From reading Hine (2000), some of the following points stood out
a) the difference between a physical immersive experience, the online study will be one of reflexivity where the ethnographer’s own experience of arriving at the filed site and collection of data becomes part of the ethnographic material
b) the relationship between the ethnographer, the reader and the researched subjects – how the ethnographer arrive as an authority on the subject, what he can gain access to and the analytical position he is in, and the question of multiple or partial identity assumed by online subjects and how to allow the subject to judge what is authentic
d) the question of triangulation in online ethnography, as this might threaten the experiential authenticity of understanding the world of the informants
e) text analysis is an important part of the study, and it should be looked at within the context of the author – “a situated author producing text within a cultural context and a situated audience interpreting text from within other cultural contexts” (p52)
f) question of applying discourse analysis on online text and interactions: how to make the invisible visible
g) Writing ethnography is a constructive act rather than a reflection of reality (Denzin, 1997) (p56)
h) “The field site of ethnography could become a field flow, which is organized around tracing connections rather than about location in a singular bounded site” (p61)
i) “Online ethnographies despatialize notions of community, and focus on cultural process rather than physical place.” (p61)
j) Connective ethnography turns the attention from ‘being there’ to ‘getting there’ (p62) – “connection could as well be the juxtaposition of elements in a narrative, the array of pages thrown up by a search engine, or a set of hyperlinks on a webpage as an instance of communication between two people”

This view of ethnography presents a whole new way of approaching my study on the Street Arts community.

Reference:

Hine, C (2000) The virtual objects of ethnography, chapter 3 of Virtual ethnography. London: Sage. pp41-66