Justifying "unprofesional" electronic environments

Given that some electronic environments won't be seen as "professional", how do we justify studying them?


When I first read this question, I decided to come up with a list of electronic environments that don't seem professional. These are the ones I came up: YouTube, MySpace, SecondLife, Facebook, and Twitter. There are many more online environments, but these are most familiar to me. I can see why some researchers may think these sites are unprofessional. They are created and maintained by the average person. YouTube contains outrageous videos of human interactions and MySpace is simply an online environment for people to stay in touch and upload pictures of friends, family, vacations, and random good times. So, one might ask, why would it be good to study these?

I think these sites would be good for a researcher who was interested in social issues, whether they be national, cutural, or ethnic issues. YouTube can give a researcher a window into society at its "finest." The videos aren't being influenced by a researcher and, in most cases, probably not even influenced by authority or created with possible ramifications in mind. (Take, for instance, the videos that were posted months ago of boys beating up other boys and posting for their own macabre amusement.)

From a law enforcement perspective, these sites can be a minefield of information. Many young people have a MySpace page. Imagine if police could keep tabs on their juvenile deliquents and learn what they were up to in their spare time. Of course, they would have to tread water carefully in order not to break any laws, but this could potentially help law enforcement in their investigations.

Since digital environments are so prevalent today, and are the environments in which we interact on a 24/7 basis, I would argue that they are the best environments to study.