Often, a key strength of Netnography is described in terms of providing ethnographically thick descriptions of online interactions through the intense and sustained involvement of the researcher in the daily life of digital communities (Kozinets, 2010). Costello, McDermott and Wallace (2017) suggest a distinction between active and passive approaches to Netnography. Active approaches to Netnography include the previously described processes to generate elicited material through interactions (such as interviews) between researcher and participants and writing field notes. Also, investigative data-collection procedures, focusing on observation, can be considered as part of an active approach when the researcher actively engages with the social phenomenon studied, for example, through sustained contact, emotional involvement, and the writing of reflective field notes (Kozinets, 2020).  

Active approaches can provide rich, detailed descriptions and are suitable for community-based Netnography, using the notion of community, focused on interactions characterized by (lasting) communal ties and practices. However, the deep and reflective focus of active approaches may come with the risk of missing out on important larger trends and issues. To help us navigate through vast oceans of digital data and sites of the social, and possibly to gain a higher representativity and reduce the risk of bias, passive approaches may be of use. Learn more about active approaches to Netnography in this video:

Exercise: Value and limitations of active approaches

Select a netnographic study, for example, one of the following: 

Brodie, R., Ilic, A., Juric, B. & Hollebeek, L. (2013). Consumer engagement in a virtual brand community: An exploratory analysis. Journal of Business Research, 66, 105–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.07.029

Hanell, F. (2020) Co-learning in a Digital Community: Information Literacy and Views on Learning in Pre-school Teacher Education. In: Anneli Sundqvist, Gerd Berget, Jan Nolin, Kjell Ivar Skjerdingstad (ed.), Sustainable Digital Communities: 15th International Conference, iConference 2020, Borås, Sweden, March 23–26, 2020, Proceedings (pp. 327-342). Cham: Springer Nature Lecture Notes in Computer Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43687-2_26 (Open Access version)

Wilkinson, C. & Patterson, A. (2010). Peppa Piggy in the middle of marketers and mashup makers: A Netnography of absurd animation on YouTube. In S. Brown & S. Ponsonby-McCabe (Eds.), Brand Mascots: Anthropomorphic marketing: And other marketing animals (pp. 123–140). London, England: Routledge.

Read and consider how research design and results reflect (or do not) active approaches to Netnography. What do you think the active approaches used (or not used) are good for? What might we miss out on due to the selected approaches used? 

References

• 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
• Kozinets, R.V. (2020). Netnography: The essential guide to qualitative social media research (3 ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Chapters 5, 7, 9, 10