Margins as Methods, Margins as Ethics: A Feminist Framework for Studying Online Alterity

Abstract

Prevailing theories of marginalized media position the work of resistance as beneath or less than the institutions against which resistance works, raising a number of methodological and ethical challenges for research on online alterity. We offer a margins-as-methods approach for studies of social media on the margins, directing critical attention to the theoretical, ethical, and political implications of positioning subsets of social media users as peripheral to an imagined center. Drawing on theories of feminist reflexivity and our own fieldwork experiences, we articulate the margins-as-methods approach through two sets of practices: deconstructing the power politics behind theories of alterity and identifying how these power politics shape every stage of the research process. We conclude by offering guiding questions for researchers to reflect on as they evaluate the methodological and ethical challenges specific to their projects. The margins-as-methods approach and the reflexive questions it raises build accountability for how our research process may reinscribe the very power relationships that we, alongside our interlocutors, work to contest.

Introduction: Marginality and Social Media

“…Similarly, Carlson and Frazer’s (this issue) study was guided by principles specific to indigenous research ethics and analyzed using an indigenous research methodological framework, all with a goal to elevate indigenous perspectives. Lupien (this issue) and Carlson and Frazer’s (this issue) approaches speak to what Clark-Parsons and Lingel (this issue) articulate in their piece on “margins as methods,” in which they offer a set of guiding questions as they urge researchers of marginalization to enhance their reflexivity and continuously consider the consequences of their methodological choices for the participants themselves.…”

“…When it comes to marginalized people and communities, social media research arguably amplifies considerations of power, exploitation, and informed consent. As Clark-Parsons and Lingel (this issue) note in their essay in this collection, “digital media complicates already-imbalanced power relationships between the researcher and the researched” (p. 2).…”

“…In these cases, it may be possible to use the platform’s affordances as a guide, for instance, neither further concealing nor further revealing identity, as Davis (this issue) did in her piece on racial trolling. Perhaps the most useful contribution to the particular ethics of studies of social media and marginality is Clark-Parsons and Lingel’s (this issue) essay, which centers critical feminist ethics, and offers important questions to guide researchers through the ethical considerations throughout participant selection, data collection, analysis, and presentation. If editing this issue has shown us anything, it is that ethical challenges and their solutions are deeply contextual, constantly shifting, and amplified by both social media and marginality.…”

“…If editing this issue has shown us anything, it is that ethical challenges and their solutions are deeply contextual, constantly shifting, and amplified by both social media and marginality. Clark-Parsons and Lingel’s (this issue) essay is essential reading for anyone working on social media and marginalization.…”

I hope, one day, I will have the right to speak

“…While it is important to protect user privacy and security – and therefore I anonymized all users – it is fundamental to consider an ethical position that recognizes the importance of making political claims more visible. I followed AoIR’s (Franzke et al, 2020) recommendations for ethical decision-making, engaging with personal data in a manner that protects privacy and ‘does not further disempower groups and communities on the margins’ (Clark-Parsons and Lingel, 2020: 5).…”