In the article “Rethinking digital anthropology”, Tom Boellstoff (2012) attempts to figure out the complex relationships between the virtual (the online) and the actual (the physical or offline), as he defined the digital anthropology ‘an approach to researching the virtual’ (Boellstoff, 2012, p.40). He concerns on a mistaken belief that the virtual and the actual are fusing into a single domain (Boellstoff, 2012, p.39), and he tend to understand the virtual and the actual as indexical relationships.
There are some advantages and disadvantages of digital ethnography or digital anthropology when comparing with the article of visual analysis written by Roland Barthes (1981).
It is obvious that the difference of observation methods, when comparing the advantages of digital anthropology with visual analysis. When defining ethnography, the process ordinarily involves ‘original fieldwork and always requires the reorganisation and editing of material for presentation’ (Wolcott, 1995, pp. 82–83, emphasis in original). Boellstoff also gives the his interpretation that ethnography combines elicitation methods (like interviews and focus groups) with participant observation (Boellstoff, 2012, p.54). Thus we could conclude that it is a scientific and logical research with strict steps. On the other hand, Barthes talks about visual analysis in a subjective way, which is more like the sharing of his own experiences and thoughts of photography. His theory of ‘punctum’ constitutes the key point of his book, in which he says a photograph’s punctum is that accident which pricks him (but also bruises him, is poignant to him) (Barthes, 2000, p.27). This is, however, highly subjective and unintentional that it is rather difficult for everyone to share the same feeling to a photo or, more precisely, the ‘punctum’ of the photo.
As for the disadvantages, more time and patience are needed in the digital ethnography (Rosaldo, 1989). Boellstoff makes a metaphor between the process of ethnographic research and learning a new language. You cannot become fluent in a new language overnight, or even in a month or two. It is similar to the ethnographic research that it would be suspectable if someone claim to conduct it in only a week or even a month. The researchers have become familiar with a community or a group and participate in their everyday practices, hence sufficient time and patience are required in this method. In contrast, visual analysis only have to analyse several photos or videos, which consumes much less time than digital anthropology. Besides, there are lots of challenges when doing online or offline interviews which are almost impossible to the visual analysis. Researchers find that it is challenging of building trust and rapport when doing online or offline interviews. And these interviews are mediated means that there is more risk of communication problems and technical failure.
In conclusion, digital anthropology is a valuable but challenging research method, as what Boellstoff says at the end of his article that time and imagination are needed.
References
Barthes, R. (2000). Camera Lucida. London: Vintage Books.
Boellstoff, T. (2012). Rethinking Digital Anthropology (pp.39-60). In H.A. Horst and D. Miller (eds.) Digital Anthropology. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
MCS Group One 