A New Breed of Digital Anthropologist Is Exploring the 'Para-World' of The

Chapter 14

A new breed of digital anthropologist is exploring the ‘para-world’ of the digital: social-networking, interaction design and ubiquitous computing are where new forms of expression and exchange, reconfigured social orders, and the cultural imaginary intersects with pre-existing material worlds.

LANE DENICOLA

The Digital as Para-world: Design, Anthropology, and Information Technologies

number of scholars have noted the persistent lacuna in anthropology’s engagement with questions concerning technology. This is striking for a number of reasons. First, for better and for worse, technology has a long played a central role in the delineation (however ill-conceived) of ‘primitive’ versus ‘advanced’ civilizations: “To the extent that anthropologists have recognized Homo faber as a kind of social archetype and stressed the use of tools as one subset of cultural artifacts, technology has always been present in the anthropological repertory. But in ‘classical’ cultural and social anthropology it has been undertheorized” (Glick 1997: 464). Less controversially, the vast reconfigurations of social order across the globe that are directly or indirectly attributable to technological development make the absence of such engagement especially conspicuous. It could also be argued that significant scholarly treatment of technology as a field of cultural inquiry has occurred in derivative academic disciplines (particularly science and technology studies), some of which draw

202 heavily upon anthropological antecedents such as ethnographic practice (e.g. Traweek 1988) and postcolonial critique (Prakash 1999). Perhaps most significant, however, is the suggestion that “[t]echnology is a science; and because technical facts are facts of human activity, it is a human science, a branch of anthropology” (Sigaut 1994: 422). It is from this perspective that technology can be understood as a key point of intersection between design and anthropology. That intersection is not without a relevant and somewhat fraught history, however. In a succinct but thoroughly referenced account of the adoption of anthropological methods by the ‘design world’, Wasson (2000) explains that “before ethnography arrived on the scene, the dominant kind of social science designers employed to understand the user was cognitive psychology, in partic- ular human factors research,” and “in this approach to ‘usability’, research is largely restricted to what goes on ‘in the head’ of the user” (2000: 377). This principally entailed surveys, demographic analyses, the statistical history of pur- chasing patterns, behavioral modeling, and so on. Ethnography, by contrast – or perhaps more accurately participant-observation – offered the promise of deeper insight into what users actually do (as opposed to what they say they do) via detailed description of empirical observations, unconstrained (to whatever extent possible) by a priori models of behavior or knowledge. Between the late 1980s and early 1990s, the use of ethnographic methods found fertile ground within industrial design and cognate fields (led in some key instances by some of the contributors to this volume), but that rapid development intensified two tensions. First, many in the field of anthropology perceived the raison d'être of ‘design’ as the promotion of consumption, an imperative many in the field saw as antithetical to various ethical, political, or intellectual commitments. Further- more, within the field of anthropology a substantial body of work had been devoted to articulating ‘ethnography’ as the pivotal domain of inquiry into the translation of meaning across fundamentally different cultures. Its perceived reduction to a methodological approach engendered skepticism among many anthropologists, and this was only exacerbated where nuanced questions about representation and writing practice were subordinated to commercial or managerial considerations. This chapter examines recent trends in information technology and digital media, and their implications for the ongoing dialogue between design and anthropology. I take as a precept the argument for greater engagement between designers and anthropologists, suggesting that digital technology lends a renewed salience to their alliance. Wasson describes the field of computer supported col- laborative work (CSCW) as one of the more specific research communities in which anthropologists were actively involved almost from its inception, including among its ranks “social scientists who study technology users and their work practices, computer scientists and application builders who design the systems,

203 and organizational change specialists who guide the changes in work practices that accompany the adoption of new technologies” (Wasson 2000: 380). The relevance of such work has if anything expanded in the two decades or so since it began, but today this only represents one region within a much wider terrain. Digital technology is embedded in much of the everyday experience of an increasing proportion of the world’s peoples. Internet cafés dot even the smaller urban centers of most countries around the world. Cell phones form a more critical part of the telecommunications infrastructure of the so-called ‘develop- ing world’ than the ‘developed’. Even more pervasively, ‘computers’ are less and less a confluence of the typewriter and the TV, less a dedicated appliance to be accommodated within the domestic sphere, than a fluid, animated, and delocal- ized capacity of the artifacts and built environments we inhabit. Not only has a great deal of the communication and exchange of design processes been acceler- ated and shaped by digital technology, but our relations with the very objects and spaces being designed have been ineluctably altered as well. How should an ‘anthropology of digital culture’ be developed to address this dual effect, and what might be its significance for design practitioners? Part of the difficulty in responding to that question can be illustrated obliquely through a reframing: Do we ask similar questions of the ‘anthropology of analog culture?’ The meaning attributed to the word ‘digital’ has undergone a surprising sort of mitosis. It is one of those terms that allows individuals with quite different backgrounds to converse without ever really talking about the same thing, and while there is little justification for settling on a single mono- lithic definition of what ‘the digital’ is in some objective sense, acknowledging the meaning we are attributing to ‘digital culture’ while analyzing it is only reasonable. At one quite abstract level, ‘digital’ implies the regime of logic and discrete (as opposed to continuous) mathematics, with ‘data’ registered as quanta (bits) rather than smoothly varying quantities. This is an abstraction whose material instantiation in silicon and microminiaturized electronics circumscribes a vast global network of material flows. At the level of popular discourse, the term ‘digital’ denotes a relative historical frame – ‘analog’ is the old, ‘digital’ is the new – yet we would not typically refer to all pre-digital culture as ‘analog’. ‘Digital’ alludes to the ‘information revolution’, accelerating innovations in consumer technologies and amateur media production and distribution. It refers to the democratization of communication, enhanced participation, and reinvigorated civic life – while at the same time suggesting disconnection from material reality, a sedentary domestic lifestyle, pervasive pornography, and unchecked deviance. It stands in for the privileging of network access over physical location, coding such qualities as mobility, translocality, and individualism as ‘virtuous’. The ‘digital’ precipitates norms of exact replication, concepts of ‘patterns’ as property, and fluid and instantaneous exchange – as well as complexity, ephemerality,

204 inscrutability. It capitalizes on the metaphors of numerology and esoteric traditions, paradoxically engendering both anonymity and surveillance. It also implies artificiality as opposed to organicism, but the obvious hybrid examples of genetics and bioinformatics lend it a chimeric quality. The synthesis represented by the digital yields a ‘new organicism’, a reprise of the living/not- living Frankenstein’s monster in the figure of the cyborg (Haraway 1991). Aside from ‘the digital’ itself, anthropologists must similarly contend with what happens in ‘digitization’, analyzing those comparatively transient artifacts, practices, and societal responses that may exist only in the interstitial historical moment of transition to the digital.1 Digitization is more than a change 1 There are many in the mode and material of inscription – from paper to ferromagnetic grains on a subtle arguments to hard disk platter, scratches in vinyl to voltages within a chip – it also necessarily be had over the validity of or encompasses the technologies and institutions that arise specifically as a result of distortions involved that transition. Google’s massive book scanning program involves not only in ‘concretizing’ complex historical libraries and publishers but also unique devices (e.g. its large, high-capacity book processes into scanners) and techniques (e.g. numerical methods for ensuring exact copying). ‘periods’, and I do not mean to argue for Existing ‘analog’ assemblages of people and technologies may be inconspi cuously the necessity of a appropriated in digitization (as occurred with public switched telephone net- specific historical periodization. works, for example), or wholly new systems may be erected or economically It is nonetheless pressured into distribution. Culturally, these intermediate material and institu- important to acknowledge the tional forms engender phenomena that may not arise outside such transitional peculiarities of periods. What previously may have been a widely accepted technical exception phenomena we might reasonably label to formal laws or societal norms (e.g. free access to commercial newspapers at the ‘transitional’. public library) may suddenly herald a dramatic social threat (Sabbagh 2010). Information that was technically available but spread across many sources (and so partially obscured from scrutiny) may suddenly get aggregated, tabulated, and rapidly sensationalized by a previously indifferent ‘public’. Everyday activities that have long been largely anonymous may get mechanisms for “ambient data collection” parasitically attached to them via digital technologies. Looking at such developments cross-culturally, we must ask of the effects on cultural interaction when one of the interacting cultures ‘goes digital’.

The public face of digital anthropology It bears mentioning that any articulation of anthropological approaches to design and digital culture must first sort through a number of recent trends and established bodies of work, acknowledging those aspects anthropology should build upon and rejecting those that pose patent limitations or dangers. Analo- gous to the uptake of the term ‘ethnography’ outside of the field of anthropology, terms such as ‘digital ethnography’ and monikers such as ‘digital anthropologist’ are seeing increasing circulation within the fields of web design, advertising, and market research. It appears, however, that ‘ethnography’ and ‘anthropology’ are

205 enjoying an ironic sort of ‘retro-chic’ quality at the moment, though in practice the meaning associated with these terms is typically little more than another instance of the simplistic reduction to ‘method’ described above. In a recent and particularly specious example, British telecommunications firm TalkTalk pub- lished a report on research into Internet use in the UK, dubiously entitled Digital Anthropology Report 2009: The Six Tribes of Homo Digitalis. Its objective was ostensibly “to find out more about how digital technology has changed our behavior […] to find out what homo digitalis really looks like” (Zeitlyn 2009). A central component of the report is a use classification system that places users in one of six categories, including, for example, “digital extroverts” and “timid technophobes.” The report was picked up by various telecom industry blogs and the mainstream press; a column in The Telegraph began with the head- line “People in North East ‘are most timid Internet users’” (Matthew Moore 2009). A principal investigator involved in the study is quoted in the story as suggesting “[o]nline engagement will soon replace social class as the most powerful determiner of economic success, damaging the career prospects of Internet refuseniks.” It is hardly controversial to be circumspect about a major telecommunications company issuing a report warning that “people who do not embrace the web will be cut off from its financial and professional benefits” (Matthew Moore 2009). Given the empirical evidence of phenomena as diverse as online pornography, identity theft, cyberstalking, privacy invasion, and so on, it would be naïve indeed to fail to question classificatory labels such as “Internet refusenik” (over reasonable alternatives such as “cautious adopter”). Of more immediate relevance here, though, is the professional framing of a ‘Digital Anthropology Report’, one whose form – its taxonomic and technophilic ordering of digital culture, the meretricious use of terms such as ‘tribe’ and the Latinate homo digitalis – presents an anachronistic or even caricatured image of what anthropologists do. Though the report is clearly limited to ‘tribes’ within the UK, it similarly chooses not to engage the large body of research into the ‘digital divide’, the critique some anthropologists have leveled against that framing and against initiatives intended to ‘bridge’ the divide, nor the general controversy over the role of public (rather than commercial) institutions in promoting IT literacy across the socio-economic spectrum. Scholars may argue that few would take commercial enunciations such as this seriously, but I would argue that that is a short-sighted perspective. It is all too easy for such work to discursively become the ‘public face’ of anthropology – for policymakers and funding agencies, as well as the broader public – and it is precisely such lapses that a theoretically and methodologically rigorous digital anthropology must differentiate itself from.

206 Digital anthropology offline and on 2 ‘Gold farming’ It is also worthwhile to ask what an anthropology of the digital could refers to a newly bring to established traditions in the social analysis of online communities and emergent form of labor in which computer gaming (as represented primarily by work in fields such as art, film and individuals spend a media studies, communications, and information studies). The fantastic and significant portion of time engaged in visually rich forms that have come to iconify digital media – particularly the massively multi- computer-generated special effects of film and interactive games – lend them- player online role-playing games selves to an intuitive vision of what ‘digital anthropology’ might entail: the (e.g. World of extension of ‘traditional’ (‘analog?’) anthropology into emerging ‘social net- Warcraft) accumulat- ing virtual gold, working sites’, ‘virtual worlds’, ‘augmented realities’, or electronically-mediated other valuables, or environments. Yet, this could too easily imply a digital anthropology that is even simply ‘character levels’, focused on theorization, online phenomena, and/or dominant cultures. In the which can then be best of the anthropological tradition, the study of digital culture must remain sold to others for real money. The doggedly empirical, describing in detail the actual practices, rituals, and narra- phenomenon has tives of those who use, produce, and shun digital culture. Similarly, digital resulted in large networked facilities anthropology must acknowledge that no human experience can be genuinely filled with young understood as exclusively ‘online’. Notwithstanding revolutionary rhetoric laborers playing online for eight or heralding technology’s ‘escape’ from the body and physical limitation, all human more hours a day – experience is mediated by the material (Miller 2000). Finally, there can be little while paying a cut to an overseer who runs doubt that virtual worlds and augmented realities remain a comparatively exclu- the facility – prin- sive domain – hardware, software, and bandwidth are commodities that can cipally in China. This effect has been stratify as effectively as any other – and so an anthropology of the digital must recognized within sustain the comparative, cross-cultural stance of the discipline as a whole. the World of Warcraft community itself, Consider, for example, gaming as a subject for anthropological research. It resulting in a new is certainly the case that computer games warrant analysis as technologies of racialized stere- otype (‘Gold performance, narrative construction, cultural representation, and even Farmers,’ n.d.; see commercial enterprise, and anthropologists would do well to remain in Nakamura 2009). conversation with the extensive and critically engaged scholarship built on such approaches. In parallel, it could help to contextualize computer gaming within social research into games more generally (Avedon 1971) and within cross- cultural examinations of play (Malaby 2009). Commensurate with their empiricist stance, digital anthropologists would help situate computer gaming within the various contexts in which play actually occurs – whether a Western domestic s e t t i n g , a c o m m e r c i a l l y subsidized in-person tournament, or a ‘gold-farming’ sweatshop in urban China.2 Networked computer games also connect a variety of institutions and regulatory frameworks, from Internet infrastructure to intellectual property, state censorship boards to commercial franchises spanning many media. They rely on municipal electrification, domestic telecommunications networks, and power generation for both gaming consoles and the servers on which games are ‘hosted’. Further, the electronics of today rely on sprawling material flows: tantalum for capacitors, lithium for high-capacity batteries, gold

207 for integrated circuits, lead for circuit boards and CRT displays, organic chemicals 3 for the cleaning of electronics, and chlorinated and brominated fire retardants in The concept of the plastic casings. The scarcity of some of these materials has fueled extractive indus- ‘Internet of Things’ presumes a world in try and financed ethnic conflict in some regions (Harden 2001), while in others which many if not discarded electronics have become a significant threat to human health (Puckett most of the objects we routinely 2002, 2005). Electronics manufacturing and assembly plants, meanwhile, consti- interact with are tute rather controversial workplaces, thanks to their sometimes extreme employ- 1) embedded with various identifying ment policies (Malcolm Moore 2010) and toxic working conditions (Stranahan and ambient sensing 2002). The digital anthropologist would strive to depict electronics and computer technologies, and 2) regularly or game systems as part of a hybrid material/immaterial design ecology, indivisible semi-permanently from the institutions, data and material networks, and human communities they connected to the Internet. Some of connect. the implications envisioned for such a development hinge Artifacts, spaces, and the Internet of Things on the radical While most can perceive how consumer technologies such as mobile destabilization of existing materials phones, social networking sites, and videogames are powerfully shaping our flows and chains of understanding of the world and interaction with each other, restricting ‘the dig- production. ital’ to such conspicuous, ‘consumer-level’ examples would constrain anthropological investigation in ways that have little analytical merit. Consider, for example, that the automobiles manufactured today often incorporate dozens of small computers (some of which are vital to their functioning), and these remain largely invisible to their owners. An escalating variety of pedestrian activities leave electronic traces – communications, commercial transactions, physical movement – and while some decry this as enabling surveillance, others suggest it could empower self-awareness. Specialized bar codes and tiny radiofrequency ID tags, already in common use in certain industrial sectors, connect material objects to electronic databases, histories of production, and communities of use. GPS location trackers and other sensing and recording devices are no longer stand- alone consumer products, but ‘piggy-backed’ on mobile phones, digital cameras, and so on, instilling ‘location-awareness’ and ‘record-keeping’ as default proper- ties of many objects and spaces. Vast expansions of network addressing and bandwidth capacity, as well as the emerging research programs of ‘ubiquitous computing’ and ‘interaction design’, have given rise to the concept of ‘an Internet of Things.’3 Beyond the simple observation that portable, handheld devices are becoming the dominant ‘computing’ platform as conventionally understood, the traditional conceptual divisions between computer and artifact, online and offline, space and medium are increasingly difficult to sustain. Science fiction author and design theorist Bruce Sterling has discussed some of the implications of these developments for design and suggests they harbor the potential for a radical reconfiguration of how humans ascribe meaning to artifacts and interact with the built environment (Sterling 2005). Using an

208 extrapolated example of a networked, ID-tagged bottle of wine, the consumer would have immediate access to ﬁne-grained information on not only the vintner, reviews of the vintage, and other sellers who stock it, for example, but also on the labor practices of the viticulturist, the chemicals or genetic modiﬁcations involved in cultivation, and the carbon footprint of production and distribution. ‘Personal informatics’ – the automated recording and analysis of one’s own activities, resource use, and consumption patterns – would be enabled by this ‘smart bottle’s’ enhanced digital status, and would (so the argument goes) allow the wine consumer to achieve greater awareness of the wider consequences of his or her choices as a consumer, whether to local ecologies, remote communities, or personal health.

Theorizing an anthropology of the digital Information and communication technologies have unquestionably come to represent the present era, despite those genealogies that trace their origin back to Cold War innovations in semiconductor electronics, Babbage’s mechanical device for generating astronomical tables, or Gutenberg’s printing press. For anthropologists, however, digital media and technology are as much matters of new forms of expression and exchange, reconfigured social orders, and the cultural imaginary as about specificities of apparatus and abstract mathematical techniques. If ‘digital culture’ conceivably subsumes the diversity of phenomena I have described above – social networking sites and information infrastructure, virtual worlds and semiconductor manufacturing, location-aware devices and the ‘Internet of Things’ – one could reasonably ask what the implications might be for anthropology, material culture, and social research in general. Phrased more incisively: What draws ‘digital anthropology’ together as an approach or field of relevance to design and design practitioners? Certainly, the response to that question is tantamount to the broader and ongoing conversation occurring now among many participants, but I want to suggest a tentative and labile framing that remains continuous with the strong theoretical and empirical traditions of anthropology, while acknowledging the emergent dimensions of digital culture. The field of anthropology is particularly attuned to those phenomena that occur between or across ‘worlds’ – the social world, the natural, the artificial, and the spiritual. These are ‘worlds’ less in the sense of spatial regions or sets of things than in the sense of ‘dimensions of human experience’, envisioned as distinct more for the purposes of analysis than for accuracy of representation. The anthropologist, then, might look at domestic spaces – the wickiup or domed dwelling of some Native Americans, for example – as the intersection of such worlds. Though patently an intimate, social space of human design (and so artificial), the lodge is constructed from materials obtained from the local environment, embedding certain social relations and norms of production. The hole at its apex may have an obvious utility – the draft of smoke from a central campfire – but

209 the domed interior and column of smoke at its center recall a primordial human vision of the natural world (the dome of the night sky and the axis about which it turns), recreating it in microcosm. In this resemblance, smoke, storytelling, and the preparation and consumption of food take on ritual significance, domestic life resonates with cosmological order, and inhabitants are brought into proxi- mity with the spiritual world. Notably, while the spiritual world is ‘invisible’ (or rather, only visible indirectly through signs), within our domestic spaces it is in many ways immanent and intimately woven into built forms and everyday experience. Without a doubt, information technologies and digital media engage anthropology on multiple fronts. The analysis of Internet use in Trinidad (Miller 2000) or brain scans as visual culture (Dumit 2004) posit the digital as subject, while anthropological accounts of virtual worlds (Bainbridge 2010; Boellstorff 2008) or the ways in which mobile phones modulate intimacy (Horst 2006) lean more in the direction of the digital as context. Further, the expansive potential of IT and digital media as tools of the anthropologist represents a third and comparatively underdeveloped thread of inquiry (though see, for example, Fischer 1994). Beyond the individual technologies and media involved, beyond questions of material flows or institutional sovereigns, for the anthropologist ‘the digital’ is most usefully understood as an emergent dimension of human experience, a ‘para-world’ that is wholly distinct from those the anthropologist is so familiar with, but parallel to and in constant interplay with them. Though undeniably a part of the world of artifice, ‘the digital’ is also animated and rife with mimicry of the natural world, incorporating emergent forms of ‘artificial life’, offering ‘the computer’ as a model of knowledge and human cognition, and depicting human genetic material as a protein-inscribed information stream. In its intersections with the social world, the digital mediates human relations and spatial experience. Perhaps most notably, like the spiritual world, the digital – while placeless and invisible to most participants – is a regime which ‘connects’ us with the objects and spaces around us and with each other, sometimes with surprising intensity. Like the spiritual, it is a register of experience increasingly woven into the environments we inhabit and our everyday discourse.4 4 Insofar as design can be ambiguously (but productively) defined as the Little wonder that process of “making sense of things” (Krippendorff 1989), this ‘para-world’ con- ‘real’ weddings have been conducted in ceptualization of the digital can guide designers by clarifying how sense-making virtual worlds and happens (or can be encouraged to happen) in the digital era. The anthropologist’s an expanding array of online funerary sensitivity to interactions, discordances, and resonances between worlds – and services is how they constitute part of the human process of making meaning – is thus of a available. special value. While the digital anthropologist may regularly deliberate on immaterial (as well as material) culture, may well need fluency in technical lan- guages (as often as natural ones), and may wrestle with ethnography in other

210 than written or cinematic form, her focus on empirical description, peripheralized populations, and theoretical insight into the construction of meaning will remain paramount. If, on the other hand, I assert that the digital in ‘digital anthropology’ is something of a catachresis, a misapplication of a binary (!) term whose un - marked Other should demand even greater scrutiny, my intention is to promote such conversations among both designers and anthropologists.

References

Avedon, E. 1971. The Study of Games. New York: J. Wiley. Bainbridge, W. S. 2010. The Warcraft Civilization: Social Science in a Virtual World. Cambridge: The MIT Press. Boellstorff, T. 2008. Coming of age in Second Life : An anthropologist explores the virtually human. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Dumit, J. 2004. Picturing Personhood: Brain Scans and Biomedical Identity. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Fischer, M. 1994. Applications in computing for social anthropologists. London & New York: Routledge. Glick, T. 1997. Technology. In T. Barfield (Ed.), The Dictionary of Anthropology: 464–466. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. Jin, G. n.d. Gold Farmers. http://chinesegoldfarmers.com/ Haraway, D. J. 1991. A Cyborg Manifesto: Science, Technology, and Socialist-Feminism in the Late Twentieth Century. London & New York: Routledge. Harden, B. 2001. The Dirt in the New Machine. The New York Times, 12 August. www.nytimes.com/2001/08/12/magazine/the-dirt-in-the-new-machine.html?pagewanted=all Horst, H. 2006. The Cell Phone: An Anthropology of Communication. New York: Berg. Krippendorff, K. 1989. On the Essential Contexts of Artifacts or on the Proposition That ‘Design Is Making Sense (Of Things)’. Design Issues 5 (2), 9–39. Malaby, T. 2009. Anthropology and Play: The Contours of Playful Experience. New Literary History 40 (1), 205–218. Miller, D. 2000. The Internet: An Ethnographic Approach. New York: Berg. Moore, M. 2009. People in North East ‘are most timid internet users’. Telegraph.co.uk, 12 October. www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/6282358/People-in-North-East-are-most-timid-internet-users.html Moore, M. 2010. Protest at Chinese iPad maker Foxconn after 11th suicide attempt this year. Telegraph.co.uk, 25 May. www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/china-business/7763699/Protest-at-Chinese-iPad-maker-Foxconn- after-11th-suicide-attempt-this-year.html Nakamura, L. 2009. Don’t Hate the Player, Hate the Game: The Racialization of Labor in World of Warcraft. Critical Studies in Media Communication 26 (2), 128. Prakash, G. 1999. Another Reason: Science and the Imagination of Modern India. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Puckett, J. 2002. Exporting Harm: the High-Tech Trashing of Asia. The Basel Action Network. www.ban.org/E-waste/technotrashfinalcomp.pdf Puckett, J. 2005. The Digital Dump: Exporting Re-use and Abuse to Africa. The Basel Action Network. www.ban.org/Library/TheDigitalDump.pdf Sabbagh, D. 2010. James Murdoch v the British Library. The Guardian, 7 June. www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/jun/07/james-murdoch-british-library/print Sigaut, F. 1994. Technology. In T. Ingold (Ed.), Companion Encyclopedia of Anthropology: 420–459. London & New York: Routledge. Sterling, B. 2005. Shaping Things. Cambridge: The MIT Press. Stranahan, S. 2002. The Clean Room’s Dirty Secret. Mother Jones, March/April. http://motherjones.com/politics/2002/03/clean-rooms-dirty-secret Traweek, S. 1988. Beamtimes and Lifetimes: The World of High Energy Physicists. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wasson, C. 2000. Ethnography in the field of design. Human Organization 59 (4), 377–388. Zeitlyn, D. 2009. Digital Anthropology Report 2009: The Six Tribes of Homo Digitalis. TalkTalk. http://media.talktalk.co.uk/sites/TalkTalk/Static/We-Love-The-Web/Digital-Anthropology/Assets/ digital-anthpology-report-2009.pdf

211