In “Rethinking Digital Anthropology”, Tom Boellstoff (2012) mainly discussed the complex relationship between virtual and actual, and the importance to understand the stake of the online world for the whole society. The starting point of his research is a common misunderstanding on the studies relate to virtual world that fusing the virtual and actual into a single domain.
According to Tom (ibid), one analogy of digital anthropology is virtual anthropology, although they are not exactly equal, as digital anthropology provide a specific methodology to study online culture and to point out the inner link between virtual and actual in social practice. Tom Boellstoff suggests that both blurring and fusing of online and offline are partial views. One example here lays in online computer games, where players are immerse in a virtual world while their identification of the world and themselves are based on the real world. So virtual world is not merely a derivative of the offline. Boellstoff (ibid) do insist that we cannot treat virtual world as a distinct part from “the rest of the world”, and with the development of technology, online socio-cultural issues are even not marginalized problems in today’s anthropology studies as more and more people join in and the increasing social behaviors taking place on the Internet.
Digital anthropology is developed from traditional anthropology, which is also based on observation, and is always used to study the communities that never be real understood by the dominant culture. But it is obvious that researchers are facing a different situation when the main research field move to online. Things like the means of materials, the way to access participants, and the point of taking field notes will change. While a superiority that digital anthropology enjoys is information which post online like video, blog and twit, can be watched or read repeatedly, while in the physical world, events are one-off, if researchers didn’t notice and record it at the first time, many details might be ignored.
Compared with visual analysis, digital anthropology is suitable for more complex research contexts, as the research method of anthropology is more flexible and changeable, always containing various materials including dialogues, photos, behaviors and so on, which is far more than visual studies. However, it is a balancing-art for anthropologist to maintain an appropriate distance with their participants, as they should be both an insider and an outsider to the community they study.
Reference:
Boellstoff, T. (2012). Rethinking Digital Anthropology (pp.39-60). In H.A. Horst and D. Miller (eds.) Digital Anthropology. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
MCS923 Group 5 