Wired Motion Sensor Closet Lights

not looking (only) more or less homogeneous groups whether or not located in Euclidean space contexts ...

The statement that titles this post is another of the common ground when talking about virtual ethnography. Its development viene a decir algo así:
“En la red podemos encontrar grupos con intereses similares, es decir con características homogéneas que van mas allá de la cultura nacional o local. Estos grupos se congregan en una comunidad virtual y establecen colectividades con formas específicas de ver y de hacer. Para realizar etnografía convencional es necesario identificar un contexto etnográfico, y para hacer etnografía virtual habrá que tratar el espacio virtual como contexto de análisis y las comunidades como congregaciones humanas. La etnografía virtual debe tratar al ciberespacio como una realidad etnográfica”.
En efecto, la etnografía debe tomar el ciberespacio como una realidad en la que se pueden construct meaning, create identities and establishing more or less stable groups with shared interests. But is not this so like it or not ethnography or any other method? Ethnographic study focusing only on those areas involves neglecting the constructivist view of society, whereby we find and describe objects that are our own constructions of previous constructions [again Jones (2006) quoted as referring to Heidegger this approach when he speaks of the double hermeneutic present in the human sciences, which can be understood as interpretations of interpretations].
Well, that assumption of social constructivism has been strengthened following the passing of the triple crisis of ethnography (of representation, legitimation and praxis) [ Denzin, N., Interpretive Ethnography: Ethnographic Practices for the 21st Century, Thousand Oaks, Sage, 1996 ] . Passing this crisis has led, in effect, a series of consequences that virtual ethnography has been widely assumed, among others: the continued presence of no researcher in the field of study, the rethinking of the methodology of the interview, the paper notes field or the representation of the data (all advanced and by Hine in his earlier work [ Virtual Ethnography, Sage, London, 2000 ]). But this does not mean in any way that the ethnographer should pay particular attention as their theme ethnographic or cultural group as small-scale interactions in a field such as cyberspace. Hine
Some principles proposed in reference work are maintained, others have already fallen. In my opinion, one of the immanent and the assertion that:
"The boundaries are not a priori assumptions, but are explored in the course of the ethnography. The challenge of virtual ethnography is to examine how to set limits and connections, especially between the 'virtual' and 'real'. [And] this problem carries with it the question of when to stop, or how far to go "( Hine, 2002, p. 81 ).
Internet is a cultural artifact, but also culture, a culture type multi-layered, layered, and open paths that go beyond the virtual and extensively penetrate into the physical. The construction of the ethnographic object in the Internet environment is equally broad and it is closed physical barriers. Its objects and fields can be equally as noun made from the more sociological approaches when studying the markets, cinemas, home, etc. For the study of such situations from a "naturalist" is counted with the reference structure sociocultural them warm. From here (and in dialogue with) the researcher raises his constructions and meanings. Ignore this in virtual ethnographies lead aside many of the reasons for social and cultural constructions of the object of study. We
...