A Few Challenges of Digital Ethnography

Exploring a few thoughts about anthropological history and ethnographic method

This short article will explore the challenges associated with anthropological fieldwork on digital media and why this work is important. It will focus on digital ethnography and ethical implications. If it is incomplete and at times incorrect feel free to comment with corrections or thoughts.

Fieldwork with Digital Ethnography

Being ethical in 4.0

From the initial mechanisation; mass production; computer and automation; to connected physical cyber systems, ethnographic work in practice raises various ethical questions.


Challenges facing classic anthropological fieldwork as described in this article can be summed up in acceptance, acquisition and accessibility. Firstly, widely accepting digital ethnography in its variety of forms as “real anthropology” with academic merit. Secondly, the acquisition of experience and skills within digital ethnography from these early-adopters and from other fields with technical or other forms of knowledge that can be taught to stu- dents is vital; programming languages, history, cryptography, infrastructure, applications and much more. Thirdly, accessibility for informants as well as communities studied; developments in increased access to digital media with all ethical considerations that follow; with increased skills understanding the challenges developing in connection with the classical anthropology to build upon; contributing to the further understanding and critique of humanity in these challenging times.


  • Balsamo, A. 2011. Designing Culture: The Technological Imagination at Work, Duke University Press, p. 56.
  • Boellstorff, T. 2016. For Whom the Ontology Turns: Theorizing the Digital Real. In Current Anthropology 57, no. 4: 387–407.
  • Boyd, D. M. 2008. Taken out of context: American teen sociality in networked publics. University of California, Berkeley.
  • Chesney, R., & Citron, D. K. (2018). Deep Fakes: A Looming Challenge for Privacy, Democracy, and National Security. https://papers.ssrn.com -Coalition S. 2018. Plan S. Retrieved 9th of December, 2018, from https://www.coalition-s.org/
  • Coleman, E. Gabriella. 2010. Ethnographic approaches to digital media. Annual Review of Anthropology, 39:487–505. annualreviews.org
  • Elgesem, Dag. 2015. ”Consent and information — ethical considerations when conducting research on social media.”, Internet Research Ethics, edited by H. Fossheim and H. Ingierd. Oslo: Cappelen Damm Akademisk, pp 14–34. nordi- copenaccess.no
  • Ess, Charles. 2015. ”New selves, new research ethics?”, Internet Research Ethics, edited by H. Fossheim and H. Ingierd. Oslo: Cappelen Damm Akademisk, pp 48–76. nordicopenaccess.no
  • GDPR. 2018. The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Retrieved the 10th of December 2018, from https://eugdpr.org/ -Goffman, Alice. 2014. On the Run: Fugitive Life in an American City. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
  • Gupta, Akhil, and James Ferguson. 1997. ”Discipline and practice: ’The field’ as site, method, andlocation in anthropology”, Anthropological Locations: Boundaries and Grounds of a Field Science, edited by A. Gupta and J. Ferguson. Berkeley: University of California Press. researchgate.net
  • Haraway, Donna J. 1988. Situated knowledges: the science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies, 14 (3): 575–99. jstor.org -Haraway, Donna J. 1991. Simians, Cyborgs, and Women. New York: Routledge.
  • Harvey, Penelope. 2005. ”Memorialising the future. The museum of science and industry in Manchester.”, Science, Magic and Religion. The Ritual Process of Museum Magic, edited by M. Bouquet and N. Porto. Pp 29–50.
  • Hastrup, Kirsten. 1995. The ethnographic present: on starting in time. In A Passage to Anthropology. Between Expe- rience and Theory. London: Routledge. https://www.uio.no/studier/emner/sv/sai/SOSANT1050/h18/pensumliste/ hastrup-kirsten_the-etnographic-present.pdf
  • Jackson, Michael. 1998. ”Digressions”, Minima Ethnographica: Intersubjectivity and the Anthropological Project. Chi- cago: The University of Chicago Press. Pp. 88–124.
  • James, Allison. 1999. ”Learning to be friends: participant observation amongst English schoolchildren (the Midlands, England).”, Being There. Fieldwork in Anthropology, edited by C. W. Watson. London: Pluto Press, pp 98–120.
  • Livingstone, S. 2008. Taking risky opportunities in youthful content creation: teenagers’ use of social networking sites for intimacy, privacy and self-expression. New media & society, 10(3), 393–411.
  • Livingstone, S. 2002. Young people and new media: Childhood and the changing media enviroment. Sage.
  • Madden, Raymond. 2010. Being Ethographic: A Guide to the Theory and Practice of Ethnography. London: Sage.
  • MacDougall, David. 1999. The visual in anthropology. In Rethinking Visual Anthropology, edited by M. Banks and H. Murphy. New Haven: Yale University Press. cscs.res.in
  • Miller, D., & Slater, D. 2001. The Internet: an ethnographic approach. Oxford: Berg.
  • Miller, D. 2018. Digital Anthropology. In The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Anthropology (eds) F. Stein, S. Lazar, M. Candea, H. Diemberger, J. Robbins, A. Sanchez & R. Stasch. http://doi.org/10.29164/18digital
  • Nakamura, L. 2013. Cybertypes: Race, ethnicity, and identity on the Internet. Routledge.
  • NESH. 2016. Forskningsetiske retningslinjer for samfunnsvitenskap, humaniora, juss og teologi. Retrieved the 10th of December 2018, from: https://www.etikkom.no/forskningsetiske-retningslinjer/Samfunnsvitenskap-jus-og-humaniora/
  • Seaver, N. 2018. What should an anthropology of algorithms do?. Cultural Anthropology, 33(3), 375–385.
  • Scheper-Hughes, Nancy. 2000. Ire in Ireland. Ethnography, 1 (1):117–140. sagepub.com
  • Schiermeier, Q. 2018. China backs bold plan to tear down journal paywalls. Nature. Retrieved 9th of December 2018, from: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07659-5
  • Suchman, L. A. 1987. Plans and situated actions: The problem of human-machine communication. Cambridge univer- sity press.
  • Tsing, Anna. 2013. ”More-than-human sociality: a call for critical description.”, Anthropology and Nature, edited by K. Hastrup. New York and London: Routledge. Pp 27–43.
  • UCL. 2016, November 13. Retrieved 9th of December, 2018, from https://www.ucl.ac.uk/why-we-post

Written by

AI Policy and Ethics at www.nora.ai. Student at University of Copenhagen MSc in Social Data Science. All views are my own. twitter.com/AlexMoltzau

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store