El Internet como un medio de sociabilización

Negotiating entry is a tedious process which involves managing one’s identity, self- presentation in everyday life and building cordial relationships with the researched. As part of my pre-fieldwork preparation, I spent a significant amount of time on Facebook trawling through groups, fan and profile pages as a “passive observer” in an attempt to get an “intimate familiarity” (Brewer, 2000) of the research site. I will revisit the ethics of passive observation in section 4.7. This approach to gaining entry known as “mental access” (Gummesson, 2000) enabled me to understand what is happening, delineate what to observe and from whom to gather information. Informally, the fieldwork process began in August 2009 when I became interested in monitoring how prominent activists in Zimbabwe were using Facebook to discuss the Zimbabwean crisis. Although lurking as an ethnographic strategy is replete with ethical challenges (which will be discussed later), it allows for a period of cultural familiarisation in order to facilitate a relatively smooth entry into the field. But officially, the fieldwork for this particular study commenced on the 1st of August 2011 after receiving informed consent (I will look at ethical issues in section 4.7) from individual participants and gatekeepers from the case organisations under consideration. I disclosed my status as a PhD student at Rhodes University undertaking a research project on the use of Facebook for political activities by the youth in Zimbabwe and South Africa. Before embarking on my fieldwork, I had been granted an ethical clearance from Rhodes

132

University’s ethics committee as well as a release letter (see appendix 1) addressed to gatekeepers at the six case organisations.

Because multi-sited fieldwork involves multiple gates of entry (Wittel, 2000), I found myself having to deal with gatekeeping at individual (youth activists), group (Facebook administrators) and organisational (leaders of the six social movements) levels. Being accepted as a member-cum-researcher in a Facebook group required negotiating access with the administrator(s) (often someone who is not the leader of the organisation). Given the multi-sited nature of my fieldwork, I also found myself knocking on physical and virtual

gates manned by different gatekeepers. These gates are sometimes closed, partially closed or opened. This is because Facebook privacy settings allow users to restrict who could access their profiles. Participants were selected based on active participation on Facebook and offline protest actions. Active participants refer to users who create, transform, distribute, and consume content on the web (van Dijck, 2009). I had minimal success recruiting respondents through emails (sent to their professional addresses) and private messages on Facebook. Most of my emails were either ignored or sent back with a message of refusal. I kept on knocking persistently until some “gates” were opened. Referral through friends and Facebook group administrators also proved worthwhile, as some respondents who initially turned down my requests ended up agreeing to take part in the study. This means that the process of gaining entry is never linear but involves negotiation, persistence and continuous re-negotiation. I found some social movements (like the CiZC, PASSOP Afrika and YFZ) more difficult to access than others because of the inherent fear harboured by gatekeepers that researchers can infiltrate their organisations using research as a cover up. Some of these organisations have been under state security surveillance which explains their schizophrenic attitude towards researchers.

In order to negotiate physical access, I used Patton’s (2002) “known sponsor approach”

which entailed relying on the leaders of the purposively sampled case organisations to introduce me to the rest of the members. This kind of snowball sampling technique allowed me to gather research subjects through the identification of an initial subject who was used to provide names of other participants (Lindlof & Taylor, 2002). I briefed these “known sponsors” about the nature of my research, data collection tools, fieldwork timescale and ethical obligations. This was in line with Lofland & Lofland’s (1984: 25) observation that since qualitative researchers are asking participants to “grant access to their lives, their

133

minds, and their emotions,” it is also important to provide respondents with a straightforward description of the goals of the research. Support at the leadership levels of the social movements was crucial to my success in gaining access to the rest of the members. This is because, as Stake (1995) asserts, “individuals often immediately acquiesce if a superior has granted permission”. I asked “known sponsors” to introduce me to youth activists within their organisations who were heavy users of Facebook. I also used the Rhodes University student card to introduce myself to some respondents. The process of negotiating entry was, however, not smooth sailing as some youth activists in Zimbabwe were suspicious of identity and research objectives beyond academic interests. This deep mistrust of my identity is captured in the following conversation:

Chief, I hear you on your desire to conduct research on Facebook and youth activism but I have to be frank with you. My fear is that we may be opening up our organisation to someone working for the CIO85. Do you have a release letter or student ID from your institution before we can grant you access?

Despite this apparent mistrust, the fact that I “shared” Facebook friends and group affiliations with some of the respondents opened physical and virtual gates for me to conduct fieldwork. This is because, as Ekdale (2013) observes, social media provide a digital archive for participants to “study up” on the researcher. Because of the “shared” friendship, some respondents treated me as a fellow activist, therefore a “comrade” in the struggle. I was constantly greeted using the title “comrade” on Facebook and during face-to-face interviews. Be-friending my respondents on Facebook allowed me to track their online practices as well as maintaining social relationships with them. I also managed to tap into my extended networks of friends, activists, journalists and academics who helped me to reach some of the youth activists in Zimbabwe and South Africa. Access to respondents in South Africa was also enhanced by the fact that some of the social movements had working relationship with the Highway Africa Centre and conference, a part of Rhodes University’s School of Journalism and Media Studies.

Next, I discuss the data collection techniques and sampling procedures.