Cover not available
Part of
Style and Reader Response: Minds, media, methods
Edited by Alice Bell, Sam Browse, Alison Gibbons and David Peplow
[Linguistic Approaches to Literature 36] 2021
► pp. 179–196

Chapter 10
Reading the readers

Ethical and methodological issues for researching readers and reading in the digital age

| Bournemouth University
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Background to the study of readers and audiences
  • 3.The impact of the digital
  • 4. Web 2.0 and online participatory cultures
  • 5.Going beyond text
  • 6.Access and anonymity: Negotiating the public versus the private
  • 7.Reflexivity and the responsibilities of researchers
  • 8.Mixed methods approaches
  • 9.Moving from subjects to participants
  • 10.Creative participatory methods
  • 11.Conclusion
  • References
Published online: 8 February 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lal.36.10tho
References (43)
References
Barthes, R. 1977. Introduction to the structural analysis of narratives. In Image-Music-Text, S. Heath (ed.), 79–124. London: Fontana. Google Scholar
Bell, A., Ensslin, A., Ciccoricco, D., Rustad, H., Laccetti, J. & Pressman, J. 2010. A [S]creed for Digital Fiction. Electronic Book Review <[URL]> (13 March 2019).Google Scholar
Bond, C., Ahmed, O. H., Hind, M., Thomas, B. & Hewitt-Taylor, J. 2013. The conceptual and practical ethical dilemmas of using health discussion board posts as research data. Journal of Medical Internet Research 15(6): e112. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Digital Reading Network. 2013–15. <[URL]> (13 March 2019).
Eberly, R. 2000. Citizen Critics: Literary Public Spheres. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
E-Read. 2016. <[URL]> (13 March 2019).
Evans, A. & Stasi, M. 2014. Desperately seeking methodology: New directions in fan studies research. Participations 11(2): 4–23.Google Scholar
Fish, S. 1980. Is There a Text in this Class? The Authority of Interpretive Communities. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Fiske, J. 1987. Television Culture. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Flood, A. 2019. “It has made me want to live”: Public support for lesbian novelist Radclyffe Hall over banned book revealed. The Guardian 10 January 2019 <[URL]> (13 March 2019).Google Scholar
Fuller, D. & Rehberg Sedo, D. 2012. Mixing it up: Using mixed methods research to invesigate contemporary cultures of reading. In From Codex to Hypertext: Reading at the Turn of the Twenty-First Century, A. Lang (ed.), 234–251. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press. Google Scholar
2019. “Boring, frustrating, impossible”: Tracing the negative affects of reading from interviews to Story Circles. Participations 16(1): 622–655.Google Scholar
Gauntlett, D. 2011. Making is Connecting: The Social Meaning of Creativity from DIY and Knitting to YouTube and Web 2.0. Cambridge: Polity Press. Google Scholar
Georgakopolou, A. 2017. “Whose context collapse?”: Ethical clashes in the study of language and social media in context. Applied Linguistics Review 8(2/3): 169–190. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giaxoglou, K. 2017. Reflections on internet research ethics from language-focused research on web-based mourning: Revisiting the private/public distinction as a language ideology of differentiation. Applied Linguistics Review 8(2/3): 229–250. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hall, S. 1980. Encoding/Decoding. In Culture, Media, Language: Working Papers in Cultural Studies, 1972–79, S. Hall, D. Hobson, A. Lowe, P. Willis (eds), 128–39. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
Hartley, J. 1987. Invisible fictions: Television audiences, paedocracy, pleasure. Textual Practice 1(2): 121–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hobson, D. 1991. Soap operas at work. In Remote Control: Television, Audiences and Cultural Power, E. Seiter, H. Borchers, G. Kreutzner & E-M. Warth (eds), 150–167. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kennedy, H. 2006. Beyond anonymity, or future directions for internet identity research. New Media and Society 8(6): 859–876. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kozinets, R. V. 2010. Netnography: Doing Ethnographic Research Online. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Lambrou, M. 2014. Narratives of trauma re-lived: the ethnographer’s paradox and other tales. In Real Lives, Celebrity Stories: Narratives of Ordinary and Extraordinary People Across Media, B. Thomas & J. Round (eds), 113–128. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Landow, G. 1997. Hypertext 2.0. Baltimore, MA: Johns Hopkins University Press. Google Scholar
Marwick, A. & boyd, D. 2011 I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse and the imagined audience. New Media and Society 13: 114–133. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Morley, D. 1986. Family Television. London: Comedia.Google Scholar
Nakamura, L. 2013. “Words with friends”: Socially networked reading on Goodreads . PMLA 128(1): 238–243. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Page, R. 2017. Ethics revisited: Rights, responsibilities and relationships in online research. Applied Linguistics Review 8(2/3): 315–320. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Page, R., Barton, D., Unger, J. & Zappavigna, M. 2014. Researching Language and Social Media. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Page, R. & Thomas, B. 2011. Introduction. In New Narratives: Stories and Storytelling in the Digital Age, R. Page & B. Thomas (eds), 1–16. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reading Digital Fiction. 2014–17. <[URL]> (13 March 2019).
Reading Experience Database. 2006-. <[URL]> (13 March 2019).
Reading on Screen. 2017–18. <[URL]> (13 March 2019).
Researching Readers Online. 2012. <[URL]> (13 March 2019).
Spilioti, T. 2017. Media convergence and publicness: Towards a modular and iterative approach to online research ethics. Applied Linguistics Review 8(2/3): 191–212. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Story Center. <[URL]> (13 March 2019).
Tagg, C., Lyons, A., Hu, R. & Rock, F. 2017. The ethics of digital ethnography in a team project. Applied Linguistics Review 8(2/3): 271–292. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
The Harry Potter Alliance. <[URL]> (13 March 2019).
Thomas, B. 2007. Canons and Fanons: Literary fanfiction online. Dichtung Digital. <[URL]> (19 March 2019).Google Scholar
2011a. What is fanfiction and why are people saying such nice things about it? Storyworlds 3: 1–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011b. Trickster authors and tricky readers on the MZD forums. In Mark Z. Danielewski, J. Bray & A. Gibbons (eds), 86–102. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
2014. Fans behaving badly? real person fic and the blurring of the boundaries between the public and the private. In Real Lives, Celebrity Stories: Narratives of Ordinary and Extraordinary People Across Media, B. Thomas & J. Round (eds), 171–185. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Thomas, B. & Round, J. 2016. Moderating readers and reading online. Language and Literature 25(3): 239–253. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thomas, B. 2017. Whose Story is it Anyway? Following Everyday Accounts of Living with Dementia on Social Media. Style 51 (3): 357–373.Google Scholar
Whiteman, N. 2007. The establishment, maintenance and destabilisation of fandom: A study of two online communities and an exploration of issues pertaining to internet research . Unpublished PhD Thesis. Institute of Education, London.
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Price, Hazel
2022. The year’s work in stylistics 2021. Language and Literature: International Journal of Stylistics 31:4 ► pp. 519 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.