digital ethnography – Philbu's Blog

CfP: Vienna Anthropology Days 2024

2024/05/13 philbu No Comments

The deadline for submitting proposals to the Vienna Anthropology Days (VANDA) 2024 is June 1. I am involved in two panels:

Emergency sign and hammer on the train to Churchill, MB, Canada. (Photo by Philipp Budka)

Together with my colleagues from the Digital Ethnography Initiative, Monika Palmberger and Suzana Jovicic, I am organizing a panel on digital ethnography in post-pandemic times.

Since the COVID-19 pandemic has revitalised and boosted interest in digital ethnography, the question arises as to what remains in its aftermath. Has digital ethnography entered the mainstream, and the digital merged with ethnographic research in an obviously profoundly digitised and digitalised world? Or has it disappeared back into the fringes, unphased by the short-lived interest? What do we actually mean when we talk about digital ethnography: online, remote, post-digital and should we discard these terms altogether? What methodological and ethical insights, movements, setbacks, reflections, innovations and (inter)disciplinary cross-references have emerged in the wake of global developments that have forced ethnographers to rethink their research in unprecedented ways? In this panel organised by the Digital Ethnography Initiative (DEI), we explore the state of digital ethnography (defined as ethnographic research with and through the “digital” and not limited to remote/online) as it emerges from turbulent but perhaps also fruitful times. We invite a wide range of contributions discussing methodological issues, conundrums, dilemmas, twists and turns of contemporary digital ethnography, based on original research. The contributors will be invited to subsequently write a short blog entry for the DEI blog, based on the papers presented at the panel.

With Giuseppe Amatulli and Ria Adams, I am organizing a workshop on the connection between infrastructures (and infrastructure projects) and futurities.

Infrastructures have become prominent research fields in anthropology and in the humanities and social sciences more generally (e.g., Buier, 2023; Harvey & Knox 2015; Star 1999). Questions that link infrastructures to development, sustainability, and transformation point to the importance of temporalities – not only the (ethnographic) present, but also the (historical) past and the (sociotechnical) future – as a key analytical lens. Infrastructures are planned, approved, built, operationalized, or renovated with the anticipation that they will, for example, create economic growth and improve the socioeconomic well-being of local populations. Consequently, one way to explore infrastructure development is to look at the broad range of desires, hopes, and fears toward the future of these “sociotechnical spaces” (Mason, 2004). Such sentiments or feelings are particularly strong towards infrastructural “mega-projects” which are very cost intensive, involve a variety of stakeholders, and affect millions of people (Flyvbjerg, 2017). Among such projects are motorways, airports, seaports, spaceports, rail lines, submarine cable systems, dams, wind farms, offshore oil and gas facilities. This workshop invites contributors to discuss the relationships between specifically large-scale infrastructures and futurities – affective and ideologically loaded desires or fears of being in the future – by reflecting on the following two questions: (1) What role do futurities play in the imagining, conceiving, and making of infrastructures and their futures? (2) How do infrastructural futurities shape the relationship between infrastructure development and sociocultural lifeworlds? The workshop will be structured by these two questions and participants will be asked to discuss them in at least two “tour the table” rounds, which are then followed by open discussions.

Seminar: Digital Visuality & Popular Culture

2023/03/08 philbu No Comments

The seminar “Digital Visuality and Popular Culture” for the MA program CREOLE at the University of Vienna provides an overview about digital visuality as a key phenomenon of contemporary visual culture and its connection to popular culture. By working on ethnographic research projects, students explore the diversity of digital practices, their visual dimension and their meaning for popular cultural processes and phenomena.

With the advent of digital media and technologies, internet-based devices and services, mobile computing as well as software applications and social media platforms new opportunities and challenges have come to the forefront in the anthropological research of visual culture. Digital media technologies have become ubiquitous means of visual communication, interaction and representation. For anthropology it is of particular interest how people engage with digital media technologies and content, how “the digital” is embedded in everyday life and how it relates to different sociocultural phenomena.

One of these phenomena is popular culture: processes and practices related to the production, circulation and consumption of, for example, music, film, fashion and advertisements as well as the construction and mediation of celebrities. Moreover, popular culture is closely connected to other cultural phenomena such as fan culture, public culture and participatory culture. Fans, for instance, engage in various forms of visual productivity and play a crucial role in the creation and circulation of cultural artifacts related to their fandom such as memes.

By working on different case studies, students get a comparative overview about digital visuality and visual aspects of popular culture. Students conduct ethnographic projects and engage with key questions. What theoretical concepts and analytical categories of sociality can be used to study visual and popular culture? How does digital visuality constitute and mediate cultural performances and rituals? How do social media platforms enable and change visual culture and communication?

Article: Anthropological perspectives on digital-visual practices

2021/12/15 philbu No Comments

Budka, P. (2021). Kultur- und sozialanthropologische Perspektiven auf digital-visuelle Praktiken. Das Fallbeispiel einer indigenen Online-Umgebung im nordwestlichen Ontario, Kanada (Anthropological perspectives on digital-visual practices). In R. Breckner, K. Liebhart & M. Pohn-Lauggas (Eds.), Sozialwissenschaftliche Analysen von Bild- und Medienwelten (pp. 109-132). Berlin: De Gruyter Oldenbourg. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110613681-005

Sozialwissenschaftliche Analysen von Bild- und Medienwelten

Abstract

In times of increasing digitalization, it is of particular interest for anthropology to understand how people in different societies integrate digital media and technologies, internet-based devices and services or software, and digital platforms, into their lives. The digital practices observed here are closely related to emergent forms of visual communication and representation, which need to be described and interpreted through ethnographic analysis, careful contextualization, and systematic comparison.

This paper discusses aspects of digital-visual culture through a case study of the online environment MyKnet.org, operated exclusively for First Nations between 1998 and 2019 in the remote communities of Northwestern Ontario, Canada, by the Indigenous internet organization Keewaytinook Okimakanak Kuhkenah Network (KO-KNET).

The analytical framework is a practice theory approach linked to ethnographic fieldwork, historical contextualization, and cultural and diachronic comparison. The creation, distribution and sharing of digital images, collages and layouts for websites in MyKnet.org can thus be described, analyzed and interpreted in relation to the phenomenon of hip hop and the associated fan art, as well as the digital biographies of users.

These digital-visual practices are closely connected to individual and collective forms of representation, as well as the maintenance of social relationships across larger distances, and thus also to the construction, negotiation and change of digital identity. They point not only to the global significance of visual communication, representation and culture, but also to the locally specific relationships that people maintain with online environments and digital platforms.

Interview: Theorising Media & Conflict

2021/03/14 philbu No Comments

In an interview for the University of Vienna’s Uni:view Magazin, I am talking about the edited volume Theorising Media and Conflict (Berghahn Books, 2020), its purpose, conclusions and significance for understanding recent crises (in German).

Theorising Media and Conflict brings together anthropologists as well as media and communication scholars to collectively address the elusive and complex relationship between media and conflict. Through epistemological and methodological reflections and the analyses of various case studies from around the globe, this volume provides evidence for the co-constitutiveness of media and conflict and contributes to their consolidation as a distinct area of scholarship.

The book’s introduction is accessible for free:
Bräuchler, B., & Budka, P. (2020). Anthropological perspectives on theorising media and conflict. In P. Budka & B. Bräuchler (Eds.), Theorising media and conflict (pp. 3-31). Anthropology of Media. New York & Oxford: Berghahn Books.

Seminar: The Materiality and Visuality of Social Media

2021/03/12 philbu No Comments

This online course for the summer semester 2021 at the Department of Social and Cultural Anthropology of the University of Vienna gives a critical overview about the material and visual dimension of social media and their interconnection. Social media platforms and services, such as Facebook or Instagram, have become important (visual) communication and (re)presentation tools. For social and cultural anthropology it is of particular interest how these platforms are integrated and embedded into everyday life, by considering changing sociocultural, political and economic contexts. Students therefore explore and discuss the relevance of a material culture approach for (the understanding of) technology appropriation as well as (culturally) different digital-visual practices. By working on case studies in small empirical projects and by sharing and comparing their findings, students gain insights into material and visual culture in a digital context.

Selected Literature

Dourish, P. (2016). Rematerializing the platform: Emulation and the digital–material. In S. Pink, E. Ardevol, & D. Lanzeni (Eds.), Digital materialities: Design and anthropology (pp. 29–44). Oxford: Bloomsbury.
Favero, P. (2018). The present image: Visible stories in a digital habitat. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Góralska, M. (2020). Anthropology from home: Advice on digital ethnography for the pandemic times. Anthropology in Action, 27(1), 46–52. https://doi.org/10.3167/aia.2020.270105
Horst, H., & Miller, D. (2012). Normativity and materiality: A view from digital anthropology. Media International Australia, 145(1), 103–111. https://doi.org/10.1177/1329878X1214500112
Miller, D., & Sinanan, J. (2017). Visualising Facebook: A comparative perspective. London: UCL Press. https://www.uclpress.co.uk/collections/series-why-we-post/products/83994
Miller, D., et al. (2016). How the world changed social media. London: UCL Press. https://www.uclpress.co.uk/collections/series-why-we-post/products/83040
Pink, S. (2017). Technologies, possibilities, emergence and an ethics of responsibility: Refiguring techniques. In E. Gómez Cruz, S. Sumartojo & S. Pink (Eds.), Refiguring techniques in digital visual research (pp. 1–12). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Sumiala, J, et al. (2020). Just a ‘stupid reflex’? Digital witnessing of the Charlie Hebdo attacks and the mediation of conflict. In P. Budka & B. Bräuchler (Eds.), Theorising Media and Conflict. Anthropology of Media Vol. 10 (pp. 57–75). New York & Oxford: Berghahn Books.
Walton, S. (2018). Remote ethnography, virtual presence: Exploring digital-visual methods for anthropological research on the web. In. C. Costa & J. Condie (Eds.), Doing research in and on the digital: Research methods across fields of enquiry (pp. 116–33). New York: Routledge.

MyKnet.org: Traces of digital decoloniality in an indigenous web-based environment

2020/12/06 philbu No Comments

This blog post is a shorter version of a paper presented at the Engaging with Web Archives (EWA20) conference in September 2020 (Book of Abstracts).
Budka, P. (2020). MyKnet.org: Traces of digital decoloniality in an indigenous web-based environment. Paper at Engaging with Web Archives (EWA20): “Opportunities, Challenges and Potentialities”, Online (hosted by Maynooth University), 21-22 September.

This blog post builds on selected results of an anthropological project that explored various indigenous engagements with digital media, technologies and infrastructures in Northwestern Ontario, Canada (e.g., Budka, 2015, 2019; Budka et al. 2009). The project was conducted in cooperation with the First Nations internet organization Keewaytinook Okimakanak Kuh-ke-nah Network (KO-KNET).

In this post I briefly reflect upon traces of “digital decoloniality”, a concept borrowed from Alexandra Deem (2019), by exploring selected aspects of the sociotechnical history of KO-KNET’s web-based environment MyKnet.org and by discussing facets of a MyKnet.org user’s digital biography.

KO-KNET & MyKnet.org

KO-KNET Network, 2010, courtesy of KO-KNET

In 1994, the tribal council Keewaytinook Okimakanak (KO) established the Kuh-ke-nah Network (KO-KNET) to connect Canada’s indigenous people in Northwestern Ontario’s remote communities through and to the internet. At that time, a local telecommunication infrastructure was almost non-existent. KO-KNET started with a simple bulletin board system that developed into a community-controlled ICT infrastructure, which today includes landline and satellite broadband internet as well as internet-based mobile phone communication (e.g. Fiser & Clement, 2012).

Together with local, regional and national partners, KO-KNET developed different services: from e-health and an internet high school to different remote training programs. The most mundane of those services was the digital environment MyKnet.org, which enabled First Nations people to create personal homepages within a cost- and commercial-free space on the web.

MyKnet.org was set up in 1998 exclusively for the First Nations people of Northwestern Ontario. By the early 2000s, a wide set of actors across Northwestern Ontario, a region with an overall indigenous population of about 45,000, had found a new home on this web-based platform. During its heyday, MyKnet.org had more than 30,000 registered user accounts and about 25,000 active homepages.

With the advent and rise of commercial social media platforms, such as Facebook, user numbers began to drop. To reduce administrative and technical costs, KO-KNET decided to switch to WordPress as hosting platform in 2014. Since this required users to set up new websites, numbers continued to fall. In early 2019, there were only 2,900 homepages left and MyKnet.org was shut down a couple of months later.

Blog Post: Collaborative ethnography in the digital age: Towards a new methodological framework

2020/11/15 philbu No Comments

Palmberger, M., & Budka, P. (2020). Collaborative ethnography in the digital age: Towards a new methodological framework. Digital Ethnography Initiative (DEI) Blog, 13 Nov.

Digital ethnography has become a very vibrant research field, as the growing body of literature indicates (e.g. Hjorth et al., 2017; Pink et al., 2016). Nevertheless, we sense that methodological debates often fall short. With this contribution to the Digital Ethnography Initiative (DEI) blog, we would like to open up a discussion on key methodological and ethical issues.

More precisely, we would like to start sharing a reflection process on theoretical and methodological debates in the field of digital ethnography that we have been engaging in over the last year. This resulted in (1) a project proposal to an Austrian funding body as well as (2) in the Digital Ethnography Initiative at the Department of Social and Cultural Anthropology of the University of Vienna that we launched together with our colleague Suzana Jovicic.

In this blog post, we propose and briefly discuss three key issues and questions that are related to the challenges of ethnographic research in times of increasing digitalization. They address

(1) the individualization of interaction via smartphones and other mobile devices, which is connected to

(2) new issues of confidentiality and intimacy that call for the development of

(3) explicit collaborative research methods involving research partners in the process of collecting, interpreting and representing data.

Digital Ethnography Initiative (DEI) @ University of Vienna

Interview: On COVID-19 & digital technologies in everyday life

2020/09/25 philbu No Comments

In May 2020, I was asked by the European Science-Media Hub of the European Parliament to participate in a short written interview about COVID-19 and digital technologies in everyday life. The interview can be found below and on the website of the European Science-Media Hub, where it is also part of the new Digital Humanities Series.
Comments are, as always, more than welcome.

Q: How do you evaluate the current push to “live” our personal lives with and through digital technologies?

As an anthropologist who has been exploring digital phenomena from a social and cultural perspective for more than 15 years, I wouldn’t describe the current situation as a “push” to a more digitized and digitalized life, but rather as an accelerated development, which includes social, technological and economic changes and transformations in all sectors of society (Thomas Hylland Eriksen nicely illustrates the aspect of accelerated change in relation to globalization in his book Overheating [2016]).

People have been living their lives with and through digital technologies long before the current health crisis – some more, some less. In 2006, when I started to conduct an ethnographic project about the appropriation and utilization of internet technologies in remote indigenous communities in north-western Ontario, Canada, I learned that due to the region’s geographical remoteness and people’s sociotechnical isolation, self-organized infrastructural connectivity and self-designed internet-based services and programs were well underway for some years. Local people were using all sorts of digital media and technologies to connect to each other, to create online presences and digital identities, and to access globally distributed information. Internet services, such as online learning and video conferencing, were – thanks to broadband connectivity – already embedded into local everyday life.

I notice similar tendencies in Europe today, where people have been forced to isolate and distance themselves due to COVID–19; not only from family and friends, but also from colleagues at work and school. E-learning, for example, has become part of the everyday learning experience. Which is probably not a big issue for students, who grew up with digital technologies and social media and are therefore used to computer-mediated communication and interaction, but certainly a challenge for institutions and teachers who are not yet that familiar with digital technologies in an educational context. In respect to digitality, I understand the current health crisis as a phenomenon that has been speeding things up. Our lives have become more digital; faster than expected, but not necessarily different than without the virus.

Q: More generally, what did you find in your project about the blending of our intimate space with the professional, the administrative, the cultural and the political spheres by means of digital technology?

Throughout my career, I have been involved in anthropological projects about the sociocultural consequences of digital media and technologies, which build on ethnographic fieldwork as the key methodological approach. Such an approach situates the researcher into the daily life of research participants over a considerable period of time. The intimate, the personal and the private are therefore central to the work of anthropologists and difficult to artificially separate from collective spheres of sociality. People have always brought their personal positions and individual interpretations – that are shaped by intimate experiences – into politics or the workplace, for instance. However, through digital and networked technologies, it is much easier today to identify, share and also manipulate private data and personalized information.

From an anthropological perspective, it is important to emphasize that there are cultural differences. Not all people share Euro-American conceptions of privacy or intimacy and therefore indicate different concerns over these matters in respect to digital life. While people in remote north-western Ontario, for example, were well aware that their very personal reflections, which they openly posted and shared in an online environment, can be potentially accessed globally, they were not concerned. They rather experienced this environment as a purely local space of expression for indigenous people only, not of any interest to outsiders (for more ethnographic examples in different cultural contexts, see, e.g. the results of Daniel Miller’s Why We Post project).

Due to the rise of social media monopoly, platform capitalism, the Cambridge Analytica scandal and current debates about COVID–19 tracing apps, digital privacy and surveillance are high on the public and political agenda, particularly in Europe. However, as anthropological evidence continues to show, related ideas and concepts are perceived and evaluated differently also because of cultural diversity.

Panel: Digital Ethnography: Revisiting Theoretical Concepts & Methodological Approaches

2020/08/04 philbu No Comments

Panel “Digital Ethnography: Revisiting Theoretical Concepts & Methodological Approaches” @ Vienna Anthropology Days 2020 (VANDA2020, Sept. 28 – Oct. 1), convened by Philipp Budka & Monika Palmberger.
More details, including the paper abstracts, to be found at https://vanda.univie.ac.at/scientific-program/.

Session 1

Rebecca Carlson (Temple University / TMDU): Online with bioinformatic scientists in Tokyo: Doing digital ethnography in a pandemic

Simone Pfeifer (Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz): Digital ethnography on, with, and through social media and messenger services: Ethical and methodological reflections from two different research projects

Monika Palmberger (University of Vienna): “New media of care”: Methodological reflections on digital diaries

Annika Richterich (University of Sussex): Critical making and digital ethnography

Franziska Weidle (Brandenburg University of Technology): Co-creating with software: Towards a computational correspondence in digital ethnography

Session 2

Cristiane Damasceno (UNC Greensboro): Innovative research methods for the disinformation age

Marie Hermanová (Czech Academy of Sciences): Too real is fake: Authenticity and digital intimacy between influencers and researchers

Christian Ritter (Tallinn University): Mediated relationships and remote ethnography: Following the rise and fall of travel influencers

Suzana Jovicic (University of Vienna): Neither here nor there: Smartphone in the ethnographic encounter

Libuše Veprek (LMU Munich): Bringing the subject into focus in large scale textual data analysis

Session 3

Maria Schreiber (University of Salzburg): #strokesurvivor: Studying a “hashtag public” on Instagram

Zoë Glatt (LSE): Becoming a YouTuber: (Auto)ethnographic explorations of the online video industry

Xiaowei Huang (Guangzhou College of Commerce): Second Life, ethnography and virtual culture

Philipp Budka (University of Vienna): Digital ethnography and web archives: The case of an indigenous web-based environment

Blog Post Series: Von der Cyberanthropologie zur Digitalen Anthropologie – Teil 4

2020/05/22 philbu No Comments

Diese Serie von Blogeinträgen beschreibt die Relevanz kultur- und sozialanthropologischer Zugänge in der Untersuchung digitaler Technik und Technologien, dargestellt anhand wissenschaftstheoretischer Aspekte in der Entwicklung der Forschungsfelder der “Cyberanthropologie” und der “Digitalen Anthropologie”. Kommentare und/oder Anmerkungen sind dezidiert erwünscht.
Die einzelnen Blogeinträge bauen, leicht verändert, auf einen Text, der 2019 im Sammelband Ritualisierung – Meditatisierung – Performance publiziert wurde:
Budka, P. (2019). Von der Cyber Anthropologie zur Digitalen Anthropologie. Über die Rolle der Kultur- und Sozialanthropologie im Verstehen soziotechnischer Lebenswelten. In M. Luger, F. Graf & P. Budka (Eds.), Ritualisierung – Mediatisierung – Performance (pp. 163-188). Göttingen: V&R Unipress/Vienna University Press. https://doi.org/10.14220/9783737005142.163

Cyberanthropologie 1/2

Internet Café, Toronto, Canada. Photo by Philipp Budka

Die Bezeichnung “Cyberanthropologie” lehnt sich an Wortschöpfungen wie “Cyberspace”, “Cyberkultur” und “Cyberpunk” an, die vor allem der Science-Fiction-Literatur und damit der Populärkultur entstammen (Knorr 2011; Tomas 1991). Der Begriff “Cyberspace” beispielsweise wurde das erste Mal vom Science-Fiction-Autor William Gibson in der Kurzgeschichte Burning Chrome (1982) verwendet und beschreibt einen computergenerierten Raum kollektiver Halluzination (siehe auch Gibson 1984). Das Präfix “Cyber” hat eine längere Geschichte und wurde durch den Mathematiker Norbert Wiener Ende der 1940er Jahre popularisiert. Er verwendete den Begriff “Kybernetik” (“Cybernetics”), um einen interdisziplinären Wissenschaftskomplex zu beschreiben, der sich mit Steuerung und Regelung in informationellen, mechanischen oder natürlichen Systemen befasst (Wiener 1948). In ihrer grundlegenden Form versteht Wiener Kybernetik als eine Theorie von Informationen, Signalen oder Nachrichten, die das Ziel verfolgt, ein Verfahren zur Informationsgenerierung und -organisation zu entwickeln, um etwa Mensch-Maschine-Kommunikation zu ermöglichen (Axel 2006: 359; siehe auch Knorr 2011: 31ff.; Matzker 1998: 157ff.).

Die Arbeit der Kybernetiker trug maßgeblich dazu bei, dass Themen wie Kommunikation sowie soziotechnische Beziehungen und Systeme in den Mittelpunkt anthropologischer Projekte rückten (z. B. Axel 2006; Boyer 2010). Gregory Bateson (2000) beispielsweise war besonders an den kommunikativen Beziehungen zwischen Organismen – menschlichen und nicht-menschlichen – und deren Umwelt interessiert. Kybernetik, so hoffte er, könnte entscheidend zum Verständnis komplexer Systeme, von Mensch-Nicht-Mensch-Interaktionen und letztlich auch des menschlichen Geistes selbst beitragen. Während die Kybernetik als interdisziplinäres Projekt in den 1980er Jahren an Schwung verlor, wurde die Suche nach Antworten auf komplexe Problemstellungen in Zusammenhang mit zunehmend technologisierten Systemen sowie Mensch-Nicht-Mensch-Kommunikation und -Interaktion in der Anthropologie fortgesetzt. Mitte der 1990er Jahre ließen sich drei größere cyberanthropologische Forschungsprojekte identifizieren, die einerseits miteinander verknüpft waren, andererseits ihren Fokus aber auf unterschiedliche Phänomenbereiche legten (Escobar 1994: 215ff.):

CfP: Digital Ethnography: Revisiting Theoretical Concepts and Methodological Approaches

2020/05/06 philbu No Comments

Call for Papers for Panel “Digital Ethnography: Revisiting Theoretical Concepts and Methodological Approaches” at Vienna Anthropology Days (VANDA), 28 Sept. – 1 Oct. 2020, University of Vienna, Austria.

Organizers

Philipp Budka (University of Vienna)
Monika Palmberger (University of Vienna)

Abstract

Ethnographic research has the potential to dig deep into mediated personal relationships as well as into socio-technical relations in an increasingly digitized and digitalized world (e.g., Hjorth et al. 2017; Horst & Miller, 2012; Pink et al., 2016). In order to do so, ethnographers and anthropologists have engaged with a variety of digital and multimodal methods such as online ethnographic fieldwork and participant observation, digital storytelling, mobile and visual media elicitation, digital media biographies, and digital video re-enactments (e.g., Pink et al., 2016). Their research has opened up new knowledge horizons such as the changing emotional, normative or symbolic dimensions of complex social relations and cultural practices entangled with new digital media technologies.

This session provides room for critical and ethical reflections on theory and methodology in the field of digital anthropology/ethnography, including, but not limited to, the following questions:

Which theoretical concepts are particularly fruitful in the ethnographic and anthropological exploration of digital phenomena?
How are such concepts entangled with methodological approaches and challenges, for example by reconsidering issues of collaboration, decolonization, confidentiality or intimacy?
How can we do participant observation when communication and interaction are increasingly ‘individualized’ and veiled due to digital technologies, particularly the smartphone?
Which forms of collecting, interpreting and representing empirical data do we aspire for?

This session invites presenters to revisit previous discussions and critically reflect upon current relevant debates in anthropology and beyond. Papers may be empirically, methodologically or theoretically driven.

Deadline & Submission

Please submit your paper abstracts (max. 350 words) online via the conference system latest by 1 July 2020.

Blog Post Series: Von der Cyberanthropologie zur Digitalen Anthropologie – Teil 3

2020/04/29 philbu No Comments

Von der Cyberanthropologie zur Digitalen Anthropologie – Eine Einleitung

Während in den Anfängen der anthropologischen Analyse von neuen digitalen Informations-, Kommunikations- und Medientechnologien noch von “Cyberanthropologie” bzw. “Cyberanthropology” (z.B. Budka/Kremser 2004; Knorr 2011) gesprochen wurde, werden diese Begriffe zunehmend von der Bezeichnung “Digitale Anthropologie” (z. B. Horst/Miller 2012) abgelöst.¹ Obwohl sich die Bezeichnungen dieses Forschungsfeldes im Laufe der Jahre und unter Einfluss unterschiedlicher wissenschaftlicher Disziplinen sowie gesellschaftlicher und (populär)kultureller Trends änderten, blieben die Forschungsthemen und -schwerpunkte ähnlich: die soziokulturellen Implikationen und Bedeutungen neuer, digitaler Technologien. Dabei befassen sich AnthropologInnen oftmals mit den Verbindungen zwischen digitalen Technologien, Medien oder Kommunikationsformen einerseits und soziokulturellen Phänomenbereichen andererseits, die traditionell intensiv in der Disziplin bearbeitet werden, wie gesellschaftliche Beziehungen und Organisationsformen, kulturell unterschiedliche Formen der Kommunikation und Identitätskonstruktion, Ritualdynamiken und religiöse Prozesse oder ökonomische Praktiken (z. B. Budka/Kremser 2004; Horst/Miller 2012; Schröder/Voell 2002; Whitehead/Wesch 2012b).

Das soziotechnische Phänomen, das die anthropologische Forschung zu digitalen Medientechnologien entscheidend vorantrieb, ist das Internet.² Daniel Miller und Don Slater (2000: 14), die eine der ersten ethnographischen Studien über das Internet durchführten, betonen bereits hier, dass das Internet kein ausschließlich technisches, technologisches oder infrastrukturelles Phänomen sei, sondern auch ein soziokulturelles: Es ermöglicht Kommunikation, soziale Interaktion und kulturelle Repräsentation und ist nicht zuletzt deshalb Gegenstand anthropologischer Forschung (siehe auch Hart 2004). Das Internet und das World Wide Web (WWW)³ versprachen eine ganze Reihe von Dingen: unmittelbare globale Kommunikation, vernetztes Organisieren von Information und neue Formen von Politik, Ökonomie und Sozialität.

Howard Rheingold (2000: xviii), beispielsweise, betonte die Tragweite des “Cyberspace” für politische Freiheit und die Veränderung des “realen Lebens” durch die Etablierung “virtueller Gemeinschaften”. In der Untersuchung dieser neuen Vergemeinschaftungsformen befassten sich die ersten sozialwissenschaftlichen InternetforscherInnen zunächst mit deren (kommunikativen) Strukturen und ihrer (soziologischen) Entwicklung (z. B. Jones 1995; Smith/Kollock 1999). In der Folge verschob sich der Forschungsfokus auf den (sozialen) Netzwerkcharakter von Gesellschaften und Gemeinschaften, der sich, zumindest nach Meinung einiger SoziologInnen, im Internetzeitalter verstärkt und sogar konstituierend für das digital vernetzte Individuum ist (z. B. Castells 2000; Rainie/Wellman 2012).

Digital and Online Ethnography – A Selection of Resources

2020/03/19 philbu 3 Comments

Below you find a selection of resources on digital and online ethnography – with a slight focus on anthropological research – compiled by Philipp Budka.
To add and share your resources and/or references, please use this collaborative document.

Literature:

Baym, N. (2010). Personal connections in the digital age. Cambridge: Polity.

Bell, D., & Kennedy, B. M. (Eds.). (2000) The Cybercultures Reader. London: Routledge.

Boellstorff, T. (2016). For whom the ontology turns: Theorizing the digital real. Current Anthropology, 57(4), 387–407. https://doi.org/10.1086/687362

Boellstorff, T. (2013). Digital anthropology. In Oxford Bibliographies. https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199766567/obo-9780199766567-0087.xml

Boellstorff, T. (2008). Coming of age in Second Life: An anthropologist explores the virtually human. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Boellstorff, et al. (2012). Ethnography and virtual worlds: A handbook of method. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Bräuchler, B. (2013). Cyberidentities at war: The Moluccan conflict on the Internet. New York: Berghahn Books.

Buchanan, E. A. (2004). Readings in virtual research ethics: Issues and controversies. Hershey, PA: Information Science Pub.

Budka, P. (2018). [Review of the book Digital environments: Ethnographic perspectives across global online and offline spaces, by U. U. Frömming, S. Köhn, S. Fox & M. Terry]. Anthropos, 113(1), 303-304. http://www.philbu.net/blog/review-digital-environments-ethnographic-perspectives-across-global-online-and-offline-spaces/

Budka, P. (2015). [Review of the book Cyberidentities at war: The Moluccan conflict on the Internet, by B. Bräuchler]. American Anthropologist, 117(1), 179-180. https://doi.org/10.1111/aman.12197 http://www.philbu.net/blog/review-cyberidentities-at-war-the-moluccan-conflict-on-the-internet/

Budka, P., & Kremser, M. (2004). CyberAnthropology – anthropology of cyberculture. In S. Khittel, B. Plankensteiner & M. Six-Hohenbalken (Eds.), Contemporary issues in socio-cultural anthropology: Perspectives and research activities from Austria (pp. 213-226). Vienna: Loecker Verlag.
http://www.philbu.net/budka_kremser_cyberanthro.pdf

Coleman, G. E. (2010). Ethnographic approaches to digital media. Annual Review of Anthropology 39(1), 487-505. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.012809.104945

Seminar: Digital Technologies as Material Culture 2020

2020/03/04 philbu No Comments

In this MA seminar at the Department of Social and Cultural Anthropology, University of Vienna, we explore digital media technologies from an anthropological/ethnographic perspective in the context of material culture.
More info

This course gives an overview about material culture as a conceptual and practical approach to understand digital technologies. In doing so, it focuses on the everyday incorporation and utilization of digital technologies.

Mobile networked digital media technologies, such as smart phones, as well as social media platforms and services, such as Facebook or Instagram, have become important (visual) communication and (re)presentation tools. For social and cultural anthropology it is of particular interest how these digital devices and technologies are integrated and embedded into everyday life, by considering changing sociocultural, political and economic contexts. This course focuses in particular on the material aspects of digital technologies and how they are utilized on a day-to-day basis. Questions about the relevance of a material culture approach for (the understanding of) technology appropriation – on a theoretical and practical level – as well as questions about (culturally) different usage practices are discussed. How does the understanding and conceptualization of digital technology as material culture contribute to the exploration and analyses of contemporary and emerging sociocultural practices and processes in increasingly digital societies?

By working on different online case studies, students get a comparative overview about material culture in a digital context.

CfP: Engaged media anthropology in the digital age

2019/12/04 philbu No Comments

The EASA Media Anthropology Network is organizing an official network panel at the European Association of Social Anthropologists (EASA) 2020 conference in Lisbon (21-24 July). Find the call for papers below and online:
https://nomadit.co.uk/conference/easa2020/p/8591

For more general information about the call and the conference, navigate to:
https://easaonline.org/conferences/easa2020/cfp
https://easaonline.org/conferences/easa2020/

The call closes on 20 January 2020.

Engaged media anthropology in the digital age

Organizers
Philipp Budka (University of Vienna) and Sahana Udupa (LMU Munich)

Abstract
The relative ease of access and potential disruptive features of digital media have opened up new opportunities for media anthropologists to extend their field relations into durable public engagement. These possibilities have encouraged anthropologists to collaboratively design various public engagement initiatives to harness digital media technologies and infrastructures for social justice goals including health, education, environmental protection, gender parity and political inclusion. Such direct interventions have gone hand in hand with critical perspectives on how “the digital” has played a key role in enabling political cultures of indignity and injustice – from online extreme speech to digitally enabled surveillance and algorithmic bias. This panel will foreground these two distinct, yet interrelated, aspects of engaged media anthropology: community projects that involve direct participation of anthropologists in designing digital platforms and applications, and in supporting local forms of media/digital activism; and studies that envision an inclusive future through public intervention strategies of critique and discursive resistance. A key question that drives this panel is whether the latest examples of engaged media anthropology that are enabled by digital technologies and infrastructures have signaled a break from the imperial logic of upliftment and betterment as a means to consolidate colonial power or whether enduring injustices are questioned through new means of collaboration and dialogue. What are the promises and limitations of engaged media anthropology in the digital age?

KO-KNET & MyKnet.org

Cyberanthropologie 1/2

Von der Cyberanthropologie zur Digitalen Anthropologie – Eine Einleitung

Primary Sidebar