Autoethnography and Mobile Technology Research

The following comments primarily (prima facie) relate to my own experience of ethnographic, quantitative studies. Whilst the comments may be applicable to other contexts, I make no claims for their generalisability as such.

A curious concern has emerged as my research continues to progress and evolve, concerning the distance between the researcher and the researched. By the researched I don't simply refer to people either, but the general subject of engagement as well. Of course, as a poststructuralist, I have always acknowledged the inherent impossibility of ever achieving strict objectivity in relation to conducting research.

The impossibility of any researcher ever being entirely separated from their topic of research, is linked to my anti-positivistic and existential beliefs, but also to my empirical experience in conducting research. Not only is the researcher ever-present during the research phase (when dealing with others for instance), raising the possibility of influencing data outcomes through their very presence, but this elucidation of the physical presence points to an even more pervasive ontological status for the researcher within their field of study. A research project denotes a 'constructed' field of engagement (perhaps not as overtly when a 'grounded theory' approach to 'discovery' is employed) that in some ways precludes possible data, or at the very least, interpretative schemas for explaining the data. In essence, because research is research, it unavoidably involves the 'tainted' perspective of the researcher; however much they may strive to study 'naturalistic' situations, the frame for the data is a constructed, artificial one, implied by the researcher's persona.

It is here, at the point where I acknowledge that yes, a researcher is a person, that I come to a second point concerning the impossibility of ever separating the researcher from the researched; the researcher as a human being with the possibility of shared experiences with the subjects of research. If the researcher has personal experience in the actual topic of investigation, how, and to what extent is this analytically useful?

Particularly with ethnographic studies, there is an extent to which the researchers and their subjects of research have shared experiences, frequently being from the same society, if not culture. This means that the 'expert' brings with them to the study their own preconceptions, experiences and perspectives; their own habitus if you will. In such as case, the importance of the researchers own experience becomes not just a side-line or aspect of research to be explained away theoretically (This project is postmodern, so doesn't ascribe to objective, positivistic beliefs), but an important piece of research data in itself.

In studying mobile technologies and their use among young people, I have had numerous cause to reflect on my own use of these technologies. Since these technologies - taking mobile phones as the quintessential example - have become so ubiquitous, it seems the case that everyone in Australian society can provide possible data from their own experiences (phone owner or not) concerning how these devices are used in everyday practice. Does this mean that I, as the central researcher, should not only be avoiding any facade of objectivity, but rather, tend towards the other extreme and expose my own mobile technology behaviours as a component of data? Perhaps, but as always with research, there is a need to find theoretical support for such a position. I found such an approach in the controversial field of 'autoethnography'.

Autoethnography, or the examination of myself as a subject of my own research, could offer some interesting insights and perspectives for my work. The line between digital 'natives' and 'immigrants' as put forward by Prensky (2001) may provide a point of focus for examining literate practices around these devices. In deploying Bourdieu's concept of habitus (1977; 1980; 1991) as a means to understanding how individuals function in everyday practice, I am given cause to reflect on the differences regarding inculcation of the habitus for myself, compared to the youth at the centre of my study. How the nature of inculcation effects dispositions towards deploying certain literacy practices associated with mobile technologies, as a form of cultural capital, and how effective this is, may be beyond the scope of this project. A detailed comparison of the researcher's habitus with regard to the use of mobile technologies, with a students, may also be beyond the scope of this project, but should this preclude the personal experiences of the researcher from being included as data? I suppose I will find this out as I delve into the field of youth mobile technologies in an effort to understand how their habitus works through the deployment of various types of 'semiotic capital' (as a branch of cultural and symbolic capital) (Carrington & Luke, 1997, 102).

Sure, autoethnography fits with my own poststructuralist beliefs an approaches in the sense that "...autoethnography in sociology has been championed predominantly by interdisciplinary symbolic interactionists with postmodern or poststructural sensitivities...." (Anderson, 2006, 373) However, as has been suggested, the difficulty is in maintaining the focus on students' experiences in a analytical manner. One of the dangers of autoethnography, as pointed out by Anderson, is in it becoming purely evocative we may "...fail to adequately engage with others in the field." (386) A central concern of my research - one of the catalysts for its birth - was the absence of authentic student voices in the research. I am fully aware of my digital immigrant status, as I print out articles off the computer to read in hard-copy, struggle to type and SMS without looking whilst driving, and generally try to get my mind around the ever-expanding realm of digital choice now available anywhere, anytime. In an effort to resist narcissistic writing, Anderson (2006) proposes a useful structure for 'Analytic Autoethnography' which may prove useful.

Anderson (2006) offers a more rigorous framework, as an alternative to 'evocative autoethnography', for this research methodology in his 'Analytic Autoethnography' model. This AA model (as Vryan terms it, 2006) has five key features:

1. complete member researcher (CMR) status
2. analytic reflexivity
3. narrative visibility of the researcher's self
4. dialogue with informants beyond the self
5. commitment to theoretical analysis. (Anderson, 2006, 378)

In addressing each of these points briefly: it is difficult to imagine how a researcher in the field of mobile technologies would not meet CMR status. With mobile phones being so ubiquitous and widespread, it is difficult nowadays to conceive of someone who has no experience living in a society with these devices. Analytic reflexivity would of course occur in places like this blog, where I continually examine myself as a mobile technology user: to carry this same sort of discourse over to more rigorous work, would be to make myself visible within the narrative of research (point 3). The last two points link very much with my own philosophy, not just about teaching and learning, but research itself, in that I have a commitment to understanding the voices of students in a rigorous manner (not simply in an evocative or descriptive fashion). In deploying the concepts of habitus and cultural capital in relation to students I am seeking a deeper theoretical understanding of informants beyond myself. No doubt this model of autoethnography has its own problems (as pointed out by Charmez, 2006 and Vryan, 2006), but it is at least a start in justifying a possible overt presence 0f the researchers within the project. In essence, I want to make sure that if my own experiences are useful for the research in some way, that it is used in a rigorous fashion, avoiding the use of personal experience for simple ego-gratification.

Whilst Vryan (2006) makes some forceful arguments for the importance of 'evocative autoethnography' - which he sees as expanding the potential of this field of study, rather than "...unnecessarily constrain[ing]..." (405) it as he feels Anderson has done - I can see the limitations of an evocative approach for my own work. Sure it might be interesting to dissect the cogs of elation/frustration as this digital immigrant seeks to continually integrate mobile technologies into his life, but the scope is too narrow for my liking. I can of course acknowledge and importance for 'evocative ethnography' in research generally, though in my case, it does not fully suit.

In my examination of students literate habitus with regard to mobile technologies, I am searching for that vein of rigor, or abstraction. In deploying Bourdieu's concept of habitus (1977; 1980; 1991) I am seeking to explain everyday practices in terms of sociocultural trends specific to Australia. Whilst evocative forms of writing and analysis may have a place in examining the emotional realm of mobile technology, may be relevant to the concept of habitus, this form of writing seems unable to reach the level of description and possible generalisablity that a more analytically based study would.

After all this wondering, I am still not sure how my own experiences with mobile technologies should fit within the scope of my work. I want to focus on student/youth experiences, but also find myself continually reflecting on my own experiences. I find it impossible to believe that I will be able to keep my own experiences out of the discussion - there are those poststructural beliefs again - but at least there are some models of autoethnography that offer a structured methodology to work from.

If anyone else knows of any autoethnographic work that may be of use, please suggest it through the comments section.

References

Anderson, L. (2006). Analytic Autoethnography. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 35(4), 373-395.

Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1980). The logic of practice. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Carrington, V. & Luke, A. (1997). Literacy and Bourdieu's Sociological Theory: A Reframing. Language and Education, 11(2), 96-112.
Charmaz, K. (2006). The Power of Names. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 35(4), 396-399.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-2.
Vryan, K. D. (2006). Expanding Analytic Autoethnography and Enhancing Its Potential. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 35(4), 405-409.

The Loaded Decision of Coverage

I find myself once again, and quite unintentionally, caught up in the maelstrom of mobile phone selection. I received a phone call from my mobile communications service provider - who shall remain nameless - informing me that because I had been with them for so long (at least 7 years), they would be rewarding me: free credit on my next recharge (I still use pre-pay) and a free, new handset. I could even get a free 3G handset!

Now, after the fuzzy feeling of being appreciated by some faceless corporation wore off, I began to once again appreciate the complexity and difficulty in selecting a mobile phone. I had forgotten this area of complexity. It must appear that much more difficult in the US, where phone service provider choice can in some ways be even more determining of the people and technologies you have access to. I had been going along with the assumption that a lot of people had mobile phones which they simply used, and in such exercised literacy skills. I had overlooked the intricate set of negotiations and understandings involved in the consumer's engagement with the market in selecting a mobile phone and a service provider; along with the inherently political nature of this engagement. In essence, choosing a mobile phone - such a ubiquitous and important part of contemporary everyday life for many people - is no simple task in contemporary Australia.

My situation is additionally, not as complex as most in that I am sticking with the same service provider (I am getting sick of this term! - what others can I use?) as they're the ones giving me the new mobile phone! Therefore I am really choosing between different model mobile phones (an easy task of choosing what you like the most - I like flip-phones), but more importantly, whether to choose a 3G model, and joint the 'Third Generation' network. This is the more complicated decision, as the network you choose, determines the coverage that you receive.

Mobile phone coverage was a contentious issue of debate during the roll-out of mobile phones into popular Australian culture during the 1990s. This was especially evident in a binary discourse that emerged regarding equality of access between urban/rural Australians, a binary that still exists to some extent. You can still travel through many areas of rural Australia and, depending on your coverage provider, may find yourself out of 'contact'. This situation is improving continually, though still exists. I know that my own provider drops out of coverage between towns in Northern Victoria. This is even more evident with the 3G network, which is not rolled out and available through most of rural Australia. If I make the decision to buy a 3G phone, to learn about all these new features available, then I forgoe access to that whenever I got to rural areas to visit family and friends, or for work of course.

Third Generation Networks have expanded recently with Telstra (the largest provider in Australia) launching it's 'NextGen' Network. This is a third generation model, which builds on Telstra having the most extensive coverage in Australia. It will be interesting to see if this allows for the expansion of other 3G networks provided by other corporations. If so, my decision of whether to choose a 3G phone would not necessarily limit my access in rural areas. But then again, there are still areas that don't have any digital coverage! We've all seen the skit on various television shows and movies of someone moving their mobile phone about in order to find better coverage; in rural Australia finding better coverage may generally involved a more extensive drive in the car.

The difficulties of roaming between different countries is of course even more pronounced and plagued with the difficulties of traversing different networks (unless your provider has a form of 'roaming' which is covered).

I was quite comfortable with my 2-year-old mobile phone. Sure, I haven't figured out all the features and how to access everything available with it yet, indeed, I don't use most of the features, but the offer of a new, free handset is always a temptation for one raised in consumer culture. One phone call has once again set my mind off into that labyrinth of deals and contracts and features and coverage and all the rest of that nonsense, which in some ways form legally binding contracts. There are regular media stories of young people (and wider-people generally) falling victim to the financial dragon of mobile phone contracts, or developing 'negative social habits' as a result of phone use (but these are issues for discussion at another time).

Choosing a mobile phone is a social task fraught with complexity and difficulty. Despite the image portrayed in marketing of easy of choice and easy of access, buying such a constantly used and financially alive device, is not the same as buying shoes. Like everyone else, I will continue to navigate my way through this briar-patch of possibilities and the restrictions and possibilities they allow for my communicative practices.