Communicating Culture in Practice (original) (raw)

Applying v. Using Anthropology.

Practicing Anthropology

: [19][20][21][22]. Although not collaborative in the same sense, other articles that share some or all of the characteristics I am about to discuss are "Keeping Some Distance: Anthropology in Urban Planning" by Jeffery F. Dow (16,2[1994]:24-26) and "Reforming Electric Utility Regulation: The Engineer as Anthropologist" by Eric Hirst (16,2[1994]:27-30). The methodological approach suggested in these articles has some very disturbing features. These features have the potential to transform applied anthropology into the Mac-Science of the ninties-with its practitioners reduced to the role of flipping technocratic hats according to what disciplines "collaborate" in the research. If we are to avoid this, we must establish the difference between applying and using anthropology. To apply anthropology is to expand the knowledge base to a different reality through careful contextualization of previously acquired knowledge. New insights developed in the process can contribute towards the improvement of methods, theory, and research procedures. The user of anthropology, on the other hand, is mostly concerned with the gathering of information to prove or disprove the effectiveness of this or that instrument or mode of analysis; the user of anthropology treats the social realm as yet another laboratory where human interaction is to be replicated though not understood. The first disturbing feature is the idea that the best way to undertake anthropological research is to hyphenate it with another discipline. While there is nothing in principle that can be damaging to applied anthropology from its interaction with other disciplines, careful attention must be paid to the conditions under which such interaction takes place. A second, related disturbing feature is the heavy reliance on the so-called partnership arrangement as the preferred vehicle to undertake field work. Partnerships of the kind advocated might very well mean that field work is reduced to information scavenging on the remains of "the other," i.e., the research participants. Let us look closely at these two paradigmatic characteristics and the methodological consequences of using vs. applying anthropology. The principal reason for cross-discipline cooperation is to join forces in order to solve common problems. In applied anthropology, however, collaboration too often means applying our research tools to problems defined by other disciplines--or even loaning our tools to those disciplines. It is . irresponsible for Baba and Falkenburg to suggest that an engineering graduate student who takes notes and asks questions can become an ethnographer solely on the basis of this "experience." To reverse their simplistic analogy, to behave like an engineer but to think like an ethnographer is not a sufficient condition to conduct sound quantitative research. Mastering the tools of the trade cannot and must not be confused with the need to obtain scientifically rigorous results. Another problem with the cross-disciplinary collaboration described by Baba and Falkenburg is that it omits active involvement from the workers at the site. Throughout the article, the workers appear as nothing more than lower-order information devices whose very livelihood activities need "translation" via engineering students who know the jargon used, though not the human beings who use it. Clearly, this kind of cross-discipline interaction is intended to act on people rather than with them. In the Old Days, when glorifying corporations and putting academic credentials at their service was not part of a researcher's duties, this kind of research was called exploitative and manipulative. It is the inevitable result of putting applied anthropology at the service of third party interests under the guise of collaborative efforts. Within the practitioner/ researcher model there can be no legitimacy whatsoever in a study that systematically denies participation to those who are most affected by it. However, if applied anthropology is seen as a user-friendly discipline, willing to bend and twist as the requirements of the user demand, this type of research becomes possible. In such a case, we are not applying anthropology; we are using anthropology to suit someone else's needs. The reliance on partnership as the preferred way to conduct field work has similarly negative results. Partnership is conceived of as a combined effort on the part of two disciplines that, while taking part in a common task, nevertheless remain totally independent from one another. This sort of "coequal partnership" leads-as Baba and Falkenburg show-into various kinds of power-plays and mind-games between "professionals of different occupational subcultures." The main component in these power-plays is the issue of control over the definition, design, and implementation of field work. Three-quarters of field work time, it seems, was spent trying to convince engineers of the benefits of qualita, tive methods. The focus of the field work, however, was "what was wrong at the informant's work site"-that is to say, workproductivity improvement. Engineers alone cannot figure out the problems in an industrial setting, so let's bring in the anthropologists. Thus, the task is not to do what ethnographic work demands (careful, long-term investigation); rather, the task is to take the path of least resistance and do what works. Partnerships of this type are, in essence, opportunistic arrangements entered into to manipulate the social realm. It is ironic that, while some of us are not prepared to accept the disintegration of indigenous societies in the name of progress, others, it seems, have no quarrel with the prospect of turning

Academic Anthropology

IGNOU, 2022

Broadly, anthropology can be divided into academic anthropology and practicing anthropology considering the career choices pursued by the trained anthropologists. We will be discussing these two domains at length in this unit. The term ‘applied’ or ‘practicing’ anthropologists are used inter-changeably in this unit to keep it simple for the purpose of understanding. However, there are scholars (Baba 2009; Nolan 2003) who make a distinction between ‘applied’ and ‘practicing’ anthropologists too. Applied anthropologists generally oscillate between academic and non-academic settings. Both practicing and applied anthropology have their focal point of policy formulation rather than contributing to pure theoretical knowledge.

Anthropology today: being present in the society

Slovenský národopis/ Slovak Ethnology, 2019

In this editorial, we have tried to define the uniqueness of anthropology and the way its current development reflects in the papers in this issue of Slovenský národopis/Slovak Ethnology. At the same time, we have asked ourselves, how do we as anthropologists/ethnologists approach the public, how do we search for a way to present the results of our research and if the research we conduct is still anthropologically “juicy”. After all, what all presented texts have in common is the essence of good ethnography, which reflects, doubts, discusses, compares and deconstructs. As one of the great popularisers of our field Thomas H. Eriksen once characterized: “Our strength lies in producing knowledge about phenomena that cannot easily be counted or measured; anthropologists have to make an effort to show the relevance of their irrelevant knowledge. Equally, if nobody understands what we are saying, that is not an indication of profundity but of poor language skills and muddled thought” (Eriksen, 2016: 35).

" WHAT ANTHROPOLOGISTS CAN CONTRIBUTE? "

Dear sir or madam, I am Deppy Keranidou a student from Greece that currently is doing a Masters degree in Cultural Anthropology; Sustainable Citizenship. Since I was very little I have always been deeply interested in the " otherness " and different cultures as a whole. Despite being brought up within typical Greek cultural surroundings , when later on started travelling and exploring this world I realized how difficult sometimes it is for certain peoples and communities to fit in the dry world led by profits, corporate powers and western dominant ideas. Therefore, what I questioned myself was " How can we (as people) integrate in this world through creative pathways? " Social integration through arts will therefore be my case study for the following months representing a productive agency for minorities and marginalized actors to express themselves. Migrants, refugees, minorities and marginalized people are given the opportunity to communicate, express themselves and get involved in the broader community and share their own stories through laboratories and initiatives by using public spaces (such as squares, parks) ,artistic spaces (exhibition centers/ libraries /museums) as well as universities for a deeper connection and externalization. On that matter, an anthropologist is a key person that can contribute to the social integration of these people by engaging in his actions tools such as policy-making, consultancy, coaching-mentoring and practices to involve other stakeholders. By and large, it is remarkable to point out that an anthropological view and participation is essential to make such initiatives more visible as well as feasible. I will further analyze this key contribution under a multifaceted scale. First of all, it is pretty significant for a case that is being examined, to equally pay attention to its background and history so as to be able to design the patterns and methodologies of actions over the matters that an anthropologist approaches. Thus, in the core of the research lies the study of how the current situation of these societies emerges, what has brought them in these specific Umwelt in terms of Cultural, Social, Economic, Psychological and Political aspects. In concrete, as anthropologists we are called to examine all the historical background of the societal surroundings that led these people " On the move " since every human being of the world has their own story that shaped their culture, lifestyle, mentality and identity. This can be achieved through interviews to the people in interest, participant observation on the specific populations to examine their typical –cultural

Three narratives of anthropological engagement

Anthropology Matters, 2009

This article is an account of different experiences, reflections and impressions that have arisen when embarking on the process of doing anthropological research and writing a thesis. The common ground of these three narratives is that they refer to our personal engagement with anthropology, our experiences within the academic world, as well as to our restless endeavour to make sense of them. We are particularly concerned with the language, the methods, and what usually remains unsaid or is taken for granted with regard to the context of anthropological training, fieldwork and writing up. Our claim is that whereas we as anthropologists attentively take into account the context of our research, we have often failed to pay a similar kind of attention to ourselves and our academic context. We see this article as a contribution towards such study.