Netnography and qualitative

research online
19.11.2019
PhD Elina Närvänen, University Lecturer of Marketing, Tampere University
Docent of Consumer Behavior and Consumer Research, University of Jyväskylä
About Me, Elina:

Researcher since 2010 at Tampere University

Defended my PhD thesis in 2013

Docent at JYU in 2016: Consumer behavior and

consumer research

Interested in qualitative methods

My research mostly focuses on sociocultural and

interpretive perspectives to consumption

For a recent research project, see:

http://wastebustersfinland.blogspot.fi – new project in
2020: ” Waste matters: Change agents' engagement in
circular economy transformation” funded by
Liikesivistysrahasto
| 1
Today’s menu
1. Qualitative research methods + Big/Thick
Data
2. The roots of netnography in marketing
research
3. Ethnography
4. Netnography
5. An exercise on netnography
• 12-14 MaD 207 in Finnish
• 14-16 Ag Alfa in English

Key reference: Kozinets, R.V. (2020) Netnography. The

essential guide to qualitative social media research. London:
Sage.
Discussion: Features of qualitative methods

- What is the purpose or aim of qualitative research?

- What kind of research questions are asked?
- How is data generated?
- What are the typical types of data?
- How are the informants (research participants) selected?
- What is the nature of the research process?
- How is analysis done?
Holbrook 1981: ”Yes, we can build multi-attribute models that predict
preferences toward toothpaste; we can generate complex
multidimensional spaces that represent perceptions of cigarettes; we
can construct devilishly clever procedures that trace the acquisition
of information on cereal brands; we can – with our bare hands –
construct mighty regression analyses that relate detergent usage to
300 separate life-style variables. In short – when it comes to the
factors of least importance to the consumer’s emotional,
cultural and spiritual existence – we excel (Holbrook, 1981: 36)”
Tricia Wang: Big data vs. Thick data

https://medium.com/ethnography-matters/why-big-data-needs-thick-data-b4b3e75e3d7
BIG DATA versus THICK DATA?

• “Quantification bias”
• “What is measurable is not
the same as what is
valuable”
• Numbers often seen as
more objective and useful
by decision makers
• Thick = inspiration,
emotion, surprise, stories!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pk35J2u8KqY
Qualitative methods in marketing
• Paradigmatic “wars” in the 1980s
Critique emerged toward positivistic,
experimental and statistical methods
Need to understand consumers and
consumption in its natural context
Influence of anthropology, sociology,
cultural studies
• Holbrook & Hirschman 1982:
“Fantasies, feelings and fun”
• Consumer Behaviour Odyssay 1985
MacInnis, Folkes (2010, s. 910)
Ethnography
• Ethno = folk, graph = writing; an anthropological method
• Research conducted in a natural setting (”field”) – the aim is to understand the
culture, practices, sociocultural meanings and habits of the observed group of
people
• The central ways of generating research data are participant observation
(fieldwork) and interviews as well as memos or fieldnotes written (or otherwise
recorded) about these
• Traditionally a very time consuming and intensive approach
• The aim is to ”live the life of those you research” – to offer a rich description of it
and to utilize both the etic view (the researcher’s theoretical view) with the
participants’ emic view (insider’s view)
 12

In Finland, there GLOBAL

were 3,34 million PENETRATION OF
users of social media MOBILE SOCIAL
in 2018 (at least once a NETWORKS 39 %
(Eastern Asia 64% / Central
month)! (Penetration Asia, Eastern and Middle
about 60 %) Africa 6 %)
+ YouTube is the
second most used
service (61 % of internet
users cf. Facebook 70
%, WhatsApp 40 %)
Share of daily social media usage Finland in 2018, by platform
Share of daily social media usage Finland 2018, by platform
Share of respondents
0,0% 10,0% 20,0% 30,0% 40,0% 50,0%

Facebook incl.Facebook Messenger 53%

Whatsapp 49% Which app/site

YouTube 30%
do you yourself
Instagram 26%

Snapchat 12%
use?
Internet forums 11%

Twitter 10%
What about your
Blogs 5%

Jodel 3%
parents?
Video blogs 4%

Pinterest 5% What about your

LinkedIn 3%
younger sisters
Tinder 2%

Kik Messenger 1%
or brothers?
Note: Finland; March 6-10, 2018; 15-74 years; 509 Respondents; who used the respective social media platform at least once a day
Further information regarding this statistic can be found on page 8.
Source(s): DNA; ID 560262
3
 Usage 37

Daily social media usage worldwide 2012-2017

Daily time spent on social networking by internet users worldwide from
2012 to 2017 (in minutes)

160
From 90 minutes per day in 2012 to 135
minutes per day in 2017!
140 135

126

120
109
101
100 95
90
Minutes per day

80

60

40

20

0
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Note: Worldwide; 2012 to 2017; 16-64 years; social media and messaging

Further information regarding this statistic can be found on page 117.

Source: GlobalWebIndex ID 433871

Leading social media platforms used by marketers worldwide as of January 2018
Social media platforms used by marketers worldwide 2018

Share of respondents
0,0% 10,0% 20,0% 30,0% 40,0% 50,0% 60,0% 70,0% 80,0% 90,0% 100,0%

Facebook 94%

Instagram 66%

Twitter 62%

LinkedIn 56%

YouTube 50%

Pinterest 27%

Snapchat 8%

Note: Worldwide; January 2018; 5,700

Further information regarding this statistic can be found on page 81.
Source(s): Social Media Examiner; ID 259379
19 Corporate use
Digital marketing tactics most difficult to execute worldwide in March 2016
Most difficult digital marketing tactics worldwide 2016

60,0%

50%
50,0%
45% Even though social media marketing
may be effective, many marketers forget
40,0% 38%
that the medium was not invented for
Share of respondents

companies – it was invented for people.

30,0% 28%

22%
21%
20,0% 18%

10,0%

0,0%
Social media SEO Mobile Paid search E-mail Display ads Website

Note: Worldwide; March 1 to 3, 2016; 275 marketers (66% primarily B2B)

Further information regarding this statistic can be found on page 90.
Source(s): Ascend2; Research Partners; ID 534885
29 Objectives & tactics
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8axfYomJn4

| 16
 - Focused on human experience and
cultural understanding
Netnography - Deep appreciation of the context of
people’s everyday life
- Explores social systems of shared
Netnography is a specific type of qualitative social meaning
media research. It adapts the methods of ethnography - Informed by a sense of self-
and other qualitative research practices to the cultural awareness of the researcher and/or of
experiences that encompass and are reflected within cultural participants
the traces, networks, and systems of social media.
Netnography differs from the more general field of digital Social media = applications,
inquiry by its emphasis on online traces, interactions, websites, and other online
and socialities. It is different from other forms of online or technologies that enable their
digital ethnography because it specifies particular users to engage in a variety of
procedural guidelines. Finally, netnography is a different content creation,
pragmatic, how-to, work-bench level approach to studying circulation, annotation and
social media using a cultural lens.” (Kozinets, 2020, 19). association activities (p. 4)

Online trace = what is left behind Sometimes the study of online traces is
whenever people post images, video or complemented with interviews,
text or when they comment, share or do observation, online/mobile interviews,
anything else accessible online mobile recording…
Bulletin
boards,
IRC, websites

Figure 2 Number of marketing studies using

netnography (1997-2017)

Lähde: Heinonen, K., & Medberg, G. (2018). Netnography as a tool for understanding
customers: implications for service research and practice. Journal of Services Marketing.
 Age of Age of social
Age of virtual
electronic media
community
communication
1990s-2000s 2002 ->
1960s-1990s

• Blogs – gathering audiences

• Social networking sites –
commercialized experiences
(Facebook, LinkedIn)
• Turn to the visual (Flickr,
Instagram, Pinterest…)
Kozinets 2020, p. 37
| 19
Lähde:
Heinonen, K., &
Medberg, G.
(2018).
Netnography as
a tool for
understanding
customers:
implications for
service research
and practice.
Journal of
Services
Marketing.
Netnography compared to ethnography

1. Form of communication –
technologies impacting interactions –
text, photo, video
2. Access and ability to participate,
anonymity
3. Archives – permanent online traces
4. Forms of analysis – can be
automated
5. Different set of ethical issues
6. The role of commercial actors is
different
Four elements of netnography
1. Cultural focus: understanding a focal phenomenon, topic, site or people from
a cultural perspective (focusing on context and meanings)
LANGUAGE, ONLINE RITUALS, IDENTITIES, STORIES; VALUE, POWER AND
GROUP DYNAMICS AND HIERARCHIES
2. Social media data: data from applications, websites and other online
technologies accessed from various devices
3. Immersive engagement: reflective personal involvement in the focal
phenomenon by the researcher - cannot be just about downloading data, but
needs fieldnotes, immersion journal
4. Netnographic praxis: utilizes recommended practices and demonstrates
awareness of netnographic conventions

| 22
Examples of netnographic marketing studies

Hollebeek, L.D & Närvänen, E.,

Chen, T. (2014) Mesiranta, N., &
“Exploring Hukkanen, A. (2013).
positively versus From Waste to
negatively Delicacy: Collective
valenced brand Innovation in Food
engagement: a Disposition Practices
conceptual model.” Through Blogging.

Kulmala, M.,
Mesiranta, N., &
Tuominen, P.
Brown, S., & Patterson, A. (2010). (2013). Organic
“Selling stories: Harry Potter and and amplified
the marketing plot” eWOM in
consumer fashion
blogs.
 Hamilton, K., &
Hewer, P.
(2010). “Tribal
mattering
spaces: Social-
networking
sites, celebrity
Langer, R., & Beckman, S. C. affiliations, and
(2005). Sensitive research topics: tribal
netnography revisited. innovations”

Rollins, M., Nickell, D., & Wei, J.

(2014). Understanding
salespeople's learning
experiences through blogging: A
social learning approach
Misopoulos, F., Mitic, M., Kapoulas, A.,
& Karapiperis, C. (2014). Uncovering
customer service experiences with
Twitter: the case of airline industry.
 Närvänen, E.,
Kartastenpää,
E., & Kuusela,
Pentina, I., & Spears, N. H. (2013).
(2011). Reasons behind Online lifestyle
body art adoption: what consumption
motivates young adults to community
acquire tattoos?. dynamics: A
practice‐based
analysis.

Närvänen, E.,
Saarijärvi, H., &
Simanainen, O. Nguyen, H. P.,
(2013). Chen, S., &
Understanding Mukherjee, S.
consumers' online (2014).
conversation Reverse
practices in the stigma in the
context of Freegan
convenience food. community.
Challenges of netnography as a method

• The authenticity and “truth” of

internet data
• Demographic features of
people cannot necessarily be
reliably found out
• It is not a method that offers
generalizable findings
• Ethical issues are largely
debated and researcher must
be careful and aware of them
 Netnographic praxis
Deciding research
focus Initiation

Collecting data
investigation Interaction immersion

Analyzing and Integration

interpreting data

Presenting research Incarnation

Kozinets 2020, p. 139
| 27
1. Initiation
• Does the research focus on a particular
online site or a phenomenon? => e.g. online
community of group around a certain topic or
hobby
• Is the research relying on some existing
theory or construct from past research? =>
e.g. constructing of identity, brand community
practices, meanings of femininity etc.
• Is there a trend that the research believes to
be worth investigating? => e.g. a new social
media platform like TikTok?
• Preparing for the research in terms of time
management, organizing, becoming aware of
ethical considerations and planning the study

| 28
2.-4. Investigation, interaction and immersion
• 2. Investigation: Narrowing down the research site; using search engines and other
means to seek and find traces that are relevant to the research
• E.g. individual conversations, topics, sub-topics, tags (hashtags), visual images etc.

• 3. Immersion: Researcher spends a large amount of time with the chosen site/sites and
the data so that the meanings, rituals, identities etc. become familiar); also collecting and
indexing data

• 4. Interaction: explicit questioning or research engagement with online participants – e.g.

interviews, creating a netnographic interaction webpage, use of digital diaries and mobile
ethnography

| 29
5.- 6. Integration and incarnation
• 5. Integration: The analysis and
interpretation of the generated data by
reflecting it with the research
questions; comparing parts with
wholes and theory with data and back
again
• Can involve coding, categorizing and
other qualitative procedures of analysis
• Can also involve automatic handling of
data (e.g. through social media tracking
services, social listening tools)

• 6. Incarnation: to put into or represent

in a concrete form => communicating
findings as a thesis or paper

| 30
Research ethics in netnography
• Public site (open access, does not require registration or login) or private site (requires
registration, password)
• User rights (for each platform or application)
• Moderator permission (always needed when it is a private site)
• Sensitive topic?
• Vulnerable population?
• Data security
• Benefits / risks for the participants?
• Researcher disclosure – when researcher participates in interactions
• Informed consent: not needed when using publicly available data, otherwise needed
• Anonymizing data
Criteria for selecting sites in netnography
• Relevant: offers potential answers for the
research questions
• Active: has recent and regular interaction
• Interactive: there is interaction between
users
• Adequately large: enough people
participating
• Heteogeneous / homogeneous: either or
• Rich: descriptive and detailed data
• Experiential: offers the researcher a
genuine experience of the research
phenomenon
 An example of a
netnographic
”entree” to the
community which
is investigated.
The researcher
openly disclosed
their intentions
and introduced
herself. (Sensitive
topic)

Ahola, S. (2014) “Sosiaalisen tuen välittäminen ja arvon luominen

virtuaalisessa terveysyhteisössä”, Pro gradu –tutkielma, s.46
 Another
example of an
”entree” into a
brand
community for
netnographic
research.
(Closed
community)

Kurikko, H. (2011) Virtuaalinen brändiyhteisö aktiivisena toimijana: Case

Lego ja Palikkatakomo. Pro gradu –tutkielma, s. 41
An example of netnographic research without researcher
interaction – work-in-progress!
• “Issue Arena for Food Waste: ​Toward Socio-
Cultural Change in Social Marketing​”,
conference paper by Ulla-Maija Sutinen and
Elina Närvänen, Macromarketing Conference
2019
• Data: social media discussion during ”Food
Waste Week” in 2018
• Retrieved from Twitter, Instagram, blogs,
forums through using the MELTWATER social
media monitoring software
• Altogether 3409 public postings (some
retweets, duplicates)
• Research question: How do market actors
participate in the socio-cultural construction of
food waste through social media?​

| 35
Generating data in netnography

• Three formats:
1) Data that is available
on the site / archived
2) Data that is generated
in interaction with the
researcher
3) Reflective data in the
field notes or
immersive diary of the
researcher
 Archived data: 770
messages copied
from the community

Co-created data: 13
messages privately
shared with the
researcher

Fieldnotes: a Diary,
39 pages

Ahola, S. (2014) “Sosiaalisen tuen välittäminen

ja arvon luominen virtuaalisessa
terveysyhteisössä”, Pro gradu –tutkielma, s.47
New forms of netnography
• Auto-netnography (Villegas, 2018)
E.g. understanding a brand’s online presence
A tool for developing a brand
• Social monitoring tools as part of netnography (Reid & Duffy, 2018)
E.g. BrandWatch - applications
Netnography offers an additional, in-depth layer of interpretetation
A netnographer (person) as an interpreter – especially when working with
symbolic and visual data
A more nuanced view of emotions and language
More-than-human netnography (Lugosi & Quinton, 2018)
Focuses on objects and technologies
E.g. bots, IoT, AI
Exercise on netnography
1. Make a group of 3 or 4 students
2. Choose an interesting hobby or tv-series as your topic– the
aim is to understand the social and cultural meanings related to
that hobby or tv-series
3. Plan how you could conduct a netnographic research on your
topic:
a) Investigate! => what kind of sites, hashtags, communities etc. there
are available online related to your topic
b) Quick immerse => evaluate these critically and reflect how they
would fit as research sites
c) Plan => device a plan for the researcher how to move forward –e.g.
what kind of ethical issues there are, where and how should the
researcher generate netnographic data etc.
d) Summarize your work on a couple of PowerPoint slides and send it
to Elina (elina.narvanen@tuni.fi) by 13.30 (Finnish group) / 15.30
(English group)!
A great webinar on the use of netnographic
research in the business world!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mZeJFY_rvA
| 40
 References:
• Belk, R.W., Fischer, E. & Kozinets, R.V. (2013) Qualitative marketing and consumer research. London: Sage.
• Costello, L., McDermott, M. L., & Wallace, R. (2017). Netnography: Range of Practices, Misperceptions, and Missed Opportunities. International Journal of
Qualitative Methods, 16, 1-12.
• Füller, J., Jawecki, G., & Mühlbacher, H. (2007). Innovation creation by online basketball communities. Journal of Business Research, 60(1), 60-71.
• Kozinets, R. V. (2001). Utopian enterprise: Articulating the meanings of Star Trek's culture of consumption. Journal of consumer research, 28(1), 67-88.
• Kozinets, R. V. (2002). The field behind the screen: Using netnography for marketing research in online communities. Journal of Marketing Research, 39(1), 61-
72.
• Kozinets, R.V. (2010) Netnography. London: Sage.
• Kozinets, R.V. (2020) Netnography. The essential guide to qualitative social media research. London: Sage.
• Kozinets, R. V., De Valck, K., Wojnicki, A. C., & Wilner, S. J. (2010). Networked narratives: Understanding word-of-mouth marketing in online communities.
Journal of Marketing, 74(2), 71-89.
• Kozinets, R.V. (2015) Netnography redefined. London: Sage.
• Kozinets, R.V., Scaraboto, D. & Parmentier, M. (2018) Evolving netnography: how brand auto-netnography, a netnographic sensibility, and more-than-human
netnography can transform your research. Journal of Marketing Management 34:3-4, pages 231-242.
• Lugosi , P. & Quinton, S. (2018) More-than-human netnography, Journal of Marketing Management, 34:3-4, 287-313, DOI: 10.1080/0267257X.2018.1431303
• Reid, E. & Duffy, K. (2018) A netnographic sensibility: developing the netnographic/social listening boundaries, Journal of Marketing Management, 34:3-4, 263-
286, DOI: 10.1080/0267257X.2018.1450282
• Villegas, D. (2018) From the self to the screen: a journey guide for auto-netnography in online communities, Journal of Marketing Management, 34:3-4, 243-
262, DOI: 10.1080/0267257X.2018.1443970
• Weijo, H., Hietanen, J., & Mattila, P. (2014). New insights into online consumption communities and netnography. Journal of Business Research, 67(10), 2072-
2078.
 Kiitos!
elina.narvanen@tuni.fi

| 42