Typically, we perceive theory as an ongoing progression of scholarly discussions and debates. Consequently, we readily acknowledge that comprehending theory necessitates an examination of its historical roots, encompassing both internal and external disciplinary influences. Conversely, when it comes to methods, we often consider them as established and standardized approaches to systematic data collection. Consequently, we frequently overlook the historical trajectory of methodological advancements in our current understanding and utilization of these tools. However, just as with theory, it is important to recognize that methods also possess a rich history of development that significantly shapes our approach to gathering data. By appreciating the historical context of methodological developments, we can gain a deeper understanding of the evolution and refinement of our research tools. Ethnographic field methods are not created ‘arbitrarily’. They are borne out of a cumulative process of refinement and innovation and continue to evolve.
The tendency to overlook the rich history of ethnographic methods is particularly evident in anthropology textbooks, which often casually attribute the invention of these methods to Malinowski. This oversimplification fails to acknowledge the broader historical context and the contributions of other scholars who played significant roles in the development of ethnographic field methods. Contrary to the popular perception that Malinowski is solely credited with inventing ethnographic field methods, it is important to recognize that he was not the originator of this method. In fact, his teacher at London School of Economics, Charles Seligman, had already conducted fieldwork-based studies prior to Malinowski’s renowned contributions. Additionally, Malinowski was not even the first to formulate a set of field methods. When embarking on his fieldwork, he brought along a volume titled “Notes and Queries on Anthropology” (1912 edition), which included a section on method authored by W. H. R. Rivers, a scholar based at Cambridge. This historical context challenges the commonly propagated origin stories and highlights the collaborative nature of methodological developments in the field of anthropology.
Therefore, to understand why anthropology was relatively late in exploring digital cultures and employing digital ethnographic methods, it is crucial to consider the historical context in which these methods evolved.
Back to Table of Contents
4.3. Ethnography, the ‘Other’ and metaphysics of presence
Anthropology’s delayed interest in the internet and digital culture, compared to disciplines like sociology and other social sciences, can be attributed to the notion described by Michel-Rolph Trouillot (2003) as the relation between the discipline and the “savage slot.”
According to Trouillot, anthropology traditionally occupies the “savage slot” within the realm of knowledge production. The discipline has been assigned the task of studying societies and cultures outside the dominant centers of power. Consequently, anthropologists have been sent to various locations that were often grouped under the notion of being “uncivilized” or belonging to “savages.”
This categorization has influenced the historical trajectory of anthropology, shaping its focus and priorities. The discipline has predominantly concentrated on studying societies considered different or “other” in comparison to the mainstream centers of power. As a result, anthropology’s exploration of digital cultures and utilization of digital ethnographic methods were somewhat delayed, as these phenomena emerged within the context of technologically advanced societies that were considered part of the mainstream.
Furthermore, digital ethnography is often perceived as a remote research method, which challenges the long-standing tradition in ethnography that emphasizes the immediate co-presence of the researcher with the interlocutors for intersubjective communication. However, as Johannes Fabian (1983) demonstrates, historically, the “others” depicted in ethnographic accounts have never been portrayed as immediate partners in cultural exchange, but rather as spatially and, more significantly, temporally distant groups. Consequently, this has given rise to another tradition that deems ethnographic field research valuable only if the researcher physically leaves their home and travels to the research site.
Regrettably, even today, there seems to exist a tendency among anthropologists to associate the prestige of research with the distance traveled by the researcher from their own culture. This mindset overlooks the value of research conducted within one’s own cultural context. In addition to be a black woman, isn’t the fact that Zora Neale Hurston’s pioneering work was not as highly appreciated–at least until recently–compared to other students of Franz Boas, because she studied “her own culture”?
The traditional focus of anthropology on studying “others” residing in distant locations underwent a transformation when Western anthropologists began to increasingly examine topics within their own cultures. However, this shift, like many historical changes, unfolded at a gradual pace. Bruno Latour (1991, 100) adopts a sarcastic and critical tone when describing this gradual shift, emphasizing its slowness and implications.
When anthropology comes home from the tropics in order to rejoin the anthropology of the modern world that is ready and waiting, it does so at first with caution, not to say with pusillanimity. At first, it thinks it can apply its methods only when Westerners mix up signs and things the way savage thought does. It will therefore look for what most resembles its traditional terrains as defined by the External Great Divide. To be sure, it has to sacrifice exoticism, but not at great cost, since anthropology maintains its critical distance by studying only the margins and fractures of rationality, or the realms beyond rationality. Popular medicine, witchcraft in the Bocage (Favret-Saada, 1980), peasant life in the shadow of nuclear power plants (Zonabend, 1989), the representations ordinary people have of technical risks (Douglas, 1983) – all these can be excellent field study topics, because the question of Nature – that is, of science – is not yet raised.
Another episode in the history of the discipline that shaped the shift away from studying others was the publication of Laura Nader (1972) article titled “Up the Anthropologist: Perspectives Gained from Studying Up.” Nader urged researchers to critically examine power dynamics and hierarchies within their own societies. Nader argues that while anthropology traditionally focuses on studying marginalized or “down” groups, there is a need to “study up” and analyze those in positions of power and privilege.
Finally. the changes in how fieldsite is understood within anthropology have significantly influenced the development of ethnographic studies of digital spaces. Previously, the traditional concept of ethnographic fieldsite referred to a singular location, (often “remote” and “small” in scale). However, in the 1990s, the emergence of multi-sited ethnography (Marcus 1995; Marcus 2011) challenged this traditional notion by advocating for ethnographic research conducted in multiple sites within the same study. Multi-sited ethnography introduced a new perspective on fieldsite, suggesting that ethnographic research could encompass multiple interconnected locations. This shift in understanding provided a foundation for digital ethnographers to argue that alternative conceptions of fieldsite, such as ‘virtual’ or ‘online’ spaces, are valid and essential to explore.
Back to Table of Contents
4.4. Digital ethnography: A (non-)linear history
To understand the development of ethnographic methods within digital anthropology, I’d like to suggest that we look at a few examples of research and scholarly work in digital anthropology conducted in different decades starting from the 1990s when anthropology expressed more serious interest in digital culture.
The 1990s
The first one is an ethnographic research conducted about a multi-user dungeon :
Ito (1991, 89) describe her firldsite and research themes as follows:
My fieldsite, for the past few years, have been combat-based multi-user dungeons (MUDs), virtual worlds that are among the most imaginative and fantastic social spaces on the net. After providing a sketch of the kinds of MUDs that I study, I will explore virtual embodiment and the reality of these fantasy worlds in three case studies that explore: MUD romance, issues of accountability and consequentiality in online crime, and finally, the perils of machine embodiment through a case of virtual diaspora. The two analytic moves I make are to insist on Internet texts as real social facts, and secondly, to examine how they are embodied and located through technological apparatuses.
While the fieldsite is a MUD, as you can see, for example, in the following quote, some interviews were done in-person, face-to-face: “In a face-to-face interview I had with Frank, he elucidated the ambivalence around killing and violence, and the complex play between the categories of the virtual (“abstract”) and the real” (Ito 1991, 97).
The 2000s
Now, let’s look at an excerpt from a book formulating ethnographic approach to the internet with a focus on Trinidad. Miller and Slater (2000, 1) open their book with:
“Why should we do an ethnography of the Internet in Trinidad, or of Trinidad on the Internet? Because–contrary to the first generation of Intenet literature–the Internet is not a monolithic or placeless ‘cyberspace’; rather it is numerous new technologies, used by diverse people, in diverse real-world locations. Hence, there is everything to be gained by an ethnographic approach, by investigating how Internet technologoies are being understood and assimiliated somewhere in particular (through very complex ‘somewhere’, because Trinidad stretches diasporically over much of the world). A detailed focus on what Trinidadians find in the Internet, what they make of it, how they can relate its possibilities to themselves and their futures will tell us a great deal about both the Internet and about Trinidad.”
They then describe their methodological approach: “The study extended beyond five weeks in Trinidad to 15 months of collecting and analysing Internet data such as websites, interviewing Trinidadians in London and New York, extended email correspondence and participation in chat and ICQ which could be sustained over time as online relationships” (Miller and Staler 2000:22).
As you can see in this research project, the Internet culture, as a digital phenomenon, was studied with a focus on a specific place (although the complexity of the place is acknowledged). Methodologically, online and face-to-face interviews are both part of the design.
The 2010s
So, as we saw, so far, although the topic of the research is digital culture, whether it is MUDs or the internet culture in general, digital ethnography was still concerned with the ‘real’ places were the cultural practices were taking place and with the ‘real’ people who were behind the avatars and usernames.
Now, let’s look at another ethnographic research project conducted inside the virtual world of Second Life. Tom Boellstroff (2008, 4) acknowledges that “it might seem controversial to claim on can conduct research entirely inside a virtual world, since persons in them spend most of thier time in the actual world and because virtual worlds reference and respond to the actual world in many ways. However, […] studying virtual worlds ‘in their own terms’ is not only feasible but crucial to developing research methods that keep up with the realities of technological change.”
Boellstroff (2008, 61) then argues that the assumptions of those who maintain that as ethnographers, we are required to meet and interview with the ‘real’ people behind avatars are wrong:
“To demand that ethnographic research always incorporate meeting residents [of virtual worlds] in the actual world for ‘context’ presumes that virtual worlds are not themselves contexts; it renders ethnographically inaccessible the fact that most residents of virtual worlds do not meet their fellow residents offline. If one wants to study collective meaning and virtual worlds as collectivities exist purely online, then studying them in their own terms is the appropriate methodology, one that goes against the grain of many assumptions concerning how virtual worlds work. Why is the punchline of many studies of online culture the identification of contiuity with the offline? Why does it feel like a discovery that the online bleeds through to the offline, and vice versa?“
The 2020s
As anthropologists become more comfortable with digital tools, digital ethnographic methods were applied to studying any topic or place, especially of value in cases where in-person access is not feasible. This was definitely the case when the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted person field research and many had to choose digital methods to complete their field resdarch.
Giving an ethnographic description of an event at Goldsmiths College, University of London, Postill (2017, 62) writes:
“I was not in London. I was at home in Melbourne; 17,000 kilometers away. What’s more, I was not even following the lecture in real-time, for it had been recorded and uploaded onto YouTube the day before (I learned about this video via Twitter). And yet it felt as if I was present there and then, in the thick of it, as much a member of the audience as anyone else. I felt the palpable tension, the anger, the fear, the dogged determination, and the final triumph of argument over intemidation. Perhaps it didn’t feel exactly as if I had been there at the time, but no leap of imagination was needed to feel a great sense of immediacy–even intimacy–with a recorded even that took place a world away.“
And back to 1946!
Although what Postill describes above and what many ethnographer were forced to do due to in-person restrictions after the pandemic benefit from digital tools to conduct remote ethnography, the concept itself is not a new development in the history of our discipline. Most famously, Ruth Benedict conducted a remote ethnography (or ‘culture-at-a-distance) of Japanese culture due to difficulties of in-person research in Japan as an American anthropologist as the result the second World War.
Back to Table of Contents
4.5. Digital ethnography, ethnographic versatility, and creativity
Ethnography, as a methodology, is known for its versatility, as it adapts to the specific context, available tools, and research topics at hand. Throughout its history, ethnography has continuously evolved in response to the changing circumstances that shape its practice.
The historical background provided earlier exemplifies that digital ethnography is no exception to this pattern of evolution. Digital ethnography is essentially a form of ethnography, developed in response to the recognition of phenomena that are deemed important for study in the present era. It is designed to address the situations researchers find themselves in and to leverage the tools that are now available.
By acknowledging digital ethnography as a legitimate approach within the broader field of ethnography, researchers can effectively adapt their methodology to study the digital realm. This recognition allows for the exploration of new research questions, the examination of emerging social dynamics, and the investigation of the ways in which individuals engage with and make meaning in the digital sphere.
It is why that I strongly believe the most crucial skill for an ethnographer is not just a comprehensive understanding of ethnographic techniques and tools, but rather methodological creativity. It is the ability to skillfully utilize these tools in a manner that is appropriate and effective, considering the specific context of the research and the questions being addressed. In essence, ethnographic research necessitates a spirit of experimentation in its truest form.
Experiments, by nature, can be messy and involve an improvisational process. Similarly, ethnographic research often unfolds in unpredictable ways, requiring researchers to adapt, adjust, and think on their feet. Embracing this inherent messiness of the research process should not be seen as a burden to bear or something to apologize for; instead, it should be celebrated as a defining characteristic of ethnography itself (Willis 2000).
The creative and improvisational nature of ethnographic research allows for the exploration of diverse perspectives, unexpected insights, and nuanced understandings of social phenomena. It encourages researchers to be flexible, open-minded, and adaptable in their approach. This willingness to embrace the unexpected and navigate the complexities of the field is what distinguishes ethnography as a valuable and insightful methodology.
Rather than adhering strictly to rigid methodologies or predefined procedures, ethnographers should feel empowered to experiment, innovate, and think outside the box. This methodological creativity enables them to uncover rich and nuanced data, delve into the intricacies of social interactions, and capture the essence of the studied phenomena in ways that traditional approaches may overlook.
4.6. Learning activities
Learning by doing
For this assignment, you will conduct a digital ethnography using Google Street View to explore people’s relationship with public space. By virtually navigating through your neighborhood or other locations of your choice, you will observe, document, and analyze the dynamics of public spaces and the activities within them.:
- Choose a variety of locations within your neighborhood or places you regularly visit. Google Street View imagery is usually recorded in less busy times, so you may need to try a few places before you find a good ‘site’ for your observations. Consider including public parks, shopping centers, recreational facilities, or any other relevant public spaces.
- Using Google Street View, virtually “walk around” these selected locations. Pay close attention to the details and make note of your observations. Observe people’s activities, behavior, and interactions within the public space. Take note of any notable features, patterns, or events that catch your attention.
- Capture and record your observations by taking screenshots or using screen recording software during your virtual exploration. These visual records will serve as evidence to support your analysis and enhance your final report. Additionally, feel free to create drawings or diagrams to illustrate specific aspects of the observed public spaces.
- Analyze the patterns, behaviors, and interactions you observed in the virtual public spaces. Look for commonalities, differences, and any significant findings that shed light on people’s relationship with public space. Consider factors such as usage patterns, social dynamics, spatial arrangements, or any other relevant aspects. Reflect on the implications of your findings and explore potential reasons behind observed behaviors.
- Compile your findings, analysis, and reflections into a shot ethnographic account Use written descriptions to explain your observations, analysis, and interpretations. Include visual elements such as screenshots, diagrams, or drawings to support and enhance your report.
Ethics of digital ethnography
Think about the ways digital ethnography may differ from traditional ethnography. For example, in digital ethnography you may be able to easily scrape user data from a social media website. In reflecting on differences between digital ethnography and “traditional” ethnography, what unique ethical issues do you think digital ethnographers may face in their research?
Review the Association of Internet Researchers’ ethical guidelines and look if there are any guidelines for the ethical issues that you think may be unique to digital ethnographers.
Back to Table of Contents
4.7. Insights from experts: Beyond the screen
How a UBC researcher uses digital ethnography to navigate cultural dynamics in the virtual classroom
Methods in ethnography have generally shifted and these kinds of techniques make ethnographies more feasible for people in disparate places or with other barriers to access; more and more people are comfortable with their ‘digital selves’ and navigating online spaces.
– Mahashewta Bhattacharya
The isolation incumbent during the Covid-19 pandemic interrupted classroom learning and demanded unusual collective responses, thereby also calling for new forms of anthropological inquiry. Responding to these challenges, Mahashewta Bhattacharya—a Ph.D. student in the Department of Anthropology at UBC—explored Google Hangout/Meets and Zoom classrooms through a digital ethnography, animated by her fellow classmates in an Indian public university. Bhattacharya’s work is both an analysis of, and a response to, the conditions that the global pandemic inflicted in university settings. This work lends broader insights to ethnographic themes of inequality, connection/disconnection, comfort, and uncertainty, and uses visuality as a critical entry point to understanding pedagogical innovations. In her research, Bhattacharya examines the sudden pressure to curate ‘digital selves’ made visible over video in educational settings, a phenomenon unique to learning amid the pandemic. While online classrooms provided a common virtual space, this transition also accentuated a ‘digital divide’ across the student body, and across global locations, highlighting disparate access to devices, wifi, and learning environments. The exposure of backgrounds—which commonly consisted of family homes, outdoor settings, private spaces, or a lack thereof—also signaled students’ socio-economic standing, eliciting feelings of anxiety, vulnerability, and shame. Increasingly, cultural phenomena manifest in digital spaces elide explanations for other socialites, necessitating new forms of anthropological theorizing, which digital methods—as Bhattacharya’s work demonstrates—may be adept to address. Shared digital spaces also serve to eliminate the glorified but problematic sense of distance in ethnographic accounts, subvert the traditional notion of a ‘fieldsite’ that risks fixing places in time and space, and bypass the demands of travel assumed in lots of anthropological work. This presents new forms of accommodation and recognition that rise to the critical call within the discipline to rethink the fieldsite, and demands of fieldwork. The unconventional ‘field’ that grounds Bhattacharya’s insights embraces the notion that ethnographies themselves bring the ‘field’ into being. The digital medium is integral to Bhattacharya’s work, revealing the inseparability of methods and research questions, and the active influence of methods in generating thinking, intentionality, and analysis.
For further reading, please see the article written by Mahashewta Bhattacharya on her research about the visual background in online classrooms.
Discussion Question
What is the significance of the inseparability of methods and research questions? How does this concept provide insights into ethnographic methods in general? In what ways, specifically, do Mahashewta’s research methods intertwine with the specific questions she investigated?
Back to Table of Contents
4.8. Suggested readings
Pink, Sarah et al. 2015. “Researching Relationships”. In Digital Ethnography: Principles and Practice. London: Sage Publications. 79-99
In this chapter, the authors explore the diverse ways in which digital ethnography can enhanc1e our understanding of relationships. They examine how customization beyond the phone itself and the utilization of mobile phones for calls and games contribute to the complex intertwining of the digital realm with relationship maintenance. By emphasizing the significance of co-presence in sustaining relationships, they showcase numerous approaches through which digital media and technologies can foster a sense of presence across time and space. A central theme of this chapter revolves around the vital role of social and cultural context in shaping the adoption of digital media and technologies within relationships. Through ethnographic examples centered around mobile phones and their transformative impact, the authors acknowledge the importance of understanding mobile phone usage within the context of relationships rather than merely focusing on the phones’ influence on individuals in different cultural settings. It is the dynamics of relationships that determine how various types of mobile phones, including basic phones, smartphones, and mobile media, are embraced within each unique cultural, social, and relational context.
Abidin, Crystal and de Seta, Gabriele. 2020. Private “Messages from the Field: Confessions on Digital Ethnography and Its Discomforts.” Journal of Digital Social Research. 2 (1): 1-19
Abstract: This special issue collects the confessions of five digital ethnographers laying bare their methodological failures, disciplinary posturing, and ethical dilemmas. The articles are meant to serve as a counselling stations for fellow researchers who are appr oaching digital media ethnographically. On the one hand, this issue’s contributors acknowledge the rich variety of methodological articulations reflected in the lexicon of “buzzword ethnography”. On the other, they evidence how doing ethnographic research about, on, and through digital media is most often a messy, personal, highly contextual enterprise fraught with anxieties and discomforts. Through the four “private messages from the field” collected in this issue, we acknowledge the messiness, open endedness and coarseness of ethnographic research-in- the-making. In order to do this, and as a precise editorial choice made in order to sidestep the lexical turf wars and branding exercises of ‘how to’ methodological literature, we propose to recuperate two forms of ethnographic writing: Confessional ethnography (Van Maanen 2011) and self-reflection about the dilemmas of ethnographic work (Fine 1993). Laying bare our fieldwork failures, confessing our troubling epistemological choices and sharing our ways of coping with these issues becomes a precious occasion to remind ourselves of how much digital media, and the ways of researching them, are constantly in the making.
Schrooten, Mieke. 2016. “Writing eFieldnotes: Some Ethical Considerations.” Sanjek, Roger and Tratnere, Susan W. (eds.). Fieldnotes : The Makings of Anthropology in the Digital World. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania Press. 78-93
The emergence of digital ethnographic research has given rise to numerous ethical concerns. The availability of digital footprints resulting from social media participation presents researchers with unprecedented opportunities. However, this unique research environment also requires a reevaluation of established understandings of research ethics. Ethnographers must adapt standard principles of protecting human subjects to a context that significantly differs from traditional face-to-face research settings. Challenges include the ease of accessing online data, the researcher’s ability to record such data without participants’ knowledge, the complexities of obtaining informed consent, and ensuring respondents’ anonymity. To address these concerns, clear guidelines for ethical online ethnographic research are essential. In this chapter, the author explores the ethical issues she encountered in her own study on the utilization of social network sites by Brazilian individuals.
Boellstorff, Tom. 2008. “The Subject ans Scope of This Inquiry.” In Coming of Age in Second Life: An Anthropologist Explores the Virtually Human. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 3-31
Boellstorff’s digital ethnography of Second Life, a virtual world, is a groundbreaking study that involved conducting research entirely within the virtual environment (“in-world”). In this introductory chapter of the book, which draws inspiration from Malinowski’s introduction to “Argonauts,” Boellstorff advocates for the significance and indispensability of an in-world digital ethnographic approach to studying virtual worlds. By addressing fundamental questions not only in digital anthropology but also in anthropology as a whole, the author elucidates the methodological and theoretical framework that underpins the research.
Back to Table of Contents
4.9. Other resources
- Virtual Cultures in Pandemic Times (a film by Draxtor)
- Our Digital Selves: Virtual World and New Cultures of the Embodied Self
- The Digital Ethnography Research Centre at RMIT University
- The Association of Internet Researchers (AoIR)
4.10. Works Cited
- Abidin, Crystal, and Gabriele de Seta. 2020. “Private Messages from the Field: Confessions on Digital Ethnography and Its Discomforts.” Journal of Digital Social Research 2 (1): 1–19.
- Benedict, Ruth. 1946. The Chrysanthemum and the Sword: Patterns of Japanese Culture. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
- Boellstorff, Tom. 2008. Coming of Age in Second Life: An Anthropologist Explores the Virtually Human. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
- Douglas, Mary. 1983. Risk and Culture: An Essay in the Selection of Technical and Environmental Dangers. Berkeley: University of California Press.
- Fabian, Johannes. 1983. Time and the Other: How Anthropology Makes Its Object. New York: Columbia University Press.
- Favret-Saada, Jeanne. 1980. Deadly Words: Witchcraft in the Bocage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Fischer, Michael M. J. 2007. “Four Genealogies for a Recombinant Anthropology of Science and Technology.” Cultural Anthropology 22 (4): 539–615.
- Hine, Christine. 2005. Virtual Methods: Issues in Social Research on the Internet. Oxford and New York: Berg.
- Ito, Mizuko. 1997. “Virtually Embodied: The Reality of Fantasy in a Multi-User Dungeon.” In Internet Culture, edited by David Porter, 87–110. New York: Routledge.
- Latour, Bruno. 1991. We Have Never Been Modern. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
- Marcus, George E. 1995. “Ethnography in/of the World System.” Annual Review of Anthropology 24: 95–117.
- Marcus, George E. 2011. “Multi-Sited Ethnography: Five or Six Things I Know about It Now.” In Multi-Sited Ethnography, edited by Simon Coleman and Pauline von Hellerman, 16–28. London: Routledge.
- Miller, Daniel. 2011. Tales from Facebook. Cambridge, UK and Malden, MA: Polity Press.
- Miller, Daniel, and Don Slater. 2000. The Internet: An Ethnographic Approach. Oxford and New York: Berg.
- Nader, Laura. 1972. “Up the Anthropologist: Perspectives Gained from Studying Up.” In Reinventing Anthropology, edited by Dell Hymes, 284–311. New York: Pantheon Books.
- Pink, Sarah, Heather Horst, John Postill, Larissa Hjorth, Tania Lewis, and Jo Tacchi. 2015. Digital Ethnography: Principles and Practice. London: Sage Publications.
- Postill, John. 2017. “Remote Ethnography: Studying Culture from Afar.” In The Routledge Companion to Digital Ethnography, edited by Larissa Hjorth, Heather Horst, Anne Galloway, and Genevieve Bell, 61–69. New York and London: Routledge.
- Schrooten, Mieke. 2016. “Writing eFieldnotes: Some Ethical Considerations.” In Fieldnotes: The Makings of Anthropology in the Digital World, edited by Roger Sanjek and Susan W. Tratner, 78–93. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
- Trouillot, Michel-Rolph. 2003. “Anthropology and the Savage Slot: The Poetics and Politics of Otherness.” In Global Transformations, 7–28. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
- Willis, Paul. 2000. The Ethnographic Imagination. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
- Zonabend, Françoise. 1989. La presqu’île au nucléaire. Paris: Odile Jacob.
