Netnography is another form of online ethnography or cyber-ethnography with more specific sets of guidelines and rules, and a common multidisciplinary base of literature and scholars.
This article is not about a particular neologism, but the general application of ethnographic methods to online fieldwork as practiced by anthropologists, sociologists, and other scholars.
Ethnographies of online cultures and communities extend ethnographic study to settings where interactions are technologically mediated, not face-to-face.
However, as the internet reached the mainstream and cyber-ethnographers sought legitimacy, cyber-ethnography was reframed as an adaptation of traditional methods into a new context.
[3] Many other aspects of online, computer-mediated, or virtual, interaction and community formation are distinct from their in-person, real life, or face-to-face counterparts.
[3] Cyber-ethnography attempts to adapt participant-observation procedures such as making cultural entrée, collecting and analyzing data, and conducting ethical research to these computer-mediated contingencies.
Cyber-ethnography, like traditional ethnography often aims to produce a thick description[7] that can help an outsider understand the meaning of behavior in a culture or community.
Cyber-ethnography also allows for a variety of data collection types and including audiovisual formats, on various platforms such as websites, social networks and forums.
When researchers feel that understanding the relationship between the online and offline identities of members is necessary, they may seek to meet with informants face-to-face.
For instance, one of Lane’s informants encounters a video on Twitter suggesting that there are violent incidents taking place in the area.
In order to preserve the construction of a networked public, researchers should take into consideration both online and offline identities and activities of individuals.
Lane also acknowledges that not all scholars may agree with his argument, but they will eventually have to face the issue as advancements in technology continue to increase.
[3] This finding has been supported by Sara Ross in her work on legal anthropology in urban settings such as Toronto, Canada.
[14] However, many cyber-ethnographers including Hine and Walstrom believe that participant observation in the offline setting can be biased by asymmetry between the researcher and the member.
The development of such technologies tends to grow faster than the methodology literature thus "there is little consensus on how [to] best collect and analyze new media data".
Robinson (2011) states that in cases such as YouTube videos and subsequent comments, "the present cyber-reality may be interpreted as a continual accumulation of all past input by members or participants".
"[15] In spite of these differences, the American Anthropological Association has yet to include any specific recommendations regarding cyber-ethnography in its Code of Ethics.
Cyber-ethnographers face the challenge of informing participants of their presence and research activities without jeopardizing their ability to collect valid data.
Another issue is that the technological innovations and possibility for new research outpace the creation of clear and adapted ethical guidelines.