anthropological research and studies

ANTHROPOLOGICAL RESEARCHES AND STUDIES (ARS)

The romanian journal anthropological researches and studies (issn 2360-3445; issn-l 2360-3445) is an annual journal and publishes:.

• fundamental and applied research, clinical field research;
• reviews and updates;
• case reports;
• information on scientific meetings.
• bio-medical anthropology: auxology, behavioral ecology, epidemiology, nutrition, physical activity, sport ,  sexual-reproductive health, population biology, psychology, psychiatry, etc.
• socio-cultural anthropology: topics based on the behavioral categories (economic, political, linguistic etc.), on human relations (gender, family, nation, etc.), on values (ethical, aesthetic, philosophical, religious, etc.), as well as on methodology.

Priority will be given to articles that explore medical topics, or highlight aspects related to human physical and mental health.  ARS  encourages its contributors to emphasize the impact that the main topic presented in their papers could have on physical and mental health at individual and/or social scale.

Keywords:  bio-medical anthropology, socio-cultural anthropology, medicine, psychology, sociology.

How to submit

Follow the Authors Guidlines and then send  to  one  of these addresses:

Andreea-Cătălina FORȚU, cultural anthropology, sociology, qualitative research methods,  psychology,   e-mail: [email protected]

Maria-Miana DINA, biomedical anthropology, medicine, psychology, e-mail: [email protected]

Flavia-Elena CIURBEA, biomedical anthropology, medicine, psychology, e-mail: [email protected]

Cristina-Ana STAN, biomedical anthropology, medicine, psychology, e-mail: [email protected]

2012 - 2015

• No. 1, 2012 (Abstracts)
• No. 3, 2014 (Abstracts)
• No. 4, 2014
• No. 5, 2015 (Abstracts)
• No. 5, 2015
• No.  6, 2016
• No.  7, 2017
• No.  8, 2018
• No.  9, 2019
• No. 10, 2020
• No. 11, 2021
• No. 12, 2022
• No. 13, 2023
• No. 14, 2024
• No. 15, 2025
• Call for Papers

This is an open access journal

As a result of its commitment to the aim of promoting the broadest dissemination of scientific information to the largest audience, the ARS Journal opted for an Open Access policy, allowing interested readers to easily and freely access the latest anthropological research findings and also giving the authors the opportunity to raise their visibility by multiplying the standard distribution channels. Not only that the journal is indexed in a multitude of free access bibliographic databases, but the authors themselves are free to post a copy of their final papers on their personal website or institutional repository.

Starting with 2024 in order to maintain free open access, long-term archiving and indexing (such as DOAJ, Crossref), a publishing fee of 100 euros/paper will be requested upon final acceptance following the review process.  See section Evaluation Phases, at the end.

As a condition for publishing the articles, all authors of the accepted papers will be required to sign a CC BY-NC License Agreement in accordance with the ‘Creative Commons Attribution – NonCommercial License CC BY-NC’. For further information, see  AUTHORS GUIDELINES .

Starting in 2016, Anthropological Researches and Studies has been committed for preservation in the Portico archive. Portico is a community-supported, not-for-profit digital preservation service committed to ensuring that scholarly content published in electronic form remains accessible for the long term.

The ARS journal subscribes to the principles and international standards for editors, reviewers, and authors of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).  In order to protect the dignity, rights, and welfare of all research participants, it also adheres to the ethical values, norms, and procedures for biological and medical research with human beings as stipulated by the Declaration of Helsinki, the Oviedo Convention, etc…

• bio-medical anthropology: auxology, behavioral ecology, epidemiology, nutrition, physical activity, sport ,  sexual-reproductive health, population biology, psychology, psychiatry, etc.

Priority will be given to articles that explore medical topics, or highlight aspects related to human physical and mental health.  ARS  encourages its contributors to emphasize the impact that the main topic presented in their papers could have on physical and mental health at individual and/or social scale.

Keywords:  bio-medical anthropology, socio-cultural anthropology, medicine, psychology, sociology.

Follow the Authors Guidelines and then submit your manuscript using the form on this page:

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals

Anthropology articles from across Nature Portfolio

Anthropology is the study of humans, their close relatives and their cultural environment. Subfields of anthropology deal with hominin evolution and the comparative study of extant and past cultures.

Humans have evolved to digest starch more easily since the advent of farming

The region of the human genome that harbours genes encoding amylase enzymes, which are crucial for starch digestion, shows extensive structural diversity. Amylase genes have been duplicated and deleted several times in human history, and structures that contain duplicated versions of the genes were favoured by natural selection after the advent of agriculture.

Ancient equine genomes reveal dawn of horse domestication

An analysis of ancient genomes reveals an explosive geographical and demographic spread of modern domestic horses about 4,200 years ago. The findings counter the idea that horses accompanied and mobilized the mass migration of humans from the Eurasian steppes about 5,000 years ago.

Spatial bias in the fossil record affects understanding of human evolution

Using modern mammals as analogues, we investigate how spatial bias in the early human fossil record probably influences understanding of human evolution. Our results suggest that the environmental and fossil records from palaeoanthropological hotspots are probably missing aspects of environmental and anatomical variation.

Related Subjects

• Archaeology
• Biological anthropology
• Social anthropology

Latest Research and Reviews

Chronometric data and stratigraphic evidence support discontinuity between Neanderthals and early Homo sapiens in the Italian Peninsula

Here, the authors present 74 radiocarbon and 31 luminescence age determinations from four sites in southern Italy. They use these data to suggest that Neanderthal disappearance in the region predated the appearance of early modern humans, a previously unclear chronology

• Marine Frouin
• Francesco Boschin

Unveiling the female experience through adult mortality and survivorship in Milan over the last 2000 years

• Lucie Biehler-Gomez
• Samantha Yaussy
• Cristina Cattaneo

Ancient Rapanui genomes reveal resilience and pre-European contact with the Americas

An analysis of 15 ancient genomes from individuals dating to AD 1670–1950 from Rapa Nui (also known as Easter Island) addresses questions about the population history of the island.

• J. Víctor Moreno-Mayar
• Bárbara Sousa da Mota
• Anna-Sapfo Malaspinas

Three-way interaction effect of hindrance research stressors, inclusive mentoring style, and academic resilience on research creativity among doctoral students from China

• Chunlei Liu
• Xiaoqing Gao

Infrastructure and the evolution of settlement space: a study from a spatial anthropological perspective on the Pearl River Delta

• Jianqiang Yin
• Jingzhao Feng

An open dataset for oracle bone character recognition and decipherment

• Pengjie Wang
• Kaile Zhang
• Yuliang Liu

News and Comment

Underwater bridge gives clues to ancient human arrival

Dating mineral deposits in a flooded cave reveals that humans reached Mallorca over 5,000 years ago.

A wise doorman’s hidden treasures

• Tilmann Heil

Tropical archaeology expands the urban frame of reference

Urban archaeology in the humid tropics advances a new and diversified ontology of urban spatial forms, functions and processes that enriches and expands the frame of reference for what cities were in the past, what they are in the present and what they can be in the future.

• Christian Isendahl
• Vernon L. Scarborough

Covert racism in AI chatbots, precise Stone Age engineering, and the science of paper cuts

We round up some recent stories from the Nature Briefing .

• Benjamin Thompson
• Elizabeth Gibney
• Emily Bates

Stone Age builders had engineering savvy, finds study of 6,000-year-old monument

A survey of the Dolmen of Menga suggests that the stone tomb’s Neolithic builders had an understanding of science.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

• Tools and Resources
• Customer Services
• Original Language Spotlight
• Alternative and Non-formal Education 
• Cognition, Emotion, and Learning
• Curriculum and Pedagogy
• Education and Society
• Education, Change, and Development
• Education, Cultures, and Ethnicities
• Education, Gender, and Sexualities
• Education, Health, and Social Services
• Educational Administration and Leadership
• Educational History
• Educational Politics and Policy
• Educational Purposes and Ideals
• Educational Systems
• Educational Theories and Philosophies
• Globalization, Economics, and Education
• Languages and Literacies
• Professional Learning and Development
• Research and Assessment Methods
• Technology and Education
• Share Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Article contents

Anthropology and research methodology.

• Graciela Batallán Graciela Batallán Universidad de Buenos Aires (UBA)
• https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.354
• Published online: 30 September 2019

This article provides a reflection on “qualitative” research methodology and their study within the university and other educational levels and invites dialogue between paradigms and currents of thought that are identified with teaching and the methods of producing empirical information. From a critical perspective, together with the positivism of the social sciences, it argues that the node of this teaching is the process of constructing the object of study, a process that confirms the centrality of the researcher.

In accordance with a theoretical-methodological focus that distinguishes the specificity of the object of the social sciences in its linguistic construction, and considering the capacity for agency of the temporarily situated actors, the researcher (also a social agent), in addition to taking on the scope and historicity of the concepts used to problematize the relationships being investigated, needs to analyze the reflexivity of his/her language, which is inscribed in the assumptions that guide his/her inquiry. In this way, research training embodies a pedagogical problematic, whereby addressing the aforementioned centrality of the construction of the object goes hand in hand with the pedagogical problematization of everyday speech.

Research-in-action training constitutes the future researcher as a critical intellectual, in search of a reliable (or true) knowledge that will incorporate him/her into the scientific framework.

• qualitative methods
• ethnographic historical focus
• the centrality of the researcher/objectivity
• critical pedagogy

A version of this article is available in its original language.

The methodological debate, circumscribed to the question of methods within the social sciences, has put the focus on the confrontation between quantitative and qualitative methods. Between this contrasting pair, the first naturally monopolize almost all of the established scientific criteria, such as generalization and objectivity, derived from the positivist paradigm. The second, qualitative methods, while also tacitly adhering to the same paradigm, are pushed to the back and considered to be exploratory or heuristic stages within research processes, and they are granted less legitimacy within institutionalized instances of university training and other educational contexts. In fact, the positivist paradigm, still widely used, grants scientific legitimacy to the statistical samples associated with quantitative methodological approaches, despite the fact that the positivist paradigm and the hypothetical-deductive research framework that facilitates quantitative research have been widely debunked within theoretical-epistemological debates.

Meanwhile, the enunciation of qualitative methods generally identifies the methodological approach with techniques of “gathering” information used in fieldwork, without referencing its epistemological foundations. In this sense we can say that the dichotomy between quantitative and qualitative methods does not generate a robust discussion, and in fact results in minimal recognition of, even devalues, the intellectual production generated by qualitative methods.

With the goal of consolidating reflections on the field of knowledge production within social sciences and social science education, this article works to relocate the axis of analysis from methods or technical-methodological approaches to the construction of the research object by explaining the ways in which the different elements that constitute the research object are linked. In this way, this article accounts for the internal articulations between the (ontological, conceptual, and epistemological) dimensions that intervene in methodological research approaches.

The body of the article is divided into two parts: the first addresses the general ways in which qualitative methods are framed, bearing in mind that teaching qualitative research grew out of documentarian training, that is to say, producers of primary sources, social agents who give meaning to social action, based on the first theoretical/conceptual tradition of anthropology, particularly participant observation (PO) as its characteristic approach. This section also addresses central points of debate and rupture within anthropology as a discipline and other social sciences.

In the second part, I organize the characteristics of the historical-ethnographic approach for empirical research and teaching, with the goal of generating an alternative to the traditional position. Additionally, I broaden the theoretical-epistemological references with the contributions of more contemporary social science research, with particular emphasis on Latin American contributions to this field of specialization.

Qualitative Research Methods and Scientific Criteria

As a first step, it is necessary to explain that research methodology is a specialist area within social sciences, tied to the production of knowledge. In general terms, the research creates and/or disputes the theory, generating—together with its growth and revision—a contribution to the social debate in question. It is a critical activity as it unmasks the static appearance of the given by providing elements for the analysis and explanation of relevant social problems.

As is the case for all specializations, research methodology is imbricated in the power dynamics of a field within the scientific community, which operates in the present, with institutionally manufactured knowledge. In this way, “the community” is cultivated through pressures and resistances that foster controversy through the hegemony of different approaches. The scientific criteria of the research, which are at the center of the debate, demonstrate, explicitly or implicitly, the ways in which new knowledges must account for its arguments and if these new knowledges are legitimated within a specific disciplinary tradition or if they are at odds with it.

In this sense, science as an institution demands that its members make explicit the scientific criteria (the scientific ideal) that they employ in their research, that they express this within the knowledge they accumulate and that they present it in their theoretical positioning, as well as in their justification for their chosen methodologies on which their empirical research weaves its arguments.

Within these criteria, research must answer to the axiom of objectivity, which—even when called into question—takes for granted that new knowledge production is “real,” “truthful,” or “trustworthy,” in contrast to manifestos of denunciation or fictional essays or literature.

The definition of qualitative methods is consubstantial with the centrality of the researcher in the production of information (the data); thus, the scientific criteria cannot be grounded in approaches or methods (which are necessarily influenced by this centrality), but, rather, should correspond to the analysis of the phenomena being studied. In the common sense of science, this displacement grants qualitative methods a sort of “little brother” status in the field of empirical research within the social sciences. The faith invested in the standardized instruments of quantitative approaches (which enable the illusion of statistical generalizations on a macro-social level) is detached from the qualitative approaches, which are stigmatized for lacking objectivity and whose neutrality is compromised as a result of the inevitable subjectivity of the researcher.

This unresolvable question is transferred to the teaching of social science research methodologies, and the relevant materials are divided between subjects that teach quantitative methods (generally Methodology A) and subjects that teach qualitative methods (generally Methodology B). However, teaching qualitative methods (because they are directly anchored in the world of experience) require that students be trained as field researchers, which is to say, as producers of primary sources or first-hand documents. Through this process (documenting the meaning given to the action of the research subjects), this teaching is necessarily concerned with the reliable production of information and the rigor with which principles and rules in relation to ethics are adopted. Examples of the latter include respect for the textuality and the expressions and voices documented, and a lack of coercion or affective, emotional manipulation of interview subjects.

This demonstrates that within its formative goal—beyond the ethical/moral dimension of the documentarian’s role—a safeguard for objectivity is present within the documentation, that is to say, processes that ensure the document is authentic and impartial with respect to the perspective, judgement, or emotion of the researcher are in place. This precaution corresponds to the field of scientific production, in its work to produce documents that are considered scientific. Even within currents of methodological anarchy (Feyerabend, 1974 ) or postmodern skepticism regarding the existence of criteria to determine truth, this issue remains relevant within the scientific community, within which—eventually—it is debated.

These findings reinforce the outlined perspective: scientific criteria are (or should be) determined in accordance with their object of knowledge that, of course, will be different between the social sciences and the physical-natural sciences, adopted as the parameters that determine “science.” Nevertheless, the positivist canon of unified science naturally invites arguments about the scientific nature of qualitative research, especially in the culturalist tradition of anthropology.

PO in the Origin of Qualitative Methods

PO within anthropology is, without a doubt, the principal antecedent to qualitative research methodologies. Its development and consolidation established ethnography as a method associated with fieldwork carried out in order to study communities without a written language (outside of civilization), which were an object of scientific interest during the colonial expansion of the countries of Central Europe at the beginning of the 20th century . The term itself, ethnography, also refers to the descriptive literary genre that was the hallmark of the first disciplinary tradition.

It’s important to point out that the study of “other cultures” and the methods associated with this endeavor arose amid the clamor of the debate between the development of functionalist theory and hegemonic evolutionism, a strong force within the science field (Stocking, 1993 ). Although other precedents already existed, Bronislaw Malinowski ( 1884–1942 ) is credited with the systematization of fieldwork as a method for his research on the preliterate communities that used simple technologies in Melanesia (Malinowski, 1986 ).

His meticulous description of their ways of life worked to refute arguments about the inferiority attributed to these peoples. The work of ethnographic documentation of the period was concerned with demonstrating the logic (rationality) of these peoples, or other ways of life with similar diverse worldviews, such as that within countries whose economic and political organization were referred to as currently primitive .

The methodological approach of fieldwork and an assumption of otherness in its research subjects defined anthropology’s identity as a discipline within the social sciences, at the same time that the field’s arguments, based in empirical research, contributed to the breakdown in the belief in normalcy, represented by Western civilization as the highest stage for the development of humanity.

The complexity of the organization of primitive cultures documented in primary sources, and the documented evidence of their particular rationality, legitimated the existence of human diversity (cultural relativism), which centers the moral-ethical dimension of the debate and anti-racist positions. The strength of these arguments, documented by empirical, anthropological research, led to their adoption within the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The specificity of the object of ethnographic research in the classical period, the ethos (the valued traditions) of the preliterate communities, was used in order to document the subject’s language in situ, their routines, the emphasis placed on interaction: “the imponderables of real life” (Malinowski, 1986 , p. 37) and “the vitality of the act” (Malinowski, 1986 , p. 40). In this way, the interpretation and analysis of ways of life adopt the hermeneutic tradition for the study of the social phenomena present in the work of Wilhelm Dilthey ( 1833–1911 ), which argues—in its characterization of the Sciences of the Spirit—that the specificity of the historical-cultural phenomena is the meaning that those that live it, give it (Dilthey, 1949 ). This axiom establishes the foundation of fieldwork as a research method. To understand language is to understand the codes of behavior that inform it (culture). The researcher documents what is said and what is done in context, translating the interpretation of the natives in order to make it understandable to readers, scientists of the Western world. Their labor is that of interpreter and translator for a culture designated as an “other.” From the point of view of functionalist theory that informs the fieldwork canon, the so-called native point of view refers to a shared cultural framework.

The journey of the researcher to exotic worlds, their long-term stay in the place (the field), and the emotional work of making the strange familiar through empathy, lays the foundations of the functionalist methodological canon, in which PO is the favored approach. Even so, as its name suggests, participant observation is simultaneously a convergence and a contradiction between paradigms. The comprehensive approach generated by the participation of the researcher in the social world in which he is immersed works to establish communication free of constraints, built on trust, with the goal of documenting and contextualizing the meaning given to speech and gestures by the peoples studied. In turn, observation of “the fixed and immutable” (which responds to the split between structure and meaning) maintains positivist science’s pretension of objectivity. In this methodological approach, external observation acts as a permanent contrast to the understanding of meaning, obtained through the participation/interlocution of the researcher with the agents (Batallán & García, 1992 ).

PO, as a general framework that encompasses several different techniques (open interviews, genealogies, biographies, etc.), managed, during the first years of the discipline’s development, to be legitimized by the scientific community by incorporating the anthropologist as a scientifically supported witness. In the first ethnologies’ insistence on objectivity, the first-person testimony of the researcher/author functioned as a safeguard for the scientificity of anthropological knowledge. The strong criticism of fieldwork as a myth, initiated within the discipline, paid special attention to ethnographic descriptions and rhetoric. Ironically, Clifford Geertz ( 1989 ) noted that this was more owing to the masterful writing of anthropologists/authors than to the truth of the lives being described. Furthermore, the successful persuasion of readers was possible not only because of the literary effect of ethnography as a genre, but also because the scientific assessment itself produced in the readers a meta-recognition that made the field researcher a legitimate and indisputable authority (Batallán, 1995 ).

From this critique until the present day, the methodological problem thus described still exists, now that the qualitative (ethnographic) methods cannot respond to the positivist model which demands distance between the researcher and the subjects that constitute the relationships being studied. It is interesting to note that the same thing did not happen with quantitative methods, despite that fact that they did also not fully comply with scientific criteria. While it is assumed that qualitative instruments of measurement (questionnaires, surveys, etc.) avoid the subjectivity of the researcher, authors such as Aaron Cicourel ( 1982 ) demonstrate that these guarantee valid results through the extension of the results, but do not guarantee the reliability of the information, given that—being predetermined questions with mostly closed answers—the answers obtained violate this criteria, which is consubstantial with open communication. Nevertheless, its prevalence overcomes its non-compliance as a criteria for scientificity.

The interest in qualitative methods, the in-depth, intensive knowledge that these methods enable in relation to the specificity of social phenomena, are recognized and recommended for specific case studies, or studies of small, specific worlds. In any case, within present-day industrialized societies, qualitative methods (outside the discipline of anthropology) are used in “exploratory” stages of research, which lend the research a heuristic value that, nevertheless, does not quite manage to re-establish the legitimacy that it originally had, when the objects of study were “ others ,” strange, different in terms of their language, traditions, and way of life from the central societies of European capitalism and expansion.

Empirical Research Methods and the Breakdown of the Concept of Culture

The changes produced in the content and the scope of the concept of culture, according to debates within the scientific community, are particularly important with regard to their connection to reflections on carrying out and teaching qualitative methods, because culture as a concept allows for the inclusion or the exclusion of the action of the subjects and its meaning from the analysis. Despite common-sense assumptions (scientific and social) that take for granted a consensus on culture, indiscriminate use of the term does not always accompany the theoretical changes that connect it to the methodological dimension of the research. Its uncritical use corresponds, in the same sense, to the PO as a privileged methodology, and the territorialized environment of an empirical field.

The idea of culture was identified for the first time between the 15th and 16th centuries as a concept tied to the care and cultivation of the land; it later became synonymous with human development and only in the 19th century did philosophers of the Enlightenment use it as an equivalent for civilization. This rationalist, secular definition of culture was taken up by evolutionary anthropologists of the era—modeled by Herbert Spencer ( 1820–1903 )—in order to support a model of social Darwinism with clear racist implications. At the same time that evolutionism was prominent, the Romantic movement emerged as a reaction that situated “national cultures” and their traditions as a barrier to the idea of universal progress. The “local cultures,” closely tied to the land, asserted their right to be recognized as unique peoples and communities. The German philosopher Johann Herder ( 1744–1803 ) attacked the philosophical concept of progress of the Enlightenment that culminated in a civilized European culture proposing to speak for cultures , despite the evident coexistence of diverse cultures.

The functionalist theory, in its North American initiation represented by Franz Boas ( 1858–1942 ), was rooted in German Romanticism, and expanded the critique of culture as a universal concept. The typification of the ways of life of the original peoples in the North American south are expressed through memorable holistic descriptions, such as those of the Culture and Personality School developed by his students Ruth Benedict ( 1887–1948 ) and Margaret Mead ( 1901–1978 ).

On the epistemological level, empiricist naturalism was the foundation of culturalism , which maintains that direct documentation of the ways of life documented by fieldwork will, in and of itself, supply the information necessary to justify the analysis. This current, still in force in the teaching of research methodologies, provides the concept of culture with an explanatory scope regarding social interaction.

Despite the fact that with the consolidation of European capitalist expansion, pure cultures (not contaminated by the West) ceased to exist, ethnographic studies maintained, methodologically, the validity of the territorial empirical reference as the base and/or synonym for a people or culture, and difference as an object and definition of anthropological studies in accordance with the earliest iteration of the field. The confrontation between “them” (the preliterate societies as a coherent whole) and “us” (Western society and its conception of a unified science) was sustained by the holistic conceptualization of culture on the theoretical plane.

Gradually, the research object shifted both toward populations, communities, or groups situated at the margins of the urban centers of power, and toward the study of sectors of society that do not respond to prevailing parameters of established normalcy. Little by little, the movement toward decolonization impacted North American anthropology, which worked to rid itself of the colonialist halo that was associated with the discipline until the mid- 20th century . Despite these changes, the pattern shaped by the culture-observation participant-field trilogy only recently began to break down owing to the effects that the so-called linguistic turn , reactivated by philosophy, produced more generally within the social sciences (Austin, 1982 ; Gadamer, 1988 ; Ricoeur, 1984 ; Winch, 1971 ; Wittgestein, 1988 ). A key text that illustrates this reconfiguration is Thick Description by Clifford Geertz ( 1987 ), in which the author establishes, for the first time, a critical relationship between revisions to the concept of culture and the methodology of fieldwork.

His argument points out that culture is not a coherent pattern, nor is it overdetermined by behaviors. Rather, he presents culture as a public code (an active document), which can only be understood and analyzed through social interaction, in which “the flow of behaviors find meaning” (Geertz, 1987 , p. 32). This perspective limits observation as a method for studying symbolic phenomena, as it is only possible to understand (interpret) the meaning of symbolic phenomena through dialogue and conversation. In this way, he laid the groundwork for future critiques of the canon, that his students would develop throughout the 1980s. Geertz would say—with respect to the connection between this idea and territoriality—that “there are no typical villages” and that “the object of study, is not the place of story,” and “we don’t study villages, rather, we study in villages” (Geertz, 1987 , p. 33). Taking up Gilbert Ryle’s term, thick description , he characterizes ethnography, employing the same example of the wink that Ryle employs, by demonstrating that we can only know what a gesture means if we are in dialogue with those who share its meaning. Drawing from semiotics, he outlines a critique of knowledge, with a nod to the culturalist tradition, in order to argue that “we do not try to become natives ourselves” (Geertz, 1987 , p. 27) but rather to communicate with them . Methodologically speaking, he emphasizes the role of the researcher as the interpreter of social interactions, recognizing through Hans-Georg Gadamer ( 1988 ), that we bring to the research object our own preconceptions and pre-understanding, and that we undergo the process of understanding through “inferences and implications” (Geertz, 1987 , p. 22).

The argument that Geertz used regarding culture as a concept is close to Weber’s theory of action, in that it presents culture as being formed by significant overlapping structures that respond to the informal logics of real life: “man lives within networks that he himself has woven” (Geertz, 1987 , p. 20). The methodological derivative of this idea works to document these actions in social settings, which are the specific contexts of the research processes.

Despite the breakdown in the definition of culture that this reflection produced—owing to Durkheimian thinking—, culture being formerly understood as an unalterable entity, it was not enough to argue for the capacity for agency in research subjects, given that the perspective of the actor was subordinated within the cultural framework. This persistence is derived from the functionalist rationality that reasons that while the actors are interpreters, they act as such within their culture, which they acquired through processes of socialization (enculturation), together with the language in which that culture is already expressed (Batallán & García, 1992 ).

While essentialist theories of culture have receded within the academic environment together with the systemic perspective of functionalism, the limitations of this theory reappear in the ethnographic writings of the same author Geertz and also in some Marxist critiques of the field. The weight of the explanatory theory of culture and its holistic, integral effect on social groups, endures, for example, in its routine use within educational research when scholars talk about school cultures, youth culture, or even the greater or lesser cultural capital of students as determining factors of their habitus, as suggested by the works of Pierre Bourdieu (Batallán, 2007 ). This explanatory scope attributed to the theory of culture—while contradicting the general theoretical bodies in which it is employed—is reinforced by the tautological reasoning of its content, which masks social action and its heterogeneity, thus enabling an analysis of social conflict limited to “culture clash.”

As we will see in the section “ The Historical-Ethnographic Focus of Research and Teaching ,” the recognition of the turning point produced by critiques of traditional theories of culture and the subsequent contributions these made to the idea of the field and other rules of fieldwork some of the representatives of the movement referred to as postmodernism in the United States (Clifford, 1991 , 1995 ; Marcus & Fisher, 2000 ; Rosaldo, 1991 ), enabled the development of a new research focus, based on reflections first carried out by the anthropologist Elsie Rockwell ( 1980 ) in a study of educational processes in Mexico. This approach, which synthesized aspects of Gramscian Marxism and structuralist revision in the same theoretical body (Heller, 1976 ; Samuels, 1984 ; Thompson, 1981 ; Williams, 1981 ; Willis, 1985 , 1988 ), recovered fruitful aspects of traditional fieldwork and Geertzian contributions, in an effort to displace functionalist hegemony in Latin American anthropological research, especially in the educational field.

The Historical-Ethnographic Focus of Research and Teaching

Returning to the goals outlined in at the beginning of this article—the work of shifting the focus from a debate over methods (approaches) to an analysis of the construction of the research object—the historical-ethnographic approach departs from functionalism and other iterations of positivism, joining current schools of thought that are developing a social science that is relational, reflective, critical, and emancipatory (Corcuff, 1998 ; Giddens, 1987 ; Rancière, 2012 ).

Since the late 1980s, this focus has grown in precision and complexity, having been debated and corroborated within working groups, congress symposiums, conferences, and academic meetings, all oriented toward methodological issues within social sciences and education, both in university environments and in teacher-training institutions in Argentina and in other Latin American countries (Batallán, 1998 ). 1 From its beginning to the present day, with more or less emphasis, the historical expansion and nuancing of the sociopolitical processes at work within educational contexts have been incorporated as the explanatory dimensions of these processes.

The introduction of ethnography into educational research was a response to ignorance regarding the everyday routines and conditions within schools, beyond what had traditionally been researched by the educational sciences, which focused primarily on teaching and learning. Ethnographic research in this area specialized in documenting the “undocumented” through: (a) intensive fieldwork with prolonged residence within the community being studied; (b) a critique of empiricism based on the theoretical construction of the research within the field; and (c) the importance, on a methodological level, of the centrality of the researcher in the production of knowledge (Rockwell, 1986 ). The theory of everyday life, which guides the focus and understands everyday life as a moment of general social reproduction, changed the functionalist perspective that conceived of it as made up of routine, non-incidental practices, set apart by their genericity (Heller, 1976 ). This theoretical-conceptual synthesis is added to critiques of theories of culture, which the Mexican anthropologist narrows and to which she adds nuances. According to Rockwell, culture as a concept is not explanatory; for her, educational ethnographic research describes “the everyday manifestations of processes of production and social reproduction, and the everyday reflection of social subjects about their world” (Rockwell, 1980 , p. 8). She adds that subjects construct their activities through consideration of their socio-temporal contexts and their lived experiences (local knowledge).

As a result of the reflections and research produced by an interdisciplinary team of researchers and educators, formed in the mid-1980s in Argentina, the approach has acquired epistemological and theoretical consistency as well as empirical research knowledge. The academic production of this team was combined with the proposal as originally outlined, while also integrating pedagogical developments used to train teachers during the previous decade in Argentina and Chile (Batallán, 1983 , 1989 , 2007 ; Vera, 1988 ; Vera & Argumedo, 1978 ). 2

The epistemological foundation of this approach was significantly influenced by the development of Anthony Giddens’s Theory of Structuration ( 1995 ). Its argumentation of structuration theory provides an adequate synthesis to sustain, along with the specificity of the social sciences, the overlap between structure and action in the analysis of social phenomena, thereby avoiding the dichotomy between explanation and understanding , which is implicit in the debate over methods and their legitimacy (García, 1994 ).

Giddens adds pragmatism, philosophy of language, symbolic interactionism, and ethnomethodology to the foundations of Marxist theory (Gadamer, 1988 ; Garfinkel, 2006 ; Schütz, 1974 ; Winch, 1971 ). His primary original contribution was a contribution to the theory of the subject in the social sciences, theorizing individual agency, or rather, considering the ability of subjects “to act differently,” and avoiding overdetermined structural analysis of social processes (Althusser, 1974 ; Bourdieu & Passeron, 1982 ). The notion of agency as an individual capability thus implies freedom and a recognition of the mediation between structure and action.

Regarding this theoretical facet, there is no division between objectivity and subjectivity (according to the prior distinction between structure or individual action), as agents “make things happen” through interaction, in a dialectic in which the structure is present within the conditions given by the action, although it is permanently changed by the undesired effects of the action.

At the methodological level, and given the linguistic construction of social life, analysis of empirical research accounts for the fact that social phenomena are symbolically pre-structured. For this reason, the path to their understanding must consider the tension that exists between analytical categories of science (derived from the theories, concepts, and the debates they generate) that the researcher brings to the process, as well as the categories of interpretation that the agents bring to these phenomena. To this logic, which Giddens referred to as double hermeneutics , is added the reflection that, although the agents are interpreters of their own world, they are still subjective interpreters of action (Batallán & García, 1988 ). In this way, such an approach corroborates the heterogeneity of social life, as opposed to the integrative perspective derived from a holistic theorization of culture.

The Centrality of the Researcher and the Performativity of Language

The epistemological foundation, regarding the performativity of language in social life, makes it possible to revise the axiom concerned with the centrality of the researcher emphasized within the earliest traditions of fieldwork. Within the new framework, it acquires a dimension that transcends the physical presence of the researcher in the place (the field). From this perspective, the aforementioned connection between the dimensions that constitute the approach is evident, because the centrality of the researcher ceases to refer to his or her psychological condition (testimonial) and is instead understood as part of the problem under study.

Theories addressing the recursive nature of language generate reflection during the pedagogical process of teaching research methodologies, therein allowing us to analyze the social roots of common speech as expressed through the prejudices (productive or unproductive) that are necessarily activated in the cognitive activity of confronting that which we desire to know. The student, at the same time, inherits interpretations and evaluations of long-established practices from institutions. For this reason, he/she must—as a future social scientist—recognize the reflexive effect of his/her language. This goes hand in hand with learning to utilize conceptual tools in order to acquire specific knowledge about the relationships being studied, with the goal of producing knowledge that aspires to be true, or at least reliable and verified.

Pedagogical accompaniment is a specific technique for teaching this methodological-theoretical approach. The advantage of this approach is that it gives the researcher’s trainee the opportunity to change his/her initial perspective by recognizing the tensions and the contrast between the interpretations of the subjects that embody the relationships under study.

The reflexivity of the researchers’ language (or its performative effect) (Austin, 1982 ; Garfinkel, 2006 ), by way of the description that he himself makes, becomes the starting point for the permanent modification of his assumptions (or hypothesis), with respect to the relationships being studied (Gouldner, 1979 ).

The research process begins by formulating a research question. In order to formulate a research question the researcher must recognize what he does not know (Gadamer, 1988 ) and acknowledge the need to corroborate this ignorance with the outside world. As anticipated, the researcher’s assumptions guide the research questions and direct the inquiry, in a process of perpetual revision. For the researcher trainee, this task is one of problematizing epistemophilic obstacle (Pichon-Rivière, 1989 ) which is unlocked by the pedagogical modality employed, in the same formative trajectory.

The teacher-coordinators in workshop spaces (“practice” in traditional pedagogy) assist with the formulation and reworking of the questions freely generated by the students. The study of common speech and its roots is also carried out with respect to the concepts that contain the articulation of the research question/problems: the analytic categories that the researcher works with, and thus, need to be questioned (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1995 ). It is through these different exercises that the desire for knowledge is awakened within the student. The concepts, and their historicity and scope, are central to this process, as has been demonstrated through the concept of culture that we discussed in the section “ Empirical Research Methods and the Breakdown of the Concept of Culture ” and that has continued to incorporate new critiques and contributions (Benhabib, 2006 ; Crehan, 2004 ; Ortner, 1984 ; Rockwell, 2009 ).

Given that, for the historical ethnographic focus, knowing is to understand the implicit logic within social action, beyond singular behaviors and their evaluation or assessment on the part of the observer, this logic also, in order to find its explanation, needs to develop historically, taking into consideration the heterogeneity (plural perspective) and the conflict inherent in social processes. In this sense, students are able to understand that professional research is a long-term activity that does not end with the construction of the object, nor with fieldwork.

Professional development, in this way, serves a dual role: on one hand, documenting the interpretations of the agents about their social work through the understanding of keys and codes of their daily speech, translated by the researcher according to the contexts in which they were enunciated. On the other hand, it allows the researcher to broaden his perspective, to confront his prejudices and analytic categories with the informal logic of real life, which is expressed by the interpretations and knowledge of his subjects.

The specificity of knowledge of social life reveals a positivist fallacy about the division between the subject that investigates and the object (the relationships under study), thus introducing students to the complexity inherent in the search for objectivity within the social sciences. As I have already stated, the pursuit of objectivity is the tacit dividing line between the activity of the sciences (also the social sciences) and literature or fiction, and affirms the need and the importance for rigorous training for researchers within the field (ethnographers). In order to understand the scope of this search, which might seem contradictory and has generated various criticisms, it is necessary to think through the legitimacy of dialogical and co-participatory research approaches (Batallán, Dente, & Ritta, 2017 ; Mannheim & Tedlock, 1995 ).

In pedagogical monitoring, the theme of objectivity in empirical social research becomes nodal because within this process it is possible to trace, in everyday language, the influence of the idea that the necessary information (the facts) are there and can be recognized. In contrast, this strong prejudice is revised, as nothing is ever “given” (as the etymology of the term data suggests), rather, information is produced in the tension between the analytical categories of the researcher and the categories the agents see as significant.

This production of information has its correlation in the feedback from teachers regarding the ways of speaking, presenting themselves, being, and asking in the empirical field. Once again, during the review of an interview, for example, the play of the assumptions of the researcher or the distrust of the interaction makes evident in situ the understanding of the abstract concept of objectivity, guiding the students toward the construction of a fluid dialogue. Dialogical communication is not associated with the technique of the guided interview, but rather with Gadamer’s model of the conversation , in which the exchange fosters the development of meaning. As of now, pre-written questionnaires are excluded in this training.

During the course of the workshops, through the different projects and exercises, the illusion of neutral observation is unmasked in order to demonstrate that this process is never direct but in fact is always mediated by the assumptions and understandings of the observer. In group analysis about these exercises the performative force of language regarding the concept of objectivity is exposed, in the sense that it is translated into a neutral language within the description, in order to approximate a scientific observation. Of course, the persistence of this idea does not invalidate the need for rigorous training in the technique of observational documentation with descriptive goals.

In short, teaching research methodology is a constant process in which the researcher’s questions necessitate analysis of the reflexivity of his or her language, both in terms of theoretical concepts and of the everyday speech he/she shares with others. It is also teaching a craft, in that the student is a documentarian in training, a producer of primary sources of information. The gradual construction of the research object is the result of systematic inquiry tied to a theoretical-epistemological pattern, that in the case of a historical-ethnographic focus is grounded in criticisms of culture as a concept and the revision of the idea of the field as a physical place, and proposes to incorporate the theory of everyday life as knowledge of the uses and activities that mediate between the particular and specific and social relations in general.

To Conclude

- Every researcher is a potential agent of social transformation, in that the production of knowledge through research is a critical activity.

-Teaching research methodology is not simply practical instruction in fieldwork techniques, although neither is it purely abstract reflection on a philosophical level.

-Pursuing objectivity in empirical research and in the social sciences is a necessary objective, but its criteria must correspond to the ontological specificity of its object. Within this specificity, a central criterion (which is also ethical in nature) is to integrate and problematize the language of the researcher—who is also a socially and historically anchored agent—before initiating his/her work.

-The dialogical approaches and participants are points of contrast between the assumptions of the researcher and the collaborative production of knowledge; nevertheless, the researcher is always an author responsible for what he/she produces as an intellectual worker.

- The material produced in the field, when the analytical categories inscribed in the research problem and the research subjects’ categories of interpretation are compared with one another, is the basis of a pattern of interpretation and analysis that should be accompanied by studying theoretically framed, coherent, secondary documentation.

-When training students to be researchers, the purpose of critical pedagogy is that, both at the level of theoretical learning and when learning in the field, students should take ownership of the social responsibility for their intellectual authorship, as well as the indirect, but effective, impact of the results of their work within border social debate.

-The false problem inscribed in the qualitative-quantitative dichotomy, associated with the legitimacy of the knowledge produced by each approach, can only be disarticulated by shifting the axis of the debate toward the construction of the research object in the social sciences, which requires, together with permanent conceptual and linguistic reflection, dialogical criteria and participants for its support.

• Althusser, L. (1974). Ideología y aparatos ideológicos del Estado . Buenos Aires, Argentina: Nueva Visión.
• Austin, J. L. (1982). Cómo hacer cosas con palabras . Barcelona, Spain: Paidós.
• Batallán, G. (1983). Taller de educadores. Capacitación mediante la investigación. Síntesis de Fundamentos. In Serie documentos e Informes de Investigación Nº 8- . Buenos Aires, Argentina: Facultad Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales FLACSO/PBA.
• Batallán, G. (1989). Talleres de educadores. Capacitación por la investigación de la práctica. In Cuadernos de Formación Docente N° 5 Problemas de la investigación participante y la transformación escolar . Rosario, Argentina: Universidad Nacional de Rosario.
• Batallán, G. (1995). Autor y actores en antropología: Tradición y ética en el trabajo de campo. Revista de la Academia , 1 , 97–106.
• Batallán, G. (1998). La apropiación de la etnografía por la investigación educacional: Reflexiones sobre su uso reciente en Argentina y Chile. Revista del Instituto de Ciencias de la Educación , 14 , 3–11.
• Batallán, G. (2007). Docentes de Infancia: Antropología del trabajo en la escuela primaria . Buenos Aires, Argentina: Paidós.
• Batallán, G. , Dente, L. , & Ritta, L. (2017). Anthropology, participation and the democratization of knowledge: Participatory research using video with youth living in extreme poverty. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education , 30 (5), 464–473.
• Batallán, G. , & García, J. F. (1988). Trabajo docente, democratización y conocimiento: Problemas de la investigación participante y la transformación de la escuela. Cuadernos de Formación Docente , 5 , 27–43.
• Batallán, G. , & García, J. F. (1992). Antropología y participación: Contribución al debate metodológico. Publicar en Antropología y Ciencias Sociales , 1 (1), 79–89.
• Benhabib, S. (2006). Las reivindicaciones de la cultura: Igualdad y diversidad en la era global . Buenos Aires, Argentina: Katz Ediciones.
• Bourdieu, P. , & Passeron, J. C. (1982). La reproducción: Elementos para una teoría del sistema de enseñanza . Barcelona, Spain: Laia.
• Bourdieu, P. , & Wacquant, L. (1995). Respuestas: Por una antropología reflexiva . Mexico D.F., Mexico: Grijalbo.
• Cicourel, A. (1982). El método y la medida en sociología . Madrid, Spain: Editorial Nacional.
• Clifford, J. (1991). Sobre la autoridad etnográfica. In C. Reynoso (Ed.). El surgimiento de la antropología posmoderna (pp. 141–170). México D.F., Mexico: Gedisa.
• Clifford, J. (1995). Dilemas de la cultura: Antropología, literatura y arte en la perspectiva posmoderna . Barcelona, Spain: Gedisa.
• Corcuff, P. (1998). Las nuevas sociologías: Construcciones de la realidad social . Madrid, Spain: Alianza Editorial.
• Crehan, K. (2004). Gramsci, cultura y antropología . Barcelona, Spain: Bellaterra.
• Dilthey, W. (1949). Introducción a las ciencias del espíritu . México D.F., Mexico: Fondo de Cultura Económica.
• Feyerabend, P. (1974). Contra el método . Barcelona, Spain: Ariel.
• Gadamer, H. G. (1988). Verdad y método . Salamanca, Spain: Sígueme.
• García, J. F. (1994). El problema de la unidad de comprender y explicar en ciencias sociales. In J. F. García , La racionalidad en política y en ciencias sociales (pp. 93–126). Buenos Aires, Argentina: Centro Editor de América Latina.
• Garfinkel, H. (2006). Estudios en etnometodología . Buenos Aires, Argentina: Anthropos.
• Geertz, C. (1987). La interpretación de las culturas . Barcelona, Spain: Gedisa.
• Geertz, C. (1989). El antropólogo como autor . Barcelona, Spain: Paidós.
• Giddens, A. (1984). Profiles and critiques in social theory . Los Angeles: University of California Press.
• Giddens, A. (1987). Las nuevas reglas del método sociológico . Buenos Aires, Argentina: Amorrortu.
• Giddens, A. (1995). La constitución de la sociedad: Bases para una teoría de la estructuración . Buenos Aires, Spain: Amorrortu.
• Gouldner, A. (1979). La crisis de la sociología occidental . Buenos Aires, Argentina: Amorrortu.
• Heller, A. (1976). Sociología de la vida cotidiana . Madrid, Spain: Península.
• Heller, A. (1985). Historia y vida cotidiana . México D.F., Mexico: Grijalbo.
• Heller, A. , & Fehér, F. (1988). Políticas de la postmodernidad: Ensayos de crítica cultural . Barcelona, Spain: Península.
• Malinowski, B. (1986). Los argonautas del Pacifico Occidental . Barcelona, Spain: Planeta Agostini.
• Mannheim, B. , & Tedlock, D. (1995). The dialogic emergence of culture . Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
• Marcus, G. , & Fisher, M. (2000). La antropología como crítica cultural . Buenos Aires, Argentina: Amorrortu.
• Ortner, S. (1984). Theory in anthropology since the sixties. Comparative Studies in Society and History , 26 (1), 126–166.
• Pichon-Rivière, E. (1989). El proceso grupal . Buenos Aires, Argentina: Nueva Visión.
• Rancière, J. (2012). El método de la igualdad . Buenos Aires, Argentina: Nueva Visión.
• Ricoeur, P. (1984). Educación y política . Buenos Aires, Argentina: Docencia.
• Ricoeur, P. (2005). Sobre la traducción . Buenos Aires, Argentina: Paidós.
• Rockwell, E. (1980). Antropología y participación: Problemas del concepto de cultura . México D.F., Mexico: DIE.
• Rockwell, E. (1986). La relevancia de la etnografía para la transformación de la escuela. In Memorias del Tercer Seminario Nacional de Investigaciones en Educación . Bogotá, Columbia: Centro de Investigación de la Universidad Pedagógica e Instituto Colombiano para el Fomento de la Educación Superior.
• Rockwell, E. (2009). La experiencia etnográfica: Historia y cultura en los procesos educativos . Buenos Aires, Argentina: Paidós.
• Rosaldo, R. (1991). Cultura y verdad: Nueva propuesta de análisis social . México D.F., Mexico: Grijalbo.
• Samuels, R. (1984). Desprofesionalizar la historia. Debats , 10 , 57–71.
• Schütz, A. (1974). El problema de la realidad social . Buenos Aires, Argentina: Amorrortu.
• Stocking, G. (1993). La magia del etnógrafo: El trabajo de campo en la antropología británica desde Taylor a Malinowski. In H. Velasco Maillo , F. García Castaño , & A. Díaz de Rada (Eds.), Lecturas de antropología para educadores: El ámbito de la antropología de la educación y de la etnografía escolar (pp. 43–95). Madrid, Spain: Trotta.
• Thompson, E. (1981). Miseria de la teoría . Barcelona, Spain: Crítica.
• Vera, R. (1988). Metodología de la investigación docente: La investigación protagónica. Cuadernos PIIE. N 2, Santiago de Chile, Chile.
• Vera, R. , & Argumedo, M. (1978). Talleres de educadores como técnica de perfeccionamiento operativo con apoyo de medios de comunicación social . Cuadernos N° 2. Centro de Investigaciones Educativas (CIE), Buenos Aires.
• Williams, R. (1981). Cultura y sociología de la comunicación y del arte . Barcelona, Spain: Paidós.
• Willis, P. (1985). Notas sobre método. In Dialogando Nº 2. Cualitativas de la Realidad Escolar.
• Willis, P. (1988). Aprendiendo a trabajar . Madrid, Spain: Akal.
• Winch, P. (1971). Ciencia social y filosofía . Buenos Aires, Spain: Amorrortu.
• Wittgestein, L. (1988) Investigaciones filosóficas . México D.F., México: Instituto de Investigaciones Filosóficas-UNAM.

1. The creation of the Latin American Network for Qualitative Research of Real Education is noteworthy. It was formed with the support of the Canadian parliament in 1980 and with the participation of researchers from Chile, Argentina, Bolivia, Venezuela, Colombia, and Uruguay, who, while living under dictatorships, or directly after recent dictatorships in their respective countries had been overthrown, participated in a first seminar in Mexico and developed further academic meetings after the initial gathering. The activity of the Network and its publication RINCUARE lasted three years, fostering the formation and development of the approach in national universities and non governmental organizations (NGOs) within the aforementioned countries.

2. The focus was a lectureship focused on “Methodology and Techniques of Field Research” in the Anthropological Science Department of the College of Philosophy and Literature at the University of Buenos Aires (1987–2013), as well as subjects/classes and seminars geared toward master’s and doctorate students at the University of Buenos Aires and elsewhere. It is also present in the research projects developed since 1994 to the present day, by the Secretariat of Scientific Research of the University of Buenos Aires (UBACyT) under my direction and the co-direction of Silvana Campanini.

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Education. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 16 September 2024

• Cookie Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility
• [109.248.223.228]
• 109.248.223.228

Character limit 500 /500

• This journal

Current Anthropology

Front Cover

Front matter, futurities rethought: on the political imminences of runaway nature.

• Adriana Petryna

The impacts of climate change are accelerating worldwide, but emergency agencies and political bodies are not always equipped to anticipate where, when, or how severe the next unnatural disaster will be. Amid megafire seasons, for example, scientists are revising models of fire behavior that were calibrated to natures that increasingly diverge from known baselines and trends. Emergency responders’ trust in patterns has become an occupational hazard. At these edges of knowledge, struggles to maintain responsive capacity in disrupted ecologies are at play; a larger reckoning with runaway climate change as a relational problem space is in order. Rather than making me resort to despair about the world’s “end,” such labors redirect my attention toward horizons of expectation in which knowledges are still actionable, not obsolete, and where capacities for future interventions are viable and not denied. These activities, enmeshed in a rubric of horizon work, shift expert authority and promote critical realignments across political, activist, and Indigenous spheres.

Is Mnemonics an End in Itself? Sensory Mnemonic Learning of the Qur’ān in Southwestern Morocco

• Romain Simenel

Are mnemonic devices an end in themselves as regards meaning? Do memorization techniques serve only memory, or do they have longer-term effects on other aspects of the mind? If so, what are those effects, and what is the role of the body? These are a few questions that are suggested by the ethnographic study of Qur’ān memorization in southwestern Morocco. In the Sous, a Berber region that is known throughout the Maghreb for the Sufi masters it has produced, children, from the age of five, are sent to madrasas each day, where they learn the Qur’ān “by heart.” To do so, they make use of a variety of mnemonic techniques that draw on their imagination as they are guided by the prosody of recitation. The Qur’ānic wooden tablet serves as the medium of the sensorial experience of learning the sacred text, providing the child with space for creativity and reflection. This article proposes to retrace the process of Qu’rān memorization from the recitation of the alphabet to the learning of chanting and writing the sacred text; it will highlight the effects of mnemonics on the acquisition of cultural abilities related to Sufi practices and on metamemory in a bilingual context.

Taiwanese Prehistory: Migration, Trade, and the Maritime Economic Mode

• Chin-yung Chao and
• Timothy Earle

In a previous Current Anthropology article considering the Scandinavian Bronze Age (Ling, Earle, and Kristiansen 2018 ), a model was proposed to explain the concentration of metal wealth and social stratification under conditions of low population density. This model is now considered to help understand anomalies in the archaeological sequence of eastern Taiwan during the Neolithic and Early Metal Ages. In contrast to Taiwan’s agriculturally richer western coast, evidence of complexity arose unexpectedly early on the east despite its more limited agricultural soils and lower populations. We propose that these outcomes resulted from a maritime economy, in which local agricultural surpluses finance distant voyaging that an emergent elite might control. Travels carried a substantial amount of rare nephrite from Taiwan’s eastern coast to Island Southeast Asia and the South China Sea. Subsequently, metals and glass technologies were introduced from there into Taiwan. This trade and technological transfer were earliest on the eastern coast, perhaps unexpected because it was more removed from the Chinese mainland, a likely source for cultural transfers. We propose that eastern coast Taiwanese populations developed an entrepreneurial raiding-trading political economy, perhaps involving slaves, that would explain these anomalies. Predating specialized merchant trading, a raiding-trading complex, not unlike later piracy, may have provided broadscale maritime interactions partially responsible for patterned developments of political complexity in this region of the world.

Checking Facts by a Bot: Crowdsourced Facts and Intergenerational Care in Posttruth Taiwan

• Mei-chun Lee

From the discussion of “posttruth” in 2016 to the “infodemic” in 2020, online rumors seem to have become more rampant, harmful, and harder to be debunked. This article examines Cofacts, a Taiwan-based fact-checking service that combines a chatbot and a database of fact-checked responses provided by volunteers to help debunk rumors circulated on the messaging app LINE. I argue that Cofacts’s crowdsourcing approach joins what Donna Haraway calls embodied objectivity that insists on “the particularity and embodiment of all vision” to challenge the conventional fact-checking practice that presumes singularity, disembodied objectivity, and authority. Underpinning Cofacts’s fight against online rumors is the intergenerational conflicts that are ingrained in different life experiences, beliefs and values, and expectations of what a good life is. By taking up a technological solution that emphasizes openness, Cofacts opens a space for digital natives to contest what fact is and claim the power of speaking from their parents and the patriarchal society on the one hand and to forge new connections of care and reinitiate conversations that have been barred by the invisible walls of chat rooms and the widening gap of values and beliefs between generations on the other hand.

Econography: Observing Expert Capitalism

• Daromir Rudnyckyj

In recent years anthropologists have increasingly conducted fieldwork among economic agents and on financial practices that would have seemed foreign to our predecessors of just a generation ago. This work can be broadly categorized as the analysis of expert capitalism. Expert capitalism is the knowledge-intensive, abstract, and often technical pursuit of profit. Anthropologists conducting such research have produced germinal insights regarding the contingent factors that make up expert capitalism, the key role of representations, language, and narrative in constituting the object referred to as an economy, and the unstated assumptions that frame the actions of expert capitalists. However, there have been as yet few systematic reflections regarding how to conceptualize expert capitalist fields and objects in such a way as to make them amenable to empirical, anthropological analysis. This article seeks to develop the anthropological documentation and analysis of expert capitalism by outlining a set of strategies useful in facilitating such research. These strategies fall under the rubrics of (1) mesoanalysis, (2) institutionalization, (3) reflexive practice and problematization, (4) subjectification, and (5) representations as economic facts. The article concludes that, taken together, these strategies constitute what might be termed econography: a mode of analysis suited to analysis of and writing about expert capitalism.

Tracking Mortgage Pathways in Zagreb: Everyday Economics of Debt, Housing Wealth, and Debtors’ Agency in a European Semiperiphery

• Marek Mikuš

Drawing on a case study of mortgage debt in Zagreb, Croatia, this article argues that the anthropology of household debt should engage more deeply with its economic implications and uses for debtors. It contributes novel insights from an understudied Eastern European setting to the Anglophone-centric debates on housing wealth and the financialization of subjectivity. The original mortgage pathways approach uses repeat interviews to track individual and household trajectories of mortgage debt. These processes are constituted by interactions between mortgagors and other actors, structural and conjunctural conditions, social norms, contingencies, and mortgages themselves. While mortgagors embraced the norm of housing wealth accumulation, their homeownership had layered meanings shaped by norms regulating reproduction and kinship and local structural and conjunctural conditions. At the same time, some individuals employed mortgages for profit-making strategies, and personal and public experiences with predatory lending stimulated a widespread prudent and active approach to mortgages. Thus, instead of an across-the-board financialization of subjectivity or its opposite, “domestication” of finance, there was an uneven interpenetration between the financial rationality of mortgages and mortgagors’ prudent rationality that combined instrumental reasoning and value-based goals. Mortgages entail certain intrinsic effects, but their materialization is not exempt from the variability and dynamism of debt processes.

Fit to Protect: Race, Vulnerability, and the Risk Politics of California Firefighting

• Melissa Burch
• Supplemental Material

Anthropologists have long understood that a society’s ideas about who or what is risky depend on how meaning and worth are attributed to objects, people, and processes in a given place and time. However, until recently, little consideration has been given to the ways race and other hierarchical relations of power and difference shape how risk is constructed and deployed in social life. This article explores how race and criminal status intersect to shape the perception and management of risk and vulnerability in the United States by chronicling the lived experience of one young African American man who was prevented from obtaining an emergency medical technician (EMT) license because of his felony convictions. His pursuit of the EMT license and a career in firefighting exposes how risk, as a purportedly value-neutral concept, builds on racialized ideas about threat and vulnerability and further entrenches racialized social exclusion. Whereas many have decried racism as an unfortunate by-product of actuarial practices, I argue that racism and antiblackness are among risk’s core animating logics. Challenges to risk evaluations must therefore go beyond politics of deservedness, rehabilitation, and inclusion to confront the foundational premises of risk head-on.

Thought Collectives, Fascism, and Truth: Ludwik Fleck and My Father in Buchenwald, April 11, 1945

• Sharon Kaufman

Polish physician and sociologist of science Ludwik Fleck was a prisoner in Buchenwald on April 11, 1945, the day my father, a US army physician, arrived there with the liberating troops. My father was exposed to Nazi brutality as a young Jew living in Vienna in the 1920s. Fleck was from Lvov, an epicenter of Nazi persecution. For both, a paramount question was what kind of medicine could be practiced in a world of deliberate extermination. Did they meet? My father’s late-life memoir notes that “the inmates who were physicians immediately proceeded to make use of their skills to help their fellow inmates.” That piqued my interest in how Fleck’s socioscientific insights, described in Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact , emerged from his prewar experience of Nazi terror, when his scientific work, sociological-philosophical background, and observations of the prevailing fascism coalesced. This shaped his awareness of how collective thinking—by a nation, race, party, or class—produces facts and how politics and prejudice get entangled in scientific work. This essay explores Fleck’s legacy and how both physicians offered resistance and reprisal to fascism, compelling concerns in view of today’s increasing tolerance for fascism, racism, antisemitism, and “alternative” truths.

Book and Film Reviews

Eating the last cannibal.

• Uday Yerramadasu

Of all published articles, the following were the most read within the past 12 months .

Is It Good to Cooperate?: Testing the Theory of Morality-as-Cooperation in 60 Societies

• Oliver Scott Curry , 
• Daniel Austin Mullins , and 
• Harvey Whitehouse

Brain Development and Physical Aggression: How a Small Gender Difference Grows into a Violence Problem

Running in tarahumara (rarámuri) culture: persistence hunting, footracing, dancing, work, and the fallacy of the athletic savage.

• Daniel E. Lieberman , 
• Mickey Mahaffey , 
• Silvino Cubesare Quimare , 
• Nicholas B. Holowka , 
• Ian J. Wallace , and 
• Aaron L. Baggish

The Potentiality Principle from Aristotle to Abortion

• Lynn M. Morgan

An Anthropology of Structural Violence

• Paul Farmer

The Expensive-Tissue Hypothesis: The Brain and the Digestive System in Human and Primate Evolution

• Leslie C. Aiello  and 
• Peter Wheeler

Patchy Anthropocene: Landscape Structure, Multispecies History, and the Retooling of Anthropology: An Introduction to Supplement 20

• Anna Lowenhaupt Tsing , 
• Andrew S. Mathews , and 
• Nils Bubandt

The Osteological Paradox: Problems of Inferring Prehistoric Health from Skeletal Samples [and Comments and Reply]

• James W. Wood , 
• George R. Milner , 
• Henry C. Harpending , 
• Kenneth M. Weiss , 
• Mark N. Cohen , 
• Leslie E. Eisenberg , 
• Dale L. Hutchinson , 
• Rimantas Jankauskas , 
• Gintautas Cesnys , 
• Gintautas Česnys , 
• M. Anne Katzenberg , 
• John R. Lukacs , 
• Janet W. McGrath , 
• Eric Abella Roth , 
• Douglas H. Ubelaker , and 
• Richard G. Wilkinson

Download the E-book

Nonsubscribers: Purchase the e-book of this issue

ABOUT THE JOURNAL

Frequency: 6 issues/year ISSN: 0011-3204 E-ISSN: 1537-5382 2023 JCR Impact Factor*: 2.1 Ranked #18 out of 139 “Anthropology” journals 2023 CiteScore*: 5.6 Ranked #15 out of 502 “Anthropology” journals

Established more than sixty years ago, Current Anthropology is the leading broad-based journal in the field. It seeks to publish the best theoretical and empirical research across all subfields of the discipline, ranging from the origins of the human species to the interpretation of the complexities of modern life.

View content coverage periods and institutional full-run subscription rates for Current Anthropology .

*Journal Impact Factor™ 2023 courtesy of the Journal Citation Reports ( JCR )™ (Clarivate 2024). Scopus CiteScore (Elsevier B.V.). Retrieved June 2024 from scopus.com/sources .

• Caroline Schuster and Catherine Frieman appointed co-editors of Current Anthropology June 6, 2024
• Feathers, Cognition and Global Consumerism in Colonial Amazonia April 30, 2024
• The SAPIENS Podcast Named Finalist at the 16th Annual Shorty Awards April 24, 2024

Read the Current Anthropology article cited in Big Think

Read the Current Anthropology article cited in the Society for Linguistic Anthropology blog

Read the Current Anthropology article cited in AEON

• Utility Menu

• Internal Resources
• EDIB Committee

"Anthropology is the study of what makes us human"

- American Anthropological Association

Undergraduate Program

Graduate Program

Concentrate in anthropology.

The study of anthropology prepares students to address global concerns through a contextualized study of society, culture, and civilization, and can lead to careers in global health and medicine, law, government, museums, education, the arts, cultural and environmental management, business and entrepreneurship, among other fields, not to mention academia.

• Pursue an Undergraduate Degree
• Meet Our Undergraduate Alumni

Harvard Anthropology Professor Gabriella Coleman Discusses Evolution of Hacking on Cybercrime Magazine Podcast

Harvard Anthropology Professor Peter Manuelian Awarded NEH Grant

Harvard anthropology professor arthur kleinman shares photos of summer 2024 travels, harvard anthropology seminar series (social): danilyn rutherford, wenner-gren foundation, harvard anthropology seminar series (arch): andreana (andree) cunningham, boston university, harvard anthropology seminar series (arch): eslem ben arous, cenieh spain | marie curie postdoctoral fellow, what is anthropology.

By the most common definition, anthropology is the study of human diversity and, as such, teaches us to recognize the remarkable array of circumstances in which human beings live their lives and make meaning from them. On our faculty, we have scholars whose work covers every time period from the prehistoric to the present, and every major world area.

Learn More About Anthropology

But anthropology is more than just a catalog of diversity.  There is an oft-cited phrase that anthropology “makes the familiar strange and the strange familiar.”  What does this mean?  At the very least, it means stepping back and seeing ourselves the way others might see us – a shift in perspective that is foundational to empathy and humility.  Anthropology also invites deeper analysis of behaviors that we might think we fully understand but that have histories and complexities that only reveal themselves with careful investigation.  This is why we do long term field research in local languages to understand social life in all its richness and depth.  And finally, making the familiar strange demands an ethical and political accounting.  It means not accepting the world as given.  This might well be the heart of the discipline, what one of my favorite anthropologists calls its moral optimism: the conviction that things can be different and better -- and that knowledge about the world should be oriented towards greater equality and justice.  

Search Google Appliance

• Online Book Collections
• Online Books by Topic
• Biodiversity Heritage Library
• Library Catalog (SIRIS)
• Image Gallery
• Art & Artist Files
• Caldwell Lighting
• Trade Literature
• All Digital Collections
• Current Exhibitions
• Online Exhibitions
• Past Exhibitions
• Index of Library & Archival Exhibitions on the Web
• Research Tools and OneSearch
• E-journals, E-books, and Databases
• Smithsonian Research Online (SRO)
• Borrowing and Access Privileges
• Smithsonian Libraries and Archives on PRISM (SI staff)
• E-news Sign Up
• Internships and Fellowships
• Work with Us
• About the Libraries
• Library Locations
• Departments
• History of the Libraries
• Advisory Board
• Annual Reports
• Adopt-a-Book
• Ways to Give
• Gifts-in-Kind

You are here

Anthropology research guide, smithsonian resources, general anthropology resources, archaeology, linguistics, physical anthropology, social/cultural anthropology.

The Smithsonian Libraries and Archives' Anthropology Research Guide is a select list of resources for students, teachers, and researchers to learn about different aspects of Anthropology. 

• Department of Anthropology : The department website offers an overall description of staff, programs, research, collections, publications, and facilities. It also includes opportunities for volunteering, internships, fellowships, and visiting researchers. See the Summer Institute in Museum Anthropology (SIMA) for graduate students.
• 19th-Century Explorers and Anthropologists: Developing the Earliest Smithsonian Anthropology Collections Via these video podcasts, the first major anthropological collections are introducted to us by researchers and archivists. These laid the foundation for the Smithsonian Institution and subsequently the collections of the National Museum of Natural History, which opened to the public in 1910. 
• Curator Torbin Rick discusses his path to becoming an archaeologist.  vol 1 .   vol.2 .
• What Does it Mean to be Human?  Visit the Human Origins Program website for a virtual tour of the David H. Koch Hall of Human Origins exhibit. Learn about the latest research in “What is Hot in Human Origins” and the Human Origins Program’s archaeological research projects in Africa, Indonesia and China. The website provides an overview of the evidence for human evolution, including a 3D collection of fossils  and the characteristics that make us human. A link to the Understanding Evolution website provides lesson plans for teaching.
• Arctic Studies Center : The Arctic Studies Center, with offices in both Washington, DC, and Anchorage, Alaska, collaborates with Native peoples and Arctic residents to study the history, cultures, biota, and ecosystems throughout the circumpolar region. Research projects address global change and human-environmental interactions, origins and relationships of Arctic cultures, European-Native contacts, heritage preservation, and community archaeology. View online exhibitions, the Arctic Studies Newsletter , and the Magnetic North blog to learn about traditional knowledge, current research being conducted and issues of concern today. 
• Repatriation Office : Staff in this Office communicates and collaborates with representatives of Native Americans, Alaska Natives and Native Hawaiians to determine the disposition of cultural objects and human remains in the Smithsonian's collections, as required by federal law.  Learn about the steps in the repatriation process, the collections involved and read summaries of the repatriation reports.
• AnthroNotes : The award-winning publication of the Smithsonian’s Department of Anthropology, was published from 1979-2012 to present archaeological and anthropological research to educators and the public in an engaging and accessible style. This Digital Repository makes available pdfs of all 84 issues. A selection of these articles was published in the volume Anthropology Explored: The Best of Smithsonian AnthroNotes (Edited by Ruth O. Selig, Marilyn R. London, and P. Ann Kaupp; Illustrations by Robert L. Humphrey).  An Instructor's Guide accompanies the book.
• Handbook of North American Indians : The Handbook is a multi-volume encyclopedia of the indigenous people of the Americas north of Mexico. This site provides a list of volumes published with chapter titles, brief descriptions of content, and publication dates, editors' names, and ISBN numbers.
• Other Smithsonian Anthropology Publications: The publications of the Bureau of American Ethnology (1879-1965) are available online via the website of the Biodiversity Heritage Library . The series,  Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology   (1965-present), is also available online.
• Ives Goddard's Home Page : An example of a researcher's homepage is that of anthropological linguist Ives Goddard, a specialist in Algonquian languages. His page provides online access to several of his articles on Native American languages and linguistics. Among these articles are "I am a Red-Skin: The Adoption of a Native American Expression (1769-1826),"  "The Identity of Red Thunder Cloud" and "Endangered Knowledge: What can We Learn from Native American Languages."  The site also includes a link to text from "A Meskwaki Winter Story," a video presentation of his translation of a Meskwaki folktale traditionally told in winter. The story is called "The Married Couple: the Man Whose Wife Was Wooed by a Bear."
• Recovering Voices Program : The Smithsonian’s Recovering Voices Program strives to collaborate with communities and other institutions to address issues of indigenous languages, including documentation, revitalization and sustainability. The program seeks to understand the dynamics of intergenerational knowledge transfer and to support existing community initiatives focusing on language and knowledge sustainability. 
• Accessing Anthropology: Highlights from the Collections and Archives Program (CAP) : An overview of the collections , which document world cultures, the history of anthropology and its four sub-fields– ethnology, linguistics, archaeology, and physical anthropology – is presented. 
• African Voices : This exhibition examines Africa's people and cultures over time. Sections include global problems, local solutions, the economy, family and community,  reverence and rememberance, and history. 
• Written in Bone: Forensic Files of the 17th-Century Chesapeake  is an example of an Anthropology Department online exhibit. It is based on anthropological investigations conducted by Smithsonian staff and other researchers to introduce viewers to daily life, material culture and perspectives of indigenous cultures, mainly from North and South America and Africa. It examines the lives of colonists in Jamestown, Virginia, through 17th-century bone biographies.
• Smithsonian Center for Folklife and Cultural Heritage : The Folklife Center provides images and text from its recent events and exhibitions, including the Festival of American Folklife and a description of the holdings of the Ralph Rinzler Folklife Archives and Collections with searchable catalogs and digital downloads of Smithsonian Folkways recordings.
• American Anthropological Association Resources : This is the website of the primary anthropological association in the United States. 
• AnthroSource  (SI staff): This website provides full-text access to all 33 journals and the newsletter of the American Anthropological Association. It is available through the A-Z List of e-Journals and Databases on the Research Tools webpage of the Smithsonian Libraries. Onsite only for visitors.
• Anthropology Plus  (SI staff): This database allows the user to search for articles in over 2,500 anthropology-related journals and edited works dating back to the 19th century. It is a compilation of two indexing efforts -- Harvard University's Anthropological Literature   and the Royal Anthropological Institute's Anthropological Index . 
• Annual Review of Anthropology  (SI staff): This journal covers significant developments in all subfields of Anthropology. 
• Council for the Preservation of Anthropological Records : This group's mission is to provide access to the record of human diversity and the history of the discipline. It includes an online edition of the book Preserving the Anthropological Record and the Guide to Anthropological Fieldnotes and Manuscripts in Archival Repositories .
• Documentary Educational Resources : Anthropology-related documentary films and books on documentary films and film-making are available from this source. 
• Digital Artifacts and Images for Ethnography and Archaeology (University of Michigan) : This list of museums, universities, libraries, and other sources with annotations is created by the University of Michigan Library. 
• International Cultural Property Protection : A website of the U.S. Department of State, this source provides international news concerning protection of cultural property, information about implementation of the International Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act by the U.S. and online text of pertinent U.S. statutes and international agreements.
• AIA Archaeology FAQs
• Frequently Asked Questions About Archaeology and Archaeologists SAA (New World) : Addresses the issues of job availability and potential employment, educational requirements, and how to volunteer for a dig. It also contains references to sources for background information in the field of archaeology.
• ABZU : A resource focusing on the ancient Near East, Abzu gives access to a number of digitized texts and other online publications made searchable by the University of Chicago's Oriental Institute.
• Corpus of Maya Hieroglyphic Inscriptions : Produced by Harvard University's Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, this website provides an invaluable source of information about ancient Maya inscriptions and their associated figurative art.
• Mediterranean Archaeology Resources : Developed by a classical archaeologist, Ioannis Georganas, this site provides a useful compilation of links to journals, bibliographies, online resources, and organizations relating to the ancient Mediterranean.
• National Association of State Archaeologists (U.S.) : Database to search for a state's official archaeologist. 
• National Park Service: Archeology Program : This site offers multiple sources of information about prehistoric and historic North American archaeology, including the National Archeological Database (NADB) , reports on Kennewick Man  and links to federal laws and regulations , as well as to standards  relating to cultural resources.
• Archeology in France  (in French): Websites produced by the French Ministry of Culture and Communication enable viewers to take virtual tours of three marvelous cave sites famed for their prehistoric wall paintings: Lascaux  closed to visitors since 1963; Chauvet , discovered in 1994; and La Grotte Cosquer , located on the Mediterranean coast and accessible only to divers.
• Languages of the Americas : Through its homepage, the Society for the Study of the Indigenous Languages of the Americas (SSILA) gives access to a number of sources relating to American Indian languages.
• Open Language Archive Community : The website is a partnership of institutions and individuals who are creating a worldwide virtual library of language resources.
• SIL International : The website of this organization, formerly known as the Summer Institute of Linguistics, gives information about its publications, software packages and workshops, as well as links to electronic texts such as the 21st edition of Ethnologue  (2018), a catalog of the world's languages. Ethnologue provides classifications, lists, and geographic distributions of the world's languages. The Internet version includes clickable maps, language name and language family indexes, and a bibliography. It is fully searchable by language, region, country or general keyword.
• Yamada Language Center : Produced by the University of Oregon's Service and Technology Center for language teaching and learning, this site offers links to numerous languages.
• Biological Anthropology Section of the American Anthropological Association : Provides an extensive collection of links to information about conferences and workshops. See tab titled resources for teaching resources, blog lists, related organizations, and job search information.
• e-Skeletons Project : The virtual images offered by this website enable one to view and compare bones of human, baboon, and gorilla skeletons. The Project also provides an online glossary of descriptive anatomical terms.
• Institute of Human Origins (IHO) : The webpage of the Institute located at Arizona State University provides information about the research and educational activities of its staff, world tours and some related websites. It also features a discussion of the famous early hominid Lucy.
• Forensic Anthropology : Forensic anthropology is a special sub-field of physical anthropology (the study of human remains) that involves applying skeletal analysis and techniques in archaeology to solving criminal cases. 
• Directory of Anthropological Archives : Alphabetical list of archives worldwide, provided by Council for the Preservation of Anthropological Records.
• Memorica : Open Access repository that p rovides access to digital archives and materials about cultural history and memory in Mexico.

Penn Museum Archival Films : Collection of free-to-watch films from the Penn Museum archives, each of which contains a large amount of ethnographic material.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• BMJ Glob Health
• v.3(2); 2018

Anthropology in public health emergencies: what is anthropology good for?

Darryl stellmach.

1 Médecins Sans Frontières, London, UK

2 Marie Bashir Institute for Infectious Diseases and Biosecurity, Charles Perkins Centre and School of Life and Environmental Sciences, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

Isabel Beshar

3 Stanford Medical School, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA

Juliet Bedford

4 Anthrologica, Oxford, UK

Philipp du Cros

Beverley stringer.

Recent outbreaks of Ebola virus disease (2013–2016) and Zika virus (2015–2016) bring renewed recognition of the need to understand social pathways of disease transmission and barriers to care. Social scientists, anthropologists in particular, have been recognised as important players in disease outbreak response because of their ability to assess social, economic and political factors in local contexts. However, in emergency public health response, as with any interdisciplinary setting, different professions may disagree over methods, ethics and the nature of evidence itself. A disease outbreak is no place to begin to negotiate disciplinary differences. Given increasing demand for anthropologists to work alongside epidemiologists, clinicians and public health professionals in health crises, this paper gives a basic introduction to anthropological methods and seeks to bridge the gap in disciplinary expectations within emergencies. It asks: ‘What can anthropologists do in a public health crisis and how do they do it?’ It argues for an interdisciplinary conception of emergency and the recognition that social, psychological and institutional factors influence all aspects of care.

Key questions

What is already known about this topic.

• Anthropologists are potentially important players in emergency public health response, providing insight on the social dynamics of health, illness and disease transmission.
• Anthropological methods are quite distinct from and may be in tension with, other public health techniques.

What are the new findings?

• The recent large-scale outbreak of Ebola virus (2013–2016) saw anthropologists working in different capacities of the response. These interactions led to new insight on how anthropologists can function within public health emergencies.
• This paper outlines the methods and disciplinary abilities of anthropology and suggests how it may best be employed in the context of emergency public health response.

Recommendations for policy

• Public health responders must understand the nature and value of anthropological evidence and the roles anthropologists can and cannot play in emergency settings.

Introduction

Social scientists, anthropologists in particular, have for some time been recognised as potentially important players in emergency public health efforts, particularly in outbreak response. 1 2 In 1996, Paul Farmer called for a ‘critical anthropology of emerging infections’ 3 —a new field that could identify the social, economic and political factors underpinning health emergencies and thus positively shape the course of health interventions. In the years that followed, Farmer’s call was met by a contingent of researchers eager to use anthropological skills to support outbreak response. 2 4–8

Recent large-scale outbreaks of Ebola virus disease (EVD) (2013–2016; Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone), Zika virus (2015–2016; North, Central and South America, Pacific Islands, Southeast Asia) and cholera (2017; Yemen) have brought renewed urgency to Farmer’s call, highlighting the need to understand the social pathways of disease transmission and barriers to care. In the last 5 years, anthropologists have been particularly valued for their ability to assess these factors in local contexts. While anthropologists have been involved in disease outbreaks for many years, their role in emergencies seems likely to increase, given growing calls for greater integration of sociocultural approaches to health crises. 2 9–11

Successful responses to public health emergencies often require collaboration between specialists such as clinicians, epidemiologists and social scientists. Yet different professions approach the same subject with different disciplinary expectations, ethical codes, methodologies and vocabulary. Anthropological methods are quite distinct from, and may be in tension with, other public health approaches (see Bourgois 12 for an exploration of some policy consequences). Technical words do not hold the same meaning across disciplines and jargon may be confusing to outsiders. Divergence between approaches can be problematic, as distinctive values and assumptions may prompt disagreements over research and programmatic methods. 6

A public health crisis is no place to begin to negotiate disciplinary differences. 6 13 As such, the emergency response community must be proactive in formulating a multidisciplinary approach to public health emergencies. This article is a primer on anthropological methods and how they can be applied in emergency. The paper summarises the methods and disciplinary strengths of anthropology. It outlines how anthropologists can be incorporated into public health emergency response and how, when properly integrated, they can significantly improve health outcomes and social conditions for populations in crisis.

Anthropology explained

What is anthropology.

‘Anthropology is the study of what makes us human.’ 14 Anthropology studies differences in humans (and other primates) through space and time. All humans share the same fundamentals of genetics, physiology and neurology. Similarly, they share the same basic needs for food, shelter, security, reproduction and social expression. However, the environments, mechanisms and interactions that humans use to meet their needs vary widely and manifest in surprisingly diverse social, ecological and epigenetic differences among and between individuals and populations. Anthropology starts from these shared fundamentals to examine diversity and variation. Anthropology encompasses many different subfields, from primatology to museum anthropology. What they have in common is the emphasis on understanding human social and biological variation through a holistic, that is to say multifactorial, perspective: accounting for the influences of history and people’s natural, social and built environments. 14 Because of this holistic approach, anthropologists’ subject matter (if not their methods) may overlap with history, economics, sociology, psychology and, increasingly, the health professions. Given the central importance of social practices in public health emergency (eg, health and hygiene behaviours), emergency responders will most frequently encounter sociocultural anthropologists , who study human social variation: differences in human behaviours, customs, values and outlooks. A subset of this group are applied anthropologists , who apply anthropological methods and knowledge to practical problem-solving in institutional or public settings. 15 They may be university based, work as professional consultants or be full-time members of emergency response teams.

Anthropological methods

Most anthropologists share the same basic convictions regarding methods and the nature of evidence. Anthropology is fundamentally holistic and empirical; it is based on observed reality and insists human behaviour cannot be considered in isolation from institutional relations, biology or the environment. 14 Individuals, communities, institutions and environmental circumstances are coinfluential; thus, social phenomena can only be understood as a relation between individual attitudes and behaviour, mediated through institutional and material culture. This holistic understanding is best achieved through field studies. Anthropologists excel at field-based research; the discipline is predicated on it. 16

Participant observation is sociocultural anthropology’s principal field research method. As the term implies, the anthropologist plays two roles simultaneously, as both a member and observer of a subject group. This position is similar to that of a documentary journalist; both are embedded within a community, both strive to give an impartial, professional and faithful account of events. Participant observation entails the researcher’s ‘close acquaintance’ and integration with everyday community activities over an extended period—days, weeks, months or even years. 16 The researcher’s role is transparently acknowledged and their presence contingent on community acceptance. Over the course of participant observation, the anthropologist will generally conduct formal and informal interviews and may also undertake surveys, questionnaires or other activities depending on the questions being explored. Observation and description are central activities; the anthropologist will make highly detailed notes and normally keep a log of activities. Immersive observation permits understanding of daily and seasonal rhythms of life. It also permits the anthropologist to cultivate long-term engagements with study subjects. This allows interviews to be more in-depth, and enables the researcher to address follow-up questions and cross-reference information. In this way, anthropological practice is an iterative process; as research findings are assessed and analysed in the field, research questions can be refined and subjects approached anew. This process gives insight into beliefs and practices that cannot be obtained through short interview or survey methods. 16 17

The material product of anthropological fieldwork is called an ethnography . Characterised by long passages of narrative description, ethnographies present evidence in a manner similar to documentary reporting. As such, anthropological writing follows an empirical logic: evidence is presented (often through narrative), arguments are made from the evidence and assertions must be supported by reference to ethnographic evidence or other research. 18 Well-reasoned, rational conclusions drawn from disciplined observation and comparison contribute to the evidence base that informs clinical and public health interventions. 19 20 Some examples of how this can be achieved in public health emergencies are explored in section What is anthropology good for?

Obviously, a long-term participant observation approach may not be feasible in periods of acute public health crisis, but the anthropological method is flexible and adaptable. Anthropology’s pen and notebook approach means the study focus can expand or contract as access, security or other external factors permit. Meanwhile, by maintaining contacts with individual key informants, the anthropologist can stay in touch with and study populations on the move. For an example of how this adaptive participant observation approach can be integrated into an emergency setting, see the protocol by Stellmach. 21

In other circumstances requiring fast action, anthropologists may deploy existing assessment tools, such as Rapid Assessment Procedures, and Knowledge, Attitude and Practices surveys. 22 23 These tools are well used within the emergency community and their strengths and weaknesses are generally acknowledged. They are valuable for their ability to quickly produce baseline data but are not meant to replace primary research. They cannot account for the interlinked influence of biological, social and environmental factors in the way that in-depth anthropological approaches can. 22 Rapid assessment tools are frequently refined using insight gained from past interventions and anthropological perspectives contribute to these efforts. Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF), for example, have developed rapid assessment tools using qualitative methods to assess household, community and structural aspects in order to ensure a more comprehensive approach to understanding potential vulnerabilities for people in crisis. 24

Like all disciplines dealing with human subjects, the practice of anthropology is governed by a complex set of human research ethics. These concern issues such as safety, access, consent, intellectual property, confidentiality and anticipation of harm and benefit. Community trust and acceptance are key to an anthropologist’s work, thus ethical guidelines place central emphasis on transparency, negotiated access and voluntary informed consent. In addition to gaining clearance from review boards, informed consent in the field is an ongoing process, daily reaffirmed in the researcher’s actions and interactions. 25 26 While anthropologists will normally follow formal consenting procedures, the intimate nature of the research, where the researcher comes to be a feature of people’s daily lives, means consent cannot be effectively granted by a one-time signature on a form. Rather, whether implicit or explicit, consent comes in the form of ongoing engagement, cooperation and collaboration from the community. Consent takes the form of a social relationship, rather than the bureaucratic one implied by formal procedure. Given this deep engagement, anthropologists will usually go to lengths to honour the trust of their research subjects and protect them from potential harm, disruption or interference. Research subjects are generally assured of confidentiality, although some research subjects prefer to go ‘on record’ and request attribution; research findings may also be coattributed, with authorship shared between the researcher and the community. 25 27 28

Because they spend so long with their subject community and owe a primary research debt to that community, anthropologists may find themselves in a difficult ethical position when the vision of the research sponsor differs substantially from that of the community. 29 Such disagreements are bound to occur in public health crises, where dramatic action, such as quarantine and isolation, may be necessary but negatively perceived by the community. Thus, anthropologists may have to mediate or otherwise navigate between the separate interests of the community and the intervention. Faced with a conflict of interest, most anthropologists would assert their paramount moral obligation is to ensure the welfare of their research participants, 29 although how that welfare is best realised may be open to question.

What is anthropology good for?

The previous sections outline some distinctive features of anthropology and give some intimation of why anthropological perspectives might be useful in public health crises. This section explores how to realise that potential in practice—how anthropologists can be incorporated into a public health emergency response and where they can fill specific roles.

Broadly speaking, anthropologists fit into three different intervention categories, depending on the needs at the time and the character and specialisation of the individual anthropologist: (1) programme design and formative research; (2) interpretation, investigation and response; (3) event analysis and post hoc assessment.

Programme design and formative research

To paraphrase Jaffré, where epidemiology can describe priorities , anthropology can define possibilities for action on population health. 18 That is to say, anthropology can provide insight on why public health interventions succeed or fail: the gap between what is planned and what is realised on the ground and the unintended consequences that may result. People do not suffer from pathologies alone, but from a combination of pathology and the social and economic structures that predicate, enable or emerge from pathology. These can include, for example, social and economic conditions that place certain groups at greater risk and the deleterious impact of illness on family education and livelihoods. 30 Ethnography can reveal these structures in a manner that is practical and actionable. 18 So, for example, Jaffré investigated qualitative variables underlying maternal mortality in West Africa, Farmer 31 explored structural determinants of HIV infection in Haiti and Stevenson 32 examined frustrated public health approaches to suicide prevention in the Canadian arctic. Each of these anthropological studies of health crises reveals the difference between what authorities planned and what was achieved; more to the point, they demonstrate how well-intentioned but uninformed professional intervention can have unintended consequences that result in avoidable morbidity or mortality.

These insights are vital at the programme design phase and have a specific contribution to make in regard to formative research. Formative research is targeted research directed at achieving specific outcomes to inform planning and design of health programmes. Generally making use of mixed qualitative and quantitative methods, it aims to shape programme strategies and communications. 33 Working together in research teams to ensure concept, design and analysis takes into account the value of both forms of evidence is essential. MSF, for example, have demonstrated this during the EVD outbreak in a practical way when combining the results of various studies to define health zones, review quality of surveillance and communicate better to follow-up families in the communities. 34

In the absence of vital public health infrastructure, such as functioning civil or public health registries, anthropologists have collaborated with epidemiologists and others in the tracking of morbidity and mortality. 35 One innovative example of such a collaboration used qualitative and quantitative methods to triangulate informal and official reports to produce a historical study of violent mortality for Darfur, Sudan—an ‘epidemiology of violence’—that tracked temporal and geographical trends in lethal force throughout the region. 36 37 Multidisciplinary teams in the field can access multiple information streams, both qualitative and quantitative. Ideally, the end result incorporates indigenous knowledge into effective local emergency strategy.

Thus, anthropologists can assist with accelerated planning and design of a public health response. Their expertise lends itself to designing strategies that are cognisant of the local context, socially relevant and therefore likely to be adopted by affected communities in a timely manner. Anthropological insight can contribute to risk assessment activities, community engagement, communications and health messaging, as well as understanding local perceptions and acceptance of the response. 4 6 The latter is important to ensure that a response is agile, responds to community needs and perceptions and supports accountability towards affected communities. It should be noted that, while these investigations are critical at the programme design phase, they need not end there, but can happen in an iterative manner, allowing programmes to be adapted and refocused midstream.

The incorporation of anthropology in the planning and design phase plays to the pre-eminent strengths that anthropologists bring to emergency response: a high-resolution focus on the local and an appreciation for a bottom-up approach to analytical evaluation. 16

Interpretation, investigation and response

‘Interpretation’ is perhaps the role that first comes to mind for anthropology in emergencies: making sense of local norms in the context of international emergency response. However, many anthropologists would see this characterisation as problematic. This is because ‘culture’, invoked in the context of public health intervention, often carries negative connotations (culture as an obstacle, rarely an enabler). To frame anthropologists as ‘cultural interpreters’, ‘translators’ or ‘brokers’ characterises them as scouts employed to lead teams around the obstacle of culture. 38

This is problematic for a number of reasons. Public health intervention generally plays out along the lines of existing power relationships. Many public health emergencies unfold among people who suffer acute disparities in wealth, power and social status—both internally (in relation to members of their own society) and in relation to the broader world. 39 40 These disparities are normally the product of historical, asymmetrical—even exploitative—social, economic and governmental relationships. 41 Such conditions are simultaneously precursors to and enablers of present-day crises. 31 Against this background, seemingly irrational behaviours often attributed to culture, superstition and ignorance can perhaps better be understood as an animated response to historical and contemporary inequalities.

Acute power differentials, historical and social complexity make cultural interpretation an inadequate concept. The notion is ultimately flawed because the process—coming to understand how others think and value—is not one of transliteration. The benefits of medicine are not always obvious and universally accepted, 6 nor do indigenous ideas always have equivalent concepts in English.

In the early months of EVD in West Africa, responders devalued community understandings of the disease and customary funerary rites. Response strategies centred on what was scientifically proven about viral transmission and control. 42 43 The ‘politics of knowledge’ surrounding EVD recognised a hierarchy of expertise: medical knowledge was promoted without attempts to understand local perspectives and histories. In other words, action based on accurate medical knowledge was considered to be all that was needed to combat EVD; meaning quarantine and rapid, contagion-free burial. The forceful implementation of these practices, and the stigmatisation of community practices, had substantial consequences. People were unable to care for dying relatives. Individuals fearing quarantine fled to their home villages. Communities, already mistrustful of government intervention, hid patients and burials. As a result, the epidemic, already unprecedented in scale, was further exacerbated. It was effectively combatted when community perspectives were integrated into safe care and burial practices. 42–44

Anthropologists played a pivotal role in this process. Many could act as networkers to bring health officials into contact with key individuals at the community or national level. 35 45 But more importantly, anthropologists drew attention to the role of history, the pervasiveness of narratives and the use of mismatched assumptions that influenced both local people and the responders. Community engagement that accounted for complex social and political realities on the ground was key. 43 (For an overview of anthropological approaches to EVD, see Moran and Hoffman. 46 For specific case examples, see Abramowitz and Bedford, 47 recent special editions of Anthropology in Action 48 and Anthropological Quarterly. 44 )

Since riots, rumours, refusal of services, non-compliance and other ‘irrational’ reactions often have their roots in relationships predicated on racialism, marginalisation or exploitation 4 31 46 49 anthropology in emergency can help field response teams to more readily ingest knowledge about communities’ understanding of disease, their priorities and potential behaviours (of both community and responders) that might impact response. The heterogeneity of beliefs in the community and the changes in beliefs that might occur may become more apparent. This enables a conceptual and methodological shift: teams will work within participating populations rather than upon them. 13 Documenting and understanding phenomena from the patient or community perspective shifts the sociopolitical dimension of health in humanitarian settings beyond traditional public health approaches. 18 Anthropological knowledge, generated and disbursed locally alongside that of public health experts and epidemiologists, helps bridge gaps in social understanding.

Event analysis and post hoc assessment

During the international EVD outbreak, anthropologists and related disciplines built international research collaborations, including the Ebola Emergency Anthropology Initiative (a message board and Listserv: https://lists.capalon.com/lists/listinfo/ebola-anthropology-initiative ) and the Ebola Response Anthropology Platform (a weblog and information clearinghouse: http://www.ebola-anthropology.net/ ). By making use of online technology, these collaborations took place in real time. This made for forums that were engaged, interactive and iterative, permitting the real-time ‘mobilization of local research’ and knowledge, including analysis, recommendations and technical advice. 47 Similarly, the online environment allowed a leading anthropology blog to carry ongoing analysis of the epidemic as it spread and developed ( Somatosphere ’s ‘Ebola fieldnotes’ series: http://somatosphere.net/series/ebola-fieldnotes ), while online social research journals fast-tracked publishing of social analysis. 50

These real-time, transnational research collaborations—that follow the progress of a public health emergency as it happens—illustrate the potential power of rapid collective social science analysis: where academic methods, data and theory might be put into service to direct action, policy formulation or advocacy.

This converts anthropology into a resource in and of itself. Rather than an instrument of public health, it can also be a mirror on the practice of public health. Anthropological analysis can help reveal assumptions inherent in public health practice and programme design; it can similarly assess outcomes (eg, why do we count lives saved, when at best they are lives temporarily prolonged?). 17 50 It also helps us understand emergency response as part of a global practice and through its local particularities. 51 This analysis, whether part of a formal evaluation or not, is a potential source of strategic insight for practitioners and institutions.

What is anthropology not good for?

While professional anthropologists can add value and improve the response to public health emergencies, there are instances when an anthropological presence might not be useful or a priority. These might include situations of immediate and extreme crisis—for example, the first hours after a mass casualty disaster, when patient recovery, triage and surgical care are of the highest priority. 52 It also includes situations of very high insecurity; despite their connections with local communities, if a circumstance is deemed unsafe for health personnel it is likely not substantially safer for anthropologists. 53 In a similar vein, just as health campaigns have been poorly managed, misused or abused, 54 55 so the clumsy or unethical use of anthropology can poison perceptions and cause psychological or physical harm. 38 The misuse or misrepresentation of anthropology, in ignorance of professional codes of conduct, can have real consequences for individuals and health interventions. As such, the potential benefits of anthropology in public health emergencies can only be realised through appropriate expectations, realistic terms of reference and professionalism.

Recent high-profile public health crises have led to greater integration of sociocultural understanding into emergency response. With their specialist focus on everyday life, regional knowledge and ethnographic methods, it is logical that anthropologists undertake this effort. Additionally, while this paper has focused specifically on emergency, many of the anthropological resources discussed here can also serve in non-emergency, or postemergency, health interventions (see, for example, the work of Briggs and Nichter following 2009’s H1N1 outbreak, 5 or Farmer in Haiti 31 41 ).

This paper gives a basic introduction to anthropological methods and mindset. It hopes to harmonise disciplinary expectations by illustrating what anthropologists can do in public health crisis and how they do it. It attempts to summarise ways in which anthropology has been applied to public health crises in the past and imagines possible future roles for anthropology. By demonstrating how anthropologists are employed in emergency operations—contributing to a variety of apparatuses and structures—it highlights how hidden social aspects of clinical and public health intervention can be brought to the fore and acted upon for the benefit of all.

Acknowledgments

We thank Sarah Venis (MSF, London, UK) for editing assistance. We thank our anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on earlier versions of this submission. We thank Médecins Sans Frontières-UK and The Marie Bashir Institute at the University of Sydney for covering the cost of Open Access publication.

Handling editor: Seye Abimbola

Contributors: Concept: DS, IB, JB, PdC, BS. Literature search: IB. Writing first draft: DS, IB. Writing subsequent drafts: DS, IB, JB, PdC, BS. Administration: DS, IB. Supervision/coordination: DS, BS.

Funding: The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

Competing interests: JB is director of a consultancy specialised in the applied anthropology of global health.

Patient consent: Not required.

Provenance and peer review: Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

• History & Society
• Science & Tech
• Biographies
• Animals & Nature
• Geography & Travel
• Arts & Culture
• Games & Quizzes
• On This Day
• One Good Fact
• New Articles
• Lifestyles & Social Issues
• Philosophy & Religion
• Politics, Law & Government
• World History
• Health & Medicine
• Browse Biographies
• Birds, Reptiles & Other Vertebrates
• Bugs, Mollusks & Other Invertebrates
• Environment
• Fossils & Geologic Time
• Entertainment & Pop Culture
• Sports & Recreation
• Visual Arts
• Demystified
• Image Galleries
• Infographics
• Top Questions
• Britannica Kids
• Saving Earth
• Space Next 50
• Student Center
• Introduction

Definition and scope

Distinction between physical anthropology and cultural anthropology.

• Evolutionism
• Marxism and the collectors
• Boas and the culture history school
• Mauss and the “sociological” school
• The “grand diffusionists”
• Functionalism and structuralism
• Cultural psychology
• Neo-Marxism and neo-evolutionism
• The new research and fieldwork
• Non-Western cultural anthropologists
• Applied studies

cultural anthropology

Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

• Discover Anthropology - Social and Cultural Anthropology
• Table Of Contents

cultural anthropology , a major division of anthropology that deals with the study of culture in all of its aspects and that uses the methods, concepts, and data of archaeology , ethnography and ethnology, folklore, and linguistics in its descriptions and analyses of the diverse peoples of the world.

Etymologically, anthropology is the science of humans. In fact, however, it is only one of the sciences of humans, bringing together those disciplines the common aims of which are to describe human beings and explain them on the basis of the biological and cultural characteristics of the populations among which they are distributed and to emphasize, through time, the differences and variations of these populations. The concept of race, on the one hand, and that of culture , on the other, have received special attention; and although their meaning is still subject to debate, these terms are doubtless the most common of those in the anthropologist’s vocabulary.

Anthropology, which is concerned with the study of human differences, was born after the Age of Discovery had opened up societies that had remained outside the technological civilization of the modern West. In fact, the field of research was at first restricted to those societies that had been given one unsatisfactory label after another: “savage,” “primitive,” “tribal,” “traditional,” or even “preliterate,” “prehistorical,” and so on. What such societies had in common, above all, was being the most “different” or the most foreign to the anthropologist; and in the early phases of anthropology, the anthropologists were always European or North American. The distance between the researcher and the object of his study has been a characteristic of anthropological research; it has been said of the anthropologist that he was the “astronomer of the sciences of man.”

Anthropologists today study more than just primitive societies. Their research extends not only to village communities within modern societies but also to cities, even to industrial enterprises. Nevertheless, anthropology’s first field of research, and the one that perhaps remains the most important, shaped its specific point of view with regard to the other sciences of man and defined its theme. If, in particular, it is concerned with generalizing about patterns of human behaviour seen in all their dimensions and with achieving a total description of social and cultural phenomena, this is because anthropology has observed small-scale societies, which are simpler or at least more homogeneous than modern societies and which change at a slower pace. Thus they are easier to see whole.

What has just been said refers especially to the branch of anthropology concerned with the cultural characteristics of man. Anthropology has, in fact, gradually divided itself into two major spheres: the study of man’s biological characteristics and the study of his cultural characteristics. The reasons for this split are manifold, one being the rejection of the initial mistakes regarding correlations between race and culture. More generally speaking, the vast field of 19th-century anthropology was subdivided into a series of increasingly specialized disciplines, using their own methods and techniques, that were given different labels according to national traditions.

Thus two large disciplines—physical anthropology and cultural anthropology—and such related disciplines as prehistory and linguistics now cover the program that originally was set up for a single study of anthropology. The two fields are largely autonomous , having their own relations with disciplines outside anthropology; and it is unlikely that any researchers today work simultaneously in the fields of physical and cultural anthropology. The generalist has become rare. On the other hand, the fields have not been cut off from one another. Specialists in the two fields still cooperate in specific genetic or demographic problems and other matters.

Prehistoric archaeology and linguistics also have notable links with cultural anthropology. In posing the problem of the evolution of mankind in an inductive way, archaeology contributed to the creation of the first concepts of anthropology, and archaeology is still indispensable in uncovering the past of societies under observation. In many areas, when it is a question of interpreting the use of rudimentary tools or of certain elementary religious phenomena, prehistory and cultural anthropology are mutually helpful. “Primitive” societies that have not yet reached the metal age are still in existence.

Relations between linguistics and cultural anthropology are numerous. On a purely practical level the cultural anthropologist has to serve a linguistic apprenticeship. He cannot do without a knowledge of the language of the people he is studying, and often he has had to make the first survey of it. One of his essential tasks, moreover, has been to collect the various forms of oral expression, including myths , folk tales, proverbs, and so forth. On the theoretical level, cultural anthropology has often used concepts developed in the field of linguistics: in studying society as a system of communication, in defining the notion of structure, and in analyzing the way in which man organizes and classifies his whole experience of the world.

Cultural anthropology maintains relations with a great number of other sciences. It has been said of sociology , for instance, that it was almost the twin sister of anthropology. The two are presumably differentiated by their field of study (modern societies versus traditional societies). But the contrast is forced. These two social sciences often meet. Thus, the study of colonial societies borrows as much from sociology as from cultural anthropology. And it has already been remarked how cultural anthropology intervenes more and more frequently in urban and industrial fields classically the domain of sociology.

There have also been fruitful exchanges with other disciplines quite distinct from cultural anthropology. In political science the discussion of the concept of the state and of its origin has been nourished by cultural anthropology. Economists, too, have depended on cultural anthropology to see concepts in a more comparative light and even to challenge the very notion of an “economic man” (suspiciously similar to the 19th-century capitalist revered by the classical economists). Cultural anthropology has brought to psychology new bases on which to reflect on concepts of personality and the formation of personality. It has permitted psychology to develop a system of cross-cultural psychiatry, or so-called ethnopsychiatry . Conversely, the psychological sciences, particularly psychoanalysis, have offered cultural anthropology new hypotheses for an interpretation of the concept of culture.

The link with history has long been a vital one because cultural anthropology was originally based on an evolutionist point of view and because it has striven to reconstruct the cultural history of societies about which, for lack of written documents, no historical record could be determined. Cultural anthropology has more recently suggested to historians new techniques of research based on the analysis and criticism of oral tradition . And so “ ethnohistory ” is beginning to emerge. Finally, cultural anthropology has close links with human geography . Both of them place great importance on man either as he uses space or acts to transform the natural environment . It is not without significance that some early anthropologists were originally geographers.

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

2 What Is Anthropological Research?

What do anthropologists research.

The short answer is pretty much anything related to being human. We can be more specific by looking at each of the four major fields of anthropology:

Cultural anthropology: this is the cornerstone of anthropology. Cultural, or sociocultural, anthropologists study living peoples. They ask questions about how people behave and why they behave that way.

Biological or physical anthropologists also study living peoples but ask different types of questions that are related to the interaction of biology and culture. Disease, death, evolution, primates are all topic within biological anthropology.

Linguistic anthropologists study how people communicate, both verbally and non-verbally. They look at the structure and evolution of language. They also examine what cultural values are reflected in language.

Archaeologists ask the same types of questions that cultural anthropologists ask, but their dataset is different; they look at the material remains of people in the past.

How do anthropologists decide what to research?

This is a good question, and it has a surprisingly simple answer–they research what they find interesting. It is important that you do the same thing when you are assigned a research project for your classes. Even if your professor assigns a topic, you should be able to come up with an angle to that topic that you find interesting. When choosing a topic, start broadly then through the process of research, begin to narrow the focus. The best way to start is to do some general research to learn about the topic. Wikipedia can be a good source for this first step. The articles on Wikipedia can provide you with keywords to help you focus your research. Once you’ve identified keywords, then you can find academic sources to complete your assignment. Royal Road University has more advice on how to develop a research question. Grand Canyon University also has some advice on this.

Science and Anthropology

There has been a long running debate about the scientific nature of anthropology. Science is a way to gain knowledge about natural phenomena using empirical observation and testing, i.e., experiments (Jurmain, et al 2013). While there are different protocols used in science, it is performed using a set of rules called The Scientific Method (Fancher 2000). The method stresses the need to develop a testable hypothesis, the use of objectivity and rationality, and the circularity of scientific research. This does not mean that science is infallible, but in using the scientific method, particularly with the necessity to have testable hypotheses and tests that are replicable by other researchers, rigorous conclusions are reached.

Within the academy, anthropology is designated as a social science. Social sciences are identified as humanistic, ergo, thought of as “soft sciences” because they focus on

…intangibles and relate to the study of human and animal behaviors, interactions, thoughts, and feelings. Soft sciences apply the scientific method to such intangibles, but because of the nature of living beings, it is almost impossible to recreate a soft science experiment with exactitude…the distinction between the two types of science is a matter of how rigorously a hypothesis can be stated, tested, and then accepted or rejected (Helmenstine 2019).

Helmenstine (2019) further states that the designation is outdated as the “degree of difficulty is less related to the discipline than it is to the specific question at hand.” Difficulty may be not in the performance of experiments but in devising an experiment, which may be harder in the so-called soft sciences.

Peregrine, et al. (2014) claim that the differentiation between science (hard sciences) and the humanities (soft sciences) is a false dichotomy. Within anthropology, both hard science and soft science provide important frameworks for understanding the human experience. Hard science helps us make sense of observable phenomena and soft science provides cultural context for those phenomena. As a holistic discipline it is important for anthropologists to use various methodologies and engage with differing perspectives to understand the human experience.

Anthropology cannot succeed without tolerance for this diversity of approaches…our task…is not to seek definitions of scientific or humanistic approaches but, rather, to implement whatever approach satisfies our interests and helps us to answer our questions (Peregrine et.al. 2012, 597).

Misconceptions About Science

There are some common misconceptions about science that may impede one’s ability to fully understand scientific concepts:

• Science proves things. Proofs are final and binary, which occurs in mathematics and logic. Science uses evidence gathered over time to develop theories, which are explanations widely accepted based on the current available data. Good scientists accept that theories may change based on new data (Kanazawa 2008).
• The scientific method is the only way to do science and it must be done in a lab. While the scientific method is an important tool, it is not the only tool in the researcher’s toolbox. Part of the scientific method as is generally taught in science classrooms is experimentation. It is important to remember that experimentation is only one way to collect data. There are many other ways to collect data, which does not negate utilizing other steps of the scientific method.
• Science is boring . Maybe it is sometimes, but science can be fun and creative. Science employs the imagination and since it explores all observable phenomena, there is usually something that garners one’s interest. Sometimes it is simply a matter of finding that something.
• Science is hard. Perhaps. The language of science, including mathematics, can be intimidating; however, learning about how to do science is the same as learning how to do anything—it’s a process that we learn over time. Patience is key here—sometimes we need to look at multiple sources to gain an understanding.
• Hypotheses and theories are the same thing. Not so. Hypotheses are tentative explanations for a phenomenon. Theories are an accepted explanation based on the testing of hypotheses and well-supported by facts. It can take a long time for a hypothesis to be elevated to the level of scientific theory.
• Scientific knowledge is immutable. Again, not so. Scientific knowledge can and does change as new data are collected and analyzed. If scientific knowledge was immutable or unchanging, then there would never be medical or technological advancements. New or changing knowledge is not bad; the success of humans is reliant on our ability to question and be open to new things. We would not be living in the structures we do today or eat the wide range of foods that we do if not for our ancestors’ openness to new knowledge and change.
• There is always a right answer. Since scientific knowledge can change, answers may change, or we may not be able to determine the ‘right’ answer. This can be especially hard for some people to understand. This may be because the data suggest multiple answers or we simply do not have the ability to collect the data needed to approach a definitive answer. The trajectory of human evolution is a good example of this. Based on current data and data collection methods, paleoanthropologists have developed several hypotheses about how humans evolved. Because we cannot say which hypothesis is right some people claim that human evolution is false. This is a misunderstanding as to the nature of science. The ‘gray’ area, the area of uncertainty, is not inherently bad. It drives further research, and we need to be open to the fact that sometimes ‘this is what we know right now’ is okay.
• Science is anti-religion. While it is true that many scientists are atheists, it is also true that many scientists follow religious belief systems. Scientists prefer to leave religion outside of the science classroom because the subject matter is out of the purview of what they can research because “supernatural explanations are less likely to generate testable claims” (Brickmore et.al. 2009).

Science and Culture

Science does not operate within a vacuum. It operates within cultural systems, which, unsurprisingly, influences the way science is done. Science, as is taught in most schools in industrial nations, started in Renaissance Europe, which itself was heavily influence by knowledge gained from Islamic societies. However, this empirical approach is not the only way to study nature or observable phenomena.

Cultures from all regions of the world have developed a complex view of nature, rooted in their philosophy, which has led to their understanding and explanation of the natural world. The traditional knowledge of non-European cultures is the expression of specific ways of living in the world, of a specific relationship between society and culture, and of a specific approach to the acquisition and construction of knowledge (Iaccarino 2003, 223).

It is beyond the scope of this class to explore all the various ways cultures understand the interaction of culture and environment or to investigate the myriad of ways knowledge is constructed. Because anthropology is embedded within the Western practice of science, that approach is the focus of this chapter.

Society’s Influence on Science

As cultures and societies change to meet new needs, so does science. For instance, national interests influence the trajectory of science. World War II influenced research into atoms, leading to the development of nuclear weapons and nuclear medicine. More recently, the COVID-19 pandemic led researchers to investigate not only a vaccine for the virus, but its origins and epidemiology.

Funding to practice science, e.g., laboratory equipment, salaries, etc., most often comes from social organizations. Both government and private organizations support scientific research. In the United States, the National Science Foundation, National Institute of Health, and the Centers for Disease Control are a few governmental organizations that provide grants for scientific research. The Wenner-Gren Foundation, Tinker Foundation, and Alfred P. Sloan Foundation are examples of private organizations that provide science research grants. Sometimes the organizations direct the focus of research by providing grants for specific types or areas of research, such as The Whitehall Foundation, which provides grants for research in the life sciences, or The Leakey Foundation, which awards grants for research about human origins. While funding agencies can influence what scientists research, it cannot determine the conclusions of the research.

Scientists are people raised within cultures that “…shape our expectations, values, beliefs, and goals” (“Shaping Scientists” 2022). For example, a scientist with a family member who died from cancer may focus on cancer research. On the flip side, beliefs or ethical concerns may turn scientists away from certain avenues of research, as in the case of Joseph Rotblat, a Polish-born scientist who stepped away from the Manhattan Project because he was concerned about the cost to human life (“Shaping Scientists” 2022).

Clearly, these influences could cause bias within scientific research; however, science has a self-checking system that helps to mitigate bias. This system is called the scientific method.

The Scientific Method

Why do students of anthropology need to understand the scientific method? Because it is a key methodology in biological anthropology. It is one of the tools used to help researchers find answers to questions about the human experience.

Steps of the Scientific Meth od

1. Define the problem

This is based on observation — either something you’ve observed from nature or from something that’s already been written. How many times have you seen something or read about something and thought up a question about it? If you have, then you’ve done the first step of the Scientific Method!

2. Develop Hypothesis

Propose an explanation for the observed phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be a good hypothesis, it must be testable. In other words, anyone must be able to test it to see if it’s supported or unsupported. Even if a hypothesis is unsupported, it is still ‘good’ if it is testable. There are lots of questions out there that are not testable, such as, “Somewhere on the planet, a pink elephant is dancing the can-can in a tutu.” Because it’s impossible to explore every inch of the world looking for our dancing elephant, this would not be feasibly testable. Along the same lines, a testable hypothesis would be, “Student group A, who have read the material on The Scientific Method, will have a higher average score on their quiz than will Student group B, who have not read the material on The Scientific Method.”

3. Collect Data

The experiment should be specifically designed to test the hypothesis. The experiment will provide data as to whether the hypothesis is supported or not. Experiments must be replicable by other researchers. For our example above with ever-so-fortunate quiz-takers, you’d have Group A read the material (Group B would not) and both groups would take the quiz. This experimental design is replicable by other researchers because they too could find two groups of students and follow the same protocol (students are randomly assigned to a group; one group reads the material, one not, and both take the quiz).

4. Organize/analyze data:

Once the experiment is completed, you must organize the data and analyze the results. For our example, you would grade the quizzes, calculate the average score per group, and analyze the results.

5. Conclusion

You develop a statement that sums up what the data (collected during the experimental phase) says about the hypothesis. For our example, our concluding statement would be something like, “Group A, who read material on The Scientific Method, performed better on a Scientific Method quiz than did Group B, who did not read the material.” If your hypothesis is supported, then you would move on to the next step in the process. If your hypothesis was unsupported, you would rework your hypothesis and start the process over.

6. Share the knowledge

It is important to share the results of your work even (and maybe even especially ) if your hypothesis was not supported. Remember — information is only good if it is communicated to others!

Things to keep in mind:

Science does not “prove” anything. Hypotheses are falsified/unsupported or not falsified/supported. For a hypothesis to be accepted as a theory, it undergoes rigorous testing (Larsen 2008: 16). It can take decades for a hypothesis to become a theory. For this reason, it is important to differentiate between theory within the sciences and theory in colloquial use. In the latter, theories are equated to guesses that may or may not be based on any data and are often said to be ‘just a theory.’ It is inaccurate (and we might even say it is insulting) to think a theory in science is “just a theory.” That manner of thought trivializes all the research that went into the development of the scientific theory.

Unfortunately, there is a practice both within and outside the academy, to use the term theory interchangeably with hypothesis. It is up to you to determine if the “theory” referred to is in fact a scientific theory or a hypothesis. While we discuss various topics in anthropology it is important to keep these distinctions in mind. We will encounter situations where there are multiple hypotheses or theories proposed to explain a phenomenon. Contradictory supported hypotheses are possible; some refer to this as equifinality . This is not necessarily a bad thing. It simply means that the data collected supports two (or more) hypotheses — in most cases, there is not sufficient data available to support one more than the other (especially when we get to the information within human evolution). Some who do not fully understand the scientific process, think this is a bad thing, but equifinality drives further research. So, for the moment we must open our minds to accept two or more potential conclusions.

The Scientific Method in Action!!! Watch the following clip and identify the steps of The Scientific Method. Was their hypothesis testable? Was their experiment replicable? What was the conclusion of their “scientific endeavor”? Clip: The Scientific Method in Action .

Data Collection Methods

Like other scientists, anthropologists are looking for patterns, associations, and repetitions (Park 2014, 32). There are five basic categories of data collection methods that anthropologists employ: 1) material observation, 2) biological observation, 3) behavioral observation, 4) direct communication, and 5) participant observation. Which method is used varies depending on the anthropological field and to some extent the research question asked.

From the previous discussion, it should be clear that experimentation is one data collection method employed by anthropologists, which can fall within several of the basic categories mentioned above, including material observation. Data collection through material observation means that the researcher is collecting data about objects and settings. This method is used across all the fields of anthropology. Cultural anthropologists, archaeologists, and primatologists might look at the tools used by the subjects. Biological anthropologists might observe the local environment. Written records could be observed by linguistic anthropologists, cultural anthropologists, and archaeologists (Park 2014).

Biological observation includes observations of human and primate anatomy, including genetics and physiology. Paleoanthropologists and primatologists look at fossils. Archaeologists and cultural anthropologists examine the food that people consumed, and along with biological anthropologists may investigate pathogens that impact people (Park 2014).

Collecting data on how people and non-human primates adapt to their cultural and natural environments is the purview of behavioral observation. One might be tempted to say that behavioral observation is the end-all-be-all for anthropologists, but it is important to remember that it is simply one method of data collection. Most anthropologists employ multiple data collection techniques (Park 2014).

Direct communication is a data collection method that is common in the social sciences. Anthropologists in the field prefer to work with informants , people who supply information about the study group. During conversations with informants, anthropologists learn about emic , or insider, perspectives. Data collected in this manner can help the anthropologist to narrow their research and even develop new research questions. Surveys, questionnaires, interviews, and focus groups are other types of direct communication data collection techniques (Park 2014).

The final type of data collection methods is a cornerstone of anthropology— participant observation . Pioneered by Branislaw Malinowski during his research among the Trobriand Islanders in the early to mid-20 th -century, participant observation requires the researcher to live with the research group to not only observe the group but to participate in activities. Through this participation, the goal is to gather data on the emic perspective to better understand why behaviors are practiced. This method does not preclude the use of other types of data collection. Indeed, using multiple data collection techniques can provide a richer interpretation of human behavior. No matter which data collection technique is employed, it is vital to obtain informed consent from the study participants.

Ethics and Anthropological Research

Informed consent is not only an ethical but legal concern when conducting human subject research. Potential participants must:

• be provided with sufficient information to make an informed choice about their participation,
• give consent voluntarily, and
• be competent to make a decision about involvement in the research (Informed Consent 2018, 1146).

This includes ensuring potential subjects understand any risks and benefits that might be involved through their participation. The researcher needs to make it explicit how the data is going to be used and how privacy is going to be maintained. The subjects also need to be informed that they can withdraw from the study at any time. In other words, researchers need to make full disclosure in order to protect the rights and dignity of their research subjects. For anthropologists, this often entails engaging interpreters to help with either verbally conveying the information or transcribing the details into local languages. Anthropologists often record informed consent so that there are no problems later.

What constitutes “good research”?

Clarity and ethics are two things that comprise good research. The purpose and question(s) need to be clearly defined so that the audience understands. The research process also needs to be planned and explained well. Bouchrika on Research.com lays out the “ Top 10 Qualities of Good Academic Research .” It’s worth a look. George Washington University provides a guide for “ 15 Steps to Good Research .” Much of the information on these two sites relates to original research, but the basic ideas apply to research at the undergraduate level even though the research you conduct will be primarily literature research (also called a literature review or lit search). Most, but not all, undergraduate research projects require you to develop a question and then research what answers other people have developed. This is not a bad thing. In fact, all original research starts with a lit search because we want to see if and what other people have done to address the question. This helps to prevent plagiarism. The Purdue Online Writing Lab has a good overview about writing a literature review . WikiHow has advice on how to do a lit search. If you read nothing else, read that.

What does it mean to conduct ethical research?

Nothing can ruin an academic or research career faster than unethical practices. But what does this mean? While there are discipline-specific ethical standards, there are some general qualities to ethical research (Reznick 2017):

Strive for honesty in all scientific communications. Honestly report data, results, methods and procedures, and publication status. Do not fabricate, falsify, or misrepresent data. Do not deceive colleagues, research sponsors, or the public.

Objectivity

Strive to avoid bias in experimental design, data analysis, data interpretation, peer review, personnel decisions, grant writing, expert testimony, and other aspects of research where objectivity is expected or required. Avoid or minimize bias or self-deception. Disclose personal or financial interests that may affect research.

Keep your promises and agreements; act with sincerity; strive for consistency of thought and action.

Carefulness

Avoid careless errors and negligence; carefully and critically examine your own work and the work of your peers. Keep good records of research activities, such as data collection, research design, and correspondence with agencies or journals.

Share data, results, ideas, tools, resources. Be open to criticism and new ideas.

Respect for Intellectual Property

Honor patents, copyrights, and other forms of intellectual property. Do not use unpublished data, methods, or results without permission. Give proper acknowledgement or credit for all contributions to research. Never plagiarize.

Confidentiality

Protect confidential communications, such as papers or grants submitted for publication, personnel records, trade or military secrets, and patient records.

Responsible Publication

Publish in order to advance research and scholarship, not to just advance your own career. Avoid wasteful and duplicative publication.

Responsible Mentoring

Help to educate, mentor, and advise students. Promote their welfare and allow them to make their own decisions.

Respect for colleagues

Respect your colleagues and treat them fairly.

Social Responsibility

Strive to promote social good and prevent or mitigate social harms through research, public education, and advocacy.

Non-Discrimination

Avoid discrimination against colleagues or students on the basis of sex, race, ethnicity, or other factors not related to scientific competence and integrity.

Maintain and improve your own professional competence and expertise through lifelong education and learning; take steps to promote competence in science as a whole.

Know and obey relevant laws and institutional and governmental policies.

Animal Care

Show proper respect and care for animals when using them in research. Do not conduct unnecessary or poorly designed animal experiments.

Human Subjects Protection

When conducting research on human subjects, minimize harms and risks and maximize benefits; respect human dignity, privacy, and autonomy; take special precautions with vulnerable populations; and strive to distribute the benefits and burdens of research fairly.

Anthropology has its own ethical charter. You can read the complete statement by the American Anthropological Association, but in sum it states that anthropologists must be cognizant of power differentials among all of the players in research, funding agencies, government officials, academic officials, as well as the researcher and subjects. We must carefully weigh the consequences of our decisions. Specifically, anthropologists must:

• be open and honest about our work
• obtain informed consent and necessary permissions
• consider competing ethical considerations and all affected parties
• make our results accessible
• protect and preserve our records
• be respectful and ethical in all professional relationships.

Brickmore, Barry, Amy Ellwein, Dara Dorsey, and Sharon Browning. 2009. “Addressing Science and Religion.” Accessed March 1, 2022. https://serc.carleton.edu/sp/process_of_science/science_religion.html .

Egger, Anne E. 2009. “Misconceptions and Missing Conceptions About the Process of Science.” Accessed March 1, 2022. https://serc.carleton.edu/sp/process_of_science/misconceptions.html .

Fancher, L. J. 2000. The Great “SM.” Accessed May 7, 2015. http://www.cod.edu/people/faculty/fancher/scimeth.htm .

Helmenstine, Anne Marie. 2019. “What Is the Difference Between Hard and Soft Science?” Accessed March 1, 2022. https://www.thoughtco.com/hard-vs-soft-science-3975989 .

Iaccarino, Maurizio. 2003. “Science and Culture.” EMBO Reports 4(3): 220-223. Accessed March 7, 2022. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1315909/ .

“Informed Consent.” 2018. In The SAGE Encyclopedia of Lifespan Human Development , edited by Marc H. Bornstein, 1145-1148. Vol. 3. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Reference. Gale eBooks Accessed March 2, 2022. https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/CX7423500417/GVRL?u=wash_main&sid=bookmark-GVRL&xid=4aeb4d91 .

Jurmain, Robert, Lynn Kilgore, and Wenda Trevathan. 2013. Essentials of P hysical A nthropology , 4th edition. Belmont (CA): Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.

Kanazawa, Satoshi. 2008. “Common Misconceptions About Science I: “Scientific Proof.”” Accessed March 1, 2022. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200811/common-misconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof .

Kaziek, C. J. and David Pearson. 2014. “Ask a biologist: using the scientific method to solve mysteries.” Accessed May 7, 2015. http://askabiologist.asu.edu/explore/scientific-method .

Larsen, Clark Spencer. 2008. Our O rigins: D iscovering P hysical A nthropology . New York: W.W Norton & Company, Inc.

“Observation, Participant.” 2008. In International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences , 2nd ed., edited by William A. Darity, Jr., 14-17. Vol. 1. Detroit, MI: Macmillan Reference USA. Gale eBooks . Accessed March 2, 2022. https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/CX3045301796/GVRL?u=wash_main&sid=bookmark-GVRL&xid=96a38b9d .

Park, Michael Alan. 2014. Introducing Anthropology: An Integrated Approach , 6 th edition.

Peregrine, Peter, Yolanda T. Moses, Alan Goodman, Louise Lamphere, and James Lowe Peacock. 2012. “What Is Science in Anthropology?” American Anthropologist 114(4): 593-597. Accessed February 28, 2022. https://www2.lawrence.edu/fast/PEREGRIP/Publications/Science%20in%20Anth.pdf .

Resnik, David B. 2015. “What Is Ethics in Research & Why Is It Important?” National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. Accessed November 6, 2017. https://www.niehs.nih.gov/research/resources/bioethics/whatis/index.cfm .

Saneda, Tori. 2015. “The Scientific Method.” Accessed March 1, 2022. https://wikieducator.org/Biological_Anthropology/Unit_1:_Evolutionary_Theory/Scientific_Method .

“Shaping Scientists.” 2022. Understanding Science. University of California Museum of Paleontology. Accessed March 7, 2022. https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/%3C?%20echo%20$baseURL;%20?%3E_0_0/scienceandsociety_04 .

Welsch, Robert L., Luis A. Vivanco and Agustin Fuentes. 2017. Anthropology: Asking Questions about Human Origins, Diversity, and Culture . New York: Oxford University Press. New York: McGraw-Hill Education.

Survey of Anthropology Copyright © 2022 by Tori Saneda is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

History and Branches of Anthropology

Anthropology is the study of the origin and development of human societies and cultures.

Anthropology, Archaeology, Sociology, Earth Science, Geology, Geography, Human Geography, Social Studies, Ancient Civilizations, World History

Loading ...

Anthropology  is the study of the origin and development of human societies and cultures . Culture is the learned behavior of people, including their languages , belief systems, social structures, institutions, and material goods. Anthropologists study the  characteristics of past and present human communities through a variety of techniques. In doing so, they investigate and describe how different peoples of our world lived throughout history. Anthropologists aim to study and present their human subjects in a clear and un biased way. They attempt to achieve this by observing subjects in their local environment. Anthropologists then describe interactions and customs, a process known as  ethnography . By participating in the everyday life of their subjects, anthropologists can better understand and explain the purpose of local institutions, culture, and practices. This process is known as  participant-observation . As anthropologists study societies and cultures different from their own, they must evaluate their interpretations to make sure they aren’t biased. This bias is known as  ethnocentrism , or the habit of viewing all groups as inferior to another, usually their own, cultural group. Taken as a whole, these steps enable anthropologists to describe people through the people's own terms. Subdisciplines of Anthropology Anthropology’s diverse topics of study are generally categorized in four subdisciplines. A subdiscipline is a specialized field of study within a broader subject or discipline. Anthropologists specialize in cultural or social anthropology ,  linguistic anthropology , biological or physical anthropology, and archaeology . While subdisciplines can overlap and are not always seen by  scholars as  distinct , each tends to use different techniques and methods. Cultural Anthropology Cultural anthropology, also known as social anthropology, is the study of the learned behavior of groups of people in specific environments. Cultural anthropologists base their work in ethnography, a research method that uses field work and participant-observation to study individual cultures and customs. Elizabeth Kapu'uwailani Lindsey is a National Geographic Fellow in anthropology. As a doctoral student, she documented rare and nearly lost traditions of the  palu , Micronesian navigators who don’t use maps or instruments. Among the traditions she studied were the chants and practices of the Satawalese, a tiny cultural group native to a single coral  atoll  in the Federated States of Micronesia. Cultural anthropologists who analyze and compare different cultures are known as ethnologists. Ethnologists may observe how specific customs develop differently in different cultures and interpret why these differences exist. National Geographic Explorer-in-Residence Wade Davis is an ethnobotanist . He spent more than three years in Latin America , collecting and studying plants that different indigenous groups use in their daily lives. His work compares how these groups understand and use plants as food, medicine, and in religious ceremonies. Linguistic Anthropology Linguistic anthropology is the study of how language influences social life. Linguistic anthropologists say language provides people with the intellectual tools for thinking and acting in the world. Linguistic anthropologists focus on how language shapes societies and their social networks, cultural beliefs, and understanding of themselves and their environments. To understand how people use language for social and cultural purposes, linguistic anthropologists closely document what people say as they engage in daily social activities. This documentation relies on participant-observation and other methods, including audiovisual recording and interviews with participants. Lera Boroditsky, a  cognitive scientist , studies forms of communication among the Pormpuraaw, an Aboriginal community in Australia. Boroditsky found that almost all daily activities and conversations were placed within the context of  cardinal directions . For example, when greeting someone in Pormpuraaw, one asks, “Where are you going?” A response may be: “A long way to the south-southwest.” A person might warn another, “There is a snake near your northwest foot.” This language enables the Pormpuraaw to locate and navigate themselves in landscapes with extreme precision, but makes communication nearly impossible for those without an absolute knowledge of cardinal directions. Linguistic anthropologists may document native languages that are in danger of  extinction . The Enduring Voices Project at National Geographic aimed to prevent language extinction by embarking on expeditions that create textual, visual, and auditory records of threatened languages. The project also assisted indigenous communities in their efforts to revitalize and maintain their languages. Enduring Voices has documented the Chipaya language of Bolivia, the Yshyr Chamacoco language of Paraguay, and the Matugar Panau language of Papua New Guinea, among many others. Biological Anthropology Biological anthropology, also known as physical anthropology, is the study of the  evolution  of human beings and their living and  fossil  relatives. Biological anthropology places human evolution within the context of human culture and behavior. This means biological anthropologists look at how physical developments, such as changes in our skeletal or genetic makeup, are interconnected with social and cultural behaviors throughout history.

To understand how humans evolved from earlier life forms, some biological anthropologists study  primates , such as monkeys and apes. Primates are considered our closest living relatives. Analyzing the similarities and differences between human beings and the “ great apes ” helps biological anthropologists understand human evolution. Jane Goodall , a primatologist , has studied wild chimpanzees ( Pan troglodytes ) in Tanzania for more than 40 years. By living with these primates for extended periods of time, Goodall discovered a number of similarities between humans and chimpanzees. One of the most notable of Goodall’s discoveries was that chimpanzees use basic tools, such as sticks. Toolmaking is considered a key juncture in human evolution. Biological anthropologists link the evolution of the human hand, with a longer thumb and stronger gripping muscles, to our ancient ancestors ’ focus on toolmaking. Other biological anthropologists examine the skeletal remains of our human ancestors to see how we have adapted to different physical environments and social structures over time. This specialty is known as human paleontology , or  paleoanthropology . Zeresenay Alemseged, a National Geographic Explorer, examines  hominid  fossils found at the Busidima-Dikika anthropological site in Ethiopia. Alemseged’s work aims to prove that a wide diversity of early hominid species existed three million to four million years ago. Paleoanthropologists study why some hominid species were able to survive for thousands of years, while others were not. Biological anthropology may focus on how the biological characteristics of living people are related to their social or cultural practices. The Ju/’hoansi, a foraging society of Namibia, for example, have developed unique physical characteristics in response to cold weather and a lack of high-calorie foods. A thick layer of fat protects vital organs of the chest and abdomen , and veins shrink at night. This reduces the Ju/’hoansi’s heat loss and keeps their core body temperature at normal levels. Archaeology Archaeology is the study of the human past using material remains. These remains can be any objects that people created, modified, or used. Archaeologists carefully uncover and examine these objects in order to interpret the experiences and activities of peoples and  civilizations throughout history. Archaeologists often focus their work on a specific period of history. Archaeologists may study  prehistoric  cultures—cultures that existed before the invention of writing. These studies are important because reconstructing a prehistoric culture’s way of life can only be done through interpreting the  artifacts they left behind. For example, macaw eggshells, skeletal remains, and ceramic imagery recovered at archaeological sites in the United States Southwest suggest the important role macaws played as exotic trade items and objects of worship for prehistoric peoples in that area. Other archaeologists may focus their studies on a specific culture or aspect of cultural life. Constanza Ceruti, a National Geographic Emerging Explorer, is a high-altitude archaeologist specializing in artifacts and features of the Incan Empire. Along with archaeological evidence, Ceruti analyzes historical sources and traditional Andean beliefs. These data help her reconstruct what ancient sites looked like, the symbolic meaning behind each artifact, and how ceremonies took place. History of Anthropology Throughout history, the study of anthropology has reflected our evolving relationships with other people and cultures. These relationships are deeply connected to political,  economic , and social forces present at different points in history. The study of history was an important aspect of ancient Greek and Roman cultures, which focused on using reason and  inquiry  to understand and create just societies.  Herodotus , a Greek historian, traveled through regions as far-flung as present-day Libya, Ukraine, Egypt, and Syria during the fifth century B.C.E. Herodotus traveled to these places to understand the origins of conflict between Greeks and Persians. Along with historical accounts, Herodotus described the customs and social structures of the peoples he visited. These detailed observations are considered one of the world’s first exercises in ethnography. The establishment of exchange routes was also an important development in expanding an interest in societies and cultures. Zhang Qian was a diplomat who negotiated trade agreements and treaties between China and communities throughout Central Asia, for instance. Zhang’s  diplomacy  and interest in Central Asia helped spur the development of the  Silk Road , one of history’s greatest networks for trade, communication, and exchange. The Silk Road provided a vital link between Asia, East Africa, and Eastern Europe for thousands of years. Medieval scholars and explorers, who traveled the world to develop new trading partnerships, continued to keep accounts of cultures they encountered. Marco Polo, a Venetian  merchant , wrote the first detailed descriptions of Central Asia and China, where he traveled for 24 years. Polo’s writings greatly elaborated Europe’s early understandings of Asia, its peoples, and practices. Ibn Battuta traveled much more extensively than Marco Polo. Battuta was a Moroccan scholar who regularly traveled throughout North Africa and the Middle East. His expeditions, as far east as India and China, and as far south as Kenya, are recorded in his memoir, the  Rihla .

Many scholars argue that modern anthropology developed during the  Age of Enlightenment , a cultural movement of 18th century Europe that focused on the power of reason to advance society and knowledge. Enlightenment scholars aimed to understand human behavior and society as  phenomena  that followed defined  principles . This work was strongly influenced by the work of natural historians, such as Georges Buffon. Buffon studied humanity as a  zoological  species—a community of  Homo sapiens  was just one part of the  flora  and  fauna  of an area. Europeans applied the principles of natural history to document the inhabitants of newly  colonized territories and other indigenous cultures they came in contact with. Colonial scholars studied these cultures as “human primitives,” inferior to the advanced societies of Europe. These studies justified the colonial agenda by describing foreign territories and peoples as needing European reason and control. Today, we recognize these studies as racist. Colonial thought deeply affected the work of 19th century anthropologists. They followed two main theories in their studies:  evolutionism  and  diffusionism . Evolutionists argued that all societies develop in a predictable, universal sequence . Anthropologists who believed in evolutionism placed cultures within this sequence. They placed non-Eurocentric colonies into the “ savagery ” stage and only considered European powers to be in the “civilizations” stage. Evolutionists believed that all societies would reach the civilization stage when they adopted the traits of these powers. Conversely, they studied “savage” societies as a means of understanding the primitive origins of European civilizations. Diffusionists believed all societies stemmed from a set of “ culture circles ” that spread, or diffused , their practices throughout the world. By analyzing and comparing the cultural traits of a society, diffusionists could determine from which culture circle that society derived. W.J. Perry, a British anthropologist, believed all aspects of world cultures— agriculture ,  domesticated animals, pottery, civilization itself—developed from a single culture circle: Egypt. Diffusionists and evolutionists both argued that all cultures could be compared to one another. They also believed certain cultures (mostly their own) were superior to others. These theories were sharply criticized by 20th-century anthropologists who strived to understand particular cultures in those cultures’ own terms, not in comparison to European traditions. The theory of  cultural relativism , supported by pioneering German-American anthropologist Franz Boas , argued that one could only understand a person’s beliefs and behaviors in the context of his or her own culture. To put societies in cultural context, anthropologists began to live in these societies for long periods of time. They used the tools of participant-observation and ethnography to understand and describe the social and cultural life of a group more fully. Turning away from comparing cultures and finding universal laws about human behavior, modern anthropologists describe particular cultures or societies at a given place and time. Other anthropologists began to criticize the discipline’s focus on cultures from the developing world. These anthropologists turned to analyzing the practices of everyday life in the developed world. As a result, ethnographic work has been conducted on a wider variety of human societies, from university hierarchies to high school sports teams to residents of retirement homes. Anthropology Today New technologies and emerging fields of study enable contemporary anthropologists to uncover and analyze more complex information about peoples and cultures. Archaeologists and biological anthropologists use  CT scanners , which combine a series of  X-ray  views taken from different angles, to produce  cross-sectional images of the bones and  soft tissues inside human remains. Zahi Hawass, a former National Geographic Explorer-in-Residence, has used CT scans on ancient Egyptian mummies to learn more about patterns of disease, health, and mortality in ancient Egypt. These scans revealed one  mummy  as an obese, 50-year-old woman who suffered from tooth decay. Hawass and his team were able to identify this mummy as Queen Hatshepsut, a major figure in Egyptian history, after finding one of her missing teeth in a ritual box inscribed with her name. The field of  genetics  uses elements of anthropology and biology. Genetics is the study of how characteristics are passed down from one generation to the next. Geneticists study  DNA , a chemical in every living cell of every organism. DNA studies suggest all human beings descend from a group of ancestors, some of whom began to  migrate  out of Central Africa about 60,000 years ago. Anthropologists also apply their skills and tools to understand how humans create new social connections and cultural identities. Michael Wesch, a National Geographic Emerging Explorer, is studying how new media platforms and digital technologies, such as Facebook and YouTube, are changing how people communicate and relate to one another. As a “digital ethnographer,” Wesch’s findings about our relationships to new media are often presented as videos or interactive web experiences that incorporate hundreds of participant-observers. Wesch is one of many anthropologists expanding how we understand and navigate our digital environment and our approach to anthropological research.

Margaret Mead One of the most famous and controversial anthropologists of the 20th century is Margaret Mead. Mead was an American scientist who gained popular and academic success following the publication of her first book,  Coming of Age in Samoa , in 1928. Mead lived and interacted with the people of Tau, Samoa, for her research. She documented an open-minded society where young women and men regularly engaged in casual sex. This was troubling to many Westerners, who had much more conservative attitudes. However,  Coming of Age in Samoa  remains the most popular anthropology book ever published. Since her death in 1978, anthropologists have questioned Margaret Meads’ methods. Some of her conclusions may have been more a product of the time in which she studied, rather than an unbiased look at a unique culture. Some of the women interviewed for  Coming of Age in Samoa  accuse Mead of coaxing them in what to say. Meads problematic methodology has put many of her anthropological conclusions into doubt.

Cultural Variety Anthropology has dozens of specialties. Some sections listed by the American Anthropological Association are:

• Africanist Anthropology
• Anthropology and the Environment
• Anthropology of Food and Nutrition
• Anthropology of Religion
• Feminist Anthropology
• Medical Anthropology
• Museum Anthropology
• Political and Legal Anthropology
• Queer Anthropology

Zora Neale Hurston The short stories and novels of Zora Neale Hurston are an integral part of the Harlem Renaissance, a cultural movement among African Americans during the 1920s and 1930s. Hurston was also an important anthropologist. Hurston graduated from Barnard College, where she was the only black student, before being awarded a prestigious Guggenheim Fellowship and conducting field work throughout the Caribbean and Central America. Their Eyes Were Watching God , considered to be Hurston’s masterpiece, was written while she was conducting anthropological field work in Haiti.

Articles & Profiles

Media credits.

The audio, illustrations, photos, and videos are credited beneath the media asset, except for promotional images, which generally link to another page that contains the media credit. The Rights Holder for media is the person or group credited.

Production Managers

Program specialists, last updated.

April 4, 2024

User Permissions

For information on user permissions, please read our Terms of Service. If you have questions about how to cite anything on our website in your project or classroom presentation, please contact your teacher. They will best know the preferred format. When you reach out to them, you will need the page title, URL, and the date you accessed the resource.

If a media asset is downloadable, a download button appears in the corner of the media viewer. If no button appears, you cannot download or save the media.

Text on this page is printable and can be used according to our Terms of Service .

Interactives

Any interactives on this page can only be played while you are visiting our website. You cannot download interactives.

Related Resources

17.3 Theories and Methods

Learning outcomes.

By the end of this section, you will be able to do the following:

• Discuss the importance of cross-cultural comparison and cultural relativism in study of human health.
• Explain why both objectivity and subjectivity are needed in the study of health.
• Discuss ethnographic research methods and their specific applications to the study of human health.
• Summarize the theoretical frameworks that guide medical anthropologists.

The Importance of Cultural Context

Culture is at the center of all human perspectives and shapes all that humans do. Cultural relativism is crucial to medical anthropology. There is a great degree of variety in the symptoms and conditions that cultures note as significant indicators of diminished health. How the sick are treated varies between cultures as well, including the types of treatments prescribed for a particular sickness. Cultural context matters, and health outcomes determined by culture are informed by that culture’s many parts. The United States, for example, relies heavily on biomedicine, treating symptoms of mental and physical illness with medication. This prevalence is not merely an economic, social, or scientific consideration, but all three. A cultural group’s political-economic context and its cultural beliefs, traditions, and values all create the broader context in which a health system exists and all impact individuals on a psychosocial level. Behaviors such as dietary choices and preferences, substance use, and activity level—frequently labeled as lifestyle risk factors—are all heavily influenced by culture and political-economic forces.

While Western cultures rely upon biomedicine, others favor ethnopharmacology and/or ritual healing. Medical anthropologists must attempt to observe and evaluate ethnomedical systems without a bias toward biomedicine. Medical anthropologists must be cautious of tendencies toward ethnocentrism. Ethnocentrism in medical anthropology takes the form of using the health system of one’s own culture as a point of comparison, giving it preference when analyzing and evaluating other systems. An American anthropologist who studies ethnomedicine in the Amazon River basin must be careful to limit their bias toward a biomedical approach as much as they can. That is not to say that subjective experience and opinion need be discarded entirely, merely that bias should be acknowledged and where necessary limited. Admitting bias is the first step in combating it. Being aware of one’s own ethnocentrism allows an anthropologist to analyze culture and medicine more truthfully.

Methods of Medical Anthropology

Medical anthropology is a highly intersectional subfield of anthropology. The field addresses both the biological and social dimensions of maladies and their treatments. Medical anthropologists must thus become comfortable with a wide-ranging tool kit, as diverse as health itself. Like all anthropologists, medical anthropologists rely on qualitative methods, such as ethnographic fieldwork, but they also must be able to appropriately use quantitative methods such as biometrics (including blood pressure, glucose levels, nutritional deficiencies, hormone levels, etc.) and medical statistics (such as rates of comorbidities, birth rates, mortality rates, and hospital readmission rates). Medical anthropologists can be found working in a myriad of endeavors: aiding public health initiatives, working in clinical settings, influencing health care policy, tracking the spread of a disease, or working for companies that develop medical technologies. The theories and methods of medical anthropology are invaluable to such endeavors.

Qualitative Methods

Within medical anthropology, a number of qualitative research methods are invaluable tools. Qualitative methods are hands-on, first-person approaches to research. An anthropologist in the room or on the ground writing down field notes based on what they see and recording events as they happen creates valuable data for themselves and for others.

Participant observation is a methodology in which the anthropologist makes first-person observations while participating in a culture. In medical anthropology, participant observation can take many forms. Anthropologists observe and participate in clinical interactions, shamanic rituals, public health initiatives, and faith healing. A form of participant observation, clinical observations allow the anthropologist to see a culture’s healing practices at work. Whether a doctor is treating COVID-19 or a shaman is treating a case of soul loss, the anthropologist observes the dynamics of the treatment and in some cases actually participates as a patient or healer’s apprentice. This extremely hands-on method gives the anthropologist in-depth firsthand experience with a culture’s health system but also poses a risk of inviting personal bias.

Anthropologists observe a myriad of topics, from clinical interactions to shamanic rituals, public health initiatives to faith healing. They carry these firsthand observations with them into their interviews, where they inform the questions they ask. In medical anthropology, interviews can take many forms, from informal chats to highly structured conversations. An example of a highly structured interview is an illness narrative interview. Illness narrative interviews are discussions of a person’s illness that are recorded by anthropologists. These interviews can be remarkably diverse: they can involve formal interviews or informal questioning and can be recorded, written down, or take place electronically via telephone or video conference call. The social construction of sickness and its impact on an individual’s illness experience is deeply personal. Illness narratives almost always focus on the person who is ill but can at times involve their caregivers, family, and immediate network as well.

Another method commonly used in medical anthropology, health decision-making analysis , looks at the choices and considerations that go into deciding how to treat health issues. The anthropologist interviews the decision makers and creates a treatment decision tree, allowing for analysis of the decisions that determine what actions to take. These decisions can come from both the patient and the person providing the treatment. What religious or spiritual choices might make a person opt out of a procedure? What economic issues might they face at different parts of their illness or sickness? Health decision-making analysis is a useful tool for looking at how cultures treat sickness and health, and it highlights a culture’s economic hierarchies, spiritual beliefs, material realities, and social considerations such as caste and gender.

Quantitative Methods

Quantitative methods produce numeric data that can be counted, correlated, and evaluated for statistical significance. Anthropologists utilize census data, medical research data, and social statistics. They conduct quantitative surveys, social network analysis that quantifies social relationships, and analysis of biomarkers. Analysis of census data is an easy way for medical anthropologists to understand the demographics of the population they are studying, including birth and death rates. Census data can be broken down to analyze culturally specific demographics, such as ethnicity, religion, and other qualifiers as recorded by the census takers. At times, an anthropologist may have to record this data themselves if the available data is absent or insufficient. This type of analysis is often done as a kind of background research on the group being studying, creating a broader context for more specific analysis to follow.

Also important to medical anthropologists are analyses of medical statistics . The study of medical records helps researchers understand who is getting treated for what sickness, determine the efficacy of specific treatments, and observe complications that arise with statistical significance, among other considerations. Analysis of census data combined with medical statistics allows doctors and other health providers, as well as medical anthropologists, to study a population and apply that data toward policy solutions. Famous examples include the World Health Organization’s work on health crises such as HIV/AIDS, Ebola, and COVID-19.

Questionnaires are more personal to the anthropologist, allowing them to ask pointed questions pertinent to their particular research. Surveys make it possible for anthropologists to gather a large quantity of data that can then be used to inform the questions they ask using qualitative methods. Distribution methods for surveys vary and including means such as personally asking the questions, releasing the survey through a health care provider, or offering online surveys that participants choose to answer.

These are the most common methods used by medical anthropologists. Different theories are influential in determining which of the methods a particular research might favor. These theories inform how an anthropologist might interpret their data, how they might compose a study from beginning to end, and how they interact with the people they study. Combined with more general anthropological theory, each anthropologist must craft a composite of theory and method to create their own personalized study of the world of human health.

Theoretical Approaches to Medical Anthropology

Social health.

Biomedicine, the science-based ethnomedical system practiced in the United States, recognizes the impact physical health and mental health have on one another: when one falters, the other does as well. There is an increasing awareness in biomedicine of a third type of health, social health , which has long been recognized by many ethnomedical systems around the world. Each of the theoretical approaches to medical anthropology demonstrates that to develop a holistic understanding of human well-being, it is necessary to include mental, physical, and social health. Social health is driven by a complex set of sociocultural factors that impact an individual or community’s wellness. At a macro level, it includes the cultural and political-economic forces shaping the health of individuals and communities. An individual’s social health also includes the support a person receives from their extended social network, as well as the social pressures or stigma a person may face and the meaning that they ascribe to their experiences. Just as mental and physical health strongly influence one another, when a person’s social health falters, their physical and/or mental health declines as well.

Physical environments—whether they are natural, constructed, or modified environments—shape cultural adaptations and behaviors. People living on islands and people living in deserts inhabit very different environments that inform their cultures and affect their biology. On the other hand, culture often affects how humans interact with their environments. People who work in offices in Los Angeles and hunter-gatherers in the Amazon River basin interact with their environments differently, relying upon very different subsistence patterns and sets of material culture. Culture also informs human biology. Eating a lot of spicy foods changes a person’s biophysiology and health outcomes, as do dietary taboos such as refusing to eat pork. These dietary choices inform biology over generations as well as within a single lifetime.

The Biocultural Approach

The biocultural approach to anthropology acknowledges the links between culture and biology. Biology has informed human development and evolution, including the adaptations that have made culture, language, and social living possible. Culture, in turn, informs choices that can affect our biology. The biocultural approach analyzes the interaction between culture, biology, and health. It focuses on how the environment affects us, and the connections between biological adaptations and sociocultural ones. The biocultural approach draws on biometric and ethnographic data to understand how culture impacts health. The effects of environment on biology and culture are apparent in the treatment of survivors of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident that occurred in 2011 in Japan. Studies regarding the genetic health of survivors focus on the combination of environmental damage and social stigma in Japan due to their potential exposure to radiation.

Symbolic Approach

Other theoretical approaches ask different types of questions. What does it mean to be a patient? What are the social expectations for the behaviors of a person diagnosed as suffering from a particular sickness? Why is it symbolically meaningful for a treatment to be prescribed by a medical doctor? These are questions typically asked by those utilizing a symbolic approach to medical anthropology. The symbolic approach focuses on the symbolic thinking and beliefs of a culture and how those beliefs affect social and especially health outcomes.

A person’s beliefs affect how they perceive treatments and how they experience illness. The most obvious example of the symbolic approach at work is the placebo effect . If a person believes that a treatment will be effective, this belief will affect their health outcome. Often in medical trials, people who believe they are receiving a treatment but are in fact receiving a placebo, such as a sugar pill, will demonstrate physiological responses similar to those receiving an active substance. Accounting for the placebo effect is an important consideration for all medical studies. The opposite of the placebo effect, the nocebo effect, occurs when a person believes they are not receiving an effective medicine or that a treatment is harmful. Common to both phenomena is the importance of meaning-centered responses to health outcomes. One of the most potent examples of this is voodoo death , when psychosomatic effects—that is, physical effects created by social, cultural, and behavioral factors—such as fear brought on by culture and environment cause sudden death. Related to the symbolic approach of medical anthropology is the symbolic interaction approach to health utilized by medical sociologists. Both approaches recognize that health and illness are socially constructed concepts. The symbolic interaction approach to health focuses on the roles of the patient, caregiver, and health care provider and the interactions that take place between people occupying these roles.

Medical Ecology

Another major medical anthropology theory is medical ecology . Pioneered by Paul Baker and based on his work in the Andes and American Samoa in the 1960s and 1970s, medical ecology is a multidisciplinary approach that studies the effects of environment on health outcomes. Examples of these environmental influences include food sources, environmental disasters and damage, and how environmentally informed lifestyles affect health. Whereas the biocultural approach looks at the intersection of biology and culture, medical ecology focuses instead on how environment informs both health and the culture surrounding it.

A popular example of these connections can be observed in what are termed Blue Zones , certain locations around the world where a significant number of people regularly live exceptionally long lives, many over a century. These communities can be found in the United States, Japan, Columbia, Italy, and Greece. Common links between people who live in these places include a high-vegetable, low-animal-product diet (eggs and fish are the exception), a lively social life and regular activity, and a strong sense of cultural identity.

A negative example of the links between environment and health can be viewed in the Flint, Michigan, water crisis. In this case, pollution of the city water system negatively affected health outcomes due to high exposure to lead and Legionnaires’ disease. Studies, including a long-term study by the National Institutes of Health, confirm that the water, central to the larger environment of Flint, negatively affected citizens of all ages, with particular harm caused to children and the elderly.

Cultural Systems Model

Culture is a chief consideration in another theory, the cultural systems model . Cross-cultural comparison is a core methodology for anthropology at large, and the cultural systems model is ideal for cross-cultural comparison of health systems and health outcomes. Cultures are made of various systems, which are informed by sociocultural, political-economic, and historical considerations. These systems can include health care systems, religious institutions and spiritual entities, economic organizations, and political and cultural groupings, among many others. Different cultures prioritize different systems and place greater or less value on different aspects of their culture and society. The cultural systems model analyzes the ways in which different cultures give preference to certain types of medical knowledge over others. And, using the cultural systems model, different cultures can be compared to one another.

An example of the cultural systems model at work is Tsipy Ivry ’s Embodying Culture: Pregnancy in Japan and Israel (2009), which examines pregnancy and birth in Israel and Japan. A particular focus is how state-controlled regulation of pregnancy and cultural attitudes about pregnancy affect women differently in each society. Despite both societies having socialized medicine, each prioritizes the treatment of pregnant women and the infant differently.

In the Israeli cultural model for pregnancy, life begins at a child’s first breath, which is when a woman becomes a mother. Ivry describes a cultural model that is deeply impacted by anxiety regarding fetal medical conditions that are deemed outside the mother’s and doctor’s control. As every pregnancy is treated as high risk, personhood and attachment are delayed until birth. The state of Israel is concerned with creating a safe and healthy gene pool and seeks to eliminate genes that may be harmful to offspring; thus, the national health care system pressures women to undergo extensive diagnostic testing and terminate pregnancies that pass on genes that are linked to disorders like Tay-Sachs disease.

Japan, facing decreasing birthrates, pressures women to maximize health outcomes and forgo their own desires for the sake of the national birth rate. The cultural model for pregnancy in Japan emphasizes the importance of the mother’s body as a fetal environment. From conception, it is a mother’s responsibility to create a perfect environment for her child to grow. Mothers closely monitor their bodies, food intake, weight gain, and stressful interactions. In Japan, working during pregnancy is strongly discouraged. Ivry noted that many women even quit work in preparation for becoming pregnant, whereas in Israel mothers work right up to delivery.

The cultural systems model also allows medical anthropologists to study how medical systems evolve when they come into contact with different cultures. An examination of the treatment of mental illness is a good way of highlighting this. While in the United States mental illness is treated with clinical therapy and pharmaceutical drugs, other countries treat mental illness differently. In Thailand, schizophrenia and gender dysmorphia are understood in the framework of culture. Instead of stigmatizing these conditions as illnesses, they are understood as gifts that serve much-needed roles in society. Conversely, in Japan, where psychological diagnoses have become mainstream in the last few decades and pharmaceutical treatment is more prominent than it once was, psychological treatment is stigmatized. Junko Kitanaka ’s work on depression in Japan highlights how people with depression are expected to suffer privately and in silence. She links this socially enforced silence to Japan’s high stress rates and high suicide rates (2015). The cultural systems model offers an effective way to evaluate these three approaches toward mental illness, giving a basis of comparison between the United States, Thailand, and Japan. Assigning ethnomedicine the same value as biomedicine rather than giving one primacy over the other, this important comparative model is central to the theoretical outlook of many medical anthropologists.

The cultural systems model encompasses a myriad of cross-disciplinary techniques and theories. In many cultures, certain phrases, actions, or displays, such as clothing or amulets, are recognized as communicating a level of distress to the larger community. Examples include the practices of hanging “the evil eye” in Greece and tying a yellow ribbon around an oak tree during World War II in the United States. These practices are termed idioms of distress , indirect ways of expressing distress within a certain cultural context. A more psychologically driven consideration is the cause of people’s behaviors, known as causal attributions . Causal attributions focus on both personal and situational causes of unexpected behaviors. A causal attribution for unusual behavior such as wandering the streets haplessly could be spirit possession within the context of Haitian Vodou, while in the United States behaviors such as sneezing and blowing one’s nose might be attributed to someone not taking care of themselves.

Causal attributions can be important to one’s own illness. Anthropologist and psychiatrist Arthur Kleinman has concluded that if doctors and caregivers were to ask their patients what they think is wrong with them, these explanations might provide valuable information on treatment decisions. One patient might think that their epilepsy is caused by a spirit possession. Another might suggest that their developing diabetes in inevitable because of their culture and diet. These beliefs and explanations can guide a doctor to develop effective and appropriate treatments. The approach recommended by Kleinman is known as the explanatory model. The explanatory model encourages health care providers to ask probing questions of the patient to better understand their culture, their worldview, and their understanding of their own health.

Political Economic Medical Anthropology

Another medical anthropology approach is critical medical anthropology (CMA) , which is sometimes referred to as political economic medical anthropology (PEMA) . Critical medical anthropology has a specific interest in the inequalities of health outcomes caused by political and economic hierarchies. Critical medical anthropology advocates for community involvement and health care advocacy as ethical obligations. Defining biomedicine as capitalist medicine, this approach is critical of the social conditions that cause disease and health inequalities and of biomedicine’s role in perpetuating these systemic inequalities. CMA is also interested in the medicalization of social distress, a process that has led to a wide range of social problems and life circumstances being treated as medical problems under the purview of biomedicine.

Systemic racism and structural violence create many negative health outcomes. Structural violence refers to the way in which social institutions, intentionally or otherwise, harm members of some groups within the larger society. Structural violence can affect things such as life expectancy, disability, or pregnancy outcomes and can lead to distrust of medical systems. The Tuskegee syphilis study, a decades-long “experiment” that studied the long-term effects of syphilis in Black men under the guise of medical treatment, is a prime example of structural violence at work within the United States medical system. Black men involved in the study were not told they had syphilis and were denied medical treatment for decades, with most dying of the disease. The government’s internal mechanisms for halting unethical studies failed to stop this experiment. It was only when public awareness of what was happening resulted in an outcry against the study that the experiments were stopped.

Another area of interest to medical anthropologists working with a CMA approach is how medical systems might be inherently biased toward or against certain segments of society. The research of anthropologist Leith Mullings demonstrated a lifelong focus on structures of inequality and resistance. Her work in Ghana examined traditional medicine and religious practice through a postcolonial lens, which was critical of the colonial legacy of structural inequality she observed. Her work in the United States also focused on health inequalities, with a special interest in the intersection of race, class, and gender for Black women in urban areas. It has been documented that some doctors in the United States regularly ignore the pain of women, and this is especially true in cases where the doctor displays racial bias. This tendency has been cited in several studies, including a study in The New England Journal of Medicine that found that women are more likely to be misdiagnosed for coronary heart disease based on the symptoms they give and pain levels reported (Nubel 2000). Another study in the Journal of Pain found that women on average reported pain 20 percent more of the time than men and at a higher intensity (Ruau et al. 2012). Another example of research that takes a CMA approach is Khiara Bridges ’s 2011 Reproducing Race , which brings a critical lens to pregnancy as a site of racialization through her ethnography of a large New York City hospital. This medical racism contributes to the higher rates of African American infant and maternal mortality.

Merrill Singer has done work on the role of social inequalities in drug addiction and in cycles of violence. This work has led to his development of the concept of syndemics , the social intersection of health comorbidities , or two health conditions that often occur together. For example, Japan’s hibakusha , or atomic bomb survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, do not live as long as Japan’s normally long-lived population and are more likely to develop multiple types of cancer and other diseases tied to their exposure to nuclear radiation. In addition to these health risks, they face heavy discrimination from the larger Japanese population due to misinformation regarding nuclear radiation and radiation contamination. This discrimination carries over to the descendants of hibakusha , who have a higher rate of cancer than the average Japanese population despite having no detectable genetic damage from the atomic bombings. Studies are ongoing as to the cultural, economic, and genetic causes of this cancer. Syndemics is highlighted in the near-century-long struggle for numerous conditions caused by the atomic bombings to be recognized as related to the atomic bombings and thus treated by the Japanese government.

Critical theories of health are an applied method, analyzing medical systems and applying critical theory, often with the goal of improving the system or improving policy. Recommendations for improvements often come out of research but may also be the starting point of a research project, as part of a data-finding mission to highlight disparity in health outcomes. Whether it is systemic racism in biomedical treatment or power discrepancies in ethnomedical rituals, critical theories of health are a key part of exploring medicine in action and understanding real medical consequences. From birth to the grave, social inequalities shape health outcomes, life expectancy, and unnecessary human suffering. Critical medical anthropology scholarship demonstrates the social forces shaping disease and health, from drug addiction to the impacts of climate change. This work becomes a self-evident call of action. It is medical anthropology in action.

Profiles in Anthropology

Angela garcia 1971-.

Personal History: Angela Garcia comes from a small town along the Mexican border with New Mexico. She credits her background and upbringing with inspiring much of her later work in anthropology. Her early experiences have led her to focus on places where political and cultural spheres combine, resulting in inequality and violence. Within this framework, she has focused on medicine, postcolonial theory, and feminism. She first attended the University of California, Berkeley, and then earned a PhD from Harvard University in 2007, shortly thereafter publishing her first book, The Pastoral Clinic: Addiction and Dispossession along the Rio Grande .

Area of Anthropology: medical anthropology, feminist anthropology

Accomplishments in the Field: The Pastoral Clinic analyzes heroin addiction among Hispanic populations in New Mexico’s Rio Grande region. Garcia’s work focuses on the political and social realities that contribute to addiction and treatment, with dispossession as a central theme. The degradation of the surrounding environment and the economic decline of the Great Recession have been important factors in determining people’s life choices. Also influential has been a political reality that denies many participation or power. Garcia describes addiction as a recurring reality in the lives of many, leading them in and out of rehab in an endless cycle. Garcia also describes the damaging effects of addiction on relationships within families and communities.

Garcia joined the Department of Anthropology at Stanford University in 2016. Her work has shifted to Mexico City, where she studies coercive rehabilitation centers run by the poor. She is particularly interested in political and criminal violence and in how informal centers like these exemplify the political and social climate within the larger Mexican nation. As much as these centers embody these realities, they also try to shift power away from pathways that lead to and encourage violence. In addition to this work, Garcia has also started examining addiction and mental illness in both Mexico and the United States Latinx (Latina/o) population.

Importance of Their Work: Garcia publishes and presents frequently in preparation for books she is currently writing. Her work is crucial to understanding dispossession and power dynamics within the United States and Mexico, including how immigration and migration affect access to health care and shape identity.

This book may not be used in the training of large language models or otherwise be ingested into large language models or generative AI offerings without OpenStax's permission.

Want to cite, share, or modify this book? This book uses the Creative Commons Attribution License and you must attribute OpenStax.

Access for free at https://openstax.org/books/introduction-anthropology/pages/1-introduction

• Authors: Jennifer Hasty, David G. Lewis, Marjorie M. Snipes
• Publisher/website: OpenStax
• Book title: Introduction to Anthropology
• Publication date: Feb 23, 2022
• Location: Houston, Texas
• Book URL: https://openstax.org/books/introduction-anthropology/pages/1-introduction
• Section URL: https://openstax.org/books/introduction-anthropology/pages/17-3-theories-and-methods

© Feb 22, 2024 OpenStax. Textbook content produced by OpenStax is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License . The OpenStax name, OpenStax logo, OpenStax book covers, OpenStax CNX name, and OpenStax CNX logo are not subject to the Creative Commons license and may not be reproduced without the prior and express written consent of Rice University.

• Original paper
• Open access
• Published: 27 February 2024

Recent developments in anthropological methods for the study of complex societies

• Daming Zhou 1 &
• Mingyuan Xiao 2  

International Journal of Anthropology and Ethnology volume  8 , Article number:  4 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

1388 Accesses

6 Altmetric

Metrics details

The focus of traditional anthropology has been on the “simple and primitive” tribal societies that still exist. The question of how anthropology can carry on to study complex civilizations, especially those with a long history like Chinese civilization, has gained attention due to the discipline’s development and expansion. Anthropologists around the world have developed several significant research methods in the study of complex societies in response to this challenge. Taking anthropology research in China as an example, these methods include not only the summary and improvement of Western anthropological methods applied by Chinese scholars to Chinese practice but also methodological innovations based on traditional Chinese research paradigms and explorations of anthropological fieldwork methods in the digital age. In China, the latest advancements in anthropological methods for studying complex societies can be seen in historical anthropology, multi-sited ethnography, internet anthropology, and Rapid Anthropological Assessment. This effectively responds to many doubts about whether anthropological fieldwork methods are capable of studying complex societies and spurred anthropology’s reciprocal adaptation to new fields of study and contemporary needs. In this sense, anthropological research on complex societies is entirely possible, feasible, and necessary.

1 Introduction

In the development of anthropology, anthropological research had long been narrowly defined as the study of primitive tribe which, according to Eric R. Wolf, was “the people without history” (Wolf 2018 ).

If one were to indicate a chronic shortcoming of traditional anthropological research with a simple concept, he or she would have to conclude that both the object and the methodology of such studies lack a “sense of history.” This raises a further question: Can the theories and methods developed within this framework remain “applicable” as anthropology inevitably has to shift, to a certain extent, toward the study of societies with complex historical backgrounds? As Chinese scholars, we are particularly concerned about what theoretical approaches and analytical concepts will enable us to accurately comprehend the essence of the society of a nation like China, which has a remarkably long history of civilization. In this respect, Qiao Jian Footnote 1 aptly noted, “Given that traditional anthropological approaches primarily evolved from the study of small, simple, and relatively primitive societies, whether this method can be effectively utilized for the study of China, a broad and complex society with a long history, poses a profoundly challenging methodological question” (Qiao 1998 ). The development of anthropology has been challenged at the methodological level.

Consequently, in the second half of the 20th century, European and American anthropology generally began to take the countryside and the metropolis as new fields of study. This led to the flourishing of new research domains, such as rural anthropology and urban anthropology, as well as applied anthropology built upon past studies with varying orientations (Li 1987 ). This transition signifies a shift from early tribal societies to complex societies in the anthropological research paradigm, whereas, to some extent, the discipline’s value orientation shifts from primitivism to modernism (He 2019 ). In fact, many scholars contributed to redirecting the focus of anthropological research from simple societies to complex societies. Francis L. K. Hsu categorized these efforts into three main types: (1) investigations into one specific aspect of complex lives, (2) examinations of a community within complex societies, and (3) holistic studies of complex societies from a psychological perspective. He identified the shortcomings of the three categories of anthropological research: The first type of study often focuses on a specific aspect, such as politics, economics, religion, or literature, and the researchers show no significant advantages over scholars specialized in that particular field; the second concentrates solely on the present state of communities and neglect the historical perspective; and the third, such as national character studies, tends to oversimplify the subject, as they explore common psychological patterns across different civilizations and levels. Hsu also proposed several improved research methods, including the analysis of dominant kinship relationships (dominant dyads) and basic cultural assumptions, and a comparative approach in the study of literate civilizations (Hsu 1979 ).

As research interests gradually shifted toward rural societies, anthropologists began to study societies with complexities distinct from those of primitive and tribal societies. The genuine initiation of rural social studies can be traced back to the early 20th century, with pioneers like Daniel Harrison Kulp, Manuel Gamio, R. Redfield, and T. Parsons. Kulp’s study of Fenghuang Village in Chaozhou, China (Kulp 1925 ) can be considered the second milestone in the history of world anthropology, as it opened up directions of anthropological research of rural societies (Redfield 1941 ). Anthropologists perceive the peasant culture in rural societies as an integral part of socio-cultural totality. A. Kroeber defines peasants as individuals residing in rural areas while maintaining connections with urban areas; they constitute a class within the broader population including urban dwellers (Kroeber 1938 ). The conceptual foundation for the study of complex societies was established under Redfield’s influence. In 1947, he authored an influential paper titled The Folk Society , offering a simple definition of the folk society that significantly impacted the relevant research for the next two decades. In his subsequent research, Redfield challenged the oversimplification of the rural-urban dichotomy in complex and dynamic social systems. As a result, he defined village communities as units within the more extensive system and coined the term “Little Tradition” for peasant villages. In contrast, towns and cities, which are non-rural communities, were defined by Redfield as “Great Tradition.” Folk traditions exhibit variable characteristics across different villages, while cities serve as stable, centralized, unified centers for religion, culture, and the arts (Redfield 1956 ).

Anthropologists gradually developed a set of community research methods as anthropology transitioned toward studies of complex societies. Community studies can be traced back to three primary sources: Germany’s Ferdinand Tönnies who emphasized theoretical studies; the Chicago School represented by Robert Ezra Park, with a focus on community practices; and the structural-functional school represented by A. Radcliffe-Brown in the UK, concentrating on the integrity of communities. Since the 1930s, Radcliffe-Brown applied methods from primitive society research to study complex societies, particularly agricultural societies. Long before his arrival in China, Radcliffe-Brown sent his students to use these concepts and methods in their studies of societies in Mexico, the Philippines, and Japan (Brown 2002 ). In 1935, his lecture at Yenching University prompted a group of Chinese scholars to adopt anthropological methods for rural research, leading to the development of a methodology known as “community studies.”

According to Ding ( 2020 ), the concept of “community” in Chinese was proposed by Fei Xiaotong and discussed collectively by the faculty and students of the Department of Sociology at Yenching University; Wu Wenzao was the first scholar from the Yenching School of Sociology to elaborate extensively on the concept of “community,” initiating the “Chinese School of Sociology,” with the community as its research method; and it is the contribution of Fei Xiaotong and his former wife Wang Tonghui who adopted community as a fieldwork method for studying and understanding Chinese issues — In 1934, Fei Xiaotong and his newly married wife Wang Tonghui conducted fieldwork in the Dayao Mountains in Guangxi, marking the beginning of China’s community research, and was referred to by Wu Wenzao as the “foundation of community studies.”

The author believes that Fei Xiaotong’s research on Kaixiangong Village in Wujiang of Jiangsu Province stands as the most important milestone in the early studies of rural communities in China, and Peasant Life in China written by Fei based on his study of Kaixiangong Village, remained a must-read book in anthropological research. However, Edmund Leach, a distinguished anthropologist, criticized the rural community studies initiated by Chinese anthropologists, to which Fei Xiaotong responded in an article, though Leach had already passed away. In his 1982 book Social Anthropology , Leach ( 1982 ) raised his doubts about Fei’s studies: “Although Fei titled his book Peasant Life in China , he gave no evidence to show that the social system he described was typical for the whole country.” Fei summarized Leach’s arguments into two questions: First, is it appropriate for anthropologists to study their native society, as seen in the case of Chinese anthropologists? Second, can individual micro-studies be extrapolated to represent the entire national context? Leach clearly held a negative stance on both questions. Prior to this, Maurice Freedman, a prominent anthropologist, also expressed his views concerning this issue. In his 1962 speech commemorating Bronislaw Malinowski, Freedman criticized the community research method — In the preface he wrote for Peasant Life in China , Malinowski suggested that researchers may examine the epitome of China at large by becoming acquainted with the life of a small village under a microscope. Freedman labeled this perspective as “the anthropological fallacy par excellence” (Freedman 2017 ). He argued that even if Fei continued the research after the 1950s based on the anthropological concepts he proposed in the 1930s, he would not fulfill Malinowski’s prophecy because his research field is too narrow and limited to villages. According to Freedman, this was an error in transferring the grasp of totality when transplanting the tools of traditional anthropological research on primitive societies to complex societies. It was argued by Freedman ( 1979 ) that “ … they might still today have been piling up samples of local communities; the ethnographic map of China would have had many more flags in it, but the anthropologists would probably have been no nearer that understanding of Chinese society of which Malinowski wrote than they were ten years ago.”

Fei responded directly to the issue: “Considering a village as a typical representation of all Chinese villages is a mistake. However, viewing a village as entirely unique and distinct from others, a sui generis case is also inappropriate” (Fei 1999 ). Fei acknowledged that Kaixiangong Village itself could not represent the vast complexity of all Chinese villages, but this is not to say that the study was pointless for understanding China. He argued that the study of the village’s economy undeniably held overall anthropological significance. The accumulated case materials and community research methods from the study of Kaixiangong Village could serve as a reference model for understanding the fundamental structure of Chinese society. After completing his doctoral studies abroad, Fei continued to explore and summarize the various patterns of the complex Chinese society till his later years of academic research.

Although community research has been extensively adopted as a basic method in anthropological studies, defining a community in specific contexts has increasingly become a challenge in community research. Predecessors, such as Fei Xiaotong, translated the German term “Gemeinschaft” and the English term “community” into Chinese as “社区 (shequ),” giving this strongly territory-oriented notion an academic identity (Hu and Jiang 2002 ). This also initiated the sinicization of “shequ” based on the academic foundation of “Gemeinschaft” (Liu 2021 ). However, in contemporary China, which has seen gradual deterritorialization, traditional regional communities are yielding to migrant communities, which marks a societal shift from “regional society” to “migrant society” (Zhou 2017 ). Defining a community is no longer as easy as it once was, which raises the question of how to innovate community research methods in the face of new social circumstances.

Community-based research is a new approach explored in the world anthropological transformation of the object of study from simple to complex societies and is applied in American and African studies. Following its arrival in China, community research was refined by early scholars like Wu Wenzao and Fei Xiaotong to align with the local context. In Chinese traditions of anthropological studies, community research, an effective research approach, was once considered the “foundation” of the Chinese school of socio-cultural anthropology (Wang 1996 ).

Before academic disciplinary adjustments in 1950s China, community research had already been established as a crucial method in Chinese anthropology. Despite a temporary interruption due to these adjustments, community research persisted as an essential method employed by Chinese anthropologists. Along with the reinstitution of Chinese anthropology in the 1980s, urban anthropology was introduced to China. In 1986, G.E. Guldin from Pacific Lutheran University led a team of graduate students to conduct urban anthropological research at Sun Yat-sen University. The First International Symposium on Urban Anthropology was held in Beijing in early 1990, and the China Urban Anthropology Association was founded in Beijing in 1992. Since the reinstitution of anthropology in China, research on complex societies has taken a path of practical studies that reflect Chinese characteristics, style, and ethos. In terms of specific methods, Chinese anthropologists have primarily adopted methods such as historical anthropology, multi-sited ethnography, Rapid Anthropological Assessment, and digital anthropology to study complex societies.

This paper adopts two research methods, namely literature review and typological analysis, to offer fresh insights into the research and organization of anthropological methodologies. The literature review method lays the groundwork by providing fundamental literature and contexts for the theoretical framework and analytical structure of new anthropological methods for the studies of complex societies. Meanwhile, it highlights typical cases of complex societies in terms of anthropological study, which helps better review and summarize the academic evolution in the past. Additionally, this paper delves into classical concepts related to complex societies from Chinese anthropological literature, underscoring the technical characteristics of research methodologies and exploring their social and cultural dimensions since the reinstitution of anthropology in the country. Based on the literature review, this paper conducts further categorization and summarization using typological methods, one of the fundamental pathways in anthropological research. The typological analysis proposes several innovative methodologies that have emerged in anthropology within the framework of a new research horizons — complex societies. These methodologies include historical anthropology, multi-sited ethnography, Rapid Anthropological Assessment, and digital anthropology.

3 Results and discussion

3.1 orientation of historical anthropology.

Historical anthropology has been a prominent research method and disciplinary orientation since the inception of Chinese anthropology. During its development, Chinese anthropology has consistently embraced a historical perspective. On the one hand, China boasts an abundance of historical documents available for research, and on the other hand, early scholars engaging in anthropological and ethnographic research in China often had backgrounds in history or classical Chinese studies, with expertise in historical studies. Moreover, understanding the essence of China’s socio-cultural development necessitates a historical approach.

When anthropology was introduced to China in the early 20th century, studies in Chinese anthropology were already deeply intertwined with history. Chinese scholars blended diachronic and synchronic studies, cultivating a comprehensive approach to historical anthropology. This characteristic is particularly evident in the anthropological research orientation prevalent in southern regions of China, known as the Southern School, which was heavily influenced by the theory of cultural diffusion in Germany and cultural relativism in the US. To date, the Southern School of Anthropology centered around institutions like Sun Yat-sen University, Academia Sinica, and Xiamen University, tends to focus on the study of minority ethnic groups in border regions and field investigations of ethnic and cultural regions. The analytical models of the Southern School typically revolve around the holistic characteristics of culture, emphasizing “expanding materials and presenting facts without explanation.” The Southern School argues that “once the research materials are set in order, the facts will be clear” (Zhou 2009 ). The series of post-1949 ethnic surveys in China have also been approached from a historical perspective, and Chinese scholars have consistently embraced the historical orientation in their anthropological studies. Huang Shuping once appraised the methodology of historical anthropology, stating, “The method of combining historical research with contemporary surveys is a commendable tradition in Chinese anthropology and ethnology and represents a methodological contribution that can be of value to anthropological studies around the world” (Huang and Gong 1998 ). Throughout the development of this discipline, particularly after the reinstitution of anthropology in China during the 1980s, a large number of scholars embraced historical anthropology as their research paradigm and disciplinary orientation, making notable contributions in both theoretical and practical dimensions.

The concepts that best embody the research interest of historical anthropology include, notably, the notion of “structuring” proposed by Helen Siu and Liu Zhiwei, “ritual marker” introduced by David Faure, and “backward observation from now” put forward by Zhao Shiyu. In historical anthropology, “structuring” serves as the object of study, “ritual marker” and “backward observation from now” represent the entry points and specific methodologies or techniques in this research paradigm. The combination of “structuring,” “ritual marker,” and “backward observation from now,” therefore, constitutes a comprehensive research framework in historical anthropology, covering both the object of study and the methodologies involved.

Helen Siu focuses her studies on the Chrysanthemum Festival in Xiaolan Town of Zhongshan City. She regards social and cultural phenomena as a historical process that has either been completed or is currently underway. Siu argues that researchers can interpret and study these phenomena from an anthropological perspective to gain profound insights into the nature, significance, and driving forces behind cultural expressions that are considered commonplace. Furthermore, she observed how these factors interact with the region’s local political and economic transformations, leading to the present state. Siu attempted to use historical methods to uncover the holistic relationship between contemporary beliefs, ritual behaviors, and local society and culture, treating them as a historical process for discussion (Siu 1990 ). This approach is significant as it breaks away from the conventional anthropological dichotomy between the two fundamentally related concepts of “structure” and “change” during the specific process of understanding. Instead, Siu integrated the diachronic and synchronic dimensions, giving rise to a holistic research perspective and methodology. Based on this foundation, historical anthropology tends to explore the “role” played by “individuals” in history, emphasizing the understanding of not “structure” but “structuring.” Individuals, through purposeful actions, weave networks of relationships and meanings (structures) within the historical and social context, and these networks, in turn, help or constrain their ongoing actions, thus creating an endless process (Siu 2004 ). Understanding and studying this process can elucidate the consistent thought patterns of individuals across different historical and social backgrounds. “Ritual marker” is a type of material that historical anthropologists are required to collect during fieldwork. David Faure and Ching May-bo categorized this type of material as “objectively observable indications of ritual traditions considered to be significant by members of a local society.” This classification represents a crucial step for making historical anthropology feasible. Faure also listed a series of “significant ritual markers,” including religious traditions, titles, core worship elements (e.g., deities, ancestors, etc.), architectural patterns (e.g., family temples), industrial control, and non-religious social organizations. Although Faure did not provide detailed explanations about these markers, it is safe to say that his definition is relatively broad. In a nutshell, such markers are considered significant by members of a local society (Faure and Ching 2016 ). According to Zhao Shiyu, “backward observation from now” involves observing the living structural elements at the field site and tracing them back to their historically verifiable origins. Following this method, researchers should then narrate these structural elements sequentially from the historical origin to recent times, culminating in a comprehensive depiction of the historical structural process in the region. The purpose of “backward observation from now” is to reveal the rhythmic changes in the historical development of a region. Although “backward observation” begins from the contemporary world, going “backward” by a certain period of time is aimed at identifying a historical node, transforming it into the starting point for the narration from history to now (Zhao 2018 ). The advantage of this reverse deduction lies in its capacity to reexamine commonplace elements from the past within their specific historical contexts.

In the development of historical anthropology, Sun Yat-sen University played a pioneering role by establishing the Centre for Historical Anthropology. In 2004, the center became Key Research Institute of Humanities and Social Sciences at Universities (the Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China). “The History in the Field” book series, published by SDX Joint Publishing Company, summarized representative research outcomes from the Centre for Historical Anthropology, offering a key team-based contribution to China’s research on historical anthropology. As stated in Approaching the Historical Scene , the general preface of the series, “Through unremitting efforts, scholars have developed a relatively systematic and effective method for interpreting various materials in rural society. These materials include genealogies, contracts and deeds, inscriptions, books on religious rituals, account books, letters, and legends. This unique scholarship and methodology could be referred to as folk studies of historical literature not fully grasped or understood by traditional historians, anthropologists, or sinologists” (Chen 2006 ). In this series of studies, Zhang Yingqiang, in his Flow of Timber , combined the contract documents with field investigations and depicted the flow of timber trade in the Qingshui River Basin in Guizhou since the Qing Dynasty. The study centered on market flows and explored the development of a regional market network and the interaction between the traditional state authorities and local society (Zhang 2006 ). Huang Shuping’s Research on the Hereditary Servant System of Guangdong took account of genealogies, local records, historical documents, and interviews to study the widespread phenomena of “细仔 (xizai)” and “下户 (xiahu)” (both terms refer to hereditary servants) in the Pearl River Delta before the period of the Republic of China. The book pointed out that the hereditary servant system is a form of slavery embedded within the patriarchal clan system (Huang and Gong 2001 ).

It is noteworthy that one must avoid potential pitfalls in employing the method of historical anthropology. As historical anthropology features a prominent tradition of studies on regional social history (Lan 2001 ), beginners may overlook how extensive history differs from regional histories in their adaptation to and interpretation of local culture in different dimensions. This oversight can lead to a state of nihilism regarding larger historical contexts, potentially steering research into a provincialism that emphasizes local histories that “differ” from the extensive history. Such an approach makes it a challenging task to identify cultural connections within the historical circumstances.

The research methodology of historical anthropology not only holds significance for Chinese anthropology but also plays a crucial role in advancing the development of world anthropology. Chinese anthropology should inherit this research orientation and combine rich classical literature with field investigations to accumulate academic insights that contribute universally to world civilizations, thereby fulfilling anthropology’s essential task of studying civilized societies.

3.2 Beyond individual cases: multi-sited ethnography

Anthropology has traditionally emphasized long-term, in-depth fieldwork, often conducted by an individual researcher in a small community. Since Malinowski established the method of “scientific ethnography,” ethnographic writing based on fieldwork has remained a fundamental and distinctive mode of anthropological research. Malinowski’s fieldwork experiences, summarized in the preface to Argonauts of the Western Pacific (Malinowski 2014 ), established an effective set of scientific rules, marking anthropology as an accepted scientific discipline.

As globalization and urbanization trends are reshaping societies, the traditional approaches to studies of singular small communities are faced with new challenges in coping with contemporary changes. In a world that increasingly emphasizes on global interconnections, social complexity, and the timeliness and specialization of academic studies, the once-scientific Malinowskian ethnographic writing has confronted rounds of skepticism and doubts. “From the seminar in 1984 to the publication of Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography in 1986, as the scientific positioning of the one-way relationship between the subject and object in ethnography faced intense doubts, reflective, multi-voiced, and multi-sited ethnographic experiments gained legitimacy” (Gao 2006 ). This period of reflection and doubt saw the emergence of multi-sited ethnography. In the mid-1990s, George E. Marcus proposed the concept of multi-sited ethnography in clear terms. Since then, anthropological ethnographic writing has no longer sought solely to express the cultural wholeness of a micro-society but has taken the initiative to engage in fieldwork across diverse spaces, with a focus on the global society.

Initially, multi-sited ethnography was seen merely as related to certain characteristics of ethnographic research, such as the movement and mobility of survey locations. This implied that research employing the method of multi-sited ethnography would focus on empirical studies of new social relations and systemic transformations caused by globalization. Such an orientation, relatively easy to grasp, typically involved selecting multiple sites for field investigation. Multi-sited ethnography can be broadly categorized into three practical approaches: (1) field investigations that resemble traditional fieldwork, with a single researcher choosing multiple sites for study; (2) fieldwork where a team of researchers selects sites with distinct characteristics to investigate similar issues or the same issue; (3) fieldwork where a team of researchers focuses on a specific topic across multiple regions. In the early 1990s, James L. Watson gathered five anthropologists to investigate McDonald’s in five cities, namely Beijing, Hong Kong, Taipei, Seoul, and Tokyo, which could be seen as an exemplary case of multi-sited ethnography. The study showed that the expansion of McDonald’s in East Asia represented an ongoing process of embedding “local” factors. The research provided a robust critique of “globalism” or “McDonaldization” and highlighted the significance of “transnationalism” and “localization” (Watson 2015 ).

Current development shows that multi-sited ethnography increasingly focuses on the impact of globalization on the investigated areas, aiming to uncover the process of this change. As Marcus once summarized, while immigrant studies amid current changes serve as convenient samples of multi-site ethnography during its transformation in a globalized world, the latter also includes other new views concerning what to focus on, how to focus, and how to track the process. Nevertheless, Marcus also pointed out that the suggestions or judgments of multi-sited ethnography have raised concerns among anthropologists, with some fearing that this process might render ethnography “thin” and lead to the disappearance of the depth of fieldwork, which ensures the uniqueness of anthropological research and knowledge (Marcus 2011 ).

Based on this logic, Marcus’ multi-sited ethnography essentially involves cross-regional investigations with methods such as following the people, following the thing, following the metaphor, following the conflict, or following the life (Marcus 1995 ). Fundamentally, the purpose of multi-sited ethnography is no longer merely to depict the entirety of a region’s culture but “to actively coordinate its expressions in the collaborative relationships formed during fieldwork, focusing on the unintended consequences of relationships among actors and subjects without connections or apparent connections (however, due to the process of globalization, these actors and subjects, though distant, are increasingly aware of each other)” (Marcus 2011 ).

Multi-sited ethnography has found extensive application in China. For instance, the author previously led a team to conduct multi-sited ethnographic research on issues and strategies related to new urban immigrants in cities such as Chengdu, Shenyang, Hangzhou, and Dongguan. Different communities and samples of new immigrants were selected in each city, and the research involved a combination of in-depth interviews, community observations, and surveys for comparative analyses. The results of such research take into account both the differences and similarities between different regions in China (Zhou 2014 ). Utilizing the research method of multi-sited ethnography to study Chinese society not only helps present the changes in Chinese society under the backdrop of globalization but also, through this process of understanding, facilitates reflection on the disciplinary significance of anthropological research itself. In the study of traditional Chinese medicine, for example, researchers treat the collaboration between investigators and subjects in different fieldwork sites as a method to integrate macro-medical-narratives (i.e., efforts to systematize traditional ethnomedicine) and micro-medical-experiences (practices of individual medical practitioners) for knowledge production and daily lives (Lai 2014 ). Multi-sited ethnographic research, therefore, offers a broader comparative perspective compared to studies focusing on a single location. While discussions about multi-sited ethnography have persisted since its introduction, if one acknowledges the need for anthropology to discover a holistic existence, then multi-sited ethnography remains a valuable method for understanding the whole picture.

3.3 Rapid Anthropological Assessment: methods of applied anthropology

Participatory Action Research (PAR), Rural Rapid Appraisal (RRA), and Participatory Research Appraisal (PRA) are commonly employed methods in applied anthropology. PAR involves collaboration between researchers and communities or groups, engaging in collective action to benefit community or group members. This method requires concerted efforts in analysis, education, or survey activities for implementing the measures required to bring about change. While PRA generally spans a long period of time, it has gained popularity in North America and other developed regions, particularly in bottom-up policy-making projects, such as community development, social work, public health, education, and childcare. PAR advocates, along with the groups most affected by the research projects, hold the most authority in analyzing their realities and taking action to change their circumstances. This method actively encourages marginalized and exploited individuals to conduct their own research and formulate their own policies (Chen 2011 ).

In the 1970s, methods of rapid research were introduced in applied anthropology, with Rapid Anthropological Assessment (RAA), also known as Rapid Assessment Procedures (RAP), emerging as the most widely used approach. RAP often involves collaboration among researchers from different disciplines or professions and typically requires active participation from the research subjects. Relying primarily on qualitative methods for data collection akin to ethnographic field research, RAP emphasizes local values and perceptions of reality. In China, Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) is a commonly used method encompassing a set of fieldwork tools for rapidly collecting information on rural resources, development status, and peasant preferences used to evaluate the path of development. Originating from the practices of developed countries in various development projects in third-world nations, PRA aims to transfer the right to speak, the right to analysis, and the right of decision-making to locals, encourage them to deepen their understanding of themselves, their communities, and their environmental conditions, and enable collaborative efforts between locals and project managers for formulating and implementing appropriate action plans. PRA emphasizes reverse learning by rural residents and is not confined to fixed survey procedures and questionnaires. Instead, investigators can adjust and refine the procedures and content of their survey based on the information obtained, seeking diverse answers for a more comprehensive understanding. Moreover, attention is given to the differences and contradictions reflected in the information gathered during the survey. The method highlights local engagement, with investigators helping the respondents conduct, analyze, and report their own research. Building on this foundation, both investigators and respondents engage in reflection, sharing information and findings, and ultimately enhancing the quality of the investigation (Zhou 2004 ). PRA tools, characterized by speed and flexibility, help investigators who are new to the field or time-constrained researchers rapidly master the traditional methods of investigation. PRA tools provide researchers with suitable opportunities to introduce themselves, elaborate on their themes, and gain local understanding. Presently, PRA tools are broadly categorized into eight types: interview, analysis, ranking, display, record, illustration, meeting, role-play, and direct observation (Li 2001 ). These tools are extensively adopted in international development projects and are among the most straightforward and effective methods. From the author’s experience in participatory rural development research and fieldwork in China, PRA proves to be not only applicable but also effective in the assessment of the country’s social development. However, several issues should be noted in the practical application of PRA tools. Firstly, PRA tools are empirical summaries from field practices rather than components of a rigid doctrine. New, innovative PRA tools have continued to emerge, and blind adherence should be avoided, as they ought to be applied flexibly based on the investigation’s theme and field conditions. Secondly, the appropriate and effective use of PRA tools hinges on the investigator’s field experience, and proficiency in using these tools must be gained through field practice. Thirdly, in practice, adopting one tool does not exclude the application of other tools, as the successful and appropriate use of a tool often requires the combined deployment of multiple tools. Lastly, due to the limited period of investigations, researchers adopting PRA tools may have to cope with shortcomings in the depth of investigation and the partnerships with respondents, requiring investigators to combine PRA with traditional anthropological research methods, such as participant observation, while striving to build harmonious relationships with respondents.

In recent years, applied anthropology has increasingly adopted quantitative methods and advanced technologies, using tools such as Geographic Information Systems for data collection or employing methods like focus group interviews and triangulation, which carry stronger policy and political implications. Focus group interviews often replace in-depth interviews in ethnography for collecting materials rapidly and economically. Triangulation, a widely used practice in social sciences, involves validating the research findings by combining results obtained from various methods. This approach integrates qualitative methods (e.g., participant observation, focus group interviews, and individual interviews) and quantitative methods (e.g., censuses and questionnaires), making it more effective than the independent use of a single method (Chen 2011 ).

After decades of development, applied anthropology in China has yielded fruitful results, making substantial contributions to areas such as planning for rural poverty alleviation (Zhang 2014 ), development in ethnic minority regions (Yang 2008 ), and more. Since 2000, the author has led several efforts with the World Bank, covering projects such as the Social Assessment of the World Bank-financed Jiangxi Provincial Highway No. 2 and Bundled Project, Social Assessment of the World Bank-financed Sheep Integration Development Project, Social Assessment of the World Bank-financed Anhui Highway Project, and Water Resource Assessment for the World Bank-financed Pearl River Delta Environmental Development Project, among others. The applied research projects led or participated in by the author have covered over ten provinces in central and western regions of China, addressing themes such as agriculture, environment, education, community development, and migration. Published by Sun Yat-sen University Press, Seeking Endogenous Development: Ethnicity and Culture in Western China (Zhou et al. 2005a ) and Participatory Social Assessment: Decision-making through Listening (Zhou et al. 2005b ) stand as works showcasing the sound development and fruitful results of applied anthropology research and assessment in China.

3.4 Anthropological research methods in the digital age

With the popularization of the Internet in the digital age, traditional societies have undergone significant transformations, necessitating corresponding changes in anthropological research methods. In the past, anthropological studies focused on well-defined communities, and even multi-sited ethnography within the context of globalization remains rooted in physical spaces. However, in the digital age, cyberspace is characterized by its asynchrony, anonymity, accessibility, and storage capability from its inception, and it is challenging to determine the boundaries of this virtual space with an open structure (Kozinets 2016 ). This realization alone prompts scholars to acknowledge that research on the Internet in a digital society faces a research environment differing from conventional anthropological studies from the very beginning. Therefore, a set of ethnographic research methods adapted to cyberspace in the digital age is required to meet the challenges of conducting research within an open structure. This demand has given rise to the field of netnography.

Anthropological research in the digital age deals with novel technological interfaces such as computers, personal terminals, and the Internet. The objects, time, methods, and frequency of communication for individuals immersed in this environment differ significantly from those observed in traditional anthropological settings. Understanding this cultural backdrop is essential for comprehending and reflecting on social phenomena related to this new environment. Fundamental differences exist between netnography and traditional ethnography due to the intrinsic disparities between online and face-to-face social experiences.

The first difference lies in the mode of intervention in research. In traditional anthropological research, building trust by befriending local community members is crucial. However, conducting online surveys poses specific challenges. Observing individuals through conventional means becomes challenging in cyberspace, where a middle-aged man may register as a young woman online. In the online world, one essentially interacts with a virtual persona, reflecting the humorous sentiment depicted in a well-known cartoon featured in The New Yorker : On the Internet, nobody knows you’re a dog. Conducting surveys on the Internet involves concerns about the authenticity of online data. The challenge for researchers in conducting fieldwork on the Internet is how to intervene effectively in cyberspace to ensure the online data allows them to continue with their research. In this context, the researcher could even study things that do not exist in reality, allowing them to pose questions based on virtual phenomena. For instance, for the study of a virtual role-play community, the social structures implied by the process of how people assume different roles could be a valid research topic if anthropologists acknowledge that people follow certain constant patterns of human society in social interactions even when playing roles significantly different from their real-world attributes. The authenticity of online data is no longer a hindrance to anthropological fieldwork; rather, it challenges the capabilities of anthropological researchers. Moreover, even in studies primarily conducted in online settings, whether netnography is confined to online research depends on factors influencing specific research questions. Practical experiences have shown that, although cyberspace is virtual, it is not entirely detached from physical space. Online users navigate between online and offline spaces and scenes to construct their daily lives. In this sense, the online and the offline are mutually constitutive, which further complicates netnography (Bu 2012 ).

Secondly, the presentation of netnography differs from that of traditional anthropology. Ethnography, as a key research component originating from anthropological fieldwork, serves as an authentic record of the culture of a particular group. In a digital society, the movement and heterogeneity of culture exhibit unprecedented complexities. Consequently, anthropological fieldwork is expected to reflect this movement and heterogeneity. Traditional multi-sited ethnography falls short in meeting the demands of such cultural studies focusing on digital society. With an open structure, digital society is highly expansive and vibrant. Netnography is inherently required to research asynchronism, cultural heterogeneity, and geographical dispersion. It delves into the representation of social structures in virtual spaces featuring any of the above three or random combinations, thereby examining the social structure built on this basis. Netnography highlights a nodal form of social representation. In other words, netnographic studies should not only present specific nodes in cyberspace but also identify the relationships between these nodes to unveil the flow of information and cultural shifts in a digital society. The resulting representation builds interconnections between cultural interactions and differences. As the cultural shifts are rapid, providing a comprehensive depiction of the online culture becomes challenging. For instance, while Peasant Life in China portrays a rural society in southern Jiangsu Province throughout the early 20th century, Tianya Virtual Community can only capture the status of online forums in 2003 (Liu 2005 ). Today’s online forums have undergone significant evolution, serving as indicators of the ongoing social transformations in the digital age. In this context, researchers are required to adopt specific anthropological methods that help uncover the links amid this constant flow.

Lastly, the digital era is characterized by a detachment from physical scenes, as the Internet bridges the gap between presence and absence (Bai and He 2003 ). Meanwhile, being present on the Internet poses new challenges in the virtual space, where the traditional context of human communication is fundamentally altered. This transformation poses challenges for observers, as conventional observation methods become a specific and simplified pattern when scenes are detached. Such observations struggle with inherent limitations. In addition to the detachment from traditional scenes, the emergence of the digital environment also warrants attention. In face-to-face communication, nuances such as tone, facial expressions, and external conditions contribute to varying interpretations of identical expressions, as Geertz’s Thick Description famously illustrated with “winks” and “blinks.” These nuances are absent in online fieldwork. As the Internet evolves, netizens have fostered new online cultures to compensate for these missing scenes. From the early popularity of “emoji” (Jing 2020 ) to the emergence of the “Martian language” (Yin 2009 ) on the Chinese Internet and the enduring appeal of “memes” (Liu 2017 ), social trends in cyberspace underscore the desire to reconstruct the detached scenes in the virtual world using alternative methods. This reminds anthropologists that diverse observational methods are required in the digital age to understand how people construct society. In conducting ethnographic studies, researchers need to explore not only the subjects themselves but also the surrounding environment and atmosphere, commonly referred to as the context. Netnography typically confines its analysis to discourse and text and fails to examine the context. Whether popular Internet events represent authentic contexts or are intentionally shaped by anthropic factors is a solid research topic. In addition, the Internet abounds with all types of fans, and understanding how they appear, become popular, and eventually fade away is also a valid research topic (Zhou 2018 ).

The digital age has also ushered in new possibilities for observation, providing researchers with expanded opportunities for conducting studies through various cameras that record people’s behaviors for big data analysis. One extreme example of this is studies conducted in prisons. The author once supervised two doctoral candidates for a research project conducted in prison (Sun 2013 ; Shao 2016 ). In this prison, where every bed is equipped with surveillance cameras, inmates can be comprehensively observed and captured through extensive data collection. While such research presents enormous ethical challenges, the aforementioned doctoral candidates navigated these issues by engaging in thorough communication with the inmates participating in the study and obtaining informed consent prior to commencing their investigation. When direct communication with subjects might not be possible, the research using this method warrants careful consideration.

4 Conclusion: anthropology’s shift toward the study of complex societies

Over a century has passed since Chinese anthropology was founded in the early 20th century. Following Li Ji’s initiation of modern archaeological studies in China, the four branches of anthropology — physical anthropology, archaeology, socio-cultural anthropology, and linguistics — have gradually taken root across the vast expanse of China, enduring the challenges of different eras yet persisting to the present day. From its inception, Chinese anthropology has predominantly focused on complex societies, with key academic achievements emerging from the study of these intricate social structures. Anthropological research on China remains closely intertwined with the realities of the complex Chinese society. Moreover, ongoing developments in anthropological methods for studying complex societies reflect the evolving practical demands for anthropology. In addressing the challenges confronting the development of Chinese anthropology, Qiao Jian envisioned the future prospects of the discipline. He argued that the foundation for the development of Chinese anthropology lies in the commonalities and differences within traditional Chinese culture, coupled with rich regional characteristics, which would provide abundant materials for researchers who were previously unable to enter China. Additionally, the extensive reservoir of historical literature in China holds the promise of providing a clearer and more accurate understanding of the cultural transformations in the country and, by extension, the entire human cultural evolution. Furthermore, the fact that China is a unified multiethnic state. While many nations worldwide are multiethnic, it is unparalleled that China has the unique convergence of numerous ethnic groups, collectively navigating through millennia and achieving coexistence, mutual prosperity, and great unity. As they approach such unique patterns of society, anthropologists can offer a more comprehensive, objective, and systematic interpretation (Qiao 1998 ). China’s proposition of “forging a strong sense of community for the Chinese nation” presents a more promising outlook for the development of Chinese anthropology.

In the face of complex societies, particularly those as expansive, diverse, and historically rich as China, new methods of investigation and analysis play a crucial role in helping anthropology, along with other disciplines of the humanities and social sciences, to generate experiences, ideas, and theories. Pioneering Chinese anthropologists like Wu Wenzao and Fei Xiaotong, when introducing anthropology to China, aspired to understand the country through anthropological community research and sought methods for China, a country with profound cultural traditions and a long history, to achieve national rejuvenation. Subsequent studies in historical anthropology aimed to understand how the traditions of regional societies intersect with national narratives, further unveiling the complexities inherent in this complex society. The approach of multi-sited ethnography indicates a quest for connections that often reside within complexities of our daily lives that we can recognize but do not notice. Such connections allow the interactions between the abstract and the concrete to be perceived by different subjects. The application and development of the assessment methods in applied anthropology proclaim the practical relevance of anthropology, dispelling the criticism that anthropology is a “useless” discipline. Netnography enables anthropologists to traverse the realms of virtual and real, moving beyond a holistic understanding of real-world society to explore how modern individuals, who live in reality and cyberspace, perceive their living environments.

The academic community is currently discussing the shift from “disciplinary-oriented research” to “problem-oriented research” (Xu 2022 ). The Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China has been advocating for the development of “new humanities” and “new sciences disciplines,” driven by skepticism regarding the relevance of past categories of academic disciplines. This shift implies two key propositions: (1) the categories of academic disciplines established a century ago no longer align with modern development, and (2) a singular academic discipline is inadequate to address contemporary issues. In reality, research methods have long transcended disciplinary boundaries, becoming shared tools across various disciplines, which is why the names of many textbooks contain “methods for humanities and social sciences.” Community research methods serve as a good example. Community research, which originated from anthropology and sociology, has evolved into a research tool used across different disciplines since the 1980s. The term “社区(shequ)” also progressed from being solely an academic subject to becoming a part of community work and government policies (e.g., the transformation from residents’ committees to communities as China’s community-level governance structure) (Ding 2020 ). It is foreseeable that anthropological methods will be borrowed by other academic disciplines, and beyond that, anthropology itself will continue to integrate methods from other academic disciplines to address increasingly complex social issues.

Availability of data and materials

The data used and analyzed in the study are available from the author on reasonable request.

The names of Chinese scholars in the text of this paper follow the rules of Chinese, with surnames first.

Abbreviations

Participatory Action Research

Rural Rapid Appraisal

Participatory Research Appraisal

• Rapid Anthropological Assessment

Rapid Assessment Procedures

Participatory Rural Appraisal

Bai, Shuying, and Mingsheng He. 2003. BSS互动的结构与过程 (The structure and process of BBS interaction). Sociological Studies 5: 8–18.

Google Scholar  

Brown, R. 2002. Suggestions for the sociological investigation of Chinese rural life, community and function (对于中囯乡村生活社会学调查的建议). In A Collection of Essays and Lectures (Chinese edition), ed. Wenzao Wu, 30. Beijing: Peking University Press.

Bu, Yumei. 2012. 虚拟民族志: 田野、方法与伦理 (Netnography: Fields, methods, and ethics). Sociological Studies 6: 217–236.

ADS   Google Scholar  

Chen, Chunsheng. 2006. 走向历史现场 (Approaching the historical scene). Dushu 9: 19–28.

Chen, Gang. 2011. 西方应用人类学最新发展述评 (A review of the latest developments in applied anthropology in the West). Ethno-National Studies 1: 86–96.

Ding, Yuanzhu. 2020. 中文社区的由来与发展及其启示——纪念费孝通先生诞辰110周年 (The origin, development, and implications of the Chinese concept of community: commemorating the 110th anniversary of Fei Xiaotong’s birth). Ethno-National Studies 4: 20–29.

Faure, David, and May-bo Ching. 2016. 历史人类学者走向田野要做什么 (What should historical anthropologists do in the field?). Folklore Studies 2: 24–27+158.

Fei, Xiaotong. 1999. 人的研究在中国——缺席的对话 (The study of man in China: an absent dialogue). In Essays by Fei Xiaotong (Vol. 12) , 41. Bejing: Qunyan.

Freedman, Maurice. 1979. The study of Chinese society , 382–383. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Freedman, Maurice. 2017. 社会人类学的中国时代 (A Chinese phase in social anthropology). Journal of Qinghai Minzu University 3: 63–73.

Gao, Bingzhong. 2006. 写文化与民族志发展的三个时代 (Writing culture and the three ages of the development of ethnography). Preface of the Chinese edition: Writing culture: the poetics and politics of Ethnography, James Clifford (ed.) / George Marcus (ed.), 14 . Beijing: The Commercial.

He, Ming. 2019. 民族研究认识论转向与民族学知识体系重构 (Epistemological shift in ethnic studies and the reconstruction of ethnological knowledge system). Thinking 6: 1–8.

CAS   Google Scholar  

Hsu, Francis L.K. 1979. The study of literate civilizations .  Chinese edition: 文化人类学新论 (trans: Ruide Zhang) , 99–148. Taibei: Linking Publishing.

Hu, Hongbao, and Zhenhua Jiang. 2002. 从社区的语词历程看一个社会学概念内涵的演化 (Evolution of the connotation of a sociological concept: a linguistic development of the term community). Academic Forum 5: 123–126.

Huang, Shuping and Peihua Gong. 1998. 文化人类学理论方法研究 (Research on the theory and method of Cultural Anthropology), 444 . Guangzhou: Guangdong People’s Publishing House.

Huang, Shuping, and Peihua Gong. 2001. 广东世仆制研究 (Research on the hereditary servant system of Guangdong) . Guangzhou: Guangdong Higher Education Press.

Jing, Ming. 2020. 颜文字: 读图时代的表情符号与文化表征 (Emojis: symbolic expressions and cultural representations in the age of images). Journal of Southwest Minzu University 11: 149–155.

Kozinets, Robert. 2016. Netnography: Doing Ethnographic Research Online . Chinese edition: 如何研究网络人群和社区: 网络民族志方法实践指导 (trans. Weiming Ye), 81–85. Chongqing: Chongqing University Press.

Kroeber, A. 1938. Basic and secondary patterns of social structure. Journal of Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 68/2: 299–309.

Article   Google Scholar  

Kulp, Daniel Harrison. 1925. Country life in South China . Columbia: Bureau of Publications Teachers College Columbia.

Lai, Lili. 2014. 多点、合作研究: 西南少数民族医药调查的启示 (Multi-sited collaborative research: insights from an investigation into the traditional medicine of ethnic minorities in Southwest China). Journal of Guangxi Minzu University 6: 12–16.

Lan, Daju. 2001. 历史人类学简论 (A brief introduction to historical anthropology). Journal of Guangxi Minzu University 1: 2–7.

Leach, Edmund. 1982. Social Anthropology , 127th edition. Fontana: Fontana Paperbacks.

Li, Fuqiang. 1987. 当代英美人类学的发展趋势 (Trends in the development of contemporary anthropology in the United States and the United Kingdom). Social Sciences in China 2: 172–180.

Li, Xiaoyun. 2001. 参与式发展概论 (Introduction to Participatory Development), 143 . Beijing: China Agricultural University.

Liu, Huaqin. 2005. 天涯虚拟社区: 互联网上基于文本的社会互动研究 ( Tianya virtual community: A study of social interaction based on text on the Internet ). Beijing: The Ethnic Publishing House.

Liu, Hanbo. 2017. 表情包文化: 权力转换下的身体述情和身份建构 (Emoticon culture: body expression and identity construction under the power transference). Social Sciences in Yunnan 1: 180–185.

Liu, Haitao. 2021. 滕尼斯共同体理论的中国化及其当代意义——兼论中华民族共同体理论构建的创新发展 (The sinicization of Tennessee’s community theory and its contemporary significance: also on the innovative development of the theoretical construction of Chinese Nation Community). Journal of North Minzu University 1: 11–18.

Malinowski, Bronislaw. 2014. Argonauts of the Western Pacific . London: Routledge.

Book   Google Scholar  

Marcus, George E. 1995. Ethnography in/of the world system: the emergence of multi-sited ethnography. Annual Review of Anthropology 24: 106–111.

Marcus, George E. 2011. Multi-sited ethnography fifteen years later (in Chinese, trans. Ke Man). Northwestern Journal of Ethnology 3: 12–21.

Qiao, Jian. 1998. 中国人类学发展的困境与前景 (Dilemmas and prospects of anthropological development in China). New Asia Academic Bulletin 16: 98–108.

Redfield, R. 1941. The folk culture of Yucatan . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Redfield, R. 1956. Peasant society and culture . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Shao, Feng. 2016. 未成年人的教育改造研究——以甘露未成年犯管教所为例 (Research on the education and transformation of minors: a case study of Ganlu Juvenile Correctional Facility), Ph.D. dissertation, Guangzhou: Sun Yat-sen University.

Siu, Helen. 1990. Recycling tradition: culture, history and political economy in the Chrysanthemum Festival of South China. Comparative Studies in Society and History 32/4: 765–794.

Siu, Helen. 2004. A twenty-year journey through South China. In Tenth anniversary publication of South China Research Circle , 31–40. Hong Kong: Cultural Creation.

Sun, Ping. 2013. 监狱亚文化 (Prison subculture . Beijing: Social Sciences Academic.

Wang, Mingming. 1996. 小地方与大社会——中国社会人类学的社区方法论 (Small places and large society: the methodology of community research in Chinese Social Anthropology). Folklore Studies 4: 5–20.

Watson, James. 2015. Golden Arches East: McDonald’s in East Asia . Chinese edition: 金拱向东: 麦当劳在东亚 (trans. Pengcheng Zhu). Hangzhou: Zhejiang University Press.

Wolf, Eric R. 2018. Europe and the people without history. Chinese edition: 欧洲与没有历史的人 (trans. Shiheng Jia), 6 . Beijing: Democracy and Construction Publishing House.

Xu, Junzhong. 2022. 关于从学科性学术到问题性学术的思考 (From disciplinary scholarship to problem-oriented scholarship: Some reflections). Open Times 1: 27–31.

Yang, Xiaoliu. 2008. 参与式行动: 来自凉山彝族地区的发展研究 (Participatory action: Development research in the Liangshan Yi ethnic area . Beijing: The Ethnic Publishing House.

Yin, Liangrun. 2009. 数字化时代的流行文化——以网络火星文为例 (Popular culture in the digital era: a case study of language of Mars). Journal of Tianjin Normal University 3: 66–69.

Zhang, Yingqiang. 2006. 木材之流动——清代清水江下游地区的市场、权力与社会 (Flow of timber: market, Power, and Society in the Lower Qingshui River Basin in the Qing Dynasty . Beijing: SDX Joint Publishing Company.

Zhang, Youchun. 2014. 贫困、发展与文化: 一个农村扶贫规划项目的人类学考察 (Poverty, development, and culture: Anthropological observation of a rural poverty alleviation project . Beijing: The Ethnic Publishing House.

Zhao, Shiyu. 2018. 结构过程·礼仪标识·逆推顺述——中国历史人类学研究的三个概念 (Structuring, ritual marker and backward observation from now: Three keywords in the study of historical anthropology in China). Journal of Tsinghua University 1: 1–11.

ADS   CAS   Google Scholar  

Zhou, Daming. 2004. 应用人类学与中国实践 (Applied anthropology and its practice in China). Journal of Sun Yat-sen University 6: 133–138.

Zhou, Daming, et al. 2005. 参与式社会评估: 在倾听中求得决策 (Participatory Social Assessment: Decision-making through listening ). Guangzhou: Sun Yat-sen University Press.

Zhou, Daming, et al. 2005. 寻求内源发展: 中国西部的民族与文化 (Seeking endogenous development: Ethnicity and culture in Western China) . Guangzhou: Sun Yat-sen University Press.

Zhou, Daming. 2009. 中国人类学的学术关怀 (Academic concerns in Chinese anthropology). Journal of Northwestern Ethnic Studies 3: 9–15.

Zhou, Daming. 2014. 城市新移民问题及其对策研究 ( New migrants in urban China ). Beijing: Economic Science.

Zhou, Daming. 2017. 从地域社会到移民社会的转变——中国城市转型研究 (From regional society to immigrant society: a study on China’s urban transformation). Sociological Review of China 6: 3–10.

Zhou, Daming. 2018. 互联网研究: 中国人类学发展新路径 (Internet research: a new approach to the development of Chinese anthropology). Study & Exploration 10: 45–52.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Yunnan Normal University, 768# Juxian Street, Chenggong District, Kunming, Yunnan, China

Daming Zhou

Sun Yat-Sen University, No.135 West Xingang Road, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China

Mingyuan Xiao

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

1. Daming Zhou completes the writing of the article. The author read and approved the final manuscript. 2. Mingyuan Xiao completes the writing of the article. The author read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daming Zhou .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate, consent for publication, competing interests.

I have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Zhou, D., Xiao, M. Recent developments in anthropological methods for the study of complex societies. Int. j. anthropol. ethnol. 8 , 4 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41257-024-00105-7

Download citation

Received : 24 January 2024

Revised : 08 February 2024

Accepted : 09 February 2024

Published : 27 February 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s41257-024-00105-7

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Complex societies
• Community research
• Historical anthropology
• Multi-sited ethnography
• Digital anthropology

Anthropology@Princeton

The anthropology of borders | an interview with new assistant professor amelia frank-vitale.

Amelia Frank-Vitale

Nikita Taniparti G2 interviews Assistant Professor Amelia Frank-Vitale , with a joint appointment in Anthropology and the School of Public and International Affairs

NT: Amelia, you’re no stranger to Princeton, so welcome back! Much of your research focuses on the politics of migration, immigration, and border places. As such, you’re also no stranger to interdisciplinary research and teaching. In what ways are you thinking about blending your research and teaching backgrounds in anthropology, human rights, political science, public policy, and Latin American regional studies? What ideas do you have for pursuing further interdisciplinary scholarship between the Department of Anthropology and the School of Public and International Affairs? 

AFV: Thank you! While my way of thinking and methodological approach is deeply, firmly, anthropological, my scholarship and teaching organically draw from multiple disciplines at least in part because there is just a longer history of immigration studies in disciplines outside anthropology. While drawing from that wealth of other scholarship, though, I think anthropology has a particularly powerful additional analytic position to add, especially considering our relative comfort in sitting with messiness, complexity, incoherence, and partial understandings. 

I was part of an interdisciplinary workshop on transit migration at the beginning of the year, one of just a few social scientists (and the lone anthropologist) among a group of mostly public health scholars and practitioners. We had all been working on such similar areas, with similar commitments, for a very long time, but we realized how rare it was to be in a space where we were speaking to each other, across disciplines in this way. There was a lot of eagerness from the practitioners and policy-adjacent scholars to hear from ethnographers, but spaces and channels for that to happen are not as prevalent as they could be. One of the things I hope to contribute to here is work on further translating the messiness of entangling with migration, in all its ethnographic richness, to be legible to an audience that is focused on policy interventions. 

I’m also eager to contribute to bringing anthropological ways of knowing the world to more SPIA students (and beyond). One way I hope to do this is to expand upon community engaged courses that I developed first here as a Postdoc and last year when I was teaching in the Human Rights Program at Barnard College. In these classes, students put into practice core anthropological skills, conduct theoretical and legal analysis, and connect all that to hands-on work with asylum seekers and in immigration court. Long term, I’d love to turn these classes into an ongoing, lab-type project that further connects Ant and SPIA students.

NT: More specifically on Latin American studies, your research presents new and unique perspectives on doing ethnographic work in Honduras and in various border areas in the region. You’ve written that “[m]igration in this context is an extraordinary leap of faith.” In what ways is ethnographic research itself, in this context, also an extraordinary leap of faith? What advice or insights do you have for scholars and students looking to conduct ethnographic research in similar contexts? 

AFV: One of the things that I think is a key component of good ethnographic research is accepting and embracing just how much is outside of the researcher’s control. So much insight is gleaned, I think, when we allow ourselves to relinquish control and design and instead follow the dynamics of the worlds in which we’ve chosen to place ourselves, in whatever directions that takes us. That can be anxiety-producing, of course, but is also often where the richest understandings are borne. I’m hesitant to link the kinds of leaps of faith that people who are engaging in unauthorized migration are making with what we do, as the scales of what is risked, of what might be on the other side of the endeavor are so very different. I suppose both of those things – being open to relinquishing control but also always being aware of the differentials of access to safety (and literal escape) while working with people who are marginalized (and in my case literally illegalized) – are key, co-constitutive, elements of advice I might offer. 

NT: In parallel with your scholarly publications and engagement, you’ve also written extensively in public outlets and prioritized publicly engaged anthropology. What lessons have you learned along the way about combining research and activism; academic research and public policy; ethnographic methods and politically charged issues? 

AFV: I think in some ways, this answer echoes my first answer. Anthropology should be more present in public discourse. We have the extraordinary privilege to be able to develop this unique, up close, fine grained, and slowly, deliberately, meticulously earned understanding of a place, a community, a social phenomenon. Ethnography is not always being translated towards public policy – but it should be! One of the things that I’m so excited about with this position is the encouragement from both departments to do work where policy and anthropology are intertwined in a more explicit and deliberate way. Moreover, I think we have a responsibility to share this kind of deep knowing with an audience beyond our academic circles.

One of the ways that I’ve found of doing this is to offer my knowledge as a country conditions expert in immigration court for Honduran nationals who are seeking asylum in the United States. Here, while the translation can be fraught, that up-close knowledge of society is gravely useful (as is classic anthropological understandings like kinship!). 

(I should add, people recently back from intensive fieldwork can often be the very best experts in this context – if any graduate students or post docs would be interested in exploring doing work in this manner, please come talk to me.) 

Finally, I came back to anthropology after many years as an activist and organizer. I always hope that my scholarship will have an impact, will be meaningful, will matter. That said, I think one of the lessons I’ve learned is to recognize that scholarship may have limited reach in terms of making change in the world, especially in the short term, while also believing deeply in the value of still doing the research and writing the book and documenting and analyzing and being part of this ongoing conversation. I think we should try to speak to a broader audience, but we never know who will read us, hear us, and what that will spark – and when that might happen. 

NT: Many people have misconceptions about borders, immigration, the asylum process, deportation, and related challenges. What are some misconceptions that your dissertation and recent research has helped clarify and explain? What are misconceptions that still need researching and dispelling? Why do you think some of these persist, and how can anthropology as a discipline help continue this demystification of them? 

AFV: There are so many! This is one example of how the up-close, fine grained, ethnographic perspective really forces us to think differently on an analytical level that should influence the policy level and public discourse. There is so much that is assumed about the people who get called smugglers – their criminality, their indifference to human life, their responsibility for so much of the headline-making violence that many who try to migrate are subjected to. They are assumed to be coercive, cajoling people into migrating, promising easy trips and bilking people out of their limited, precious resources. During my research, I’ve come to know quite a few people who would get labelled smugglers, and their profile is often quite different from the assumed figure. The “smugglers” I’ve come to know are deeply embedded in transnational communities of care and concern within an illicit economy of moving people across space where they are not authorized to be. I understand there are political expediencies to blaming migrant suffering on unscrupulous coyotes, but I also think the conflation of smugglers with force, criminality, and violence in public discourse does a disservice to well-meaning policy makers and others who do want to reduce risk. The ethnographically informed view tells us that many smugglers are also migrants and drawing a line between these two groups as though one were wholly separate from each other misunderstands the social process. The anthropological analysis also tells us that the existence of “smugglers” arises in response to the deepening militarization of immigration controls and  the enduring desire for people to try and find their way to someplace they imagine to be better and to do so as safely  as possible. Smugglers do not immediately represent danger for many; they represent the best chance at security. 

NT: You might not be surprised by this question, given the fact that this is an election year in the United States. You’ve written about the “fear” and “fervor” surrounding immigration and Trump in the 2020 national election. Dare I ask – is this time different? What does your research about affective futures about the American Dream suggest for the way we might understand the political undercurrents playing out currently? 

AFV: My reading of the political present is that the dynamics I identified in 2016 – the competing visions of an idea of who can make a claim on the idea of the American dream – has solidified somewhat to the side represented by Trump. It seems we are in a moment now where there is a public consensus against immigration in a way that was not apparent previously. This consensus is not at all based on “data” – now, as always, immigrants are not a drain on the economy. Now, as always, immigrants are not more likely to engage in criminal behavior compared to a native-born population. Now, as always, immigrants are not stealing jobs, they are not given generous handouts, they do not bleed social security, they are not voting in elections en masse, etc. etc. etc. I think the broader consensus around discomfort with immigration despite  data to refute all these claims does show how much this is an affective disposition – like so much in politics – that defies the idea that with “better” information people will change their opinion. The question here is, I think, what is going on beyond the surface conversation about “migrant crime” that produces this affective disposition? Why do people feel such pressing insecurity? Why do people feel that someone else is getting something handed to them (that they themselves have not been handed?) I am hopeful that the election result will not mirror 2016, but I am not at all convinced that that will actually result in more a humane immigration policy or one that is more honestly data-driven. 

NT: In addition to the unique interdisciplinary work you’re engaged in, your work also traverses the sub-fields within anthropology. Can you tell us more about your work across medical, legal, and environmental anthropology? Have you had to adapt your fieldwork and methods to be able to do this? What’s next on the horizon for your research? 

AFV: My work starts as soundly socio-cultural. Drawing from that work I started providing expertise in immigration court, and, in turn, that sparked new questions both in terms of new areas of life that I wanted to understand better in Honduras and in terms of new research that I wanted to undertake regarding the space of immigration court itself. Something that I am interested in going forward is precisely taking up the encounter within immigration court and how, in this space, multiple ideas of the law and justice crash into each other – ideas that people bring with them from their country of origin and the ideas they hold about what a court in the US is neither of which anticipate the non-court court of immigration court. 

NT: I have to ask, are you working towards a book project from your dissertation, “Leave if You’re Able?” If so, what are some highlights that we can look forward to? 

AFV: Yes! It’s very much in the works. Without giving away too much, the book really focuses in on how the expanding bordering regime in the Americas has shifted what the experience of deportation is like for many Central Americans, while stressing how much continuity of experience there is for young men on the urban margins in Honduras as their mobility is scrutinized and criminalized both at home and throughout the circuits of migration, detention, and deportation they traverse. Migrant caravans also figure heavily into the book, drawing from years of activism, organizing, and ethnographic accompaniment before and during dissertation-related fieldwork. 

Cookies on GOV.UK

We use some essential cookies to make this website work.

We’d like to set additional cookies to understand how you use GOV.UK, remember your settings and improve government services.

We also use cookies set by other sites to help us deliver content from their services.

You have accepted additional cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any time.

You have rejected additional cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any time.

• Department of Health & Social Care

Management information on recruitment to clinical research studies

Published 12 September 2024

© Crown copyright 2024

This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: [email protected] .

Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.

This publication is available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/management-information-on-recruitment-to-clinical-research-studies/management-information-on-recruitment-to-clinical-research-studies

Data on the recruitment to clinical research studies, reported to the Department of Health and Social Care ( DHSC ). This release is published as management information, in accordance with the Code of Practice for Statistics , to improve transparency and support publication of the Darzi review on 12 September 2024. The Darzi review is the independent investigation of the National Health Service in England, led by Lord Darzi.

Clinical research studies are important for advancing medical knowledge and enhancing patient care. These investigations are designed to evaluate the safety, efficacy and effectiveness of new treatments, medications, devices, or interventions. Clinical research includes various types of studies, such as clinical trials and observational studies.

Clinical trials, also known as interventional studies, test new medical approaches, including drugs, vaccines and surgical procedures. They are carried out in phases to assess safety, dosing and effectiveness. Observational studies monitor and analyse the effects of specific variables on health outcomes without intervening.

By systematically investigating in this way, clinical research plays a vital role in discovering new treatments and improving healthcare practices.

Monitoring clinical research delivery

One of the ways clinical research delivery in the UK is monitored is through the UK Clinical Research Delivery Key Performance Indicators Report . This report, previously known as the Research Status Report, brings together data from the National Institute for Health and Care Research ( NIHR ) and the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. It monitors progress on delivering parts of the government’s vision for UK clinical research delivery. The performance indicators measure trends in:

• the speed and predictability of regulatory and study set-up timelines
• the delivery of research to time and target
• overall recruitment levels

The report is published monthly by DHSC and is being used to support the development of policies to encourage clinical research delivery.

This publication focuses specifically on clinical research recruitment data from the UK Clinical Research Delivery Key Performance Indicators Report from April 2014 onwards. It is a supplementary management information release, showing detailed tables behind the recruitment charts published in June 2024’s UK Clinical Research Delivery Key Performance Indicators Report.

Definition of a research study

Research is defined in the UK Policy Framework for Health and Social Care Research as the attempt to derive generalisable or transferable new knowledge to answer or refine relevant questions with scientifically sound methods. This excludes: audit, needs assessments, quality improvement and other local service evaluations. It also excludes routine banking of biological samples or data except where this activity is integral to a self-contained research project designed to test a clear hypothesis.

This definition applies to all studies for which NIHR Clinical Research Network support is sought regardless of the study type or research funder.

Table 1 shows the number of participants recruited into studies since April 2014, held on the NIHR Clinical Research Network’s central portfolio management system.

The central portfolio management system consists of all studies held on the Clinical Research Network portfolio, as well as some studies held on the network portfolios of Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.

The data includes recruitment to both interventional and observational studies. The data represents the total number of participants recruited for a given month, based on the month and year the recruitment notification was received.

Table 1: recruitment to clinical research studies

Source: NIHR Clinical Research Network, central portfolio management system

Table 2 shows the number of participants recruited into studies since April 2014, held on the NIHR Clinical Research Network’s central portfolio management system.

Table 2 includes recruitment to 3 study types:

• commercial contract studies. These are studies sponsored and fully funded by the life sciences industry
• commercial collaborative studies. These are studies typically funded, wholly or in part, by the life sciences industry and sponsored by a combination of life sciences industry and non-commercial organisations. This category has previously been included in non-commercial figures but it is now being presented separately to better represent the breadth of commercial studies. Commercial collaborative studies are supported in the same way as other non-commercial studies
• non-commercial studies. These are studies sponsored and wholly funded by one or more non-commercial organisations, including medical research charities, universities and public funders such as NIHR and UK Research and Innovation

The data includes recruitment to both interventional and observational studies.

Table 2: recruitment to clinical research studies broken down by study type, 2014 to 2024

Methodology and quality note

Inclusion and exclusion criteria.

Recruitment is only recorded in the central portfolio management system if it meets the definitions of recruitment as outlined in the NIHR Clinical Research Network Recruitment Policy Document . For example, recruitment data is not collected for studies classified as non-consenting. These are exceptional circumstances where no form of consent can be obtained.

Only research activity with a status of confirmed and provisional is included. Research activity which is indicated as inaccurate (queried) is excluded from figures.

Confirmed status includes manually uploaded data or data from the local portfolio management system that has been confirmed as accurate by the Chief Investigator, their representative or a representative of the commercial sponsor or contract research organisation.

Provisional status is given to data from the local portfolio management system that has yet to be confirmed or that requires reconfirmation following queries.

Data source and coverage

The data has been sourced from the central portfolio management system. The central portfolio management system consists of all studies held on the Clinical Research Network portfolio, as well as some studies held on the network portfolios of Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.

The data is recorded monthly from April 2014 to March 2024. For the purpose of the UK Clinical Research Delivery Key Performance Indicators Report, monthly snapshots are taken according to a data cut schedule. The snapshot used in this publication was taken on 21 June 2024.

Data caveats

The data does not show recruitment to the whole clinical research system, only recruitment to studies on the central portfolio management system. Therefore, this data will be an underestimate of total clinical research recruitment in the UK.

The data is not exclusive to NHS sites and includes recruitment to non- NHS sites.

While data covers the whole of the UK, data relating to studies led by devolved administrations may be incomplete. This is because they are only included in the central portfolio management system when added by the devolved administrations.

The quality of the data is dependent on the accuracy and timeliness of recruitment data being recorded in the system.

There is often a lag between activity taking place at a study site and data being recorded in the system. This means that previous months’ data may be updated retrospectively. Changes in recruitment for individual recent months should not be taken as an indication of overall trend in recruitment.

From the 2023 to 2024 financial year onwards, the data for the commercial collaborative category will be more robust. This is due to data quality improvements linked to reporting this category separately, instead of classifying activities as purely commercial or non-commercial. Not all studies will have been reviewed retrospectively and re-classified where necessary, particularly studies that had already closed.

Using the data

The data cannot be used for:

• measuring overall UK study recruitment as the data is only on studies on the central portfolio management system (not activity of the whole research environment). It is unknown what proportion of studies in the UK at that particular point in time are contributing to the figures
• comparing (portfolio) recruitment over the time. The network as an organisation and its remit has changed significantly over time. Caution should be taken with time comparisons as portfolio and associated data collection may have changed
• UK-wide data within the central portfolio management system across years. It has only been in recent years that UK-wide data for commercial (for example) has been collected into the central portfolio management system

The portfolio balance between observational studies and interventional ones will influence the numbers. For example, if at a particular time, the portfolio has some large sample size observational studies, this will affect recruitment numbers and make it difficult to compare to other years.

Recruitment from private sites may not be collected and so may not be included in the data.

If you have any questions in relation to these statistics, please contact [email protected] .

Is this page useful?

• Yes this page is useful
• No this page is not useful

Help us improve GOV.UK

Don’t include personal or financial information like your National Insurance number or credit card details.

To help us improve GOV.UK, we’d like to know more about your visit today. Please fill in this survey (opens in a new tab) .