Applied Anthropology: A Mid‐Decade Assessment

Abstract

Within the last several decades there has been a dramatic increase in the number of anthropologists whose work has focused primarily on the solution of societal rather than theoretical problems. These pragmatic anthropologists focus their efforts on applying anthropological data, concepts and strategies to the solution of social, economic and technological problems, both at home and abroad. Over the past several decades, a number a different terms have been used to describe this mode of anthropology, including development anthropology, action anthropology, advocacy anthropology, practicing anthropologyand cultural brokering. For purposes of our discussion here, I will use the widely accepted and generic term, applied anthropology.Our use of this term, however, requires some delineation, for "applied anthropology" cuts across all of the traditional four fields. While most anthropologists who would identify with an applied perspective are cultural anthropologists, the other three traditional sub-disciplines have certainly had their share of applied activities. For example, forensic anthropologists for years have used traditional methods and theories to help identify the remains of crime and disaster victims; archaeologists, applying their traditional methods and insights to the study of contemporary landfills, have been responsible for helping develop policies on solid waste disposal; and applied anthropological linguists have contributed widely to problem solving and policy formation in the area of teaching English as a second language to non-mainstream students in the United States. Unlike cultural anthropologists, however, archaeologists, physical anthropologists and linguists have engaged in both pure and applied research without becoming particularly embroiled in "pure vs. applied" turf fights which seems to have preoccupied many cultural anthropologists over recent decades. Since most applied anthropology practitioners (and most of the controversy) are in the area of cultural anthropology, it is this sub-field to which I will confine my remarks.

INTRODUCTION: PREPARING ANTHROPOLOGISTS FOR THE 21st CENTURY

“…As Stocking (2000), among others, notes, in the United States, this divide is the result of the Cold War. Thus it is necessary to stress that the artificial divide that has prevailed between practice and theory (and by erroneous extension, between applied and academic anthropology) has changed over time and space (Baba 2005; Kedia and van Willigen 2005), is confined mostly to the subdisciplines of cultural anthropology and linguistics (Ferraro 1996; Greenwood 2000), and is out of touch with contemporary practice in anthropology and the social sciences (Greenwood 2000; Lassiter this volume; Rylko‐Bauer et al 2006).…”

“…Throughout its history, anthropology has traditionally merged practice and theory successfully and fruitfully (Goldschmidt 1979, 2001). Applied and academic anthropology developed together and share methods and personnel (Ferraro 1996). Nonetheless, although practicing anthropologists have been recognized and supported through robust applied organizations and in spite of the complexity of the intellectual demands of anthropological praxis (Moran 2000), 1 practicing anthropology has not received the same recognition and esteem as ‘pure,’ academic anthropology.…”