LANGUAGE BOUNDARIES, PUBLISHING, AND POWER

Applied anthropologists in the English-speaking world tend to disregard publications in other languages; institutions emphasize English-language publishing and give less credence or value to work in other languages. Even applied anthropologists writing in non-English languages often privilege English sources. The invisibility of non-English applied anthropology diminishes the richness of our field, as we miss opportunities to gain insights from different academic, practice, and cultural traditions. This paper, based on a panel held at the 2021 SfAA Meetings, presents reflections on the challenges of language in the circulation of global knowledge for anthropological practice. We highlight the power relations embedded in language, as well as opportunities for applied anthropologists to promote communication and collaboration across boundaries.

Scales of Observation

One of the particularities of applied anthropology is working on demand, and performing research on demand requires changing fields constantly. This diversity of fields has led to an awareness in applied anthropology that the focal point of observation varies from study to study, and that depending on the particular scope or decoupage, researchers do not see the same thing. This scales-of-observation method has four empirical principles: (a) What one observes at one scale vanishes at another scale. (b) The causes explaining actors’ behavior vary based on the scale of observation; they can stem from situational effects or meaning effects, or suggest statistical correlation. (c) Knowledge acquired at one scale is complementary and cumulative with that of other scales of observation. However, they cannot be fused into a single, global description. Indeed, although reality is continuous, observation between the “macro” and the “micro” is discontinuous. Discontinuity stems from the importance of the situational effects in anthropology and organizational sociology. These two approaches are most often centered on the interactions among actors operating under situational constraints. All generalizations are thus limited to scales pertaining to the same type of causality. (d) Part of the conflict among schools, disciplines, or professions regarding explanations for human behavior and changes within a community, an organization, a society, or an individual can most often be explained by different choices in the scale of observation. The scales-of-observation method is a mobile tool of knowledge founded on the anthropological practice of the cultural detour, in this case scientific cultures. It is an inductive epistemological theory on the variability of the explanatory causes of human behavior and falls under methodological relativism. Consequently, the scales-of-observation method is also a tool of negotiation among actors who are involved collectively in a project of social change, but with contradictory interests or objectives.

An international career rooted in the Gustian school. Acad. Mihail M. Cernea at the age of 90

Sociologist Michael M. Cernea, after a successful professional career in Romania, his native country, continued his work at the World Bank, in Washington, starting in 1974. He founded the department of sociology and influenced the perspective on social security within the Bank. Cernea was awarded the Bronisław Malinowski and Solon T. Kimball prizes for his scientific achievements, and he was elected member of the Romanian Academy. He is considered one of the most important thinkers in the fields of sociology of development and applied anthropology.

PRACTICING ANTHROPOLOGY IN THE POST-COVID WORLD: HOW TO GET HIRED AND WHERE TO LOOK

Whether teaching at the undergraduate or graduate level, we recognize anthropology is a discovery major. Students find their way into a class and something thrilling happens; they get hooked and claim anthropology as their major or advanced degree. What is it that lures students into anthropology? It is the process of understanding culture and power or being able to “make a difference” and contribute towards positive change in an organization or a community. This drive to make a difference for those we work with drew us in as academics and practitioners and kept us engaged in the discipline. It was this vocational motivation that inspired Susan to invite Victoria, Jennifer, and John to speak to her undergraduate Applied Anthropology class regarding our experiences as practitioners. She posed the questions: “What can you do with a degree in anthropology?” and “How do you go about getting those positions rather than becoming a professor?” There may be many jobs in one’s career journey as we see it; how do you get started, stay encouraged, “upgrade” your skills, and creatively adapt over time? This paper is a product of the discussion started in that class and hopefully adds to the larger conversation currently taking place in the field.

Driving Organizational Change: 2020 Bronislaw Malinowski Award Address

This article represents my 2020 Bronislaw Malinowski Award Address that I delivered virtually at the 2021 Society for Applied Anthropology Annual Meetings, March 23–27, 2021. The address focuses on the value of organizations as both a field of study and a place of employment for anthropologists. On the one hand, organizations have been largely excluded from anthropological field research in favor of research in communities. On the other, academic anthropology departments (applied anthropology programs excepted) have been largely reluctant to engage with anthropological practice and scholarship in the classroom or view organizations as a vital source of careers for their graduating students. I use my own career trajectory as a model to raise awareness of what anthropology might learn from organizations as well as what anthropologists might offer them. I will close with an initiative for a cross-section of the discipline to work together on the Career Readiness Commission to address the lack of student preparation and professionalization for careers in and for organizations.