Wed 17 Aug 2005

This entry was posted on Wednesday, August 17th, 2005 at 7:08 am and is filed under Briefly Noted, Websites. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

9 Responses to “Talking to Blogging Anthropologists”

1. August 17th, 2005 at 11:56 am
   Alexandre says:
   

   [Apologies for tone. Just thinking out loud and can’t edit much… As a disclaimer: I’m a wannabe geek, tend to be an early-adopter, have been doing a lot of “participant-observation” in online cultures since 1993 and do wish anthropologists were more Internet-savvy.]

   Just a few random thoughts.

   Kerim (and others, if they’re here), congratulations for some cool interviews!

   Well, it seems to be more about the use of Internet in anthropology than about “blogging anthropologists.” Several answers about the practical use of the ‘Net for research in general (not necessarily anthro-specific). Possible debate on open, free (as in beer), online access to texts vs. some limitations thereof. Interesting to see how the question of whether or not people make money out of anthropological publications comes about.

   On Kerim’s comments about (cultural) anthropologists being “far behind” in embracing technologies… Thorny issue. With all due respect, Kerim, are you sure that anthros are so far behind? If so, what do you mean by being far behind?
   Academic anthros use many tools, including online technologies. The way they use those tools may be different from the way most musicians, businesspeople, and wet scientists use them. But is there something very specific about, say, perception of tech among anthros?
   The prototypical anthro and the prototypical geek are at opposite ends of the social spectrum but many of us, including several who read these here Savage Minds, are both anthros and geeks (or, at least, wannabe geeks).
   Many anthros do have a conservative approach to technological change. Not that they’re Luddites. Just that they are reluctant to exchange their tools for new ones unless the new tools prove to be more appropriate.
   The whole hi-/lo-tech distinction could be brought. Hi-tech isn’t necessarily what geeks and early-adopters use. It’s efficient use of technology adapted to the task.
   Specifically on ‘Net usage, online activities and presence. What do anthros do online? Is Anthro-L the most representative use? Personal web pages? Email messages? Blogs? Web pages for course material? Use of online databases? Research about the ‘Net?
   Despite the fact that online communication can be as rich if not richer than face-to-face communication, many anthros favour the latter over the former, for several reasons. Many of the people with whom we work are in the “have-not” side of the Digital Divide. While Internet writing styles may be very close to orality in many respect, many might perceive the ‘Net to be oral-hostile. Typical research and publication in anthropology tends to require less in terms of electronic technology than, say, wet sciences. Our budgets are also much smaller than those of disciplines represented by PLoS. And commercial backing is not common in cultural anthropology which might imply that the financial burden of technology use is left on the shoulders of individual researchers.

   Then there’s the whole issue of “being good with computers.” Having helped many anthros with computer problems, can easily say that anthro profs tend not to grok computer tech easily. It might be common to profs in general, though, as a friend was saying something similar about astrophysics profs.

   Again, apologies for tone.

2. August 17th, 2005 at 1:16 pm
   Kerim says:
   

   No need to apologize. Did you read the two linked articles from my interview? I explain my thinking more clearly in those articles.

   Also, there have been a series of posts on SM about using the net for research, including some by Rex and Chis that are worth looking at. (Sorry, no time to link to things right now.)

   I also think the digital divide one isn’t as serious a problem as people often think. We can look at literacy. A huge amount of the world’s population is still nonliterate, and yet they use literacy all the time: they have people write and read letters for them, even if they can’t read or write. The same with internet. In many parts of the world there are internet cafes which will print out e-mails and deliver it to a recepient like a telegram. Other places have internet access in the schools or libraries. Some of our informants may not be able to use these technologies, but we often know other members in the community who can. More and more, people are also accessing the internet via their cell phones. It is likely that this is how most people will access the web in the near future, and cell phone access is leapfrogging other technologies in many parts of the world.

   Regarding the economics of Open Access – I think you may be right about the difficulty funding such efforts, but (as I argue in my AN article), I think anthropologists have a moral imperative to work around these limitations. Who are we producing anthropological knowledge for? Can they access what we write?

3. August 18th, 2005 at 10:03 am
   Alexandre says:
   

   Did read some of your stuff, including in AN. Actually, first saw your name in AN and wanted to contact you then.

   As a tech enthusiast, it’s hard for me to disagree with you or with, say, Nicolas Negroponte (was reading his Wired pieces and saw him in Lausanne). Yet, looking at those anthros who have different attitudes toward tech, it might be necessary to take a step back to understand their positions and/or behaviours. For convenience sake, will use Malian examples. Did bring this here iBook during fieldwork and was able to use email quite often, but also got somewhat disillusioned with use of recent technology over there.

   Granted, the Digital Divide is overstated by most people. Actually meant to refer as much to literacy (including computer literacy) as to the financial aspects. True, even in relatively remote parts of Mali, people are able to get some form of Internet access. Many Malians, even those who do not read or write, interact with those technologies directly or indirectly. But there’s a huge difference between getting a cheap wireless broadband connection in Small Town USA and paying through the nose for the very best Internet Café in downtown Bamako. In terms of the most “wired” areas of the world, Lawrence (KS), Montclair (NJ), and Watertown (MA) may come after Seoul, Lausanne, and Mombai but way before Ségou or Bamako.
   Part of the issue, as with other inequalities, is that the interests of foreign corporations are at stake. In the case of Mali, a French telecom company controls all Malian telecoms, including cell phones (which are unbelievably expensive, even by North American standards). Not to say that telecommunication technologies have no potential for Mali but that inequalities are an issue.
   It’s rather hard to get people who live in those parts of the world to be involved in online projects. For Mali, it’s very hard to rely on even email to communicate with people who live over there. For that matter, even France was like that for the longest time. Until just a few years ago, you were better off sending a fax than sending messages to, say, hotels. It’s not necessarily that the technology isn’t available but, sometimes, people make different uses of it.
   Now, the leapfrog effect is clearly a possibility in many places. We’re quite agreed on the importance of the cell phone, for instance. But the leapfrog effect depends on many factors, including needs but also attitudes. The typical rich person in Mali is much more likely to get an expensive car (which will be wrecked by Malian road conditions within two years) than a computer. People may like gadgets and cell phones are status symbols, but information technology isn’t a priority.
   One thing that’s hard to avoid is the value, for some people, of face-to-face contact. Even if phone communications were free, many people would still prefer face-to-face contacts than long phone conversations. Maybe not younger people, who are more likely to adopt any new technology. And as the majority of Africa is under 18 years old, teenagers would probably drive rapid change. But older people will still insist that you go and meet them as much as possible.

   To bring a point from another thread, some ethnographers are more inclined towards face-to-face interactions. Not that online communication isn’t valuable, just that we may prefer to conduct research by sipping green tea under a baobab tree, even if nobody says a word, than communicate with people online. They might say that it’s “more real” that way without holding a very negative attitude toward technology.

   Then, there is some kind of geek factor. Some of us who are enthusiastic about tech use may see technology as cool or hot. Other people see technology as lukewarm. A tool might be useful and all, but it’s nothing to brag about. As ethnographic disciplines can do fairly well without complex technology and there are cases where, say, computers are a huge hassle, you can’t blame them for seeing technological improvements as changing their work much.
   At this point, it’s very difficult to do molecular biology without an adequate computer. You can do a lot of ethnographic work with just a notepad and a pen. In some contexts, even a cell phone can make research more difficult.

   Been surrounded by many people who live very happy lives while using very few of the complex tools on which we tend to rely. Also know some gadget freaks. One strength of anthropology is that we can work with all sorts of people.

   As for open access. The financial aspect is one. Another is attitudes toward transmission of knowledge. Working with a secret society, it’s hard not to be taken by the way people manage information. Malian hunters are extremely good at controlling the chain of transmission for anything they say. And much information requires prior knowledge to be understood. Yet the Internet is a difficult model to apply to their knowledge management practices. It’s the old case of the Bamanan mask you can show to non-Africans but that no Bamanan woman should ever see. It’s ok if you publish a picture of it in an obscure journal but the ‘Net would be too open and too immediate for them. Some North American administrators have a similar perspective: you can write a book on how to make a bomb but you shouldn’t put information about bomb-making online.
   Then there’s the issue of prestige. Like humanists, cultural anthropologists tend to rely on the prestige of some publications. The anthropological equivalent of PLoS would probably not be very prestigious. There’s still a fairly large amount of control from a small number of people in the discipline. In some cases, there’s even a cult of personality with regards to certain scholars.

   Ah, well. Anthropology’s a great discipline but it’s probably not the most geek-friendly one…
   

4. August 19th, 2005 at 10:38 am
   Alexandre says:
   

   Glad to see comments about face to face interactions in ethnography have helped start a discussion on face-to-face communication in general.

   [Didn’t RTFA yet, was just trying to see if the Captcha mechanism worked in Firefox…]

5. August 19th, 2005 at 10:51 am
   Alexandre says:
   

   [Tried to send this earlier but it’s allegedly awaiting moderation and generated an issue with the Captcha…]

   Kerim,
   Did read some of your stuff, including in AN. Actually, first saw your name in AN and wanted to contact you then.

   As a tech enthusiast, it’s hard for me to disagree with you or with, say, Nicolas Negroponte (was reading his Wired pieces and saw him in Lausanne). Yet, looking at those anthros who have different attitudes toward tech, it might be necessary to take a step back to understand their positions and/or behaviours. For convenience sake, will use Malian examples. Did bring this here iBook during fieldwork and was able to use email quite often, but also got somewhat disillusioned with use of recent technology over there.

   Granted, the Digital Divide is overstated by most people. Actually meant to refer as much to literacy (including computer literacy) as to the financial aspects. True, even in relatively remote parts of Mali, people are able to get some form of Internet access. Many Malians, even those who do not read or write, interact with those technologies directly or indirectly. But there’s a huge difference between getting a cheap wireless broadband connection in Small Town USA and paying through the nose for the very best Internet Café in downtown Bamako. In terms of the most “wired” areas of the world, Lawrence (KS), Montclair (NJ), and Watertown (MA) may come after Seoul, Lausanne, and Mombai but way before Ségou or Bamako.
   Part of the issue, as with other inequalities, is that the interests of foreign corporations are at stake. In the case of Mali, a French telecom company controls all Malian telecoms, including cell phones (which are unbelievably expensive, even by North American standards). Not to say that telecommunication technologies have no potential for Mali but that inequalities are an issue.
   It’s rather hard to get people who live in those parts of the world to be involved in online projects. For Mali, it’s very hard to rely on even email to communicate with people who live over there. For that matter, even France was like that for the longest time. Until just a few years ago, you were better off sending a fax than sending messages to, say, hotels. It’s not necessarily that the technology isn’t available but, sometimes, people make different uses of it.
   Now, the leapfrog effect is clearly a possibility in many places. We’re quite agreed on the importance of the cell phone, for instance. But the leapfrog effect depends on many factors, including needs but also attitudes. The typical rich person in Mali is much more likely to get an expensive car (which will be wrecked by Malian road conditions within two years) than a computer. People may like gadgets and cell phones are status symbols, but information technology isn’t a priority.
   One thing that’s hard to avoid is the value, for some people, of face-to-face contact. Even if phone communications were free, many people would still prefer face-to-face contacts than long phone conversations. Maybe not younger people, who are more likely to adopt any new technology. And as the majority of Africa is under 18 years old, teenagers would probably drive rapid change. But older people will still insist that you go and meet them as much as possible.

   To bring a point from another thread, some ethnographers are more inclined towards face-to-face interactions. Not that online communication isn’t valuable, just that we may prefer to conduct research by sipping green tea under a baobab tree, even if nobody says a word, than communicate with people online. They might say that it’s “more real” that way without holding a very negative attitude toward technology.

   Then, there is some kind of geek factor. Some of us who are enthusiastic about tech use may see technology as cool or hot. Other people see technology as lukewarm. A tool might be useful and all, but it’s nothing to brag about. As ethnographic disciplines can do fairly well without complex technology and there are cases where, say, computers are a huge hassle, you can’t blame them for seeing technological improvements as changing their work much.
   At this point, it’s very difficult to do molecular biology without an adequate computer. You can do a lot of ethnographic work with just a notepad and a pen. In some contexts, even a cell phone can make research more difficult.

   Been surrounded by many people who live very happy lives while using very few of the complex tools on which we tend to rely. Also know some gadget freaks. One strength of anthropology is that we can work with all sorts of people.

   As for open access. The financial aspect is one. Another is attitudes toward transmission of knowledge. Working with a secret society, it’s hard not to be taken by the way people manage information. Malian hunters are extremely good at controlling the chain of transmission for anything they say. And much information requires prior knowledge to be understood. Yet the Internet is a difficult model to apply to their knowledge management practices. It’s the old case of the Bamanan mask you can show to non-Africans but that no Bamanan woman should ever see. It’s ok if you publish a picture of it in an obscure journal but the ‘Net would be too open and too immediate for them. Some North American administrators have a similar perspective: you can write a book on how to make a bomb but you shouldn’t put information about bomb-making online.
   Then there’s the issue of prestige. Like humanists, cultural anthropologists tend to rely on the prestige of some publications. The anthropological equivalent of PLoS would probably not be very prestigious. There’s still a fairly large amount of control from a small number of people in the discipline. In some cases, there’s even a cult of personality with regards to certain scholars.

   Ah, well. Anthropology’s a great discipline but it’s probably not the most geek-friendly one…
   

6. October 23rd, 2005 at 2:40 pm
   antropologi.info - Sosialantropologi i Norge / Norden - nyhetsklipp blogg - - Antropologer må bli flinkere til å bruke nettet says:
   

   [...] 97;: Intervjuene har direkte og indirekte utløst en debatt på Savage Minds, se Talking to Blogging Anthropologists, dessuten What Do They Want From Us? o [...]

7. January 9th, 2006 at 3:20 am
   Keith says:
   

   I’ll be more curious to read through the interviews of rest of the five blog anthropologists.

8. January 9th, 2006 at 4:47 am
   John McCreery says:
   

   From my quick scan of all of the interviews, it strikes me, unsurprisingly, that the anthro bloggers interviewed find the net useful and enjoyable and would like to see more anthropological research become Open Source. I’d agree.

   What would really be interesting now, though, would be a parallel series of interviews with anthropologists who do not blog or participate in listserv discussion groups. I recall conversations stimulated by my noting that participants in Anthro-L seemed to be mostly folks from what, to be polite, I would call peripheral institutions, adjuncts, or independent scholars. Individuals that I discussed this observation remarked (and, no, I am not naming names) that, “I spend all day dealing with anthro 101 questions. I don’t need to spend my time on-line that way” or “If I want to talk about anthropology, all I need to do is walk down the hall” (from someone at a major research institution). Others, particularly younger scholars, talk about how busy they are, caught between teaching, committee work, and trying to get research published in order to get tenure or win a promotion. I have also sometimes heard the fear expressed that premature exposure would lead to having ideas stolen. Nervousness about saying things that might offend potential employers may also be a factor.

9. March 16th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
   Owen Wiltshire says:
   

   Hi Everyone,

   I’m currently working on a series of followup interviews, investigating why anthropologists blog? (or why they don’t).

   As its a “mini ethnography” assignment, I’ll only be interviewing four anthropologists – but I have found one who does not blog (building on McCreery’s comments).

   I’ll also be asking about prestige and publishing in more detail – as discussed by Alexandre.

   I’d love to hear what other questions you guys would feel are pertinent. I should have these done in the next two weeks, and am currently working out how I will present them online.

   Thanks for the great site and discussion!

   Owen Wiltshire
   nodivide.wordpress.com

Leave a Reply