CITATION AND COPYRIGHT INFORMATION:
Cite as: Frenette, M. (2003, May). What does being methodological mean? Making sense of the Internet: Promises and problems for research. Paper presented at a non-divisional workshop held at the meeting of the International Communication Association, San Diego, CA.
© Micheline Frenette (2003).

PROPOSAL:
I have been using Sense-Making Methodology to conduct interviews with university students on how they make sense of the Internet and integrate it into their lives. This foray into the wide diversity of modes of integration has convinced me (even more) that technology attributes are more interestingly conceived as subjective constructions than as fixed characteristics as we find for instance in technological determinism. But however enriching Sense-Making has proven to be, I have found it to be quite labor-intensive and this poses down-to-earth problems in terms of funding and managing research projects. I would like to take the opportunity of this panel to share and contrast the perspectives I have gained on the Internet through Sense-Making and, as well, explore ways of extending/combining this methodology with investigations on a larger scale without sacrificing its richness.

DIFFERENT APPROACHES TO INTERNET RESEARCH:

1. Study of the uses of the Internet, very often in regard to time allocation.
2. Match personal characteristics of individuals (e.g., age, personality variables) to their Internet use.
3. Deleterious or beneficial effects.
4. Significance of the Internet as a cultural phenomenon in the context of people’s lives.

Perceived Problems with 1, 2, and 3:

• Research is most often technology-centered, explicitly or implicitly.
• Stability and meaning of relationships found between motives and uses ambiguous.
• Significance of personal and social attributes that supposedly “explain” Internet use (i.e., person not innovative enough).

PROBLEMS OF SENSE-MAKING IN INTERNET RESEARCH:
Practical

1. Time-related: How to capture process via cross-sectional snapshot (i.e., interview)?
2. Space-related: How to capture context?
3. Person-related: How to identify commonalities of Sense-Making among a sufficient number of people such as to be able to justify recommendations for design, support, policy, etc. (Also note: Interview volunteers have special characteristics.)

General

• How to avoid falling into the trap of technology attributes as determinants?
• How different from other qualitative approaches?

PROMISES OF SENSE-MAKING IN INTERNET RESEARCH:
Practical

1. Design Sense-Making longitudinal study. . . .
2. Envision statistical modeling techniques. . . .
3. Develop a questionnaire for wider foray. . . .

General
Reveals novel or bypassed aspects of appropriation:

• Duality of appropriation (Internet as a solution to problems vs. solutions to problems with the Internet).
• Anchoring in past-present-future (current use embedded within measure of one’s progress and envisioning future use).
• Sociological embeddedness (individualistic frame of mind to the exclusion of collective undertakings—“spirit of the times”).
• Moral challenges (“humanity” of virtual relationships).

Ultimate Promises
Understand technologies as constructed in people’s minds (not the other way around) and better understand humans via technology (not the other way around).

OTHER MATERIALS BY THIS AUTHOR ON THIS WEB SITE:
See: http://communication.sbs.ohio-state.edu/sense-making/AAauthors/authorlistfrenette.html