The increasing usage o f the Internet for research means that fans cannot “fail to be aware o f their status as an ‘object o f study’, or as a resource in the production o f academic work” (Hills 2002:173). Thus, although participants usually co-operate with academic research and sometimes openly relish the opportunity to be studied (Reid 1996:171;
Rutter and Smith 2005:90), many are suspicious o f outsiders who may misrepresent them in the resultant project.55 In some extreme cases, online research must be abandoned if access cannot be granted (Gajjala 2002). Tolerance by a community is essential as there is often open hostility toward those who violate the established codes o f the group (Sanders 2005) and overt attempts to conduct research can be construed as ‘spamming’
(the act o f bombarding a group (or individual) with unwanted emails, messages, or postings). Oftentimes the very declaration o f research interest alters the dynamics o f an online community, resulting in being ignored or ostracised by a group (Bell 2001:199).
Thus, I opted to assume the role o f a ‘lurker’ when analysing postings. Lurkers have been characterised as “parasitic, as invasive” (Hills 2002:173) or ‘leeches’, taking from
communities without offering their own input (Paccagnella 1997) whilst they have been welcomed as valuable participants by others (Baym 1995:51). Indeed, lurking is accepted within many online communities (Baym 1995:51; Hills 2002:173; Menon 2007:356) and has been undertaken by some scholars (Gray 2005; Leaning 1998; Schaap 2002).
However, it has been argued that failure to reveal one’s status as a researcher poses ethical problems56 and that lurking “plac[es] the ethnographer at one end o f the
participant observer continuum [...] to whom all is accessible, without needing to enact a subject position” (Beaulieu 2004:147). However, following Leaning (1998), Schaap (2002) and Gray (2005), I argue that lurking is a valid research form as it is a method that non-intrusively fits into the research environment. Thus, I refrained from revealing my 55 See Berger (2001:515); Ellis (1995:87); Kendall (1998:71); Symonds (2003b).
56 See Bell (2001:198); Capurro and Pingel (2002); Heath et al (1999); Hine (2000:23); Lindlif and Shatzer (1998:179).
presence to communities whilst collecting postings for analysis, concurring with Leaning’s position that we should
concentrate on methods that seem in tune with the world in which we exist rather than seeking to satisfy a set o f abstract and possibly theoretically inapplicable ethical codes. Non participation observation [...] fits the local environment better than interviewing or any other method (Leaning 1998: online).
These online postings comprise a fan "shadow- text” (Hills 2002:176), which enables examination o f fan interactions (fan/fan relationships) and specific reading formations (fan/object relationships). However, Internet research has not merely allowed off-line fan activities to be unproblematically transposed onto the computer screen (Clerc 1996:51) and the Internet is not a “transparent form o f mediation” which holds the “essence [of fandom] up to the academic gaze” (Hills 2002:175). Postings are “representations o f [social] experiences, constructed first by the participants themselves and then by the researcher in the analysis o f the data and the presentation o f the findings as a coherent text” (Bury 2005:29). Thus, throughout my research, I was cautious o f taking fans’ own declarations as “transparent and authoritative” (Bury 2005:30) and viewed these instead as performative displays o f fandom (Hills 2005:ix-xiii) (see page 248).
There are also ethical issues which must be negotiated as the Internet blurs “categories such as public/private, audience/author, producer/consumer, and text/human subject”
(Gajjala 2002:184). Although personal emails and conversations (e.g. MSN Messenger) constitute private communication, how do we categorise postings made on message boards, forums, and social networking sites (Kitchin 2003:103)? The “technological point o f view” (Frankel and Siang 1999:13) suggests that easy accessibility means that such forums are public (Allen 1996; Allington 2007; Herring 1996; Reid 1996), whilst others posit that such communications are private (Knapp 1997; Poster 1997; Waskul and Douglas 1996:132). Others suggest that participants themselves must define the
public/private nature o f online spaces (Cavanagh 1999; Homan 1991) and that the issue may be one o f alienation if there is an implicit rule that members cannot benefit from the use o f group communication (Bakardjieva and Feenberg 2001:236) Thus, paradoxically,
it is often the very investment members have in online community that researchers wish to examine that makes it so difficult for them to complete any research at all.
These debates are inextricably linked with time/space distanciation (see above) and whether online communication is written or spoken for, if postings can conceivably be studied as texts, “our only responsibilities as researchers lie in issues o f intellectual property rights” (Cavanagh 1999: online). Although Baym suggests that Internet communication is “a novel hybrid between written, oral, interpersonal, and mass communication” (2000:13), Hine argues that delayed online interaction means that postings are textual and that research is a process o f understanding ‘‘the meanings which underlie and are enacted through these textual practices” (2000:50). Online spaces can therefore be seen to resemble newspaper articles or other archival data and “as analogous to letters published in magazines or newspapers, being accessible to anyone who can access the World Wide W eb” (Allington 2007:50). Study o f postings is therefore
ethically acceptable since it “does not constitute an interaction with a human subject, and [...] avails itself o f existing records” (W alther 2002:207). Thus, following Allington (2007), Frankel and Siang (1999), Herring (1996), Sudweeks and Rafaeli (1995) and W alther (2002), I argue that, given their textual nature, once postings enter the public domain they can be studied without the explicit permission o f each poster. However, in taking measures to ensure the anonymity o f those referenced in my work it is my hope that harm to participants can be avoided. I obtained informed consent from those who responded to my online questionnaires by providing them with information about my work and asking them to complete a standard ethics form in an online format (see appendix four) (W alther 2002:213). However, permission for use o f postings is difficult to attain due to the transitory nature o f online environments in which posters often leave communities. Thus, I am adhering to the notion o f ‘implied consent’, due to the public nature o f Internet postings (Mann and Stewart 2000:45; Walther 2002:212) as “the author could not reasonably expect to exclude any person from gaining access to his or her words, even if any particular individual were not specifically envisioned as part o f the audience” (Reid 1996:170). However, to maintain anonymity all postings in my research
are identified by an assigned pseudonym along with the title and date or number o f this posting.
More comprehensive lists o f measures one can take in order to assure greater anonymity including omitting references to the name or type o f group examined (King 1996), but such actions appear to undermine the very objectives o f studying online fandom in the first place. If one cannot refer by name to the community under examination, how can one offer their research as an example o f how this community works? It is worth noting here that King (1996) and Waskul and Douglas (1996) undertake social studies research and it is understandable that they make efforts to avoid revealing identities o f participants given the highly sensitive issues concerning health problems, abuse, or deviant behaviour that they explore. Thus, their recommendations are located within psychological or science-based subject areas and may not be applicable to other areas o f humanities research (W hite 2002:249). However, I argue that fandom is less stigmatised that
revealing one’s status as a survivor o f abuse or an AIDS patient and that we often overtly display our media preferences through clothing, merchandise, or conversation. For
example, whilst people may not wish to discuss their intimate health problems in off-line public spaces, it is hard to imagine anyone who would feel uncomfortable talking about their favourite band or film. Thus, I am not adhering to the strictures proposed by King (1996).
Having outlined my methods and the ethical implications inherent in online research, I wish to conclude this methodology before presenting my empirical data in the remainder o f this thesis.
Conclusion
This chapter has outlined some o f the theoretical and methodological issues inherent in Internet fan studies, detailing how these debates have impacted upon my own research.
Given my interest in the duality o f fandom as both community and hierarchy, and my use o f Giddens’ work on self-identity the ways in which these concepts have been used in
online research is o f great relevance. I argued in this chapter that prior work on online fandom has been characterised by a ‘dominant discourse o f com m unity’ which
emphasises the communal nature o f online spaces and appears reluctant to acknowledge the potential for hierarchical stratification and power struggles. As noted, even work that does consider hierarchies (MacDonald 1998), rarely links this to capital despite, as discussed in chapter three, the prevalence o f Bourdieuian work on fandom. I suggested, instead, that online fandom must be considered as both communal and hierarchical; as a site o f cohesive interpretation an d battles over discursive power. Furthermore, I drew on the work o f Chandler (1998), Cheung (2004), Poster (1995) and Slevin (2000) to argue that the Internet offers a site for negotiation o f identity and self-reflexive narratives.
Given my interest in the ways in which this ‘rew ard’ results from fan/fan and fan/object
‘pure’ relationships, this issue will be considered in each o f my three empirical studies. I then turned to methodological concerns, negotiating the objectivity/subjectivity dualism which characterises much Internet and fan studies and arguing that my research cannot be decontextualised from society o r from my own reflexive self-narrative (Hammersley and Atkinson 1995:16). I also considered ethical issues o f access and privacy, offering a rationale for my selection o f the methods o f textual analysis o f online postings and questionnaires. Although, as noted above, my decision to collect data from communities as a ‘lurker’ is controversial, this approach lends itself to my research as it allowed collection o f data without influencing the site o f study (Beaulieu 2004:146) and it replicated the activities o f many o f the fans who post at the forums I analysed (Leaning
1998).
Having outlined how this research was undertaken and considered the major theoretical and ethical dualisms which inform my methodological approach I wish, in the next three chapters, to discuss my empirical data. The first chapter examines an example o f the
‘lowbrow’ genre o f non-fictional reality television, Big Brother UK 7. This case study focuses on a temporary text which was screened almost constantly over a thirteen week period in 2006. My case study o f BBUK7 is interested in how the temporal rhythms built into BB and fans’ knowledge that the show is moving towards a definite end-point impacts upon how they draw fan ontological security from the show. The dailiness and
live-ness o f the programme means that these fans are uniquely placed to experience a sense o f ‘closeness’ to the housemates, and I consider how fans formulate a sense o f self- identity through ‘being like’ the contestants or, in some cases, overtly distancing
themselves from them. The chapter also considers fan responses when they perceive the
‘proper’ Big Brother to be under threat by violations o f the show ’s basic rules (e.g.
allowing previously evicted housemates to return to the house). These debates reveal fan responses when aspects o f a show which contribute to their self-identities are threatened or undermined. Finally, this analysis explores the distinctions fans make about the contestants and, I argue, their debates over the authenticity o f housemates means that the Bourdieuian concept o f illusio may prove to be one o f the key ideologies o f Big Brother.
My second case study examines fans o f the Australian soap opera Neighbours. In contrast to the temporary BBUK, Neighbours is a ‘constant’ programme, having aired in the same time-slot in the UK for over twenty years. As I will detail in chapter six, soap opera is widely perceived to engender a sense o f closeness with the characters and I explore how the stability o f Neighbours'1 presence in the schedules contributes to fans’ identity and ontological security and how they responded when news o f the show’s move from the BBC to Channel Five was announced. I also found, much as in my consideration o f BB fans, that fans o f Neighbours made their own value judgements over what constituted the
‘proper’ show and what was classified as ‘real Neighbours'. However, whilst BB fans’
discussion emphasised the breaking o f core rules o f the show, these fans were concerned with the violation o f the ethos o f the show and the characters. Such debates resulted in a vitriolic exchange with one o f the show ’s writers, highlighting the constant process o f negotiation that fans engage with in their online relationships with one another and with the producers o f their fan objects.
In my final empirical chapter I examine the ‘highbrow’ genre o f drama, considering an example o f what has been characterised as contemporary ‘quality television’, The West Wing. Although TWW was an ongoing serial the show ’s cancellation was announced as I began my fieldwork, enabling me to consider the specific point in which a TV show moves from being an on-going text to what I refer to as a ‘dorm ant’ one. Thus, this final
chapter examines many o f this thesis’ central concerns through the lens o f fans’
awareness o f the impending conclusion o f 7WW, enabling me to consider the impact on their fan identities and their ontological security in a period o f ‘post-object fandom’. By offering three distinct case studies my interest in fan/object and fan/fan relationships, and in both Bourdieaun and Giddensian approaches to fandom can be explored, offering divergent examples from each fan community which, nevertheless, present some coherent themes and discourses. As noted in chapter one, “few studies o f fans have sought to explore the parallels between fans o f different texts or genres” (Sandvoss 2005:8).
Despite this it is my hope, following Steve Bailey’s (2006) work, that my selection o f different but complementary texts and their surrounding fan communities will work together to highlight the fan practices, readings, and reflections that occur within each specific cultural site.