Andreas Wittel- Ethnography on the move: From Field to Net to Internet Volume 1, No.1- 2000, January)

Wittel defines the role of Ethnographers - which was once thought as (and still is) being 'in the field', now Anthropologists and Ethnographers can be in an entire different location to study and observe.  Wittel suggests '"research self-consciously embedded in a world system", that "moves out from the single sites and local situations... to examine the circulation of cultural meanings, objects, and identities in diffuse time-space" (Marcus 1998, p.79)'.  Wittel later writes about the work of Appadurai- that to decentre the notion of the field.  Instead of the field being used to connote locality, to "the here" and "the elsewhere"(Wittel, 2000).

This idea of here and elsewhere is exactly what ethnographers experience when researching. Castells work on "network Society" draws on this aspect.  Wittel writes about Castells work and quotes "to move away from studying fields towards an ethnography of network.  Networks are still strongly related to geographical space- like field.  Unlike field, a net work is an open structure, able to expand almost without limits and highly dynamic" (Wittel, 2000).  This implies that ethnographers are able to expand their study of the field easily and faster than they would be able to 'in the field'.  The concept -of fieldwork is 'is a shift from material spaces to so-called cyberspace.  The growth of the internet is one of the greatest cultural phenomena of our time, impacting almost all areas of life (Wittel, 2000).

Wittel explores the problems and differences of doing ethnography online.  Relating to thick description by Geertz, Wittel thinks that it is not just the individual nodes but the network itself that has to be studied. He writes "what is necessary is a thick description of the network, its dynamic  and the interplay of relations between people, things, activities and meanings (wittel, 2000).  

There are a few problems that are discussed in this paper, like the validity of data, participant observation, and lastly connections.  the first is hard to verify because the ethnographer must rely on the trust of the user, which presents a problem because the idea of being online gives people the freedom to be whoever they want, whatever age, race, ethnicity they want and wherever they want to be.  The second problem of participant observation 'can only take place in a rather reduced and limited mode' (Wittel, 2000).  Ethnographers cannot view 'real people'.  Hence, that is what participant observation is.  Lastly, connections-by changing and creating connections/networks this would change the dynamics and sociability of its participants.

This is a crucial part of ethnography.  The idea of being in a 'virtual world', studying 'virtual life' apart from being in the field, I think that this type of ethnography is a 'field' all by itself- distinct and different then that of the 'Boaz' era.  Technology and communications are changing our life at a rapid pace, providing us with information at the tips of our fingers, viewing life online is one aspect of our academic field and should be studied like that of other cultures in the real world.