COMP6044   Just another ECS Blogs weblog

Aristotle was perhaps amongst the first who drew attention to the way that the mind processes information .He was interested in the reasons why an argument could be accepted as valid by those who were both for and against it. His theory of syllogistic reasoning is a form of deductive reasoning that suggests the validity of the argument could be explained by its symbolic form rather than its content.

Various questions about the human mind and the way it processes the information has led to the birth of cognitive science. An example of this is the thought processes that happen in the mind of a jazz musician when he/she is improvising (In some cases without any formal music theory knowledge).How would they know how to put the specific notes and phrases in the right order while making infinite set of improvisations in the chords that remain loyal to a finite set of formal structures.

Cognitive science has a multidisciplinary nature. Scientists from different scientific paradigms such as computer science, psychology, neuroscience, linguistics and philosophy have used cognitive science in their fields to try finding answers to many questions about the human mind. We can have a look at a few examples of this below:

Cognitive science today is a major part of computer science as there has always been an analogy between the human mind and the computer mind. These two fields on many occasions have played the role of a catalyst in the process of improvements and developments of one another but yet in some cases can be misleading.

Cognitive psychologists have achieved many breakthroughs in the areas of education and learning by studying the process of reading or learning .Applied cognitive science has been used by scientists to diagnose and treat learning difficulties, speech impairments, and aiding therapies for stroke victims. As exciting as applied cognitive science can be, it also raises many moral and political challenges for cognitive scientists in this field as the technology in some cases can be misused. Therefore cognitive science is also interrelated with the studying of history, social science and humanities.

Reference:

I’ve decided to approach this assignment by focusing on a disciplinary at a time, as well as enhancing my knowledge on the Digital Divide. This week I have focused on Geography, Human Geography to be specific.

Research:

The chunky textbook “An Introduction to Human Geography”  by P. Daniels et al, has been the first to enlighten me on the foundations of Human Geography. Likewise to Web Science, it is known to be a multi-disciplinary field of study. “It is about the world around us” but this does not just mean the physical aspects, which we all initially think of when Geography is mentioned. Human Geography draws upon sociology, anthropology, politics as well as oceanography and geology (and many others). It’s focus involves people in places, spaces and landscapes that are modified by human interventions.

This book provided a significant insight to a range of topics covered within Human Geography, including Globalisation, Demography, Capitalism, Social Inequalities and Spatial Divides. The majority directly and indirectly affecting, the digital divide:

Globalisation:- “Shrinking World’; affected by technical, political, cultural and economical factors; Fast developing technologies and Satellite Communications = more global and connected world;

Capitalism:- Between 1500 and 1900 fundamental changes of the organisation of the western world; World Systems theory uses the socio-economic systems involving 3 categories –  Core, Periphery and Semi-Periphery; Industrial Production is noted to be regionally diversified and geographically uneven; Newly Industrialised Countries’ (NIC’s) are ‘catching up’.

Social Inequality and Spatial Divides:- Labels with negative associations for the under developed; requires encouragement for solving development problems; 2-way relationship between society and space; mapping based on quality of life (needs and desires) in different places; measured by Human Development Index (HDI) taking into account a variety of factors including access to the internet/technology

Reference: Daniels., P, Bradshaw., P, Shaw., D, Sidaway., J,  (2012) An Introduction to Human Geography, 4th ed, Essex: Pearson.

Although going backwards with regard to the publication date, the Human Geography Issues for 21st Century by P. Daniels et al textbook was also a worthwhile read. It discusses the focus Geographers have – an interest in ways places differ from one another and the similarities and interconnections between places. In terms of the digital divide this is relevant as it is vital to understand the cause of the divide, comprehend it’s effects and draw up solutions.

Population, Resources and Development:- the concern isn’t just about the resources running out, but the exchange and consumption of the resources that benefit rich nations at the expense of the poor and natural environment; The terms ‘Push’ and ‘Pull’ factors, related to migration, put pressure on resources and increase social tensions – access to, and use of, technology is a major push/pull factor.

Impact of technologies:- dynamic and linked to human society; A definite ‘technological progress’; Makes old technologies and associated resources redundant; The resource-rich are able to exploit the use and supply of resources – causing wars and conflict; Technological change improved link between economic development and energy consumption – the developing world could go through this development too?!

Digital Economy:- I believe to be Geographer’s terminology linking to the Digital Divide; The Global Digital Economy is changing the geography of the economy, with the use of the internet, e-commerce and digital economies rapidly growing and diversifying; The challenge is connecting national economies to the internet, being excluded will widen a gap that already exists; Connecting countries to the internet is improving;  Still major steps involving training and educating to be able to use the technologies; There is a clear geographical distribution of available computers/telecommunications/networks and software – all of which are needed to participate in the digital economy; Issue that introducing these technologies in the developing world will bring more negative impacts than positive, as it requires users to be highly skilled (a trait many in the developing world have unfortunately not been able to obtain).

Reference: Daniels., P, Bradshaw., P, Shaw., D, Sidaway., J, (2008), An Introduction to Human Geography: Issues for the 21st Century, 3rd ed, Essex:Pearson

My Thoughts/Questions:

The research so far has left me to ponder on the following:

– Was there already a significant gap before the Digital Divide was established?

–  Is the Technology being blamed for a gap that already existed simply because it has been a major contributor to the expansion of the divide?

– Prior to the evolution of technology, were there actions in place to reduce the gap between the first and third world?

– We have caused this digital divide – but realistically, will it ever close or only expand?

– Have we simply created a vicious circle we now can’t control?

– If NIC’s are overcoming the divide, surely other developing countries can?

– Do the western/developed countries genuinely want to help improve/overcome the digital divide or is it too risky as it could jeopardise the benefits the developed world receive (i.e. could it lose their connections, cheaper access to resources etc)?

Issue: How to reach a global consensus on the balance to be struck between the right to freedom of expression and content which should be illegal on the web.

Having decided upon Anthropology and Mathematics as my two disciplines, I have spent the past two weeks researching the basics of both and trying to narrow down which specific areas of the disciplines I will be applying to my issue.  The subject of this post will be my current reading in relation to Anthropology …

Anthropology

This week I picked up ‘The Anthropology of Development and Globalization‘ by Marc Edelman and Angelique Haugerud from the library. Because the main crux of my issue is essentially that of assimilating the various views of nation states on where the line of freedom of expression should be drawn, I thought this book may provide an insight to how nation states have dealt with globalization through the eyes of anthropology.

Globalization has led to the increased integration of various places in the world economy and has resulted in improved transportation and communication systems (including the web) on multidirectional cultural flows.

This book is made up of a number of short essays, many of which have been interesting but one in particular has proven rather applicable. ‘Seeing Culture as a Barrier’ by Emma Crewe and Elizabeth Harrison, some points which I found particularly interesting were:

–       The idea of traditions holding people back has a persistence across development industry

–       Traditionalism is partly attributed to economic or ecological conditions, but is often conceived as being linked to a psychological or cultural disposition that is in some sense backward and prevents people from embracing modernity

–       Characterisation of culture implies stasis unless a culture is influenced by ‘modern society’.

–       Barriers to development due to ‘cultural rules’ are seen as much more immovable

In applying the discipline of Anthropology to my issue, the questions I am beginning to consider are:

–       What elements influence nation states views on acceptable online content?

–       What are the different approaches they take and why?

–       Had nation states shown development in the content they allowed to enter circulation prior to the web?

Next post …

Mathematics!

Rather than focus specifically on my disciplines in this blog, I thought I might share with you the basis of the topic that I am exploring in a little more detail. The reason for this is because, as part of my reading and understanding of the web, it raises some interesting points that are shaping the direction of my enquiries into the disciplines in question. It is also important because it has given me specific consideration of avenues for discussion as both disciplines are considerable in scope- to wade in without a clear focus isn’t achievable.

A question: Did you know that 1/3 of children have received a sexually explicit text or email?

The article referenced, actually a speech given by David Cameron, which influenced my decision to follow this particular topic, is available at https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/the-internet-and-pornography-prime-minister-calls-for-action

If we explore this from a critical stance it opens up a range of issues relevant to both my two disciplines. Notably, however, are the wide range of potential philosophical arguments that relate to moral ethics. There are clear themes regarding virtues, action and moral duty as well as links to categorical imperatives. Further to this, the entire basis of the proposed reform is in fact, philosophical- it is grounded in the idea of taking action, even though it may be unpopular. This is eerily affirmed in the closing remark “That is what is at stake, and I will do whatever it takes to keep our children safe.” This could be interpreted as a strong stance on the importance of protecting individuals, those vulnerable, from harm- moral ethics and action. Likewise it could also be considered a political philosophy, a statement in its own right about the decisions of Governments being made irrespective of the agreements of the many. A number of other systems of Government, especially those on the extremes of the political spectrum, have argued that taking such action is justifiable if its for a specific purpose. Likewise could such a philosophical stance be argued by a Government in order to justify other actions? To where would that lead? Is censorship valid if its for good?

Likewise it opens up a range of interesting debates about the idea of responsibility, a key theme within philosophy as evident in reading so far. At many times, in fact, the speech appears as an attack on the web itself, as an entity beyond the control of society, its leaders and the search providers such as Google. “If there are technical obstacles to acting on this, don’t just stand by and say nothing can be done, use your great brains to overcome them.” The most interesting application of this is with the following argument: “Companies like Google make their living out of trawling and categorising content on the web, so that in a few key strokes you can find what you’re looking for out of unimaginable amounts of information. That’s what they do. They then sell advertising space to companies based on your search patterns. So if I go back to the Post Office analogy, it would be like the Post Office helping someone to identify and then order the illegal material in the first place and then sending it on to them, in which case the Post Office would be held responsible for their actions.”

It is clear, then, that the topic identified has further relevance in terms of philosophical action- in that, who has responsibility to act, why and how should they. This links back to my previous post about the responsibility of parents and just whose moral duty it is to take action. It is also important to recognise that the stance explores two very different issues and this, in itself, creates confusion: child pornography and children accessing pornography. It relates back to the argument of harm, interestingly offering a philosophical argument of which is of greater priority. Distinctions are not drawn in the argument, rightly placing equal emphasis on both. What is clear, however, is the stance of Cameron that not enough is being done and that those of us in a position to shape the web have greater responsibility than we are acting on, apparently. Set your greatest brains to work on this. You’re not separate from our society, you’re part of our society and you must play a responsible role within it. I could offer a point about social shaping and technology here.

The premise of censorship is relatively simple, according to Cameron: “we’ve agreed home network filters that are the best of both worlds. By the end of this year, when someone sets up a new broadband account, the settings to install family friendly filters will be automatically selected; if you just click next or enter, then the filters are automatically on.”. However will it work this simply? How do filters identify what is and isn’t adult material and to what extent can it be affirmed as technologically viable? After all, the speech itself doesn’t appear to make any difference between the web and the internet; in fact, not once, is the word ‘web’ used at all. How then, will such filters work? Are they operating on the ISPs network, or are they instructing the web browsers through the network…and so on.

Over the past couple of weeks I have decided to introduce myself to the wonderful world of philosophy, as this seems as good a place to start as any. From my understanding, philosophy tries to gain an understanding of the more fundamental questions of human existence, with the idea that this will lead to a more thorough understanding of life itself. In this sense some argue that philosophy adds to traditional science by giving answers to questions beyond. However unlike traditional science its methods are very different. As traditional scientific methods are arguably involved in philosophical questions themselves, philosophy does not rely on these but instead it builds up knowledge from its own history using systematic reflection. Further to this some have commented that philosophy cannot necessarily be studied and learnt like other disciplines as it something you learn by doing as opposed to by reading about.

Main theories

As stated before there are three main theories in philosophy (although these themselves arguably interrelate with each other, as well as containing an almost endless supply of sub-theories).

Metaphysics – this is about the study of the ‘ultimate nature of reality’, and attempts to distinguish how we can know whether everyday reality is ‘real’. This area includes topics such as dualism, materialism and realism, the latter of which argues that reality exists independently from the mind.

Epistemology – this explores whether knowledge can be independent and includes topic such as empiricism, rationalism and idealism.

Moral and Political Philosophy – explores how individuals behave within society and includes topics such as consequentalism, utilitarianism and contract theory, the former of which argues that moral reasoning should focus mainly on the consequences of our actions.

Regarding the area of social change on the internet I believe the theory most applicable to the study is Moral and Political Philosophy. Whilst metaphysics and epistemology are clearly important areas of study they are perhaps to abstract to such a specific topic. However moral and political philosophy applies well. For example moral philosophy might explore why people behave differently in an online space to physical space, or ask whether a lack of consistent societal norms might have an impact. Political philosophy might look at whether we should follow governmental rules in the first place, or ask whether liberty online is a freedom citizens should have. Political philosophy particular is an area I hope to explore further as this both applies to the topic and succinctly combines the disciplines of study.

In the next blog post I am going to look at the area of politics specifically to explore whether there are particular themes or theories that are most appropriate to the topic area.

References

Nutall, J. ‘An Introduction to Philosophy’
Warburton, N. ‘Philosophy the Basics’
Craig, E. ‘Philosophy: A Very Short Introduction’
Sellars, R. ‘The Principles, Perspectives and Problems of Philosophy’
Newtown, I. ‘Giants’
Honderich, T. ‘The Oxford Companion to Philosophy’

Researcher: Jo Munson
Title: Can there ever be a “Cohesive Global Web”?
Disciplines: Economics, Ethnography (Cultural Anthropology)

Ethnographers concern themselves with studying the
cultural differences and similarities between humans

An Ethnographer’s approach to studying humanity

Remembering then that Ethnography can be thought of as:

the study of contemporary and recent human societies and cultures

and that:

culture is the socially transmitted knowledge and behavioural patterns shared by some group of people

I now consider what makes Ethnogaphers’ approach to the study of humans distinct from that of say, Sociologists. There are three concepts particularly central to Ethnographic study:

• Holism – the concept that no one aspect of a society can be understood without understanding how it relates to all other aspects of that community.
• Relativism – the concept that the observer of a community should not judge the observed community with the prejudices and values of their own culture.
• Comparativism – the concept that for something to be considered “universal” to all humans, the diversity of global human culture must have been considered.

Relativism and Comparitivism together highlight a particular feature observed amonghst Ethnographers – they tend to fall somewhere between two extremes:

• Relativists – who concentrate on cultural differences between human socities; and
• Anti-Relatives – who concentrate on the similarities between cultures, or “human universals”.

The approaches and theories of Cultural Anthropologists has evolved over time, with Evolutionary and Functionalist ideas making way for new ideas. In the same way that Ethnographers can be thought of as Relativist or Anti-Relativist, modern Anthropology considers Materialism and Idealism:

• Materialists – Materialists believe that the material features of a community’s environment are the most important factor affecting its culture.
• Idealists – Idealists believe that human ideas affect culture more than any material features.

As with all extremes, the reality is more likely a mix of the two opposing schools of thought.

Next time (and beyond)…

The order/form of these may alter, but broadly, I will be covering the following in the proceeding weeks:

• Can there ever be a “cohesive global web”?
• Ethnography 1 – Introduction & Definition
• Ethnography 2 – Disciplinary Approach
• Ethnography 3 – Theories & Methodologies
• Economics 1 – Introduction & Definition
• Economics 2 – Disciplinary Approach
• Economics 3 – Theories & Methodologies
• Ethnographic Approach to the “Cohesive Global Web”
• Economic Approach to the “Cohesive Global Web”
• Ethno-Economic Approach to the “Cohesive Global Web”

Sources

Peoples, J. and Bailey, G. 1997. Humanity. Belmont, CA: West/Wadsworth.

Barnard, A. 2000. Social anthropology. Taunton: Studymates.

Image retrieved from: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/multimedia/photo_gallery/0908/nba.cbk.remember.when.hoops.style/content.1.html

To start with I am going to look at what Philosophy thinks identity means. This was a slightly naive aspiration as this is a fairly large area of philosophy. Below I have put some notes of the progress I have made so far.

Identity is not a simple question in philosophy. There are several theories surrounding the issue of “who am I?”.

Dualism (Maslin, 2001)

• Humans are composed of 2 entities: non-physical soul/mind and the physical body
• The “person” is the consciousness or the entity that experiences and it is identical to the soul but does not include the body

Identity Theories (Reductionism)

Part of philosophy investigates the concept of mind and body, mind-body problem. What is the body? Who does it belong to? What is the mind? Is it the brain or is it something more? (Mullen, 1977).

Mind/Brain Identity Theory (MBIT)

• MBIT denies Dualism
• Mind is not separate from the brain
  • everything is physical, including consciousness and thoughts => exemplifies Materialism

MBIT defines a “brain event” as the living brain and the mental events. Identity theorists explain that mental states are brain states. However, this isn’t a bi-directional relationship. I understand it in terms of

Mind = Brain Events BUT NOT Mind  ≡ Brain Events

So to explain this in terms of maths:

x + 3 = 5

In my example:

x = 2

However 2 will NOT always equal to x.

So when identity theorists refer to Mind and Brain events, it is not correct to interchange the terms whilst describing one side of the relationship. These theorists are not proposing an Analytical Reduction relationship like the following statement “All trilateral are identical with three-sided figures”. As trilateral means three-sided figure, this statement is always analytically true – it can never be false. (Maslin, 2001)

Identity Theory can be further broken down into the following theories:

Terms:

Example  – “love and love and love”

Token = 5 “Token” Words

Type = 2 Types

1. love
2. and

Types are a broad class which categorises a number of tokens.

Token-token Identity Theory  (Maslin, 2001)

• mental tokens are just physical events (e.g. occurring in the brain)
• Every token of mental state  could be identical with token type of physical state but that mental state will not always generate the same brain state, at a different point in time.

Type-type Identity Theory  (Maslin, 2001)

Water = H₂O

Lightning = Pattern of Electrical Discharge

The contents on the right explain the hidden nature of the left-hand items. All lightning flashes will always be patterns of electrical charge but not all electrical charges will be lightning.

Mental State  => Brain State

The Brain State for a particular Mental State will have to be observed, can’t just be predicted.

Other

Identity through labels (Mullen, 1977) – haven’t quite figured out the term for this

Someone can be labelled as:

• a father
• son of . . .
• brother of . . .
• owner of a golden retriever
• CEO of Google

Is our identity defined by the labels placed on us by those around us? If this is the case, does our identity depend upon those around us?

Do these different labels/roles result in different behaviours and acceptable personas. What does this mean for our identity on the web? Some argue each label/role has an accepted scope of behaviours linked to it. When we accept the label we accept these conditions of behaviour for the period of time that we are still defined by that label.

Semantic Web  – How will all these personas appear in a semantic web where you are represented by one URI? Sometimes different areas of your life shouldn’t interact e.g. photographs of a young working professional out drinking on a Friday night and a primary school head teacher as these are different segments of this persons life.

Bibliography

Maslin, K.T., 2001. An Introduction to the Philosophy of Mind. Polity ; Blackwell Publishers, Cambridge, UK : Malden, MA.

Mullen, P., 1977. Beginning Philosophy. Edward Arnold, London.

http://forums.philosophyforums.com/threads/typetype-vs-tokentoken-identity-15036.html

After reading Winner’s (1980) article ‘Do artefacts have politics’ in our FoWS class, it seemed worth trying to think about MOOCs (as a technical artefact) and the way that they might influence or even determine future methods of delivering education. If I am to address the question of who benefits from MOOCs, then the political aspects or implications of their potential proliferation might be important. However, I’ve just found a rather scathing response (Joerges, 1999) to Winner in the journal Social Studies of Science. It’s full of some pretty impenetrable jargon (for me, anyway), but it might help develop my currently quite shallow understanding of this topic if I can get my head round it.

It has been suggested (by Wendy Hall and Johanna W. during our tutorial) that provision of some kinds of services over the Web tend to be dominated by large entities (such as Facebook, Amazon, or eBay). It may be likely, then, that organisations which already have a strong brand (iTunesU, Google, or well-established universities) may achieve a position of dominance in the provision of MOOCs – perhaps by attracting the ‘biggest names’ in education or industries related to particular subject areas.  It’s possible that monopolies or oligopolies will emerge – the start-up costs for some kinds of MOOCs are not insignificant, and such courses do require ongoing allocation of resources, maintenance, and of course regular updating (to contain cutting edge knowledge). It seems unlikely that all education providers will be able to compete on MOOC projects which have, to say the least, intangible returns.

Some further questions might arise from this:

• Is it possible to have ‘monopolies’ in education (are universities public or private bodies these days)? If so, how would such monopolies be defined, and to what extent does the government have authority to make policy/enact legislation to address this issue?

• Should individual universities opt out of the MOOC development process, and invest resources in other areas in which they may be able to compete more effectively?

•  Is this an area where consideration of economic ‘opportunity costs’ are relevant, where weighing up the costs of MOOCs against the ‘next best alternative’ determines the outcome?

Looking more broadly at the assignment overall, I’m a little concerned about the potential to combine the thinking behind my two chosen disciplines. One (economics) is built on the basic assumption that human material wants are unlimited, and everyone is motivated by the satisfaction of those wants in conditions of scarcity of resources. Philosophy, on the other hand, contemplates the nature of being, knowledge, truth, right and wrong and other lofty matters. It seems like an ultimate fighting match between a hungry 2-year-old and a Buddhist monk.

In other news, this week I’ve mostly been reading about the fundamentals of economics, about which I will post soon-ish.

References

Joerges, B. (1999) Do politics have artefacts. Social Studies of Science. 29 (3) pp. 411-431

Sloman, J.(2009) Economics (8^th edn.). Pearson: Harlow

Winner, L. Do artefacts have politics? Daedelus. 1 pp. 121-136

Researcher: Jo Munson
Title: Can there ever be a “Cohesive Global Web”?
Disciplines: Economics, Ethnography (Cultural Anthropology)

The archetypal vision of Anthropological fieldwork – but times have changed…

A very brief introduction to Anthropology

Cultural Anthropology forms one of the 5 pillars of the broader field of Anthropology, namely:

• Physical Anthropology (also called Biological Anthropology)
• Archaeology
• Anthropological Linguistics
• Applied Anthropology
• Ethnography (Also known as Cultural Anthropology Social Anthropology¹)

Common to all Anthropologists is their fascination with human kind.

The scope of Anthropological study is enormous:

• Physical Anthropologists focus on the evolution of our species and the anatomical differences between different races;
• Archaeologists lean towards analysing humans through the material remains we leave; and
• Anthropological Linguists are interested in how our use of language reflects our view of our surroundings, our social hierarchy and social interactions.

Regardless of the application or particular nuance each sub field takes on, the focus is always on finding out more about human beings.

The traditional view of the Anthropologist in the field is the Caucasian middle-aged man living among the tribal peoples of Africa, but this no longer reflects the discipline.

In the latter half of the twentieth century, there began a shift from (predominantly Euro-American Anthropologists) exclusively studying pre-industrial, non-western populations to the study of cultures “closer to home”. The shift reflected the realisation that Anthropologists offer unique insights to society as a whole, not covered by fields such as Sociology. Further more, Anthropology has begun to gain credibility as an applied discipline useful in solving “real world” problems, no longer confined to the realms of academia.

What then, are the particular features that define Ethnography?

[1] Strictly speaking, many argue that Social Anthropology is distinct from Cultural Anthropology. The distinction is not universally defined but some suggest that historically, US Anthropologists have focused more on cultural differences between populations (and commonly adopt the term Cultural Anthropology), whilst UK Anthropologist look more at societal differences (and more commonly use the term Social Anthropology).

Definition: Ethnography (Cultural Anthropology)

Ethnography has been defined as “the study of contemporary and recent human societies and cultures.” where the concept and diversity of culture is central to Ethnographic study. It is further suggested that:

Describing and attempting to understand and explain this cultural diversity of one of [Ethnographers’] major objective. Making the public aware and tolerant of the cultural differences that exist within humanity is another mission of Ethnology.

I think this summarises the objectives of Ethnography clearly, although does lead me to ask what “culture” is to an Ethnographer.

Anthropological definition of culture

Culture has been defined in countless ways by Anthropologists. One formal definition that has been suggested is that:

Culture is the socially transmitted knowledge and behavioural patterns shared by some group of people

That is to say that culture is not defined by biology or race, but is defined by the environment in which we live. Culture is learned from other people in our social group, knowledge is shared such that the group can reproduce and understand one another and behavioural patterns are assumed such that the group functions well, with each member playing their role.

Culture is of course a far more complex concept than described above, but this gives an idea about what is important to an Ethnographer’s studies. In essence, the Ethnographer studies what is important to the human and the human’s social group, including what allows the group to function and what might challenge harmony within the group.

Next time (and beyond)…

The order/form of these may alter, but broadly, I will be covering the following in the proceeding weeks:

• Can there ever be a “cohesive global web”?
• Ethnography 1 – Introduction & Definition
• Ethnography 2 – Disciplinary Approach
• Ethnography 3 – Theories & Methodologies
• Economics 1 – Introduction & Definition
• Economics 2 – Disciplinary Approach
• Economics 3 – Theories & Methodologies
• Ethnographic Approach to the “Cohesive Global Web”
• Economic Approach to the “Cohesive Global Web”
• Ethno-Economic Approach to the “Cohesive Global Web”

Sources

Peoples, J. and Bailey, G. 1997. Humanity. Belmont, CA: West/Wadsworth.

Barnard, A. 2000. Social anthropology. Taunton: Studymates.

Image retrieved from: http://sumananthromaterials.blogspot.co.uk/2010/06/social-and-cultural-anthropology.html

What is anthropology and what do anthropologists do?

Anthropologists can study just about anything that involves human behaviour. Strange (2009) states that the broadest definition of anthropology classes it as a social science involving the study of human groups and their behaviour, their interactions with each other and their physical environments.

Anthropology can also interact with many other disciplines; such as archaeology and the study of past societies, or in studying contemporary societies an anthropologist can sit alongside sociologists and psychologists to employ more quantitative methods or focus more on individuals.

Anthropology is therefore a very broad discipline with large sub-disciplinary areas – such as social anthropology, cultural anthropology, political anthropology, the anthropology of religion, environmental anthropology… basically, if it exists, anthropologists can study it.

It might seem as if nothing can unite this diversity but anthropology is holistic at heart, attempting to place whatever behaviour it examines within its social and environmental context. By nature, anthropology also aims to be very in-depth to fully understand the full range of people’s lives. To do this it relies on data collected in the field and since this is often hard to operationalize and measure, anthropology tends to be more qualitative, often employing the methodology known as ethnography to study its participants. Ethnography creates a portrait of a group and its dynamics – looking at the groups history and composition, its institutions and belief systems.

Therefore, anthropology attempts to account for the social and cultural variation in the world but a crucial part of the discipline is centred around conceptualising and understanding similarities between social systems and human relationships – therefore anthropologists ‘ask large questions while at the same time draw on the important insights of small places’ (Eriksen, 2010:2).

References:

Eriksen, T H (2010) Small Places, Large Issues: An Introduction to Social and Cultural Anthropology London: Pluto Press

Strang, V (2009) What Anthropologists Do Oxford: Berg