Netnography, like other types of ethnographic research, combines close and sustained engagement with the community being studied with theoretical perspectives and research questions guiding the study. This dialectic relationship between theory and practice becomes evident when the object of netnographic study, the field, is demarcated and focused and when netnographic research is done during fieldwork.

To decide on the focus of a netnographic study is to negotiate and decide what constitutes the field (see section 3.1.2). As the researcher decides what research questions should guide a study, the focus of the study emerges. This process often includes the early stages of reviewing patterns in observations and other empirical material: the study, and the field, is delimited and made clear when material, theoretical perspective, and research questions converge in a unified focus (boyd, 2009). For netnographic research, it is generally preferable to let the digital practices of participants shape and narrow the field rather than specific (digital) places (cf. Hine, 2000). 

To balance the dialectic relationship between the engaged participants and the scientific observer, Netnography typically produces three types of material during fieldwork: archive material, elicited material, and material from field notes (Kozinets, 2010). Archive material is such material generated by the participants' digital interactions and then copied/archived by the researcher. Elicited material is co-created by the researcher and the participants through community interactions or interviews. Material from field notes includes notes taken by the researcher during fieldwork, as well as reflections on the role of the researcher during interactions in the field. This material type also includes notes added to archive material that may describe issues observed at certain points in time but that does not follow from the saved texts per se.

Ideally, researchers should be involved in active, real-time participation in their Netnographies, which may allow for important contributions to online social narratives, real lives, and real places (Costello, McDermott & Wallace, 2017). However, fruitful netnographic approaches often combine participatory (active) and non-participatory (passive) strategies (see Unit III). It is often reasonable to do netnographic studies fully online, but to better understand the nature and context of digital interactions, it can be beneficial to include material (observations and/or interviews) from physical settings - in corpore (Kozinets, 2015). To provide rich descriptions and nuanced understandings of digital communities and culture, Netnography typically combines and uses several different opportunities for study offered by digital interactions. Such opportunities may include participant observation in a digital community during a prolonged period of time, quantitative strategies such as social network analysis, or ethnographic interviews in corpore. In the words of Kozinets, for Netnography focusing on digitally mediated interactions, “the key element is not to forget the participative, reflective, interactive and active part of our research” (2015, p. 97).

---

References

• boyd, d. m. (2009). Question one: How can qualitative Internet researchers define the boundaries of their projects? In A. N. Markham & N. K. Baym (Eds.), Internet inquiry: conversations about method. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.
• Costello, L., McDermott, M.-L., & Wallace, R. (2017). Netnography: Range of Practices, Misperceptions, and Missed Opportunities. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917700647
• Hine, C. (2000). Virtual ethnography. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.
• Kozinets, R.V. (2010). Netnography: Doing ethnographic research online. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.
• Kozinets, R.V. (2015). Netnography: Redefined (2 ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.