Applied Anthropology in the Post-Vietnam Era: Anticipations and Ironies

Chambers, Erve

doi:10.1146/annurev.an.16.100187.001521

Cited by 40 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Now let us return to the issue of the naming of applied anthropology in the United States. During the early part of the colonial era, and especially World War II, there was not a clear split between 'pure' and 'applied' anthropology in the U.S. (Chambers 1987;Bennett 1996). Few academic posts were available, theoretical anthropology was not well-developed, and most American anthropologists (with a few exceptions) did not have access to resources that would enable them to travel to foreign field sites.…”

Section: The Second Naming Of Applied Anthropology In the United Statesmentioning

confidence: 99%

What's in the Name “Applied Anthropology”?: An Encounter with Global Practice

Baba¹,

Hill²

2006

NAPA Bulletin

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This chapter is a reflective essay that explores the contextual influences upon the naming and non‐naming of applied anthropology in different nations and regions of the world. Using a historical and comparative method, the chapter is deliberately designed to present a perspective that does not originate from or end up in the United States. By comparing diverse contexts chronologically, the chapter suggests alternative ways of understanding the reasons why applied and practicing anthropology have evolved so distinctively in different places. The chapter suggests that applied and practicing anthropology, indeed all of anthropology, is inextricably bound to its historical and cultural contexts, meaning that there are important differences in the way the discipline is understood and practiced across different nations and regions. Moreover, historical shifts in context have resulted in important changes in the way the discipline is practiced over time. The chapter also argues that if processes of globalization are indeed transforming the nature of connectedness and boundaries across nations, then there are consequences for the distinctive forms of applied and practicing anthropology observed across nations, with an emphasis on those in the United States. The authors postulate that some of the differences observed between applied and practicing anthropology in the United States and elsewhere are beginning to blur, and that the unique model of applied anthropology that developed in the United States during the last quarter of the 20th century is destined to be transformed into one that is more integrated into the mainstream of the discipline and, indeed, into all of global anthropology.

show abstract

Section: The Second Naming Of Applied Anthropology In the United Statesmentioning

confidence: 99%

What's in the Name “Applied Anthropology”?: An Encounter with Global Practice

Baba¹,

Hill²

2006

NAPA Bulletin

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Trong ba hướng tiếp cận này, người ta thường phân biệt nhà nhân học tham gia với tư cách là chuyên gia tư vấn trong một dự án phát triển và nhà nhân học độc lập thực hiện nghiên cứu học thuật thuần túy. Mặc dù các phương pháp, điều kiện và kiểu cam kết cụ thể cho mỗi vị thế có khác nhau, song việc đặt nghiên cứu ứng dụng và nghiên cứu cơ bản vào vị thế đối lập ngày nay bị chỉ trích rộng rãi (Chambers 1987;Albert 1995;Lewis 2005). Thay vào đó, chúng nên được coi là hai cực của một chuỗi liên tục mà ở đó hàm lượng phân tích học thuật với việc duy trì khoảng cách phản biện và hàm lượng nghiên cứu hướng tới hành động và ứng dụng tương ứng cho mỗi cực là khác nhau.…”

Section: Khái Niệm Phát Triểnunclassified