Anthropology for the People

• In Event: 61.056 - Toward a Taxonomy of Collaborative Research in Education and the Social Sciences

Abstract

Anthropology for the People

In this paper, I identify key features within collaborative, community-engaged methodologies within the published anthropological research journals, and several oft-cited texts (Lassiter, 2005a, 2005b, 2008; Foley & Valenzuela, 2005; Van Willigen, 2002). By mapping how collaborative community-engaged research is theorized in anthropology (to the extent that it is), I intend to contribute to the theorization of collaborative community-engaged scholarship more broadly and situate it among other disciplines/fields.

Numerous methodological approaches within anthropology approximate, to varying degrees, collaborative community-engaged approaches to research. Terms such as applied anthropology, engaged anthropology, public anthropology, public interest anthropology, collaborative ethnography, Indigenous and decolonizing methodologies describe some of these approaches, particularly as practiced by anthropologists in US universities. While some scholars have attempted to trace the historical context from which several of these approaches emerge (Lassiter, 2005a; Van Willigen, 2002), the ongoing attempts to articulate the distinctions both within and among these methodologies also points to their contested theoretical and practical commitments.

My analysis reveals several themes that reflect the variance among these collaborative approaches. For example, applied and public anthropologies both emphasize notions of research that aim to contribute to the general public rather than solely contributing to the scholarly community. That is, these approaches intentionally move away from theory-building as the principal purpose of research, seeking instead to address contemporary social issues (Rylko-Bauer, 2006; Van Willigen, 2002). However, while applied and public anthropologies purport to engage in research that is applicable or that “matters,” the open question remains: matters for whom? This question is particularly salient when considering questions of justice. In other words, the ethical and political dimensions of collaborative community-engaged research methodologies underlie variances in for whom/what groups the research is undertaken; those scholars seeking to build the field need to consider if certain ‘publics’ should be the prioritized.

Critical and collaborative approaches to ethnography place a unique emphasis on activism and engagement. While some scholars are attentive to engaging with communities through practices that actively seek to disrupt the hierarchical power differentials between universities and under-served community collaborators (Dyrness, 2008; Lassiter, 2005a), others see critical or collaborative research as a way to advocate for change on behalf of communities and thus maintain the researcher as an expert speaking on behalf of their collaborators (Foley & Valenzuela, 2005). This latter, less critical, approach is often found in examples of applied and public anthropologies, and marks a tension in the approach. In contrast, collaborative ethnography (Lassiter, 2005a), upholds that it is essential to engage community members in the research process itself (particularly those who are largely excluded from processes of knowledge production), and that this co-production of knowledge is itself what matters. Thus, collaborative ethnography takes into consideration the ethical and political dimensions of knowledge production, and integrates into its practice a disruption of traditional re-inscriptions of power in the academy through the very practice of research. In this way, collaborative ethnography offers possibilities for a radically different ethics for anthropological research, both in its theorization and practice.

Author

• Sheeva Sabati, University of California - Santa Cruz