References for cybersociality paper

** References we have talked about for this paper specifically

Hine, C. 2000. Virtual ethnography. London, Thousand Oaks & New Delhi: Sage.

** References I have just dug up (some again)

Boym, S. 2001. Nostalgia and global culture: from outer space to cyberspace. In The
Future of Nostalgia. New York: Basic Books.

Eichhorn, K. 2001. Sites unseen: ethnographic research in a textual community.
Qualitative Studies in Education 14 (4): 565-78.

Adi Kuntsman (Lancaster University) Cyberethnography as home-work1 Anthropology Matters Journal 2004, Vol 6 (2)

Markham, A.N. 2004. Reconsidering self and other: the methods, politics, and ethics
of representation in online ethnography. In Handbook of qualitative research (eds)
N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Miller, D. & D. Slater. 2000. The internet: an ethnographic approach. Oxford: Berg.

Paccagnella, L. 1997. Getting the seats of your pants dirty: Strategies for
ethnographic research on virtual communities.
http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol3/issue1/paccagnella.html

** Refernces fron Moore previous papers

** References from JOrdan previous papers

** References from Churchill previous papers

Becker, B. and Mark. G. Social Conventions in
Collaborative Virtual Environments. In Snowdon, D. and
Churchill, E.F. Proceedings of CVE’98, Manchester, UK,
June 1998.

Bruckman, A. Community Support for Constructionist
Learning, in Computer Supported Cooperative Work:
Special Issue on Interaction and Collaboration in MUDs,
7, Nos. 1-2, pp 47-86, 1998.

Churchill, E.F. and Snowdon, D. Collaborative Virtual
Environments; An introductory review of issues and
systems, Virtual Reality: Research, Development and
Applications, 3, 1, pp 3-15, 1998

Clement, A. and Wagner, I. Fragmented Exchange:
Disarticulation and the Need for Regionalised
Communication Spaces. In Proceedings of ECSCW’95,
Stockholm, 1995.

Curtis, P. Mudding: Social phenomena in text-based
virtual realities. In M. Stefik, Internet Dreams:
Archetypes, Myths and Metaphors. Cambridge: MIT
Press, 1996, pp 265-292.

Dooley, B. At work away from work. The Psychologist,
9, 2, April 1996, 155-157.

Dourish, P. Introduction: The State of Play, Computer
Supported Cooperative Work: Special Issue on
Interaction and Collaboration in MUDs, 7, Nos. 1-2, 1-7,
1998.

Evard, R. Collaborative Networked Communication:
MUDs as System Tools. Proceedings of the Seventh
Administration Conference (LISA VII), Monterey CA,
November 1993, 1-8.

Fitzpatrick, G., Kaplan, S. and Mansfield, T. Physical
Spaces, Virtual Places and Social Worlds: A Study of
work in the virtual. Proceedings of CSCW’96,
Cambridge, MA USA, ACM Press, 1996, 334-343.

Harasim, L. Global Networks: Computers and
International Communication, MIT Press, Cambridge
Mass, 1993.

Harrison, S. and Dourish, P. Re-Place-ing Space: The
Roles of Place and Space in Collaborative Systems. In
Proceedings of CSCW’96, Cambridge MA, 1996, ACM
Press, 67-76.

Jones, P.M. and Tauchi Duffy, L. Using a MOO
Infrastructure for Distributed Collaborative Crisis Action
Planning. Position paper for the workshop on Design and
use of MUDs for Serious Purposes, CSCW’96,
www.tema.liu.se/MUD/Jones.htm

Kendon, A. Behavioural Foundations for the Process of
Frame Attunement in Face-to-Face Interaction, in
Ginsburg, G.P., Brennan, M.and von Cranach, M. (Eds)
Conducting Interaction. European Monographs in Social
Psychology 35, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
UK, 1990.

Kraut, R.E., Cool, C., Rice, R.E and Fish, R.S. Life and
Death of New Technology: Task, Utility and Social
Influence in the Use of a Communication Medium.
Proceedings of CSCW 94, October 1994, 13-21.

Muramatsu, J. and Ackerman, M.S. Computing, Social
Activity and Entertainment: A Field study of a Game
MUD, Computer Supported Cooperative Work: Special
Issue on Interaction and Collaboration in MUDs, 7, Nos.
1-2, 87-122, 1998.

Mynatt, E. D., O’Day, V.L., Adler, A. and Ito, M.
Network Communities: Something Old, Something New,
Something Borrowed, Computer Supported Cooperative
Work: Special Issue on Interaction and Collaboration in
MUDs, 7, Nos. 1-2, 123-156, 1998.

Olson, J.S. and Teasley, S. Groupware in the Wild:
Lessons learned from a year of virtual collaboration. In
Proceedings of CSCW’96, pages 419-427, 1996.

Ryan, J. A Uses and Gratification Study of the Internet
Social Interaction Site LambdaMOO: Talking with
“Dinos”. Dissertation submitted for Master of Arts, Ball
State University, Muncie, Indiana, Dec 1995.

Salvador, T. and Bly, S. Supporting the Flow of
Information Through Constellations of Interaction.
Proceedings of ECSCW ’97, Lancaster, England, 269-
280, 1997.

Schiano, D. J. Lessons from “LambdaMOO”: A Social,
Text-Based VE. Short paper presented at FIVE ’96,
London, England, 1996.

Schiano, D. and White. S. The First Noble Truth of
CyberSpace: People are People (Even When They
MOO). Proceedings of CHI’98, ACM Press, 18-23 April,
1998, pp 352-359.

Sheehy, N. and Gallagher, T. Can virtual organizations
be made real? The Psychologist, 9, 2 April 1996, 159-
162.

Sproull, L. and Kiesler, S. Connections. New Ways of
Working in the Networked Organization. MIT Press,
Cambridge, Mass, 1991.

Turkle, S. Life on the Screen: Identity in the Age of the
Internet. Simon and Schuster, New York, 1996.

Waern, Y. and Garbis, C. Design and Use of MUDs for
Serious Purposes: Workshop report, CSCW, Boston 16th
November ‘96, SIGCHI bulletin, Vol.29, No.3, July 1997

Whittaker, S., Frolich, D. and Daly-Jones, O. Informal
workspaces communication: What is it like and how
might we support it? Proceedings of CHI’94, Boston,
MA: ACM Press, 276-283, 1994

Gitte’s snippet from Churchill and Bly

Churchill, Elizabeth F. and Sara Bly
2000 Culture Vultures: Considering Culture and Communication in Virtual Environments. In SIGGroup Bulletin, Volume 21, Number 1, April 2000. ACM Press, pp 6-11.

Cannibalized for EPIC by gj 050615:

We define culture in the broadest sense, to be a set of understandings that are shared with others. MUDders have a shared culture of work — a set of common understandings about what their work involves, and about what kinds of things their working lives tend to be about.

4.1 Methodologies for observing online life
So what are the appropriate methodologies for gaining a deeper understanding of the lifecycle and daily life of online cultures? What analyses can we carry out to get at the development and maintenance of Geertz’s shared “webs of significance” in on-line cultures? How can we begin to understand issues that arise in multi-cultural on-line worlds and what mechanisms there are for negotiation and discussion? How can we begin to understand where online cultures intersect with the cultures of the material world(s) in which individuals live their daily, material lives? What are methods for unpacking those social understandings both on-line and off-line? How do we gain an understanding of the intersecting cultural influences on an individual and on groups if we do not have access to the totality of their material and virtual worlds?

… In the context of virtual environments, what does it mean to design from the interaction out? How can we achieve meaningful descriptions that consider people’s intersecting identities and desires, on-line and off-line? If we are, as Geertz suggests to gain deeper understandings, we need “thick descriptions” in these virtual environments. How can this be achieved? How can we being to understand the dynamic and slow evolution of virtual cultures and climates? Considerable work on virtual communities has used interviews and surveys as a means of establishing who is talking to whom, for how long and about what. Much of this work has been carried out on intra-organizational networks looking at logs and messages [20], and in virtual worlds like lambdaMOO [e.g., 19].

…This raises a clear question about research on cultures and communities: are we to see online cultures as being made up of people who interact regularly with each other using multiple forms of communication technology (e.g., instant messengers, virtual worlds, email, etc.) with the focus on the people, or are we tacitly or explicitly concerned with having a technology focus whereupon we concentrate our efforts on the interactions that take place within one genre of technology?

In accord with Rossman and Wilson [18] we argue for a “shameless eclecticism” in approaches, involving online and offline ethnographic descriptions, semi-structured interviews, surveys and questionnaires and qualitative and quantitative analysis of logs. We are driven in terms of selecting our research methods by current questions on use of the virtual environment.