572:004(100)

ANTHROPOLOGY OF DIGITAL WORLDS

Ljiljana Gavrilović (Serbia)

Abstract: Over the last three decades digital games and their uni-
verses, as parts of the wider digital culture, have become the reality
(in front of and behind the monitor) and will undoubtedly play a
greater part in the daily organization of life of an increasing number
of people of all ages,with very different levels of education and social
status, around the world.
The games rapid spreading has provoked a continuous review of the
current understanding of reality, and thus became the basis for the
establishment of completely new identities and new cultural heri-
tages. These are bound, obviously and inevitably, to overcome the
current limits of national states, ethnic and local communities, and
to build new communities based on genuinely shared experiences
and memories (assumedafter all, for all the existing communities).
Anthropology as a discipline is challenged by the modern times to
engage in studies and observation of this process. At the same time,
and for the first time in the history of discipline, a possibility to es-
tablish a true shared anthropology became an optionthat in turn
could help to level out the status of anthropologists from small and
poor countries (such as Serbia and Macedonia) in regard to their
counterparts from the Western world.

Keywords: anthropology, digital games, digital worlds, identity

Over the last few decades, especially since the establishment of Internet
in the last decade of the 20th century, video/digital games became part
of the “real” life for a great number of people around the world1in a way

1 According to statistics in 2014 (https://www.statista.com/statistics/293304/num-

ber-video-gamers/), 1.8 billion people played on computers, consoles, mobile phones
and other digital platforms, but objectively, that number could be even higher because
Against All Odds: Ethnology and Anthropology between Theory and Praxis

that only a few decades ago did not seem possible except in the context
of science fiction (dystopian) future.Therefore, the games, along with the
worlds and cultures within which they are formed and function, became
a logical subject of anthropological inquiriessince anthropologists should
study problems, processes and relations important to people they study2
and games, more than obvious, established themselves as important and
integral parts of lives for many people.
Then again, the movement of a growing number of people from the “real”
into the virtual/synthetic worlds, is changing the “real” world. This is ex-
plained by the simple fact that the players carry into digital worlds the
knowledge, experiences, beliefs and worldviews of the RL3 in the same
way they carry newly acquired knowledge and experience acquired in digi-
tal worlds in their physical everyday life, changing and adapting behaviors
accordingly. This, as one of the modern transformation processes within
society/culture, is necessary to study if we want anthropology to remain a
relevant discipline that allows us to understand the world around us, that
is, the society we live in.4 Given their rapid development, these processes
should be studied right now, as they are unfolding in front of us, asthey
will be, in just a few decades, impossible to reconstruct.

Studies: where and how

Digital worlds are defined in various ways (cf. Gavrilović 2016: 55-59),
while the most precise and at the same time, the most detail definition

many people consider that playing the various puzzles or card games, especially on
phones and other gadgets, is not the “real” playing, hence they do not identify them-
selves as players. That year there were about 7.4 billion of the total population of the
planet (http://www.prb.org/publications/datasheets/2014/2014-world-population-
data-sheet/data-sheet.aspx), this means that digital games were played by a quarter
population of the world, with the percentage raising on a daily basis.
2 Carole McGranahan stated clearly that today even students at the undergraduate
level anthropology recognize that ethnography has to have a"clear demonstration
that the topic being studied matters; by this they meant mattered not only in an an-
thropological sense, but mattered and was relevant to the people in the community"
(McGranahan 2012).
3 Common acronym for Real Life: the term is used to indicate the “real” physical
world within the distinction real: digital/virtual/synthetic, and in that sense itwill be
used hereinafter.
4 This, by the way, is the most important requirement made by today financiers, in-
cluding the state, placed in front of all the sciences, especially social and humanistic
disciplines, which at first glance are not profitable.

160
 Anthropology of Digital Worlds

describes digital worlds in these ways:

1. “the capacity to adopt avatar form, that is, to represent oneself in a digi-
tized human, humanoid, animal, or other shape that is graphically repre-
sented to others;
2. the capacity to communicate through various forms of synchronous and
communication, that is, to send messages via e-mail clients, to text via
chat utilities, to talk via VoIP applications, and to make visual gestures;
3. some form of virtual map in which localities and geography are repre-
sented and some means by which teleportation may occur;
4. some way in which an avatar may interact with world objects, that is,
to pick up or animate various represented forms such as horses, winged
mythical beings, or various bits of clothing and equipment, to name just
a few; and
5. the virtual world continues to exist whether the individual avatar is
logged in or not” (Graffam 2012: 133).

Studies and research of these spaces require some predispositions such

as technical-technological, i.e., Internet connection and personal, i.e., an
active usage of technology, important to satisfy not solely for the purpose
of research but also within researchers’ everyday lives. However, the most
important requirement appears to be the active participation of research-
ers within the observed world. In accordance with this requirement, as
it was the case in the previous studies5, the only (and necessarily essen-
tial) condition that researchers in this field must fulfill in order to under-
stand how the world functions and how people insideinteract by building
a specific community and cultural environment, is: that the engaged re-
searcher should also be a gamer too. By doing this, the researcher would
be unitingthe two roles necessary for any valid anthropological research
of synthetic worlds or within them: the roles of participantand researcher.
Attempts were made to conduct this kind of research without the active
participation, but they have not resulted in valid studies6, since „inter-
views or focus groups do not afford the same benefits as virtual ethnogra-
phy precisely because they remove online identities from their necessary

5 For previous studies see Гавриловић 2016: 27-46.

6 Other approaches are possible only if the focus of the research are questions not
directed towards behavior inside the world, but, for example, to the design or produc-
tion areas, that is, if we are to study the world from the standpoint of creators rather
than users/residents.

161
Against All Odds: Ethnology and Anthropology between Theory and Praxis

contexts“ (Driscoll, Gregg 2010: 17).

During the RL fieldwork, an anthropologist is usually displaced from his/
hers everyday space and time schedule. During fieldwork, every day, all
day, an anthropologistis focused only and solely on collecting data, using
all techniques at his/hers disposal. There are a number of ways to collect
data, even including observation of, for instance, seating positions in a
café during a “rest”, or a casual conversations with a sales person in a local
shop. All these providedata/material to be included into a general set of
data which will later on become an ethnography, in response to the posed
research question. In contrast, fieldwork of the virtual world does not
have the element of separation: although the researcher may “jump” into
it whenever he/she wants, there is no opportunity to relocate from every-
day life. A day has to be dividedinto the time devoted to work (a variety
of business obligations a particular researcher may have), to one’s fam-
ily, friends, pets, and all other anticipated and unanticipated contacts and
...the research.Thus, in this case, instead of absolute dedication, there-
search obtains only a small segment of crowded everyday life whereas it is
hardly possible to fully engagein a research mode. At the same time, many
see this kind of research as “just a game, a playing time”, so the work (no
matter how much fun it is, it is still a work) suffers from a divided atten-
tion, reflected both in the results to be achieved, as well as in the huge
investment in the most important resource in digital space: the time.
Given that the integral part of this kind of research has to rely on actual
participation, preparationsassume time spent in socializing, which usual-
ly includes mastering varioustasks in the studied game/methaworld.7This
enables equality among players, i.e., an equal opportunity for the re-
searcher in regard to the rest of studied and observed residents of the
given space. In games, one must reach the maximum level for at least a
couple of characters/avatars of different races and classes, necessary to
understand the differences in preferences of gaming choices (if a particu-
larresearcher has not mastered the logic of playing a specific class, it is
impossible therefore to assume why the other players opted or not opted
for the given class), and the various aspects of the world/story.In addi-
tion, it is necessary to actively participate in social life, both in the activi-
ties of smaller communities (in most digital worlds they are called guilds)
related to the implementation of the set tasks (dungeons, raids, help other
players), as well in a fully social activities (conversations in guild chats,

7 The worlds of games usually assume areas (geographical and social) formed in the
Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Games (MMORPG) / Massively Multi-
player Online Games (MMOG) based on the imaginative narratives and more or less
linear story, but also metaworlds (Massively Multiplayer online Worlds / MMOW), as
simulations of a “real world”.

162
 Anthropology of Digital Worlds

various gatherings). Observation within guilds often requires an extra re-

search effort, since an understanding of how a particular group functions
depends a great deal on the position of a researcher—as-a-player in it.In
fact, in a number of guilds (especially those with a large number of mem-
bers, with elaborated internal structure and high set goals) decisions are
made in closed meetings by officers, which (unless a particular player is
not himself a high-ranking member of the group, or because of the re-
search, he/she was not assigned to the status) the researcher is unable
to attend. Thus, only a process of implementation of decisions could be
observed, but not how decisions were settled, which all may greatly limit
the research.
On top, it is necessary to constantly monitor the conversation in public
channels (this may actually appear as wiretappingthe others, but in effect
it is not: many people opt to exchange views in a transparent manner, and
thus make their statements available to everyone8).
All these require a lot of time and—a twofold divided attention: between
the RL and the study of the world, then within the given world between
personal tasks, one’s own selected group and finally, the public space.
Generally, this often turns out to be far more complex task than any RL
research.

Shared anthropology

Despite the specific difficultiest hat do not appear in any of the RL re-
search, studies on digital worlds possess a number of qualities already set
as the ideal goals in the RL research. Though, some of the goals have never
been met (for objective reasons).
The first is to literally put into practice the decades old idea of “the ob-
served” as those who (in addition to anthropologists, or parallel to them)
make the ethnography.9 While this was a great idea that sought to abolish

8 Snodgrass explained that monitoring posts on Internet forums, as well as non-par-

ticipatory observation in digital worlds (which includes monitoring declaration on
public channels) are “public observations” and thus not technically a “human subject
research” (Snodgrass 2015: 486-487) .
9 Jean Rouch defined precisely the idea of shared anthropology in his considerations
on film (what is now called visual anthropology) in 1973 (Rouch 2003: 44, 46). In
American anthropology, this was soon followed by reflections on relations between
anthropologists and the studied subjects (Hymes 1972; Geerz 1973, 1974) to culmi-
nate more than a decade later in auto-reflexive twist (Clifford, Marcus 1986). Markus,

163
Against All Odds: Ethnology and Anthropology between Theory and Praxis

the hierarchical relationship between the observer (as the one-to-create-

image = anthropologist) and the observed, in the RL this was practically
impossible to achieve. Knowledge and experiences of the observer and the
observed, as a rule, are so different that a hierarchy in which an anthro-
pologist is in a position of power in relation to the subjects is inevitable - if
not for other things, then simply due to the specific disciplinary knowl-
edge built merely in research design10 - but not in interaction with the
observed. Regardless of how each researcher tried to leave space for the
voice of the observed, this has remained always and only a space we have
left to them, still based on the distribution of power between those that do
the research and the researched ones.
Digital worlds are, in this sense, the complete opposite of the RL research.
Namely, in order to do the job in the first place, the researcher has to go
through exactly the same route as any other resident of the studied world:
from the first bumpy steps in a starting zone (my personal experience with
MMO worlds are based mainly on WoW,11 but to a large extent, they can
be generalized), to a slow development of the first avatar, slow because it
involves a full socialization, to also mastering the game mechanics and fig-
uring out the world.12 Thus, the experience of the researcher and the “ob-
served” are virtually indistinguishable, because they have to go the same
way - from beginner(noob) who (like any newborn baby) does not know
anything about the surrounding world, to the experienced resident of the
world, who sets his own goals and develop strategies to achieve them.
Hence, in this kind of research, the voice of an anthropologist cannot be
above the voice of the studied: an anthropologist in question, by the mere
decision to enter the world, has become a part of the studied commu-
nity. Despite the best efforts, thisblending is impossible to achieve inthe
RL studies. In digital worlds, the processes of socialization and learning
about the world is identical to all. The researcher, anthropologist in this

many years later, commented: “The anthropologist must have a different, negotiated
relationship with subjects as, to a degree, her epistemic partners. To accomplish this,
sameness and difference between anthropologists and subjects becomes a key realm
for rethinking method, practice, theory, etc.” (Rabinow at all 2008: 65)
10 In cases of research at home, and far more if there are significant cultural differ-
ences between researchers and the observed ones.
11 World of Warcraft, Blizzard 2004: expansions: The Burning Crusade 2007; Wrath
of the Lich King 2008, Cataclysm 2010; Mists of Pandaria 2012, Warlords of Draenor
2014 and Legion 2016.
12 For the first character, it took me about six months to get through to the then maxi-
mum ninetieth level. Two and a half years and two expansions later, the three char-
acters at the maximum level and ten more in various stages of development, I am still
amazed every time I pass lightly areas where I was stuck for days with my first avatar.

164
 Anthropology of Digital Worlds

case, becomes an integral part of the culture he/she studies, and his/hers
knowledge (anthropological) cannot possibly positioned him/her above
the other members of the community; thus, the researcher and the rest of
the studied community members share knowledge about the world and
the relationships formed within. This is a true shared anthropology.
Another important aspect of the shared anthropology, arising from its
shared character itself, is that this still is (and in societies such as ours it will
be for a long time) an action anthropologythat provides voices to stigma-
tized although invisible minority.13 Thereby, this does not include gender,
racial, ethnic or other already recognized discriminated minority groups. In
recent decades,in some western and far-eastern societies, game playing has
become socially accepted activity, but in the Balkans, the environment re-
mained quite intolerant and unsympathetic of non-majority behavior; thus
games still carry mostly negative connotation.14 Due to this image, many
players are reluctant to talk about themselves and/or to be defined in this
context, except in their relatively closed communities. Gamers are not the
only minority of this kind, but as all new socially discriminated minorities
(workers, poor, religious minorities, members of subcultures, aged people,
etc.), they remain invisible due to the continuing social stigma. Therefore,
this minority and culture they make in digital reality are important study
subjects not only for the sake of getting to know these cultures in the mak-
ing, but also to raise awareness of various invisible and non-standard mi-
norities in contemporary societies (so far in this regard, at least in Serbia,
only sportsfansare recognized - cf. Đorđević 2015).The studies on these

13 Non-player majority formed an image on games and gamers primarily based on

media interpretations of games;this often involves a negative public image of the
games and gamers, especially (quasi) analyzes that argue that too much of playing
games (what would be too much, or what is enough?) leads to personality disorders.
Disorders includeanti-socialization (gamers are presented as insufficiently socialized
or lacking social skills in general), failures in everyday life, physiologicalproblems
(damage to the eyes, brain, etc.), whereas games are characterized as addiction dis-
eases. Social stigmatization of gamers has been ongoing since the eighties of the 20th
century, i.e., from the popularity of arcade games, which, according to Williams, was
due to fear of disruption of the current/ desirable social structure: places that offered
arcade games were a gathering spot for communication of people of every race, class,
gender, education and social status. They were seen as anarchistic and subversive that
had to be suppressed (Williams 2006).
14 Media coverage of the games are still mostly limited to the dissemination of “moral
panic” (Maravić 2011: 174-199), where the “information” is mainly drawn from for-
eign media reports, or reports based solely on journalists’ prejudice even if they are in
full contrast to the views of their interlocutors, regardless of their level of education
and knowledge associated with games. Description of my personal experience of this
type is available at https://www.facebook.com/notes/ljiljana-gavrilovic/medijska-
zloupotreba sagovornika/949267085156474.

165
Against All Odds: Ethnology and Anthropology between Theory and Praxis

subjects can show the extent to which modern society is operational, and
at the same time, fragmented on various grounds. Furthermore, the studies
could also provide an insight of how some seemingly (at least for the major-
ity of population) irrelevant segments of life are needed in order that, even
in this world, we can feel like a normal human beings.

The first and the rest of the worlds: finally equal

In anthropological research of digital worlds, the emphasis is deliberately

placed on participation. In digital worlds, this activity is far more intense
than the activity of observing (and more intense than in the RL conditions
where researchers are limited by the degree of integration in regard to the
studied community). That is, in order to understand the life and activi-
ties in digital world, i.e., what people are doing there and why, one has to
be an active participant. Or, as Espen Aarseth argued, in order to study
wider range of digital games one has to be personally involved (including
in MMO and their digital worlds but also in all the rest):
“If we have not experienced the game personally, we are li-
able to commit severe misunderstandings, even if we study
the mechanics and try our best to guess at their workings
/.../… When others play, what takes place on the screen is
only partly representative of what the player experiences. The
other, perhaps more important part is the mental interpreta-
tion and exploration of the rules, which of course is invisible
to the non-informed nonplayer. As non-players we don’t know
how to distinguish between functional and decorative sign el-
ements in the game” (Aarseth 2003: 3)15.

Research experience in digital spacesresembles much more the experi-

ence of an average resident of the world than any of the RL research expe-

15 As some authors pointed out (cf. Crawford 2011: 12-13), it is possible to be involved
in the research of games that does not include active participation in digital worlds:
Issues of creation/design of the worlds and their production do not require an active
participation in the life of the world – these are the issues raised regarding the world
but not about it. Therefore they require material gathered by other means. It is often
necessary to combine online and offline research, especially if we want to appraise
the impact of digital world (knowledge, experience, skills acquired) on the RL player,
or effects the RL conditions on gaming behavior within digital world (cf. Snodgrass
2015: 469- 470).

166
 Anthropology of Digital Worlds

riences. Namely,every researcher must go through the standard process

of maturation and socialization that goes far beyond the experience of a
close relationship with the studied culture in any other study.Although
the “classic” research also insists on learning the language and spending
considerable amount of time in the studied culture, a complete integra-
tion into the given culture and insider’s understandings are simply not
possible.16All information about the new/foreign culture is built on the
existing knowledge, experience and world view, and ananthropological
intake of the given culture always remains simplythe view from the out-
side.17
Research methods in both Serbia and Macedonia would especially ben-
efit from inclusion of the active participatory approach. Namely, in both
countries, a standard method of fieldwork still combines an older meth-
od, the anthropo-geographical, with a more recent one, the sociological.
Each method separately, or even when combined, lack a defined theoreti-
cal foundation.18As a result, a truly distinctive anthropological method of
data collection by participant-observation was taught only at university
level and/or on a purely theoretical level, but it was never really imple-
mented in practice.Even today, doing fieldwork in Serbia involves only a
“track” across the studied community, based almost exclusively on inter-
views. This is caused above all,by the “traditional” lack of money for field

16 About the impossibility of achieving this ideal, testified by Malinowski himself in

his field diary, published only in 1989 (Malinowski, Malinowska 1989). Geertz addi-
tionally explained: “The myth of the chameleon field-worker, perfectly self-tuned to
his exotic surroundings – a walking miracle of empathy, tact, patience, and cosmo-
politanism – was demolished by the man who had perhaps done the most to create
it.” (Geerz 1974: 27).
17 This argument of course, does not apply toresearch by a native researcher. In such
cases, research could be burdened by a totally different kinds of problems, based on
understanding of the culture, or some of its elements, as pre-assumed, without rec-
ognition of particular elements that could affect the outcome of the research. This
approach within digital worlds is also not possible, because both theresearcher and
the rest of the observed inhabitants of the world are in the same way “foreigners” and
“natives”.
18 As explained by Ivan Kovačević: “Serbian ethnology suffered from lack of precise
guidance regarding ethnographic fieldwork. Until the end of 1970s it was firmlybe-
lieved that even though the Serbian ethnology was far from the theoretical level of
world anthropology, at least fieldwork, i.e., the task of fact recording, was performed
perfectly” (Kovačević 2010: 29). And furthermore: “Influential perspectives within
the Serbian ethnology during the several decades after WWII were passed on orally,
which perhaps indicates that the conveyors were reluctant to come out and hence
make themselves publicly vulnerable to scientific criticism. Usually, these oral per-
spectives were discussed in oral presentations at annual meetings of ethnologists or
lectures in scientific institutes” (Kovačević 2010: 30).

167
Against All Odds: Ethnology and Anthropology between Theory and Praxis

research, as well as the disciplinary tradition—lack of time even for a su-

perficial observation, let alone time and means needed to fit into the stud-
ied community and actively participate in everyday life of its members.19
This new research area, primarily due to the low cost research20but also
owing to accessibility, for the first time in the history of anthropology-
equalizes the position of anthropologists from small, poor countries,
where investments inmeticulous fieldwork was severely limited, with
their counterparts from the countries of the First (the RL) world.21 Fu-
ture research should concentrate on global culture subdivisions and local
variations, an interesting,extremely broad field of research that has been
so far mostly understudied.22
Finally, digital world studies are movingbeyond the conventional percep-
tion of ethnographic and anthropological research as irrelevant to the
present moment, within which the researcher is seen as (the) “one who
is bound to the retrospective chronicling of lives that are always on the
brink of disappearing” (Ingold 2014: 393). That is, digital world studies
encompass not only the present, but also the future-- given the continuing
population growth of digital worlds, as well as communities that are con-
stantly being created inside, as well as in the context of the RL. Accord-
ing to the growth projections, in the future we can expect an exodus into

19 Even contemporary (albeit very rare) methodological literature about field re-
search in Serbian anthropology rarely discusses participation as a method of data
collection (Vučinić 2013: 125-127), or, when it does, discusses it briefly and only as a
possibility, not as a real practice.
20 At the end of 2016, WoW (without the last expansion) costed € 14.99, the expan-
sion pack (not required in the first phase of the research, during the construction of
the character) was 44.99 €, while the monthly subscription fee was € 12.99. Obvious-
lythese are to a great deal less expensivefeatures than of any other type of research. In
addition, playing on pirate servers (on one hand, this partially limits the comprehen-
sion of the world/culture, but on the other it can provide some very different insights
and can be incorporated in a Playing Research: Methodological approaches to game
analysis of a broader research design), make the costs practically nonexistent.
21 Nevertheless, countries with low Internet network coveragestill remain unequal.
These are mainly the poorest countries in the world, African and Asian stateshit by
raging wars, drought and famine;in spite, in the last 3 years even in those countries
internet coverage has increased. (http://www.internetsociety.org/map/global-inter-
net-report/?gclid=Cj0KEQjwwoLHBRDD0beVheu3lt0BEiQAvU4CKvcG3tGyIniTo
DoDlMWirih8ZKUtY3O83EH8tsIPxLoaAnVC8P8HAQ).
22 So far a limited number of studies discussed this problem. I am aware of only two
studies: the first is about the relationship between Chinese and Taiwanese players
in WoW (Lin and Chuen 2011; Feng 2014), and the second is my own study of the
players’ behavior in the same game in the first decade of the 21st century (Gavrilovic
2012).

168
 Anthropology of Digital Worlds

digital worlds (Castronova 2007), thus the significance of digital world

studies will continue to grow on a daily basis.Life and residence in digital
worlds will become even more important to a growing number of people,
and consequently, the task of contemporary anthropologyis to follow and
understand these processes.

References

Aarseth, Espen. 2004. ‘Playing Research: Methodological approaches to game

analysis’. Game Approaches / Spil-veje. Papers from spilforskning.dk
Conference, august 28.-29. 2003. http://www.bendevane.com/VTA2012/
wp-content/uploads/2012/01/02.GameApproaches2.pdf
Castronova, Edvard. 2007. Exodus to the Virtual World: How Online Fun Is
Changing Reality. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Clifford, James, George E. Marcus.1986. Writing Culture:  The Poetics and
Politics of Ethnography. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Crawford, Garry. 2011. Video Gamers. New York-London: Routledge.
Driscoll, Catherine, Melissa Gregg. 2010. ‘My profile: The ethics of virtual
ethnography’. Emotion, Space and Society, 15-20.
Đorđević, Ivan. 2015. Antropolog među navijačima. Beograd: Biblioteka XX vek.
Feng, Jihan. 2014. From Role Play to Behavior: How Cultural Background
Influences Western and Eastern MMOG Players in World of Warcraft. A
Thesis Presented to The Academic Faculty. School of Literature, Media, and
Communication. Georgia Institute of Technology.
Gavrilović, Ljiljana. 2012. ‘MMORPG: An Entrance into the World without
Borders’.  Ethnologia Balkanica 16: 353-369. (In: Southeast European
(Post)Modernities – Part 2: Changing Forms of Identity, Religiosity, Law
and Labour, eds: K. Roth, J. Cash, J. Lauth Bacas).
Гавриловић, Љиљана. 1016. Стварније од стварног. Антропологија
Азерота. Посебна издања 84. Београд: Етнографски институт САНУ.
Graffam, Gray. 2012. ‘Avatar. A Posthuman Perspective on Virtual Worlds’. In:
Human no more. Digital Subjectivities, Unhuman Subjects, and the End
of Anthropology. Neil L. Whitehead and Michael Wesch (eds). 131-146.
Boulder, Colorado: University Press of Colorado.
Geertz,Clifford. 1974. ‘From the Native's Point of View': On the Nature of
Anthropological Understanding’.Bulletin of the American Academy of Arts
and Sciences 28 (1): 26-45.
Geertz, Clifford. 1973. The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books.
Hymes, Dell (ed). 1972. Reinventing Anthropology. New York: Pantheon Books.

169
Against All Odds: Ethnology and Anthropology between Theory and Praxis

Ingold, Tim. 2014. ‘That’s enough about ethnography!’. Hau: Journal of

Ethnographic Theory 4 (1): 383–395.
Kovačević, Ivan. 2010. Nativna etnografija i nova tradicija. Dva antropološka
eseja. Beograd: Univerzitet, Filozofski fakultet, Odeljenje za etnologiju i
antropologiju.
Lin, Holin, and Chuen Tsai Sun. 2011. ‘A Chinese Cyber Diaspora: Contact and
Identity Negotiation on Taiwanese WoW Servers’. Proceedings of DiGRA
2011 Conference: Think Design Play. DiGRA/Utrecht School of the Arts 6.
Malinowski, Bronislaw, Valetta Malinowska. 1967/1989. A Diary in the Strict
Sense of the Term.Palo Alto: Stanford University Press
Maravić, Manojlo. 2011. Kritika politike i fenomenologije video-igara. Fond
akademika Bogumila Hrabaka za publikovanje doktorskih disertacija,
doktorske disertacije 7. Novi Sad: VANU.
McGranahan, Carole. 2012. ‘What Makes Something Ethnographic?’. Savage
Minds. Notes and Queries in Anthropology. http://savageminds.
org/2012/05/31/what-makes-something-ethnographic/. Pristupljeno 13.
januara 2017.
Rabinow, Paul and George E. Marcus with James D. Faubion and Tobias Rees.
2008. Designs for an Anthropology of the Contemporary. Durham &
London: Duke University Press
Rouch, Jean. 2003. Ciné-Ethnography, edited and translated by Steven Feld.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press
Snodgrass, Jeffrey. 2015. ‘Ethnography of Online Cultures’. In: Handbook of
Methods in Culturals Anthropology, Second Edition. Bernard Russel and
Clarence Gravlee. 465-496. Lahnam, Boulder, New York, London: Rowman
& Littlefield
Вучинић, Весна, 2013. Методологија теренског истраживања у
антропологији. Београд: Српски генеалошки центар, Одељење за
етнологију и антропологију Филозофског факултета.
Williams, Dmitri. 2006. ‘A (brief) social history of gaming’. In: Video Games:
Motivations and Consequences of Use. P. Vorderer & J. Bryant (Eds.).
Mahwah, New Jersey: Erlbaum. Ovde je korišćena autorska verzija
teksta dostupna na: http://is.muni.cz/el/1421/podzim2013/IM082/um/
WilliamsSocHist.pdf.

170