Open Access, scholarship and digital anthropology

Daniel Miller, Responses by: Amita Baviskar, Don Brenneis, Carlos Fausto, Kim and Mike Fortun, Alex Golub, Sarah Green, Christopher Kelty, Martha Macintyre, Atsuro Morita, Carlo Severi; Reply by Daniel Miller


This paper consists of three arguments. The first advocates the development of Open Access for anthropological books and journals and critiques the way we have ceded control of dissemination to inappropriate commercial concerns that come to stand for what should have been academic criteria. The second argues that this is best accomplished while being conservative about the process of review, selection, and the canons of scholarship. Third, the paper address the emergence of Digital Anthropology, suggesting this has considerable significance for the very conceptualization of anthropology and its future, and suggesting that it can be given definition. But, this should not be confused with the issues of Open Access and review. This is followed by ten helpful and critical comments. In the concluding discussion I respond to these and argue how these points can be taken into account in creating the conditions for a shift to Open Access while defending the concept of Digital Anthropology.

Full Text:


DOI: https://doi.org/10.14318/hau2.1.016