More-than-Human Instagraphy Some Methodological Recommendations in Analyzing Instagram by More-than-Human Approaches

Document Type : Research Article

Authors

1 PhD in Sociology, University of Isfahan, Isfahan

2 Professor, Department of Social Sciences and Humanities, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran

3 Assistant Professor, Iranian Research Institute for Information Science and Technology (IranDoc)

4 Assistant Professor, Department of Social Science and Humanities, University of Isfahan

Abstract

Introduction: More-than-human approaches that emphasize the relationship between matter, technology, humans, nature, and all human and non-human things in a relational manner and as Assembled Phenomena, have found a special place in sociology. The place of things, materials, and objects in understanding society and the relationship between humans and non-humans in understanding humans and society have been expressed in a variety of ways. From Tarde’s diverse and marginalized perspective to the connective and rhizomic sociology of Deleuz and Guattari (1988) and from the New Materialists to many science and technology scholars such as Latour (2005), Latour and Woolgar (1979), Haraway (1997), Law (2004), Barad (1996) have all acknowledged that society cannot be made up of humans alone and that agency can transcend humans in many social actions, and false dualities such as subject/object, human/nature, and structure/agency are sharply criticized. Considering the more-than-human approaches, where the basic structure of the position of the human, the researcher, the research field, and all other materials and factors are changing and evolving, it is certainly not easy to use classical methods and methodology, and appropriate methods for this research should be reconciled with this changing attitude and approach.
Method: When a researcher chooses a research field as their main research area, all dimensions of this field as a unified phenomenon or as a network with its human and non-human factors and actors can no longer be evaluated using the previous methodological approaches, which are mainly focused on humans. The Internet and the social network space are also of great interest as a field of research in more-than-human approaches in line with these theoretical changes and developments. This approach itself has led to methodological creativity (e.g., Logosi, 2018; Lupton, 2020; Nimimaa, 2014; Macleod, 2019) and some creative methods have been proposed.
Findings: In this study, in examining the foundations and theoretical dimensions of the more-than-human instagraphy and the representation of the more-than-human attitudes and approaches, Barad & Latour are highlighted and their conceptual dimensions are given more attention and considered as the fundamental theoretical basis for our method. Then, in the second part, in the context of the Internet and ethnography, we collected some of the proposed methods and methodologies and used some of them as methodological basis in our method. Finally, we included and centrally introduced them in the college design off or method called More-than-human Instagraphy.
Conclusion: In view of the great desire of these approaches to the method(s) and methodology(s) of ethnography, the basics of ethnography and the Internet field and the proposed methods in this field were presented. Methodological recommendations such as: Kozinets’ Netnography, Ethnography and Internet Model by Sade-Beck, Lugosi and Quinton’s More-than-human Netnography, Sociomaterial Ethnography by Niemimaa, and Lupton’s More-than-human Digital Data were used. Finally, an attempt was made to present a methodological collage entitled “More-than-human Instagraphy”.

Keywords

Main Subjects


  • Ahmed, J. U. (2010). Documentary research method: New dimensions. Indus Journal of Management & Social Sciences4(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/edu.pk/RePEc/iih/journ
  • Berry, K. (2011). The ethnographic choice: Why ethnographers do ethnography. Cultural Studies? Critical Methodologies11(2), 165-177. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532708611401335
  • Bruckman, A. (2002). Studying the amateur artist: A perspective on disguising data collected in human subjects research on the Internet. Ethics and Information Technology4(3), 217-231.
  • Bruckman, A. (2006). Teaching students to study online communities ethically. Journal of Information Ethics15(2), 82.
  • Callon, M., & Latour, B. (1981). Unscrewing the big Leviathan: how actors macro-structure reality and how sociologists help them to do so. Advances in Social Theory and Methodology: Toward an Integration of Micro-and Macro-Sociologies1.
  • Callon, M. (1984). Some elements of a sociology of translation: domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St Brieuc Bay. The Sociological Review32(1_suppl), 196-233.

·         Lougheed, S. C. (2013). An actor-network theory examination of cheese and whey production in Ontario. Queen’s University (Canada).

  • Coole, D., & Frost, S. (2010). Introducing the new materialisms. New materialisms: Ontology, agency, and politics, 1-43.
  • Denzin, N. K. (1989). The Research Act (3rd). Englewood Cliff, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  • Denzin, N. K. (2006). Analytic autoethnography, or déjà vu all over again. Journal of contemporary ethnography35(4), 419-428. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891241605280449
  • Flavián, C., Gurrea, R., & Orús, C. (2009). The effect of product presentation mode on the perceived content and continent quality of web sites. Online Information Review. https://doi.org/10.1108/14684520911011034
  • Fenwick, T., & Nimmo, G. R. (2015). Making visible what matters: Sociomaterial approaches for research and practice in healthcare education. Researching Medical Education, 67-80.
  • Fox, N. J., & Alldred, P. (2015). New materialist social inquiry: Designs, methods and the research-assemblage. International Journal of Social Research Methodology18(4), 399-414. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2014.921458
  • Giddens, A., & Pierson, C. (1998). Conversations with Anthony Giddens: Making sense of modernity. Stanford University Press.
  • Hair, N., & Clark, M. (2007). The ethical dilemmas and challenges of ethnographic research in electronic communities. International Journal of Market Research49(6), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1177/147078530704900609
  • Highfield, T., & Leaver, T. (2015). A methodology for mapping Instagram hashtags. First Monday20(1), 1-11.
  • Hitlin, P., & Holcomb, J. (2015). From Twitter to Instagram, a different #Ferguson conversation. Pew Research Center. Cited In: Laestadius, L. (2017), The SAGE Handbook of Social Media Research Methods, SAGE, Chapter 34, 574-592.
  • Høstaker, R. (2014). A different society altogether: What sociology can learn from Deleuze, Guattari, and Latour. Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
  • Kaufer, E. (2015). Instagram. The Next Big (Academic) Thing. Rough Consensus–The Oxford Internet Studies Student Blog.
  • Kozinets, R. V. (2009). Doing ethnographic research online. Kozinets, Netnography: The Essential Guide to Qualitative Social Media Research.
  • Laestadius, L. (2017). The SAGE Handbook of Social Media Research Methods, SAGE, Chapter 34, 574-592.
  • Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (2013). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Princeton University Press.
  • Latour, B. (1987). Science in action, how to follow scientists and engineers through society, Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
  • Latour, B. (1996a). On actor-network theory: A few clarifications. Soziale welt, 369-381.

·         Latour, B. (1996b). Do scientific objects have a history? Pasteur and Whitehead in a bath of lactic acid. Common Knowledge5(1), 76-91.

·         Latour, B. (1999a). Pandora's hope: essays on the reality of science studies. Harvard university press.

·         Latour, B. (1999b). On recalling ANT. The sociological review47(1_suppl), 15-25.

  • Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: an introduction to actornetwork-theory. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Latour, B., Jensen, P., Venturini, T., Grauwin, S., & Boullier, D. (2012). ‘The whole is always smaller than its parts’–a digital test of G abriel T ardes’ monads. The British journal of sociology63(4), 590-615. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-4446.2012.01428.x
  • MacLeod, A., Cameron, P., Ajjawi, R., Kits, O., & Tummons, J. (2019). Actor-network theory and ethnography: Sociomaterial approaches to researching medical education. Perspectives on Medical Education8(3), 177-186. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40037-019-0513-6
  • Malone, K. (2018). Children in the Anthropocene: Rethinking sustainability and child friendliness in cities. Springer.
  • Manikonda, L., Hu, Y., & Kambhampati, S. (2014). Analyzing user activities, demographics, social network structure and user-generated content on Instagram. arXiv preprint arXiv:1410.8099.
  • Markham, A. N. (1998). Life online: Researching real experience in virtual space(Vol. 6). Rowman Altamira.
  • Memar, S., Adlipoor, S., & Khaksar, F. (2013). Virtual Social Networks and Identity Crisis (with Emphasis on Identity Crisis in Iran). Quarterly of Social Studies and Research in Iran, 1(4), 155-176. https://doi.org/22059/JISR.2013.36574
  • Miller, D., & Slater, D. (2020). The Internet: an ethnographic approach. Routledge.
  • Naidoo, L. (2012). An ethnography of global landscapes and corridors, Published by InTech.
  • Nicolini, D. (2009). Zooming in and out: Studying practices by switching theoretical lenses and trailing connections. Organization Studies30(12), 1391-1418.
  • Niemimaa M. (2014). Sociomaterial ethnography: taking the matter seriously. Cited In: MacLeod, A.;· Paula C.; · Rola, A.;· Olga, K.; · Jonathan, T. (2019). Actor-network theory and ethnography: Sociomaterial approaches to researching medical education, Perspect Med Educ. 8:177–186. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40037-019-0513-6
  • Niemimaa, M. (2014). Sociomaterial ethnography: "sociomaterial ethnography: taking the matter seriously. Cited in: Mola, L., Carugati, A,. Kokkinaki, A., Pouloudi, N. (Eds.) (2014) Proceedings of the 8th Mediterranean Conference on Information Systems, Verona, Italy, 03-05. CD-ROM.
  • Pyyhtinen, O. (2018). More-than-human sociology: A new sociological imagination. Springer.
  • Reeves, S., Kuper, A., & Hodges, B. D. (2008). Qualitative research methodologies: ethnography. Bmj337. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.a1020
  • Saadipour, E. (2013). The Effects of Modern Technology on Social Networks with Emphasis on Adolescent. Quarterly of Social Studies and Research in Iran2(2), 315-338. https://doi.org/22059/jisr.2013.50431. (In Persian)
  • Sade-Beck, L. (2004). Internet ethnography: Online and offline. International Journal of Qualitative Methods3(2), 45-51.
  • Sadrolhofazi, S. A., & Rikhtegaran, M. R. (2018). Deleuze: desiring machine and its components. Philosophy16(1), 97-115. https://doi.org/10.22059/jop.2019.224556.1006259. (In Persian)
  • Schadler, C. (2019). Enactments of a new materialist ethnography: methodological framework and research processes. Qualitative Research19(2), 215-230.
  • Schatzki, T. R. (2012). A primer on practices: Theory and research. In Practice-based education(pp. 13-26). Brill.
  • Scott, J. (1990). A Matter of Record: Documentary Sources in Social Research. UK, Cambridge, Polity Press.
  • Sharifzadeh, R. (2017). Negotiation with objects. Tehran: Ney. (In Persian)
  • Tonkonoff, S. (2017). From Tarde to Deleuze and Foucault: The Infinitesimal Revolution. Springer.
  • Walther, J. B. (2002). Research ethics in Internet-enabled research: Human subjects issues and methodological myopia. Ethics and information technology4(3), 205-216.
  • Warfield, K. (2016). Making the cut: An agential realist examination of selfies and touch. Social Media+ Society2(2), 2056305116641706. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305116641706
  • Zahrani, D., Rabbanikhorasgani, A., Sharifzadeh, R., & Ghanbaribarzian, A. (2021). Heterogeneous Agencies in More-Than-Human Sociology; Analysis the Place of Agency in Approaches of More-Than-Human Sociology by Focusing on Actor-Network Theory. Sociological Cultural Studies12(2), 81-110. https://doi.org/10.30465/scs.2021.35214.2372. (In Persian)
  • Zamanjamshidi, M., & Sharifzadeh, R. (2018). Rhizome-Network; A comparative study of Gilles Deleuze and Bruno Latour’s ontology. Journal of Recognition10(2), 159-184. (In Persian)