Programmed reception
Methodological notes from a research on Youtube
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.48006/2358-0097/V10N1.E101007Keywords:
methodology; digital anthropology; reception study; YouTube.Abstract
This article proposes a reflection on the relationship between researchers conducting fieldwork in digital environments and the algorithms underlying contemporary major platforms. With this objective, the field research conducted for my doctoral thesis, which examines the reception of a blockbuster film on YouTube, will be the argumentative thread. As one of the main video-sharing platforms, owned by the technology conglomerate Alphabet Inc./Google, YouTube was used as the primary means for disseminating reviews of the film in question, becoming a significant actor in shaping the collective impression of it. This occurred through the operation of the platform's recommendation algorithms, which tailor search results for each user and act as curators of the displayed content. The influence of such algorithmic structures gave rise to a peculiar type of reception, which I conceptualized, inspired by Taina Bucher (2018), as "programmed reception". Thus, this article presents the solutions found to circumvent the limitations imposed by the studied platform. At the same time, it addresses the questions that arose in the process, noting the need to consider, examine, and understand the role of algorithms as mediators of academic research conducted on platforms, concluding that such digital entities are not entirely insurmountable but, on the contrary, offer opportunities for methodological creativity.
References
ABU-LUGHOD, Lila. 1991. “Writing Against Culture”. In: R. Fox (ed.), Recapturing Anthropology: Working in the Present. Santa Fe: School of American Research Press. pp. 137-162.
BONETTI, Alinne e FLEISCHER, Soraya (org.). 2006. Entre Saias Justas e Jogos de Cintura: Gênero e etnografia na antropologia brasileira recente. Porto Alegre: Editora Mulheres/Edunisc.
BRAZ, Camilo Albuquerque. 2007. “Corpo a corpo – reflexões sobre uma etnografia imprópria”. Revista Ártemis, 7: 128-144.
BUCHER, Taina. 2018. If... Then: Algorithmic Power and Politics. Nova Iorque: Oxford University Press.
CASTRO, Rosana. 2022. “Pele negra, jalecos brancos: racismo, cor(po) e (est)ética no trabalho de campo antropológico”. Revista de Antropologia , 65: e192796. DOI: https://doi.org/10.11606/1678-9857.ra.2022.192796
CLIFFORD, James e MARCUS, George (ed.). 1986. Writing culture: the poetics and politics of ethnography. Berkeley: University of California Press.
CLIFFORD, James. 2011. A Experiência Etnográfica: antropologia e literatura no século XX. Rio de Janeiro: Editora da UFRJ.
CORRÊA, Mariza. 2003. Antropólogas & Antropologia. Belo Horizonte: Humanitas/Editora da UFMG.
DA MATTA, Roberto. 1978. “O ofício de etnólogo, ou como ter anthropological blues”. Boletim do Museu Nacional, 25: 1-12.
D’ANDREA, Carlos. 2020. Pesquisando plataformas online: Conceitos e métodos. Salvador: EDUFBA.
FLEISCHER, Soraya e TONIOL, Rodrigo. 2023. E quando a limonada antropológica azeda?. Porto Alegre: Editora Zouk.
GEERTZ, Clifford. 1989. A interpretação das culturas. Rio de Janeiro: Guanabara Koogan.
GILLESPIE, Tarleton. 2010. “The politics of ‘platforms’”. New Media & Society, Thousand Oaks, 12(3): 347-364. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444809342738
GROSSI, Miriam. 1992. “Na busca do ‘outro’ encontra-se a si mesmo”. In: M. Grossi (org.), Trabalho de campo e subjetividade. Florianópolis: UFSC. pp. 7-18.
GUIMARÃES Jr, Mário. 2004. “Pés descalços no ciberespaço: tecnologia e cultura no cotidiano de um grupo social online”. Horizontes Antropológicos, 10( 21): 123-154. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/S0104-71832004000100006
HARAWAY, Donna. 2008. When species meet. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
________. 2009. “Saberes localizados: a questão da ciência para o feminismo e o privilégio da perspectiva parcial”. Cadernos Pagu, Campinas, 5: 7–41.
HELMOND, Anne. 2015. “The Plataformization of the Web: Making Web Data Platform Ready”. Social Media + Society, 1(2): 1-11. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305115603080
INGOLD, Tim. 2000. The Perception of the environement. Essays livelihood, dwelling and skill. Londres: Routledge.
LINS, Beatriz Accioly; PARREIRAS, Carolina e FREITAS, Eliane. 2020. “Estratégias para pensar o digital”. Cadernos De Campo, 29(2): e181821. DOI: https://doi.org/10.11606/issn.2316-9133.v29i2pe181821
MALINOWSKI, Bronislaw. 1984 [1922]. Argonautas do Pacífico Ocidental: um relato do empreendimento e da aventura dos nativos nos arquipélagos da Nova Guiné Melanésia. São Paulo: Abril.
________. 1997. Um diário no sentido estrito do termo. Rio de Janeiro: Record.
MILLER, Daniel; SLATER, Don. 2004. “Etnografia on e off-line: cibercafés em Trinidad”. Horizontes Antropológicos, Porto Alegre, 10(21): 41-65. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/S0104-71832004000100003
NORONHA, Fernanda. “Onde estão as b.girls? A pesquisa antropológica numa roda de break”. In: A. Bonetti e S. Fleischer (org.). 2006. Entre Saias Justas e Jogos de Cintura: Gênero e etnografia na antropologia brasileira recente. Porto Alegre: Editora Mulheres/Edunisc. pp. 187-208.
PEIRANO, Mariza. 2014. “Etnografia não é método”. Horizontes Antropológicos, Porto Alegre, 20(42): 377-391. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/s0104-71832014000200015
PEREIRA, Luena. 2013. “Identidades racial e religiosa em Angola e no Brasil: reflexões a partir da experiência em campo em Luanda”. In: DULLEY, Iracema; JARDIM, Marta (Org.). Antropologia em Trânsito: reflexões sobre deslocamento e comparação. São Paulo: Annablume, pp. 55-85.
RABINOW, Paul. 1977. Reflections on fieldwork in Morocco. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
SCHATZMAN, Leonard; STRAUSS, Anselm. 1973. Field Research: Strategies for a Natural sociology. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
STOCKING Jr., G. 1991. Colonial Situations: Essays on the Contextualization of Ethnographic Knowledge. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press.
STRATHERN, Marilyn. 2006. O gênero da dádiva: problemas com as mulheres e problemas com a sociedade na Melanésia. Campinas: Editora da UNICAMP.
VAN DIJCK, José; POELL, Thomas e DE WAAL, Martijn. 2018. The Plataform Society: Public Values in a Connective World. Nova Iorque: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190889760.001.0001
VELHO, Gilberto e KUSCHNIR, Karina (orgs.). 2003. Pesquisas urbanas: desafios do trabalho antropológico. Rio de Janeiro: Jorge Zahar.
WAGNER, Roy. 2010. A invenção da cultura. São Paulo: CosacNaify.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Novos Debates
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
Open Access Statement
Novos Debates is an open access journal. We do not charge any fee for the publication of articles or for access to our issues. All our content, unless otherwise indicated, is licensed under Creative Commons Brazil Attribution 3.0 (CC BY 3.0 BR).
You are free to:
– Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
– Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially
– The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms:
– Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
– No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
