Abbott, A. (1999). Department and disciplin at one hundred. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Alyanak, B. A. (2014). Etnografi ve çevrimiçi etnografi. Mutlu Binark (Der.), içinde, Yeni medya çalışmalarında araştırma yöntem ve teknikleri (s. 117-164). İstanbul: Ayrıntı.
Anderson, N. (1923). The hobo: The sociology of the homeless man. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Benzies, K. M. ve Allen, M. N. (2000). Symbolic interactionism as a theoretical perspective for multiple method research. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 33(4), 541-541.
Binark, M. (2007). Yeni medya çalışmalarında yeni sorular ve yöntem sorunu. Mutlu Binark (Der.), içinde, Yeni medya çalışmaları. (s. 21-44). Ankara: Dipnot.
Binark, M. ve Bayraktutan-Sütcü, G. (2009). Practicing identity in the digital game world: The Turkish tribes’ community practices in “silkroad online”. Yasmine Abbas ve Fred Dervin (Der.), içinde, Digital technolgies of the self (s. 61-84). New Castle: Cambridge Scholar.
Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Berkeley: University of California Press. Boyd, D. (2015). Making sense of teen life: Strategies for capturing ethnographic data in a networked era. Eszter Hargittai ve Christian Sandvig (Der.), içinde, Digital
(152)
Moment Dergi, 2017, 4(1): 135-154 Oya Morva
research confidential: The secrets of studying behavior online (s. 79-103). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bulmer, M. (1984). The chicago school of sociology: Institutionalization, diversity, and the rise of sociological research. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Bullingham, L. ve Vasconcelos, A. C. (2013). The presentation of self in the online world: Goffman and the study of online identities. Journal of Information Science, 39 (1), 1-12. doi:10. 1177/0165551512470051.
Castells, M. (2001). The internet galaxy: Reflections on the internet, business, and society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cressey, P. G. (1932). The taxi dance hall: A sociological study in commercialized recreation and city life. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Cuff E. C., Sharrock,W. W. ve Franciss, D. W. (1998). Perspectives in sociology. Londra ve New York: Routledge.
Deegan, M. J. (2001). The Chicago School of ethnography. Paul Atkinson, Amanda Coffey, Sara Delamont, John Lofland, Lyn Lofland (Der.), içinde, The handbook of ethnography (s. 11-25). Londra: Sage.
Ergül, H. (2013). Sahanın sesleri: İletişim araştırmalarında etnografik yöntem. İstanbul: İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları.
Faris, R. E. (1967). Chicago Sociology: 1920-1932. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Gatson, S. N. ve Zweerink, A. (2004). Ethnography online: ‘Natives’ practising and inscribing community. Qualitative Research, 4 (2), 179–200.
Goffman, E. (2009). Günlük yaşamda benliğin sunumu. (B. Cezar, Çev.). İstanbul: Metis.
Goodwin, J. (2012). Secondary data analysis. Londra: Sage.
Hammersley, M. (1992). What is wrong with ethnography? Methodological explorations. Londra ve New York: Routledge. Hine, C. M. (2000). Virtual ethnography. Londra, Thousand Oaks ve Calif: Sage. Hine, C. M. (2005). Virtual methods. Oxford ve New York: Bloomsbury Academic. Hjorth, L. (2005). Postal presence: The persistence of the post metaphorcin current sms/mms practices. Fibreculture Journal. Issue 6. Erişim http://journal.fibreculture.org/issue6/issue6_hjorth_print.html
Joas, H. (1993). Pragmatism and social theory. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Jones-Scott, J. ve Watt, S. (2010). Ethnography in social science practice. Oxford: Routledge.
(153)
Moment Dergi, 2017, 4(1): 135-154 Oya Morva
Kalinowski, C. ve Matei, S. A. (2011). Goffman meets online dating: Exploring the virtually socially produces self. Journal of Social Informatics, (16), 6-20. Kozinets, R. V. (2009). Netnography: Doing ethnographic research online. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Kurtz, L. R. (1984). Evaluating Chicago Sociology. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Kuş, O. (2016). Dijital nefret söylemini anlamak. İÜ İletişim Fakültesi Dergisi. 51 (2), 97-121.
Mead, G. H. (1992). Mind, self and society. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Miller, H. (1995). The presentation of self in electronic life: Goffman on the internet. Embodied Knowledge and Virtual Space Conference Proceedings, Goldsmiths' College. http://www.dourish.com/classes/ics234cw04/miller2.pdf.
Milne, E. (2010). Letters, postcards, email: Technologies of presence. New York ve Oxon: Routledge.
McKinney, J. C. (1966). Constructive typlogy and social theory. New York: Meredith Publishing Co.
Murthy, D. (2011) Emergent digital ethnographic methods for social research. Sharlene Nagy Hesse-Biber (Der.), içinde, The handbook of emergent technologies in social research (s. 158-179). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Musof, G. R. (2003). The Chicago School. Lary T. Raynolds ve Nancy J. Hermann-Kinney (Der.), içinde, Handbook of symbolic interactionism (s. 91-119). Walnut Creek: Altamira Press.
Morva O. (2014). Goffman’ın dramaturjik yaklaşımı ve dijital ortamda kimlik tasarımı: Sosyal paylaşım ağı Facebook üzerine bir inceleme. Süreyya Çakır (Der.), içinde, Medya ve tasarım (s. 231-255). İstanbul: Urzeni.
O’Reilly, K. (2009). Key concepts in ethnography. Londra: Sage.
Pink, S., Horst, H., Postill, J., Hjorth, L., Lewis, T., Tacchi, J. (2015). Digital ethnography: Princibles and practice. Londra: Sage. Prus, R. (1996). Symbolic interaction and ethnographic research: Intersubjectivity and the study of human lived experience. Albany: State University of New York Press. Rainie, L. ve Wellman, B. (2012). Networked: the new social operating system. Londra: The MIT Press.
(154)
Moment Dergi, 2017, 4(1): 135-154 Oya Morva
Reid, E. (1995). Virtual worlds: Culture and imagination. Stephen C. Jones (Der.), içinde, Cybersociety: Computer-mediated communication and community (s. 164–93). Thousand Oaks: Sage. Robinson L, ve Schulz J. (2011). New fieldsites, new methods: new ethnographic opportunities. Sharlane Nagy Hesse-Biber (Der.), içinde, The handbook of emergent technologies in social research. (s. 180-198). OX: Oxford University Press.
Rock, P. (2001). Symbolic interactionism and ethnography. Paul Atkinson, Amanda Coffey, Sara Delamont, John Lofland, Lyn Lofland (Der.), içinde, The handbook of ethnography (s. 26-39). London: Sage.
Rogers, E. (1973). Mass media and interpersonal communications. Ithiel De Sola Pool (Der.), içinde, Handbook of communication (s. 290-310). Chicago: Rand McNally.
Sinatti, G. (2008). The polish peasant revisited: Thomas and znaniecki’s classic in the light of contemporary transnational migration theory. Sociologica (2). Erişim http://www.sociologica.mulino.it/journal/article/index/Article/Journal:A....
Skidmore, W. (1979). Theoretical thinking in sociology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Thomas W. I. ve Znaniecki F. (1918). The polish peasant in europe and america. Boston: The Gorham Press.
Tan, M., Zhu, L. ve Wang, X. (2003). Symbolic interactionist ethnography: Toward congruence and trustworthiness. AMCIS 2003 Proceedings. Paper 377. Erişim http://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2003/377/.
Turkle, S. (1995). Life on the screen: Identity in the age of the internet. New York: Simon & Schuster. Van Krieken, R., Habibis, D., Smith, P., Hutchins, B., Martin, G., Maton, K. (2014). Sociology: Themes and perspectives, 5th edition. Sydney: Pearson Education.
Wiley, N. (1986). Early American sociology and the polish peasant. Sociological Theory, 4 (1), 20-40.
Zhao, S. (2005). The digital self: through the looking glass of telecopresent others. Symbolic Interaction, 28(3), 387-405.
Thank you for copying data from http://www.arastirmax.com