Memory, body, and the online researcher: Following Russian street demonstrations via social media

Abstract

The Moscow street demonstrations of 2011–12 were the largest public gatherings in Russia since the collapse of the Soviet Union. They were also the largest‐ever gathering of Russians on social media. While using the Internet to follow such large‐scale social movements remotely, researchers experience social media as a context in which anthropology happens. They may think about “being there” in new ways that shift their focus to their own processes of memory making and sense of bodily presence. Experiencing and remembering social media in the body challenges the distinctions we might otherwise make between virtual and physical encounters. [body memory, protest, social media, digital anthropology, online research, Moscow, Russia] Московские уличные демонстрации 2011–12 стали наиболее многочисленными в России со времен распада Советского Союза. Они также объединили наибольшее число россиян в социальных сетях. Используя Интернет для изучения крупномасштабных социальных движений в удаленном доступе, исследователи одновременно рассматривают онлайн пространство социальных сетей как новое поле антропологии. Новые способы «присутствия» побуждают исследователей обратиться к своему собственному процессу производства памяти и собственному чувству телесности. Особые опыт и память телесности в социальных средствах коммуникации заставляют нас пересмотреть границы виртуального и физического опыта. [память тела, протест, социальные медиа, цифровая антропология, онлайн исследования, Москва, Россия;]

A catalyst for change: Developing a collaborative reflexive ethnographic approach to research with hospital doctors during the COVID-19 pandemic

“…As Fine and Abramson (2020 : 165) state, ‘if there is one profound truth about ethnography, it is that intimacy, and not distancing, is crucial’. A key challenge of remote ethnographic methods is the absence of ‘being there’ and ‘being then’ ( Gray, 2016 ; Postill, 2017 ) to share, and be seen to share, in the lived experiences of participants’ ‘fields’. In evolving the ethnographic approach for MIME, facilitating connection between participant and researcher was key, to ensure we overcame the ‘not being there’ and fostered a strong sense of connection with participants across the digital distance.…”

“Pocketing” Research Data? Ethnographic Data Production as Material Theorizing

“…Hence, we suggest exploring these affects, including how they relate to the ethnographer’s own cultural or personal background, as given in any research process and use ethnography’s ability to generate data from it: by reflecting the sensory immediacy of the ethnographer in the field (or their bodily-physical memory of the events later; e.g. Gray 2016, 506). Affect—including different types of emotions, atmospheres, and moods (Reckwitz 2017)—ought to be taken seriously as one “locus of ethnographic knowledge” (Feldman and Mandache 2019, 229).…”

Keywords and key words in AE

“…For instance, in 2016, authors used care (6) to index varying topics, from rituals of elderly care in Thailand (Aulino ), to kinship ideology in domestic violence counseling in India (Kowalski ), to sex work in Japan (G. Koch ), although with labor and precarity among its keywords, the latter article does fit the economy and neoliberalism cluster. Likewise, media (7 in 2016; 4 in 2017) refers to mass media as well as digital and popular media in very different contexts, indexing topics that may or may not fit the main themes (Ball and Nozawa ; Dent ; Fisher ; Gray ; Holmes 2016; Jusionyte ; N. Evans ; Shipley ; Stankiewicz ). Other frequently recurring words in 2016 include ethnography (6), food (5), gender (5), kinship (5), performance (5), violence (5), anthropology (4), love (4), and NGOs (4); of these, only gender reappears in each of the Table columns for the following three years, but it is surpassed by anthropology in the final count shown in Table , discussed below.…”