Anthropologyof Onlne Communities

8/11/2019 Anthropologyof Onlne Communities

1/21


2/21

5 WILSON PETERSON

products, will an antbropological approach to these phenomena necessarily firom other types of anthropological investigation?

As is the case in other academic disciplines, anthropolog y's interest in Intbased social and communicative practices is relatively new, and a coherenthropological focus or approach has yet to emerge. Despite the eariy internew media and Intemet phenomena and an emerging anthropological literthere have been relatively few ethnographic works on computing and Intemetnolog ies within anthropology . The relative scarcity of mainstream anthropolresearch on tbe Intemet and computing reflects the fact that anthropology hplayed a central role in studies of mass media in the past; anthropolog ists havsitioned media as peripheral to culture (Dickey 1997) or have viewed technin general as a context for, rather than a central part of, culture (Aronowitz Hakken 1999, Latour 1992, Pfaffenberger 1992). As a result, much of ouderstanding of n w information and comm unication technology com es from disciplines through research into online computer-mediated interactions withframework of the Intemet, whose locus of interaction has been comm only reto as cyberspace. Nevertbeless, anthropolog ists remain intrigued, as they longbeen, by the nexus of culture, science, and technology.

Indeed, anthropology is uniquely suited for the study of socioculturallyated online communication within a rapidly changing context. Anthropolomethodologies enable the investigation of cross-cultural, muUileveled, and sited phenomena; emerg ing constructions of individual and collective identitthe culturally embedded nature of emerging communicative and social pracRecently there have been calls for an ethnographic approach to the issues omedia, an approach that is timely and ind ispensable as we beg in to theorize tciocultural implications of new communication technology (DiMaggio et al. 20Escobar 1994, Hakken 1999, Kottak 1996, Miller & Slater 2000). The follosections address anthropological and related research dealing with the follo

broad investigative topics: the ways in which information technology and are themselves cultural products, the ways that individual and community ities are negotiated on- and offiine, and the dynamics of power and access context of new communications media.

THE INTERNET REVOLUTION

Through most of the 1980s and 1990s, the conviction was widespread thgrowing and evolving communications medium com prising inter-networkedputers would enable the rapid and fundamental transformation of social an


3/21

THE ANTHROPOLOGY OF ONLINE COMMUNITIES 45

Rheingold's important work The Virtual Community anticipated the Internet's capacity to challenge the existing political hierarchy's monopoly on powerfulcommunications media, and perhaps thus revitalize citizen-based democracy

(Rheingold 1993). Kirshenblatt-Gimblett (1996) argued that electronic com mu ni-cations separate m odem and postmodern comm unication; Poster (1990) discussedthe potential of virtual realities in altering our perceptions of reality in a postin-dustrial world; and Castells (1996) has suggested that information technologiesrepresent a new information age, which is a common perspective among con tem-porary scholars (Lyon 1988, Webster 1995).

A genre of science fiction known as cyberpunk envisioned even more far-reaching transformations, both Utopian and Orw ellian, in which much of an individ-ual's social interactions would take place in virtual sp aces. Gib son's Neuromancer(Gibson 1984) defined and described the idea of cyberspace for a generation ofreaders. Other works such as Sterling's Mirrorshades collection (Sterling 1986)and Stephenson's Snow Crash (Stephenson 1992) continued to fuel the popularimagination. These inspired visions resonated in such nonfiction works as Stone'sThe War of Desire and Technology at the Close of the Mechanical Age (Stone1995), Turkle's Life on the Screen (1995), or Dery's Flame Wars (Dery 1994) andEscape elocity (Dery 1996). At the beginn ing of the twenty-first century, however,it appears that the salience of th most extreme of these early revolutionary v isionsis in dec line, overtaken by what Margoiis & Resnick (2000) call the norm alizationof cyberspace.

As Agre (1999) notes with reference to Neuromancer Gibson famously de-fined cyberspace as a space apart from the corporeal worlda hallucination. Butthe Intemet is not growing apart from the world, but to the contrary is increasing lyembedded in it. By 2002 , for exam ple, the same powerful corporations that controloffline news content dominated Intemet-based news sources, and they accountedfor the vast majority of news-related pages served (http://www.nua.com). Someanthropologists have argued that scholarship has echoed too closely the popular

discou rse and notions of virtual worlds. Hak ken points to uncritical ap propriationsof th popular rhetoric on technology in much of th scholarly Intemet researchrhetoric that has created multiple , diffuse, disconn ected discourses which mirrorthe hype of popular cyberspace talk (Hakken 1999).

The disparate approaches to new media and Intemet studies also reflect theephemeral nature of the new media, the often elusive and ambiguous construc-tions of individual and co llective iden tities mediated by tbese technologies, and theproblem of gaining an ontolog ical footing within rapidly obsolescing tech nologies.Intemet interfaces such as multi-user domains (MUDs), MUD, Object-Oriented(MOOs), and Usenetmedia in existence before the World Wide Web that bavebeen the focus for scbolarly researchquickly can become irrelevant especially


4/21


5/21

THE ANTHROPOLOGY OF ONLINE COMMUNITIES 45

but there w s a trend toward change. E nglish language use may h ve been surpassedby otber languages in 1999 and as of late 2001, people in the United States andCanada accounted for only about 35% of the estimated 513 million Internet users

worldwide (http://ww w. nua.com/surveys/how _many .online/index.html).Furtherm ore, research conducted in the early days of personal computing and

Internet access refiects techno logies that are physically and semiotically differentfrom subsequent techno logies, resulting in an academic dilemm a: On one level, weare not talking about the same Internet; on another level, we are talking about sim -ilar social processes and practices. In order to address this issue, we are suggestingresearch that focuses on social processes and emerging communicative practicesrather than on specific user technologies. From that beginning, one strategy forresearch is to explore how and if local users are employing and defining termssuch as Internet, cyberspace , and the Web, and lo explore how diversely peopleexperience similar technologies (Markham 1998, p. 114).

Regardless of the particular media, interface, or applicationwhich will con-tinue to change in the coming yearsgeneral categories of communication willpersist, including one person-to-one (as in sending n email m essage), one-to-many(as in publishing a Web page), and many-to-many (participating in a discussion fo-rum). These categories of comm unication require us to pay attention to tbe natureof communicative practices and online interactions. Tbe com munication technolo-

gies that make use of the Interne t's infrastructure share some special characteristics.Thus, they offer special possibilities and constraints for communicative practicesand social interaction and provide context for emerging forms of comm unication.

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ASCULTURAL (RE)PROD UCTION

What is missing from new media literature is the link between historically con-

stituted sociocultural practices within and outside of mediated communicationand the language practices, social interactions, and ideologies of technology thatemerge from new information and communication technologies. In order to ad-dress this issue, we should heed those w ho view Internet spaces and technologiesas continuous with and embedded in otber social spaces that happen withinmundane social structures and relations that they may transform but that they can-not escap e (Miller & Slater 2000 , p. 5). For anthropology's contribution to thestudy of online practices , it may be more productive to follow those who seek to un-derstand the offline social, cultural, and historical processes involved in the globalflows of information (Brown & Duguid 2(K)0, Garfinkel 2000) and in the diffusion,development, and acceptance of new technologies (Escobar 1994, Latour 1996,


6/21

454 WILSON PETERSON

online interactions; and how Internet and computing practices are becomingmalized or institutionalized in a variety of contexts. For anthropology andevelop ing engagem ent vi ith new media s tudies, however, the nature of

transformations of and within these new global media should still remain a tion for ethnographic research and analysis, and the recursive relationshiptween virtual and offline interactions cannot be ignored (Marshall 2001)cal responses to Internet technologies will obviously vary, and even constrispaces open u room for opposing discourses (Gal 1989), unintended consequen(Bourdieu 1977, Giddens 1979), or ne w dimensions of social change. It is petoo soon to make assertions and value judgments about systems and practhat are only beginning to emerge and for which we lack even a shared semfir mework

Internet as Media

One w ay to situate computing and Internet practices is to compare them withviously existing m edia and communication technologies, as new forms of telogically mediated language and human interaction. An anthropological apprthat builds upon the work of visual anthropology and the anthropology of

media, as well as approaches in media and cultural studies, is one such produvantage point in which to view phenomena of online interactions.Much of the work on new media has been interdisciplinary, originating m

times in communication and media studies, and often called computer-medcommunication (CMC) research. These scholars revealed changing commutive practices online, which were seen to be either limited (Hiltz et al. 1or determined (Rice 1987) by the technology. Like much of the early Intresearch , this early work reflects the popular rhetoric of the new mediu m stual poten tials and tends to position online com munication away from other sinteractions. More recent investigations of computer-mediated comm unicatioplore how online com munication can change interactions and how interactionshaped by local contexts (Chemy 1999). Such studies, however, remain sitin online communication, analyzed through texts generated in chatrooms, groups, M OO s, and other multi-user dom ains (M UDs), These interfaces reprbut one of many available mediated communication technologies on the Intewhich include pictures and graphics, online verbal communication, and traditmedia like television and radio.

We can productively draw from CMC research while drawing anthropocal questions to these phenomena and maintaining important distinctions (


7/21

THE ANTHROPOLOGY O ONLINE COMMUNITIES 455

alternative media (McE achem 1998). This approach hinders the situated analysisof local cultural and media phenomena. Ginsburg suggests an important locus foranthropological contribution to media studies: To break up the 'mas sne ss' of the

media ... by recognizing the complex ways in which people are engaged in pro-cesses of making and interpreting media works in relation to their cultural, social,and historical circum stances (Ginsburg 1994a, p. 8).

In the m ost-often cited work on the topic , Spitulnik (1993) calls for continuinganalyses of power relations, global capital, and the role of subaltern/minority peo-ples in the emergence of new m edia processes and products (.see also Dickey 1997,Hannerz 1992, Nichols 1994). The term m ediascape, coined by Arjun Appadurai(1990 ), offers one way to describe and situate tbe role of electronic and print mediain global cultural flows, which are fluid and irregular as they cross global andlocal boundaries. For Appadurai, mediascape indexes the electronic capabilities ofproduction and dissemination, as well as tbe images of the world created by thesemedia (Appadurai 1990, p. 9), Ginsburg draws from Appadurai to theorize theposition of the indigenous m edia in Australia and argues that a mediascape helpsto establish a more generative discursive space . . , which breaks what one mightcall the fetishizing of the local (Ginsburg 1994b, p, 366). This model drawn fromAppadurai and Ginsburg has many benefits for analyses of Internet communica-tion, as one way to draw cyberspace back into offline processes and practices and

a way to incorporate new m edia practices with other forms of media.

Community

As has been the case for some time in anthropology, community is a difficultfocus for study, generally because it seems to imply a false circumscription andcoherence. Individuals belong to many communities, bounded to different extentsand in varying ways. In some cases the term suggests, as in the community stud-

ies of the 1940s and 1950s, that the defined entity was reasonably complete andself-contained. The assessment then [see Foster's (1953) critique of Redfield's(1947) isolated folk societies] and more recently (Gupta & Ferguson 1997) hasbeen that an analytical emphasis on a community's boundedness and isolationusually masks significant interactions between the individuals of that communityand othe rs, as well as the heterogeneity of the community itself (Appadurai 1991).A more fluid concept of community fits well within ethnographic explorations inmultisited situations with complex, spatially diverse communities (Marcus 1995)and translocal sites (Hannerz 1998). Just as Wolf (1982) rejected the conceptionof cultural groups as hard and round billiard balls bounc ing off of one another,and Barthes (1992) recognized the asymmetrical, indirect connections that knit


8/21

6 WILSON PETERSON

the scholarly literature on Internet communication, a debate has continued whether on line, virtual, or otherwise computer-mediated commun ities are rimagined (Bordieu & Colemen 1991, Calhoun 1991 , Markham 1998, Olde1989, Rheingold 1993, Thom sen et al. 1998). This debate explored whethersorts of community are too ephemeral to investigate as communities per whether the nature of the communication medium made them somehow different from the face-to-face groupings traditionally thought of as commuRhinegold (1993) suggested that online comm unities w ere replacing public ssuch as pubs and cafes as loci of public social interaction. As Agre observed,long as we persist in opposing so-called virtual communities to the face-tocommunities of the mythical opposite extreme, we miss the ways in whichcommunities of practice employ a whole ecology of media as they think togabout the matters that concern them " (Agre 1999, p. 4 ). Indeed, reference to "cmun ities of practice" (Lave & Wenger 199 1, Wenger 1998) or "comm unitiinterest" (Brown & Duguid 1991, U imonen 2001) shows the wide range ofplinary interest in the nature of online com munities, with similar discussions on in education, management, cognitive psychology, and other fields (Fem1999).

We agree that a focus on interactions that take place online to the excluof those that do not is counterproductive. The idea that a community wafined by face-to-face interaction was effectively challenged long ago by schof the development of nationalism (Anderson 1983) and transnationalism (et ai. 1994, Hannerz 1996). An online/offline conceptual dichotomy [for exCastells' (1996) "network society"] is also counter to the direction taken wrecent anthropology, which acknowledges the multiple identities and negoroles individuals have within different sociopolitical and cu ltural contexts. Wnot suggesting that this point has been completely overlooked in Internet resas scholars continue to research the developm ent of online comm unities w ith

context of geographical communities (Agre & Schuler 1997, Hamm an 2000)cific case studies such as Kuwaiti women's uses of the Internet for political a(Wheeler 2001), American teenage dating practices in chat rooms (Clark 1and a study of the norms and practices of community maintenance in an olesbian cafe (Correl 1995) illustrate how offline social roles and existing cuideologies are played out, and sometimes exaggerated, in otiline communic

We are suggesting, however, that closer attention be given to deconstrudichotomies of offline and online, real and virtual, and individual and colleAn important part of the research going on, particularly in comm unications aciology, involves the new media's poten tial for online comm unity building anpatterns this process has taken or might take (Agre & Schuler1997 Caldwell 20


9/21

THE ANTHROPOLOGY O ONLINE COM MUNmES 57

most cohesive to the most diffuseregardless of the ways in which com munitymembers interact.

dentityWithin sociology and psychology, as well as in m ore popular genres, considerableattention has been given to the idea that virtual spaces allow for fundamentallynew constructions of identity: Interactive chatrooms and online spaces were oftenseen to be gender-neutral, egalitarian spaces. TurkJe described online interactionspaces as places where an individual could take on multiple identities in waysnever before possible and indeed bring about changes in conventional notions ofidentity itself (Turkle 1984, 1995). Haraway (1993) conceived of entirely newconstructions of individuality based on cyborgs, or hybrids of machine and hu-man. This work had implications for tbe virtual individual, especially in the realmof sexuality, and deprivileges nature , sexual reproduction, and identity of thediscrete, identifiable self (Haraway 1993). Morse investigated the implications ofcyberspace for subjectivity, identity, and presence (Morse 1998). With referenceto Peter Steiner's famous New Yorker drawing (Figure 1), online identities wereseen to be infinitely malleable.

Of course, identities are negotiated, reproduced, and indexed in a variety of

ways in online interactions, and these often cannot be understood without con-sidering the offline context. As Agre (1999) notes, so long as we focus on thelimited areas of the intemet where people engage in fantasy play that is inten-tionally disconnected from their real-world identities, we miss how social andprofessional identities are continuous across several media, and how people usethose several media to develop their identities in ways that carry over to othersettings (Agre 1999, p. 4). Several researchers are exploring the w ays in whichonline interactions are influenced by offline power relations and constructions ofidentity, which involve the exploration of gender (Brook & Boal 1995, Correll1995, Dietrich 1997, O'B rien 1999, Wellman & GuUa 1999, W heeler 2001) andrace and racialized discourses (Burkhalter 1999, Ebo 1998, Kolko et al. 2000) ina variety of ways. Scholars have also viewed online identities as directly tied tothe notion of credibility, context, and frame in the exploration of real vs. virtualidentities (Markham 1998, O 'Brian 1999). Nevertheless, this is an area in w hicha great deal more could be done.

Online groups can also be centered around offline ethnic or national identities,and researchers have explored this issue in a variety of contextsfor example,

tbe ways in which Tongans (Morton 1999, 2002) or Inuit (Christensen 1999)create shared spaces in online interaction. The nature of computer-mediated inter-


10/21

458 WILSON PETERSON

the Internet no ody knowsyoure a dog."Figure 1 Peter Steiner's drawing from the N ew Yorker July 5, 1993. 2002 The Yorker Collection from cartoonbank.com. All Rights Reserved.

variety of contexts. We are suggesting an approach for research in this aretermed contextual ized identities (rather than perform ed, negotiated, or con


11/21


new media is Crystal's (2001) synthesis of emergent communicative practicessurrounding the Intemet. Crystal states that if the Intemet is a revolution, therefore,it is likely to be a linguistic revolu tion (p . x), and notes the importance of language-

based research on new media technologies. Using English-language data such asem ails, chat room transcriptions, and bulletin board posts. Crystal asserts that newvarieties of language are indeed emerging from new technologies, but suggeststhat cultural and linguistic differences which influence online interactions remainunderesearched.

The idea of a speech community is relevant to the study of online commu-nities through interactions between individuals or groups with a variety of soci-olinguistic histories, but with shared com municative com petence and repertoires.Intemet-based speech comm unities are constructed around socioculturally consti-tuted interactions that, like offline speech comm unities, cannot be defined by staticphysical location (Morgan 2001). Interacting m embers of online groups consti-tute a speech community as they presumably share to some extent communicativepractices, beliefs, and no rms, since comm unication would be hindered otherwise.However, much of the research into computer mediated com munication has beenbased exclusively upon the use of varieties of English in text-based interactions,limiting our understanding of this global, multimedia phenom enon. A no table ex -ception is Keating's (20(X)) research into emergent practices in American Sign

Language resulting from Intermet-based video chat relays.Analyzed through the lens of contemporary approaches in ethnographies of

communication, research in multilingual, multisited Intemet experiences wouldcontribute to debates in the literature which seeks to position studies of medi-ated communication and technology in local social and communicative practices(Goodwin 1994; Goodwin 1990; Heath Luff 2000; HoUan et al. 2000 ; Keating2000; Sp itub ik 1996, 1998, 2000). Such research might help our understandingof the ways in which speakers incorporate new technologies of communicationfrom existing communicative repertoires, and these technologies influence newand emerging cultural practices. In this sort of investigation, researchers mustask: Where do community members situate computers and other communica-tion and information technologies in their daily lives? How are the tools of newmedia changing the contexts and frames of communicative practices? Are newforms of communicative competence developing as a consequence of new mediatools in offline speech communities? How does technology enhance or displacediscourses and practices of tradition? How might new technologies alter novice-expert relations? How do linguistic structures of online interactions affect offline

practice?The emerging framework of distributed cognition (Cole et al. 1997, Hollan


12/21

460 WILSON PETERSON

human-computer interaction, the Internet, previously existing media, and sospaces, and it allows anthropologists to address important issues of the socialof technology, the relationship between language and technology, and questof access to technologies in traditionally marginalized communities.

Power, Ideology, and Access

Particularly w ithin anthropology, some researchers have attempted to relate onexperiences within larger contexts of power and broader social hierarchies. Tand others have explored the Internet's potential to advance efforts for sojustice (Burkhalter 1999, Downing 1989, Downing et al. 2000, Loader 19

Within nearly all of the foregoing works , the issue of cl ss has played a significpart, as it does in the research of English-Lueck (1998), Kirshenhlatt-Gim(1996), Merrifield et al. (1997), and Loader (1998). Hak ken& Andrew s (1993)example studied the effects of computing technology on class structures in wenvironments in England. Ethnographers have also explored the social impof technology practices in a variety of innovative ways, including Kelty's (2research on the impact of (non)regulation of software development and compuse in healthcare organizations.

Our focus in this review has excluded consideration of the digital divide other kinds of inequality of access to online communication. Of cou rse, the makof online communities rests directly upon the constitution of Internet users,those who have access. We would note, however, that access includes a great more than the right of entry to the places where Internet-based equipment is kIt also involves some knowledge of technology itself as well as a facility aexperience level, not just in a technical sense but in the sense of the social conof Internet-based media and the implications of the technology on a wider sOthers have argued well that equal access is not achieved simply by insta

computers and fast Internet connections in schools and homes (Burbules 1Burbules & Callister 2000, Wilson 2000). The material approach will be inscient if prospective users do not also have an opportunity to develop the skillsattitudes necessary to take advantage of those reso urces (Burbules & Call2000, p. 20). For example, Kiishenblatt-Gimblett (1996) argued that users don't subscribe to the dominant ideologies of language and technology maybe able to have equal access to Internet resources.

In addressing the complex issue of access, we must also touch on ideology :ticularly the language contexts surrounding these new media, the ways in winformation and communication technologies are used, and the ways in windividuals' ideologies interact with the ideologies inscribed in technology


13/21


conflicting, relationship between ideologies of technology and the discourses ofNavajo tradition. Understanding local discourse and ideologies of media tech-nology is crucial since speakers incorporate new technologies of communication

from existing comm unicative repertoires, which influence new and emerging cul-tural practices (Hutchins 1995, Keating 2000). These metadiscursive practiceshave broader implications for participation in new public spheres (Briggs Bauman1999, Spituinik 200 1), the socia l organization of technology (Keating 2000),and the consequences of shifting spaces for language use and language contact(Crystal 2001). The relationship of ideology to social and linguistic practice is anincreasingly important avenue for future research.

ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR INTERNET RESEARCH

Internet phenomena are leading us to ask new questions, and new media re-search requires adapting ethnographic methods to new technological env ironments(Hamman nd, Jacobson 1999, Jones 1999, Markham 1998, Paccagnella 1997,Ruhleder 2000). Within this environment of change, however, we are also in amoment in which the ethical responsibilities of the researcher are far from clear.As Turkle (1995 , p. 324) notes, virtual reality poses a new m ethodological chal-

lenge for the researcher: what to make of online interviews and indeed, whetherand how to use them. As Jacobson discusses, when carrying out research on-line the researcher must be aware of the identifiability of hum an subjects, theconceptualization of privacy, difficulties associated with obtaining informed con-sent, and the applicability of copyright laws (Jacobson 1999, p. 139; see alsoMorton 200 1, Thom as 1996). As of this writing the American AnthropologicalAssociation offers no ethical protocols or standards specific to online interactionsin its Code of Ethics (AAA 1998). For some researchers, the statements madein publicly accessible discussion boards or other communication spaces are in

the public domain and may thus be freely used by researchers. For others, thisis a form of electronic eavesdropping that violates the speaker's expectation ofprivacy. Our feeling, in keeping with the view that anthropology online is sub-stantially the same as any other sort of anthropological research, is that althoughthe AAA Code of Ethics does not address electronic communication directly, itsethical principlesof showing respect for people under study, of protecting theirdignity and best interests, of protecting anonymity or giving proper credit, and ofobtaining informed consentapply online as well as in face-to-face contexts.

CONCLUSION


14/21

46 2 WILSON PETERSON

to interact at great distances raises interesting questions for those investigthe construction of identity, social interactions, and collective actionpolor otherwise. As noted above, the Web has created a new arena for group

individual self-representation, changing the power dynamics of representatiotraditionally marginalized groups such as Native Americans within the discoof popular culture. It is also an exciting moment for those studying changcommunicative practice, as people invent new forms of communication or old ones to new technologies.

The revolutionary claims made for the Internet and the communicationsdia it supports have faded in recent years. The realization has grown that thonline communication may happen faster, over larger distances, and may

about the reformulation of some existing power relationships, the rapid anddamental transformations of society that some foresaw have not come to Inter-networked computers are cultural products that exist in the social and ical worlds within which they were developed, and they are not exempt fromrules and norms of those worlds.

On th other hand the social uses of the Internet, in the few years of its existhave been astonishing and almost completely unanticipated by those who bnetworking com puters in the 1960s (Bemers-Lee Fischetti 1999). Thesecommunicative practices and communities very properly demand the atteof anthropologists, not to invent completely new analytical approaches to vspaces, but to bring to bear our existing expertise on hum an com municationculture. '

ACKNOWLEDGMENfTS

The authors wish to thank Elizabeth Keating, Chris Kelty, Helen Morton, EdProctor, John Schaeffer, Joel Sherzer, Pauline TUmer Strong, and Paula Uim

for their comments on earlier drafts of this article.

The Annual eview of Anthropology is online at http://anthro.annualreviews

LITERATURE CITED

Agre P. 1999. Life after cyberspace. EASST Ander onB. 19^3. Imagined Com munities Eur Assoc. Study Sci. Technol.) Rev. 18 :3- flections onthe Origin and Spread of N5 alism. London; Verso

Agre P. Schuler D. 1997. Reinventing Techno- Appadurai A. 1990. Disjuncture and diffelogy. Rediscover ing Com munity: Critical Ex- in the global cultural economy. Public C


15/21

THE ANTHROPOLOGY O F ONLINE COMM UNITffiS 6

Aronowitz S. 1996. Techno science and Cyber-culture. New York: Routledge

Barthes F. 1992. Towards greater naturalism inconceptualizing societies. In Conceptualiz-ing Society, ed. A Kuper, pp. 17-33. London/New York: Routledge

Basch L. SchUler NG. Blanc CS. 1994. Nat-ions Unbound: Tran snational Projects, Post-colonial Predicaments, and Deterritorial-iied Nation-States. Langhome, PA; Gordon& Breach

Benedikt M. 1991. Introduction, In Cyber-space: First Steps, ed. M Benedikt, pp. 1-25. Cam bridge, MA: MIT Press

Bemers-Lee T, Fischetti M, 1999. Weaving theWeb: the Original Design and Ultimate Des-tiny of the World Wide Web by Its Inventor.San Francisco: Harper

Boal IA. 1995. A flow of monsters: Luddismand virtual technologies. In Resisting the Vir-lual Life: the Culture and Politics of Infor-mation, ed. J Brook, lA B oal, pp. 3- 15 . San

Francisco: City LightsBourdieu P, 1977, Outline of a Theory of Prac-

tice. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. PressBordieu P, Colemen JS. 1991. Social Theory for

a Changing Society. Boulder, CO: W estviewBriggs C, Bauman R. 1999. The Foundation

of All Future Researches : Franz Boas,George Hunt, Native Am erican texts, and theconstruction of modernity. Am. Q. 51:479-528

Brook J, Boa] IA. 1995. Resisting the VirtualLife: the Culture and olitics of Information.San Francisco: City Lights

Brown JS, Duguid P. 2000. The Social Life ofInformation. Boston: Harvard Bus, Sch.Press

Burbules NC. 1998. Questions of content andquestions of access to the Internet. Access17:79-89

Burbules NC, CaUister TA. 2000. Watch IT:rhe R isks and Prom ises of Information Tech-

MA Smith, P Kollock, pp. 60-75. London/New York: Routledge

Caldwell JT, ed. 2000. Electronic Media and

Technocutture. New Brunswick, NJ: RutgersUniv. PressCalhoun C. 1991. Indirect relationships and

imagined com munities: large-scale social in-tegration and the transformation of everydaylife. See Bordieu & Coleman 1991, pp. 9 5 -120

Castells M. 1996. The Rise of the Network So-ciety. Cam bridge, MA : Blackwell

Chemy L. 1999. C onversation and Comm unity:Chat in a Virtual World. Stanford, CA: Cent.Study Lang. Inf.

Christensen NB. 1999. Re)prod ucing Inuit so-cial boundaries on the W orld Wide Web. 5thCircumpolar Univ, Conf. (CUA), Aberdeen,Scotland

Clark L S. 1998. Dating on the net: teens and therise of pu re relationships. See Jones 1998,pp. 159-83

Cole M, Engestrom Y, Vasquez O, eds. 1997.Mind Culture, and Activity: Sem inal Papersfrom the Laboratory of Comparative Hu-man Cognition. Cam bridge, UK: CambridgeUniv. Press

Correll S. 1995. The ethnography of an elec-tronic b a r. / Contemp. Ethnogr. 24:270-98

Crystal D. 2001. Language and the Internet.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press

Dery M. 1994. Flame Wars: the Discourseof Cyberculture. Durham, NC: Dtike Univ.Press

Dery M. 1996. Escape Velocity: Cybercultureat the End of the Century. New York; Grove

Dickey S, 1997. Anthropology and its contribu-tions to studies of mass m edia. Int. Soc. Sci.7.49:413 32

Dietrich D. 1997. (Re)-fashioning the techno-erotic woman: gender and textuality in thecybercultural matrix. In Virtual Culture, ed .SG Jones, pp. 169-8 4. Thousand O aks, CA :


16/21


17/21

THE ANTHROPOLOGY O F ONLINE COMM UNITIES 6

Hiltz SR, Johnson K, Turoff M. 1986. Exper-iments in group decision making: commu-nication process and outcome in face-to-

face versus computerized conferences. Hum.Commun.Res. 13:225-52Hollan JD, Hutchins E, Kirsh D. 2000. Dis-

tributed cognition: a new foundation forhuman-computer interaction research. ACMTrans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 7:174-96

Hutchins E. 1995. Cognition in the Wild. Cam-bridge, MA: MIT Press

Hutchins E, K lausen T. 1996. Distributed co g-nition in an airline cockpit. In Cognition andCommunication at Work ed. Y Engestrom,D Middleton, pp. 15-34. Cambridge. UK:Cambridge Univ. Press

Jacobson D. 1999. Doing research in cyhet-^^^ce. Field Methods 11:127-45

Jones S. 1999. Doing Internet Research: Crit-ical Issues and Methods for Exam ining theNet. Thousand O aks, CA: Sage

Jones SG. 1998. CyberSociety 2.0: Revisiting

Computer-Mediated Communication andCommunity. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Keating EL. 2000. How culture and techno-logy together shape new communicativepractices: investigating interactions betweendeaf and hearing callers with computer-mediated videotelephone. Texas Linguist.forum 43:99-116

Kelty CM. 2000. Scale and convention: pro-

grammed languages in a regulated America.PhD thesis. MIT, CambridgeKirshenblatt-Gimbtett B. 1996. The electronic

vernacular. In Connected: Engagements w ithMedia, ed. GE M arcus, pp. 21- 65 . Chicago:Univ. Chicago Press

Kolko BE, Nakamura L, Rodman GB. 2000.Race in Cyberspace. New York: Routledge

Kottak CP. 1996. Integration, disintegration,and re-integration via advanced informationtechnology. Soc. Sci. Comput. Rev. 14(1): 10 -15

Shaping Technology/Building Society: Stud-ies in Sociotechnical Change, ed. WE Bij-ker, J Law, pp. 225-58. Cambridge, MA:

MITLatour B. 1996. Aramis. or. The Love of Techn-ology. Cambridge, M A: Harvard Univ. Press

Lave JE, Wenger 1991. Situated Learning:Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cam-bridge: Cam bridge U niv. Press

Loader B. 1998. Cyberspace Divide: Equality,Agency, and Policy in the Information Soci-ety. London/New York: Routledge

Lyon D. 1988. The Information Society: Issuesand Illusions. Oxford: Polity

Marcus GE. 1995. Ethnography in/of theworld system: the emergence of multi-sitedethnography. Am. Rev. Anthropol. 24 :95-117

Margoiis M, Resnick D. 2000. Politics asUsual: the Cyberspace Revolution. Lon-don: Sage

Markham AN. 1998. Life Online: Research-

ing Real Experience in Virtual Space. W alnutCreek, CA: AltaMira

Marshall J. 2001. Cyber-space, or cyber-topos:the creation of online space. Soc. Anal. 45:81-102

McEachem C. 1998. A mutual interest? Eth-nography in anthropology and cultural stud-ies. Aust. J. Anthropol. 9:251-61

Merrifield J, Bingman M, Hemphill D, Ben-

nett deM arrais K, eds. 1997. Life at the Mar-gins: Literacy, Language, and echnology inEveryday Life. New York: Teachers CollegePress

Miller D, Slater D. 2000. The Internet: anEthnographic Approach. Oxford/New York:Berg

Morgan MM. 2001. Community. In Key Termsin Language and Culture, ed. A D uranti, pp.31-33. Oxford/Maiden, MA: Blackwell

Morse M. 1998. Virtualities: Television, Med iaArr,an(/Cj 6erc/mre.B loomington: Indiana


18/21

466 WILSON PETERSON

Morton H. 2001. Introduction. Soc. Anal. 4 5 : 3 -11

Morton H. 2002. Tongans Overseas: Between

Two Shores. Hono lulu: Univ. Hawaii PressNegroponte N. 1995. Being D igital. New York:

KnopfNichols B. 1994. Blurred Boundaries: Ques-

tions of Meaning in Contemporary Cul-ture. Bloomington: Indiana UniversityPress.

O Brien J. 1999. Writing in the body: gen-der (re)production in online interaction. In

Com munities in Cyberspace, ed. MA Smith,P Kollock, pp. 76 -1 0 6. London/New York:Routledge

Oldenburg R. 1989. The Great Good Places.New York: Paragon House

Paccagnella L. 1997. Getting the seats of yourpants dirty: strategies for ethnographic res-earch on virtual communities. / . Comput.Med. Commun. 3(1 ). http://www .ascusc.org/

jcmc/vol3/issuel/paccagnella.htmlPfaffenberger B. 1988. The social meaning ofthe personal computer: or, why the personalcomputer revolution was no revolution. /In-thropol.Q.bV.39^7

Pfaffenberger B. 1992 . Social anthropolog y oftechnology. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2 1 : 4 9 1 -516

Poster M. 1990, The Mode ofInforma tion: Post-structuralism and Social Context. Chicago:Univ, Chicago Press

Redfield R, 1947. The folk society. Am. J. So-ciol. 52:293-308

Rheingold H. 1993. The Virtual Community:Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier.Reading, M A: Addison-Wesley

Rice RE. 1987. Electronic emotion: socioemo-tional content in a computer-mediated com-munication network. Commun. Res. 14 :85-108

Robins K, W ebster F. 1999, Times of the Tech-

Schuler D. 1996. New Com munity NetworWired for Change. Reading, MA: AddisWesley

Sherry J. 2002. Land. Wind and Hard W orda Story of Navajo Activism. AlbuquerqUniv. New M exico P ress

Spituinik D. 1996. Social circulation of me-dia discourse and the mediation of com-munities, J. Linguist. Anthropol. 6 : 1 687

Spituinik D. 1998. Mediated modernities: encounters with the electronic in Zambia. V

Anthropol. Rev. 14:63-84Spituinik D. 20 00. D ocumenting radio cul

as lived experience: reception studies anthe mobile machine in Zambia. In AfricBroadcast Cultures: Radio and Public Led. R Fardon, G Fum iss, pp. 144-63. OxfoCurrey

Spituinik D. 2001. Media. In ey Terms in Lguage and Culture, ed. A Duranti, pp . 14

46. Oxford: BlackwellSteiner P. 1993. Cartoon: Dogs on the InterThe Ne^-Yorker 6 20).61

Stephenson N. 1992. Snow Crash. New YoBantam Books

Sterling B . 1986. Mirrorshades: the CyberpuAnthology. New York: Arbor House

Stone AR. 1995. The War of Desire and Tenology at the Close of the Mechanical AgCambridge. MA: MIT

Thomas J. 1996, Introduction: a debate abthe ethics of fair practices in collecting soscience data in cyberspace. Inf. Soc. 12:117

Thomsen SR, Straubhaar JD, Bolyard DM1998. Ethnomethodology and the study online communities: exploring the cybstreets. IRISS 98 Conf Pap. Int. Conf, Brtol. UK, pp. 25-27

Turkle S. 1984. The Second Self: Computand the Human Spirit. New York: Simon


19/21

THE ANTHROPOLOG Y OF ONLINE COMMUNTTIES 7

and Globalization. Stockholm: StockholmStud. Soc. Anthropol.

Webster F. 1995. Theories of the Information

Society. London/New York: RoutledgeWellman B, Gulia M. 1999. Virtual communi-ties as communities: net surfers don t ridealone, In Communities in Cyberspace ed.MA Smith, P Kollock, pp. 167-95. Lon-don/New York: Routledge

Wheeler D . 2001. New techn ologies, old cuture.In Culture Technology Comm unication ed .

C E ss, pp. 187-2 12. A lbany: State Univ. NYPress

Wilson EJI. 2 00 0. Closing the digital divide: an

initial review. Briefing the President

InternetPolicy Institute: http://www.intemetpoUcy.org/publications/index.html

Winston B. 1998. Media Technology and So-ciety: a History from the Telegraph to theInternet London: Routledge

Wolf ER. 1982. Europe and th People W ithoutHistory. Berkeley: Univ. Calif Press


20/21


21/21

Documents

Anthropologyof Onlne Communities