociety:

Computer-mediated Communication and Community, ed. Stephen G. Jones, Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage, 10-35.

Kozinets, Robert V. (1997), “‘I Want To Believe’: A Netnography of The X-Philes’ Subculture
of Consumption,” in Advances in Consumer Research, Volume 24, ed. Merrie Brucks and
Deborah J. MacInnis, Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 470-475.

Laurel, Brenda (1990), Ed. The Art of Human-Computer Interface Design, Reading, Mass:
Addison-Wesley.

Marcus, George E. (1994), “What Comes (Just) After “Post”?: The Case of Ethnography,” in
Handbook of Qualitative Research, eds. Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln,
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 563-574.

McLaughlin, Margaret L., Kerry K. Osborne, and Christine B. Smith (1995), “Standards of
Conduct on Usenet,” in Cybersociety: Computer-mediated Communication and
Community, ed. Stephen G. Jones, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 90-111.

McRae, Shannon (1997), “Flesh Made Word: Sex, Text and the Virtual Body,” in Internet
Culture, ed. David Porter, New York: Routledge, 73-86.

Muniz, Albert M., Jr. (1997), “‘Brand Community and the Negotiation of Brand Meaning,” in
20
 Advances in Consumer Research, Volume 24, ed. Merrie Brucks and Deborah J.
MacInnis, Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 308-309.

Porter, David (1997), Internet Culture, New York: Routledge.

Rheingold, Howard (1993), The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier,
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Schouten, John W. and James H. McAlexander (1995), "Subcultures of Consumption: An

Ethnography of the New Bikers," Journal of Consumer Research, 22 (June), 43-61.

Sherry, John F., Jr. (1991), “Postmodern Alternatives: The Interpretive Turn in Consumer
Research,” in Handbook of Consumer Research, ed. Harold H. Kassarjian and Thomas
Robertson, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 548-591.

Sherry, John F., Jr. and Mary Ann McGrath (1989), “Unpacking the Holiday Presence: A
Comparative Ethnography of the Gift Store,” in Interpretive Consumer Behavior, ed.
Elizabeth C. Hirschman, Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 148-167.

Turkle, Sherry (1995), Life on the Screen: Identity in the Age of the Internet, New York: Simon &
Schuster.

Van Maanen, John (1988), Tales of the Field: On Writing Ethnography, Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.

Wallendorf, Melanie and Russell W. Belk (1989), "Assessing Trustworthiness in Naturalistic

Consumer Research,” in Interpretive Consumer Research, ed. Elizabeth C. Hirschman,
Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 69-84.

Wilbur, Shawn (1997), “An Archaeology of Cyberspaces: Virtuality, Community, Identity,” in

Internet Culture, ed. David Porter, New York: Routledge, 5-22.

Woolgar, Steve (1988), Science: The Very Idea, New York: Tavistock.

21