In the social sciences, we often hear about, talk about, and preach about the relationship between theory and methods. Here, I present a poignant example their interconnectedness.
In a recent post, I argued that the accomplishment of authenticity in a cyborg era is particularly difficult. Drawing on Goffman, Turkle, and others, I argued that we live in a time of constant documentation, exposing the identity work that is supposed to remain hidden in the so-called “back stage.” I purported that our online and offline selves are not only mutually influential, but that we also engage in preemptive behavior in order to accurately present our ideal selves through multiple mediums.
Overall my theoretical point is this: As social actors we expect authenticity in others, and in ourselves. In a time of constant documentation, our online personas become our reflections, and they must not only be ideal, but also truthful. As such, we do not document falsehoods, but preemptively create documentable situations in an effort to present a self that is simultaneously ideal and authentic.
Here is the methodological conundrum: If the constructed nature of selves and identities must remain hidden not only from others, but also from ourselves, then how can we get people to talk about the labor involved in the identity construction process? In other words, how do we support the theoretical assertion?
It could be argued that the theoretical assertion is indeed supported by a lack of data—people do not admit to preemptive construction of documentable situations because it threatens the authenticity of the self that they are working to maintain. This, however, relies on circular logic, and is not enough by itself.
After doing some reading, and informal pre-testing, I think the solution might be to ask people to play the role of the sociologist. Ask them not only about themselves, but about what they believe other people are doing. The gap between what *I* do, and what *everyone else* does shows not only that the preemptive construction of documentable situations is likely going on, but also that this is a practice which we hide from ourselves.
As pointed out by Nathan Jurgenson in a recent e-mail conversation: “the method becomes the meaning.” The method here is strongly guided by the theoretical argument. We cannot ask explicit questions about identity work because identity work must remain hidden. We must instead rely on the astute observations of social actors about the social life that surrounds them.
Thoughts, critiques, and practical suggestions are welcome.
Comments 9
arturo — December 7, 2010
I find that in doing interviews with questions that might at times come off as insensitive--or as in your example, perhaps challenge one's sense of authenticity--it is often helpful to ask the research subject to take a third-person perspective to these issues. For instance, sometimes I ask my subjects to take the role of the "expert" and "help me understand" this or that about their surroundings. Of course a good interviewer should always signal to their subjects that they're "the true experts," but with certain questions regarding performances and fronts it's always good to play this up explicitly.
Last year I was doing some interviews within a prison, and almost every person I interviewed discussed this desire to be a good father once they leave prison. This narrative was so common that I came to be a bit cynical of it every time I heard it. At that point I started to ask each subject to help me understand why I was hearing this narrative so often in my other interviews; "hey I'm a novice/clueless here, I've never been to prison nor do I have kids, why do you think I'm hearing so much about guys wanting to be a good father." It was here where I heard the more interesting and reflective comments of how and why prisoners frame their re-entry and identity stories the way that they do. In a way they let me into their understanding of how prison life works, and the need or desire to reconstruct "meaning" out of the otherwise lost time spent in the institution.
In short, I think you strategy makes sense, though I would also suggest to add a longitudinal component as well. I found that re-interviewing respondents over and over again--akin to an ethnography--I was able to document how and why certain stories are told.
Jenny Davis — December 8, 2010
Thank you for sharing your experiences. Not only are they helpful, but interesting in their own right!! Do you by chance know of a citation that can be used when utilizing this sort of method?
arturo — December 9, 2010
A very practical hands-on reference that I find useful is a manual-type book called "analyzing qualitative data" by Russel Bernard, who I believe is an anthropologist who does quite a bit of applied work. It might be almost too hands-on, and a bit formulaic, for your specific needs, but it gives a nice reference of practical things to think about while doing field work, as well as highlight the nuts and bolts of different qualitative methodologies (I don't know about your program, but I was never introduced to these types of explicit methods in my coursework).
The more theoretical reference to qualitative methods that I like is a collection called "contemporary field research" edited by robert emerson. It's more about ethnography but I think a lot of the content applies to qualitative interviewing as well.
Maybe this is not what you're asking me about exactly....but if you find a citation for what you're planning to do that captures the "preemptive identity construction" of your subjects, I would love to hear about it!
Jenny Davis — December 9, 2010
Thanks artruo. I actually have the Emerson book, I will look through it again. I will also look into the Bernard book.
I don't think I will find a reference for "preemptive identity construction", which is why I am working on a more formal paper to introduce the idea. Rather, I am hoping to find a reference for the interview method of asking the participant to play the role of analyst. I feel like I have seen it before as a technique, but of course can't remember where.
hautepop — September 13, 2011
I question this idea that "identity work must remain hidden",and also the assumed opposition between authentic and constructed identities.
We live in a world where self-branding is a major blog topic, and any professional on Twitter can talk you through the balance they strike between showing work and personal interests/selves. Speaking personally, I could talk for ages about the identities I've constructed over the years - and I know from conversations about this with friends that I'm not unique.
So as research methods go, why not ask directly about how people construct themselves? Something interesting will happen from it (c.f. @arturo's comment about insensitive questions above).
There could be a case to be made that "digital natives" - who do, after all, literally have to write their digital social media identities from scratch - are much more consciously performative than older generations... c.f. Lady Gaga as an icon of a generation obsessed with fame and hyper-aware of surface. It would seem worth exploring this, rather than taking the aforementioned assertions and oppositions as absolute fact...
nathanjurgenson — September 13, 2011
"consciously performative" - what a terrific phrase, and, i think, really is dead on. performativity is nothing new, it is just that facebook and the rest of social media makes painfully obvious what was already true offline. as with everything these days, we're more self-aware of the process. however, at the same time, i do think the norm of authenticity is still dominant; this "consciously performative" aspect of self-presentation, i think, is still pretty limited. an interesting idea!
Jenny Davis — September 13, 2011
Great comment hautepop!! I see what you mean about about "consciously performative" but as Nathan says, there is still a strong drive towards authenticity. The people who I interview seem to not only strive for authenticity themselves, but to heavily police inauthenticity in others.
I do ask participants about their own behaviors. To some degree, they describe their own strategies of self-construction, which is unsurprising, since, as you and Nathan both point out, social media certainly makes us hyper-aware of this process. However, they also talk about keeping things accurate on the web, and speak disparagingly of people who "try too hard" (i.e. people who engage in too much identity work/ make their identity work too visible).
Bon — September 13, 2011
i wrote a number of posts last year on the question of digital identity and personal brand. i was working my way through the ideas in light of my own social media practices and those in my circles, and invited people to reflect on their own sense of who they were when they were online, and to address how they navigate the monetization aspects of digital performance in an attention economy.
i got pretty remarkable input: hundreds of comments, in the end. a fair proportion of "i am who i am, no matter the space" assertions, but many of these commenters shifted (over an eight or nine month period of sporadic posts and invitations to give feedback) to an analysis of what hautepop calls "conscious performativity" once it became clear that the discursive space was there to do so without sounding like a PR brand hawk. and these were not "digital natives" either (a concept Dave White at Oxford offers a nice, practice-rather-than-age-based alternative to): they were mostly narrative bloggers for whom the notion of authenticity was more resonant than the word brand.
it was fascinating, and convinced me that most people active in social media (at least) are aware of themselves as performative actors...but may only be able to discuss/analyze it once they have access to a discourse or discussion in which doing so doesn't threaten their own self-identifications. it's all semantics.
having them discuss/analyze others would potentially work too...but without the opening of discursive space around performativity, will they be willing to assess those they identify with/are close to, in social networks, from a sociological perspective? if the analysis is public and open and recursive, my guess is no: so long as performativity carries the stigma of non-authenticity, people will represent mostly the practices they see as non-authentic (or those they don't engage in) as performative.
Jenny Davis — September 14, 2011
Really great points Bon. I do try to create a safe space for participants, and I try to frame questions about performativity in a non-stigmatizing way. Participants do talk about their performances, but also maintain the importance of authenticity.
One thing to come out of this, I think, is that performance and authenticity hold a tension between them, not because they are mutually exclusive, but because they necessarily co-exist.