COMPETITIVE CHALLENGES AND POTENTIAL PATHS FORWARD By CHAD R. MAXWELL A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR T HE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2017
2017 Chad R. Maxwell
To those who helped push me
4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to sincerely thank Dr. Chris McCarty for leading my commi tte e and Dr. Russ Bernard for partnering with him. Without their coaching, pushing, and cheerleading this day would never have come. Sometimes they believed in me more than I believe d in myself and for that my gratitude is significant. I would also like to thank Dr. Jeff Johnson and Dr. Rich Lutz for serving on my committee. T hese scholars offered great insight, perspective, and collaboration as well. A large part of this work is connected with my career experience in business, advertising, media, and marketing. Dr. Russ Bernard equipped me with the technical skills, anthropological knowledge, and business savvy to help me be successful in that space He was a consistent career advocate A special appreciation goes to m y departed friend and anthropologist Dr. Brigitte Jordan. Her wisdom, strength, and spirit continue to be an inspiration to this date. I miss you. I also extend gratitude to the Univ ersity of Florida Anthropology department for supporting me during my ac ademic pursuits in terms of curriculum exposure, scholarly support, and funding. I am also thankful to Dr. Mark House and Dr. Anna Vick who provided either direct data help or acted as great soundboard s during this process. My work is smarter for their he lp and perspective. And a thank you to Dr. Rebecca Gearhart and Dr. Chuck Springwood of Illinois Wesleyan University who helped me discover and love anthropology. And last but not least, an enormous amount of gratitude goes out to my family and friends who not only encouraged me but helped direct my energy and efforts to
5 achieve this dream. Thank you Brian Dailey, Lincoln Dailey, Heather Maxwell, Don Maxwell, Linda Bailey, Helen Katz, Amy Ferranti, Matt Soble, Molly Murray, Carole Bernard, Jennifer Coopman s, Alyson Stevens, Jason Leigh, Cristy Levengood, and Judy Maxwell.
6 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 9 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 10 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 12 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 14 Overview of the Problem ................................ ................................ ......................... 14 Research Question and Analytical Areas ................................ ................................ 18 2 THE DISCIPLINE AND PROFESSION OF ANTHROPOLOGY .............................. 21 Understan ding History, Growth, and Divisions ................................ ........................ 21 ................................ .................... 22 Early Anthropology and the Pioneers of Appl ied Anthropology (Before 1860s) ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 23 Ethnology and Cultural Preservation (1860s 1930s) ................................ ....... 23 Government Anthropology and Policy Researc h (1930s 1945) ....................... 24 Role Expansion and Policy Work (1946 1972) ................................ ................ 25 Extension and Division (1973 2000) ................................ ................................ 27 Abundance, Convergence and Commercialization (2000 Present) .................. 29 The Practitioner Academic Split ................................ ................................ .............. 30 Ethical Complications of Applied Anthropology ................................ ................ 33 Lack of Reciprocal Engagement between Academic and Practitioner ............. 34 Value Judgm ents on Applied and Practicing Anthropology .............................. 34 Perpetuating and Protecting the Academy ................................ .............................. 36 Academic Reproduction and Replication ................................ .......................... 36 Unpreparedness and/or Disinterest in Grooming Applied Anthropologists ....... 38 Theoretical and Representation Breakdowns ................................ ......................... 39 ................................ ................. 41 Discipline and Department Separations ................................ ................................ .. 45 The Promise of Four Field Anthropology ................................ .......................... 48 The Reality of Four Field Anthropology ................................ ............................ 49 Resolving Four Field Anthropology ................................ ................................ .. 52 Summary and Discussion: The Discipline and Profession of Anthropology ............ 54 3 THE BUSINESS AND BRAND OF ANTHROPOLOGY ................................ .......... 56 Understanding the Brand, Product, and Competition ................................ .............. 56
7 ..................... 57 Defining Brand Personality and Brand Relationships. ................................ ...... 57 ................................ ................................ ... 58 ................................ .......... 63 Products of Anthropology ................................ ................................ ........................ 67 General Anthropological Products ................................ ................................ .... 68 Anthropology Practitioners as Product ................................ ............................. 70 Skills as Products ................................ ................................ ............................. 73 Ethnogra phy as Anthropological Product ................................ ......................... 76 Ethnography and anthropology are not synonyms ................................ ..... 81 Quality control and ethnography ................................ ................................ 82 Certification and the ethnographic product ................................ ................. 84 The ROI on Anthropological Product and Brand ................................ ..................... 86 ................................ ....... 88 Other Professionals as Competitors of Anthropology ................................ ....... 89 Inter disciplinary, Transdisciplinary, and Multidisciplinary as Competitors and Collaborators ................................ ................................ ................................ 91 Summary and Discussion: The Business and Brand of Anthropology .................... 93 4 THE HIGHER EDUCATION MARKETPLACE ................................ ........................ 95 Understanding Structural and Economic Forces and Anthropology ........................ 95 Anthropology and Higher Education Commercialism ................................ .............. 97 Misconceptions on Careers and Employment in Anthropology ............................. 100 Creating Competiti ve Faculty and Department Policy ................................ ........... 103 Summary and Discussion: Understanding Structural and Economic Forces and Anthropology ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 107 5 DATA METHODS AND ANALYSIS ................................ ................................ ...... 110 American Anthropologist Title Analysis ................................ ................................ 111 Data Collection and Cleaning ................................ ................................ ......... 111 Data Analysis and Findings ................................ ................................ ............ 113 Web of Science Title Analysis of Ethnography and Culture Titles ........................ 127 Data Collection and Cleaning ................................ ................................ ......... 128 Data Analysis and Findings ................................ ................................ ............ 128 Social Listening Analysis ................................ ................................ ...................... 133 Data Collection and Cleaning ................................ ................................ ......... 133 Data Analysis and Findings ................................ ................................ ............ 136 The Pull of Anthropology: Googl e Search Trends Analysis ................................ .. 152 Data Collection and Cleaning ................................ ................................ ......... 152 Data Analysis and Findings ................................ ................................ ............ 153 Summary and Discussion ................................ ................................ ..................... 157 6 STRATEGIES AND TACTICS TO MOVE FORWARD ................................ ......... 160 Idea Starters to Increase Anthro ................................ ................. 1 60
8 Pushing Past Legacy Discipline Divisions ................................ ............................. 161 ................................ ................................ ....... 166 Energizing the Brand ................................ ................................ ............................ 169 ................................ ................................ ......... 172 Summary and Discussions: Strateg ies and Tactics to Move Forward .................. 177 7 CONCLUSION ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 179 APPENDIX A STANDARD STOP WORDS ................................ ................................ ................. 183 B CORE STEMMED TERMS ................................ ................................ ................... 184 C PERCENTAGE SHARE OF CORE STEMMED WORD PER DECADE ............... 185 D GOOGLE SEARCH TRENDS ANALYS IS (10/15/12 10/15/17, WORLDWIDE) 203 REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 210 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ .......................... 222
9 LIST OF TABLES Ta ble page 5 1 Stemmed term exits and entrants over time ................................ ..................... 116 5 2 them that are in the field of anthropology versus other fields ............................ 129 5 3 that are in the field of anthrop ology versus other fields ................................ .... 131 5 4 Netbase social listening queries and keywords ................................ ................ 135
10 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 5 1 Description of data set number of titles, word count, and stemmed word count by decade ................................ ................................ ............................... 113 5 2 Type Token Ratio by Decade ................................ ................................ .......... 114 5 3 Type Token Ratio by Decade Trend Line ................................ ........................ 114 5 4 Total frequency of all stemmed words ................................ .............................. 117 5 5 Top 50 stemmed terms, their percentage representation per decade, and the cumulative stemmed word frequency count ................................ ...................... 118 5 6 The change in methods related stems over time ................................ .............. 121 5 7 Correspondence analysis of the top stemmed terms and decades based on frequency count ................................ ................................ ................................ 123 5 8 Average percent change overall decades o f each top 50 stemmed terms ....... 126 5 9 Percentage of single stemmed terms by decade ................................ .............. 126 5 10 Web of Science (WOS) titles that con percentages of those titles that are in the field of anthropology versus another field ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 130 5 11 that are in the field of anthropology versus other fields ................................ .... 132 5 12 that are in the field of anthropolo gy versus the other field with the highest percentage of the term ................................ ................................ ..................... 132 5 13 Descriptive calculations of total mentions, net sentiment scores, and brand passion for the 10 Netbase queries over the two year data collection period ... 138 5 14 social listening query ................................ ................................ ........................ 143 5 15 social listening query ................................ ................................ ........................ 144 5 16 query ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 145
11 5 17 query ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 147 5 18 Descriptive calculations of total NEWS mentions and net sentiment scores for the 10 Netbase queries over the two year data collection period. ............... 151 5 19 Total NEWS mentions charted across the t wo year data collection period for the 10 Netbase queries ................................ ................................ .................... 152 5 20 Google Search Trends Analysis (10/15/12 10/15/17, Worldwide) .................. 154 5 21 Anthropology Google Search Trends -Top Search Queries Concerning Anthropology and Sociology (10/15/12 10/15/17, Worldwide) ........................ 156
12 Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University o f Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy COMPETITIVE CHALLENGES AND POTENTIAL PATHS FORWARD By Chad R. Maxwell December 2017 Chair: Chris McCarty Cochair: H. Ru ssell Bernard Major: Anthropology This research is an effort to answer the following question: How can anthropology be more competitive in terms of products and marketable skills as a discipline? There are currently many obstacles that reduce anth competitiveness and that will continue to do so in the future Thus, the goal of this research is to analyze those obstacles and to suggest ways in which anthropologists coming out of graduate school in the future can compete in the labor market This work is about identifying and removing barriers to the business of anthropology so that the field can achieve its full potential. Current research on the discipline has not fully explored and integrated the s advancement and impact. Although anthropologists cannot agree on the fate and future of the discipline, it is clear there are factors causing disruption and discomfort with increasing intensity. The analysis here is largely historical, with a focus on the tension between applied anthropology and academic anthropology on legacy issues, on dramatic expansion between 1957 and 1972 on the practitioner academic divide and
13 the perpetuation of the academy, and on theoretical divisions, fra ctured purpose s and value s and departmental divides. T he research examines how marketplace forces make it difficult for anthropolog ists to compete and be successful in changing economic conditions and priorities The approach here is to consider the disci pline in terms of brand, products, marketing, and competitors. Some s pecific questions include: What skills do anthropologists bring to the table ? products? What is the role of ethnography in anthropology toda y? And how do the demands of interdisciplinary collaboration affect the discipline? Testing these questions includes analysis of journal articles across time, understanding diffusion of key terms, social listening, and mapping Google search trends. Finall y, this research results in suggestions concerning key discipline accelerators such as acquiring tactical skills, focusing on value/impact, enhanced teaching, bringing forward practice into the academy, and owning employment efforts. These discipline accel erators catalyze ideas to : (1) push past legacy discipline division s (2) enhance energize the brand, and (4) build
14 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Overview o f t he Problem Anthropology has a strong legacy and a history of contributions and many areas of inquiry : understanding regularities and variations a cross human societies ; unearthing the human past through archeological discoveries ; understanding human adaptation to various environments; filling in gaps abou t the evolution of hominids, including modern humans; enhancing international development ; and informing business endeavors As a discipline anthropology also has a remarkable history of being situated between the sciences and the humanities. Its theore tical range and distribution is as wide as its topical coverage. Anthropology is both wide and deep on almost all academic and practitioner fronts. It is, after all, the study of the human condition past and present. The complexities and challenges of to anthropology more than ever before. Divisive p olitics, local wars, disruptive technolog ies threats to the environment and to human rights pervasive poverty and all of its consequences for health, lack of access to educat ion all are problems burning with opportunities for anthropologists to contribute The Bureau of Labor S tatistics projects a 13% increase in post secondary jobs for the decade 2014 2024, including a 9% increas e in jobs for anthropologists, (US Department Of Labor, 2017b) General anthropology/archaeology jobs are expected to grow at 4% (US Department Of Labor, 2017a) Analyzing the federal data, Ginsberg (2016b) shows that enrollment in anthropology courses is declining at a faster rate than som e other liberal arts and sciences programs After decades of growth, anthropology degree completion peaked in 2013 at 11,270 degrees awarded and has decreased ever
15 since, with just 9,135 degrees awarded in 2016 the fewest since 2009. Adding insult to injury, Forbes and Kiplinger magazines both rated anthropology as one of the worst undergraduate majors, citing the low media n income of new graduates ($28,000) and high unemployment rate (10.5%) (Carter, 2017; Goudreau, 2012) This struggle may be current, but it is also recurrent. A s early as 1904, there were open debates and alarms sounded Words such as death, demise, end, stagnation, suspension, destabilized, and, of course, crisis are common in literature on the state of anthropology (Comaroff, 2010; Crapanzano, 2010; Firth, 1944; M. M. Fischer, 2009; Giddens, 1996; Jebens & Kohl, 2011; Moore, 2003; Peacock, 1997; Posner, 1996; Rubel & Rosman, 1994; Shenk, 2006; Sponsel, 1990; Wallman, 2003; Worsley, 1966) There is a continual air of anxiety, defensiveness, and concern for the relevancy of the discipline. E ven its national organization The American Anthropolog ical Association (AAA) transmits this unease. Two of the conference theme s and in 2017 reflect this concern for the relevancy of the discipline and its practitioners. Furthermore, anthropology long ago lost any claim to theoretical and methodological coherence. There is a lack of share d understanding and focus within the discipline. New professional competit ors, such as journalists and sociologists in addition to legions of self identified and self promoted anthropologist who have no formal training in the discipline, are gaining a share of anthropological scholarship, media, and employment. There are challenges with departmental politics, ethics, representation, brand, product, and public engagement. There is a congeries of
16 intersecting factors that seem to be working against the leadership. To be sure, various anthropologists have come forward to speak about the state of the discipline and their remarks are often strongly critical and alarm sounding In his Presidential Address to the 94 th Annual Meeti ng of the American Anthropologi cal Association in 1995, James Peacock outlined three paths forward for anthropology: (1) go extinct, (2) continue living, but as the living dead, (3) and adopt redirection. Although he was hopeful about the state of the di scipline in his address, his worry was also evident. Marcus (2008) a harsh critic of current state, contends that [and there is] no indication that its traditional stock of knowledge shows any signs of Whitehead and Wesch (2012) contend that all the discussion makeover hardly seems to meet the need to examine the deep structure and history of the discipline at a Not all anthropologists, howev er, agree that there is reason to worry or raise alarms. Some of them stress that the discipline is simply in a state of dynamic, fluid change as it has always been. Almost two decades ago, Srivastava (1999) asserted that most people do not believe anthropology is devoid of a fu ture, but they do believe the future is in need of a compass. He was optimistic about the discipline simply because anthropologists were discussing its future at all, despite it needing more direction. There is a future of, for, and in anthropology astava wrote, but he asked where does it lie? In making the discipline frontierless unbounded, and imprecise in
17 delineation of its aims what is our vision of the future for which anthropology should be made to work ? More recently, Brondo and Bennett (2012) saw positive changes in anthropology. They feel that i n the coming years anthropologists will see a celebration of the value of anthropology to the public O thers note optimistically that the current state of flux may also signal almost as a beginning rather than an end. For ex ample, in her address to the 113 th annual meeting of the American Anthropolog ical Association in 2013, Mullings (2015) argued that anthropology the science of humankind is not in crisis. Rather it is well poised to truly deliver on the American Anthropolog ical A ssociation statement of purpose : anthropological knowledge and its use to solve human problems Although anthropologists cannot agree on the fate and future of the discipline, it is clear there are many factors causing disruption, change, challenges, and discomfort with increasing intensity for many in the profession. It is also clear that anthropology will need to be stron ger as a discipline to produce the kinds of scholarship, contribution, impact, and pubic engagement th at many in the profession aspire to achieve. Sahlins (2009) points out that competition is now a priority not only globally but in higher education as well and internationally. Likewise sub disciplines. Likewise departments. Universities With the consistent struggle within anthropology and the variety of factors that are in opposition to its progress, it is opportune to think about how anthropology can be more competitive, or evolutionarily fit, if you will Such is the focus of this research.
18 Research Questi on a nd Analytical Areas In this study I ask How can anthropology be competitive as a discipline in the future ?" C ompetitive can be defined in a number of different ways but here I mean enhancing the product set of anthropologists to be competitive in te rms of producing the best scholarship and having the most marketable skills. products need to be tangible, tactical, and relatable for employers and scholars and their skills need to be concrete, sellable, and driven The question is H ow can anthropology be more successful ? Th is is a purposefully broad question, but a worthy one. Current research has advancement and impact. Although I use the ter m anthropology in this research the focus is strong ben t to the US marketplace. A three part inquiry was used for the analysis: 1. OBSTACLES: What are the current challenges preventing the discipline from maximizing its potential, and what is causing those challenges ? 2. PROGRESS: Is the overall situation for the discipline getting worse or better? What is its potential? 3. ROADMAP: What are some tactical steps th at anthropology s tudents and professors, anthropology departments and professional anthropology organizations can take to remove some of the obstacles? Because of my background in consumer research, I think of anthropology as not only a discipline, but as a business. Consi dering anthropology as a business provides a framework by which we can deconstruct the elements that feed into the discipline s struggle. Su chman (2013) takes a related approach. She examined anthropology as an object of consumption with commercial research and development. I take this line of
19 thinking one step further and consider the consumption of anthropology within the academy and publ ic spaces as well. That said, there are three major analytical sections to this research effort: The first section historical development of anthropology, with a specific focus on the intersec tions between applied anthropology and more academic anthropology. In that section I analyze disciplinary obstacles including legacy issues (colonialism, the so called crisis of the practitioner academic divide perpetuation of the academy, theoretical divisions, fractured purpose s and value, and departmental divides. examine anthropology in terms of its brand, products, and competitors. With regard to s are the attributes of the brand and the product as the set of skills anthropologists bring to the table, the professional characteristics of practitioners as products themselves, the complexity of ethnography as a method and a deliverable, and the intricacies of interdisciplinary product collabo ration. I look at how changing economic conditions and priorities are making it difficult for anthropology to compete and be successful in a competitive market To bring those issues to life I canvass the critical topics of the commercialization of higher education, the employment marketplace, and faculty/department polic ies and values.
20 In the fourth section I detail my research approach, data collection process, analytical process, and the resulting findings. I show how an analysis of journal titles, social listening data, and Google search trends yield insights on priorities, brand, and communications. In the fifth and final section I make tactical, short term and l ong term recommendations on how to remove some of the impediments to a successful cultural anthropology by outlining ideas in the areas of training, collaborations, careers, and policy. The goal of that last chapter is not to define a specific future for anthropology but rather to launch a discussion about for how the practice of anthropology can continue to evolve operationally and intellectually. The discipline may not have a prescriptive path forward, but we can take deliberate and decisive steps to m ake incremental progress.
21 CHAPTER 2 THE DISCIPLINE AND PROFESSION OF ANTHROPOLOGY Understanding History, Growth, a nd Divisions T he challenges facing anthropology today are not sui generis but are just the latest in the history of the growth of the disci pline and the profession. From its beginnings in the 1850s, anthropology and the work of its practitioners have undergone transformations that have changed scholarship and the methods for c onducting that scholarship. Many of these changes have sparked divisions and fractures in the discipline and some anthropologists hold that the discipline is stronger because of these fractures. For example, anthropologists are now more careful in how the y represent themselves and others N ew theories have offered new ways of explaining and understanding observed behavior and values and new forms of narrative have opened up all producing more variation in the overall discipline. Other anthropologists fin d that the fragmentation of the discipline has weakened its overall position in the academy. According to the researchers, the lack of a theoretical model, the separation of applied from academi c anthropology, and the instability of the four field approach has weakened anthropology in the marketplace making it less competitive. Whatever the merits of these debates, the fact that the discipline has changed, expanded, and divided is evident in the historical analysis below. Rather than place a value judgement on the current situation, it is more fruitful to understand the conditions however, the historical deve lopments have generally worked to its disadvantage. In this
22 section I detail how historical development s have produced five challenges to academic split, (2) academic protectionism, (3) theoretical and repr esentation breakdowns, (4) purpose and value disorientation, and (5) department/discipline separation. These challenges adversely competitiveness by increasing discipline fragmentation, creating confusi on about its core principles, s lowing change, and minimizing the potential contribution/impact. and Growth Background Anthropology as a discipline developed partly as a product of British colonialism of the late 19 th century, where anthropologists provided colonia l administration s information/intelligence about local peoples. They researched areas such as migration, land rights, land tenure, and political systems in an effort to help various colonial governments gain greater control (Nolan, 2017) Similarly, in the US, anthropologists were leveraged to gain further understating of the Native American populations by working clos ely with f ederal and s tate governments. It can be argued that the origins of anthropology are primarily in applied anthropology and that the historical challenges of applied anthropology are the challenges for the discipline as a whole (Baba 2009) Many au thors take readers through the history of anthropology via applied anthropology (Chambers, 1979, 2000; Eddy & Partridge, 1978; Pink, 2005; Sillitoe, 2006; Singer, 2008; Van Willigen, 2002) Here I attempt to connec t and summarize the work of these authors and paint a broad milestones for the practice of applied anthropology, these authors map out five main phases: (1 ) e arly anthr opology and the pioneers of applied anthropology (before the
23 1860s) ; (2) e thnology and cultural preservation (1860s to 1930s) ; (3) g overnment anthropology and policy research (1930s 1945 ), (4) r ole expansio n and further policy work (1946 1972 ), and (5) a nd applied anthropology today (1973 2000s) which I will call e xtension and d ivision In addition to these five periods, I have added a sixth Early Anthropology and the Pioneers of Applied Anthropology (Before 1860s) Van Willigen (2002) notes t is marked by the creation of cultural data to inform administrative and policy context issues, especially in relation to political and economic sys tems. These data were used to educate the sponsors about their colonial subjects. He describes this period as It was a period where anthropological data were also used to support theological or philosophi cal positions such as supporting church marriage laws and social reform. Ethnology and Cultural Preservation (1860s 1930s) Following these early developments, a stage of cultural preservation existed during which also info rmed administrative control over native populations. The milestone for this time period in the U S was the founding of the Bureau of American Ethnology (BAE) in 1879 under John Wesley Powell. The purpose of the BAE was mainly to document native populations as well as to curate artifacts and cultural exhibits for the Smithsonian Museum. This period is sometimes known as applied ethnology. E arly funding from The Laura Spelman Rockefeller Memorial had significant influence on applied research projects in th e US, focusing on the improvement of human welfare through scientific research (Baba, 2012)
24 Government Anthropology and Policy Research (1930s 194 5 ) Expanding on the policy, administrative, and preservation work up to that time, a more problem centered a pproach took hold across several domains such as education, nutrition, land rights, and technology. This period included the founding of the Society for Applied anthropology in 1941 and the publication of its journal A pplied Anthropology, renamed Human Org anization in 1949 This period of applied anthropology was also marked by the contributions of anthropologists during World War II. M any anthropological projects were supported through the National Research Council (established in 1918) and orginizations such as t he Committee on Food Habits ( that examined nutrition and U.S. culture ) and t he Committee for National Moral e ( that worked to study how to improve morale during World War II ) These projects included such scholars at Margaret Mead, Gregory Bateson Lloyd Warner, and Elliot Chapp le The War Relocation Authority (WRA) was established in 1942 to manage the relocation and internment of Japanese Americans from the West Coast states. Ruth Benedict was critical to this effort. Her cultural insights on th e Japanese were anthropologically informed and impacted execution (Benedict, 1967) A nthropologists who wor ked with the WRA were cultural brokers between inmates and administrators. Some anthropologists contributions during the war efforts were controversial Samuel Lothrop for example, an archeologist at Harvard University, spied for Naval Intelligence (Price, 2000) Lothrop was stationed in Lima, Peru, where he mo nitored imports, exports and political developments. To maintain his cover he pretended to conduct archeological investigations.
25 Role Expansion and Policy Work (194 6 197 2 ) Van Willigen (2002) argues that up and to this point applied anthropology was rath er narrow in scope policy work, some expansion into wartime needs, administrative consultation, and salvage ethnology. Post World War II, he says was a time of role transition At this point, anthropologists became involved with implementation of findi ngs/ strategies, not just reporting and documentation. With the defeat of Japan in 1945, the United Nations created the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands (TTPI) in 1947 to administer the islands of Micronesia and other territories of the Western Pacifi c. The TTPI was administered by the United States until 1986 and employed a corps of T rust T erritory anthropologists Anthropologists like G.P. Murdock of Yale helped author handbooks to set the standards for military government in Micronesia. These handb ooks detailed social and economic patterns and problems relevant to the native peoples to help with local administration and policy development (Drucker, 1951) M ore structured applied anthropological approaches emerged during this phase as well including Action Anthropology (Lewin, 1946; Stap p, 2012) and Community Development Anthropology (Manners, 1961) Additionally more direct intervention applied ant hropological studies were executed. The growth of the discipline can be attributed to the expansion of applied areas and academic domains, but it can also be attributed to a surge in federal higher education investment post World War II and to investments by private foundations such as the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations (Brondo & Benne tt, 2012) Part of this growth was also driven by competition with the USSR The first space satellite Sputnik was launched by the USSR in 1957 and the US government acted quickly to catch up by
26 pouring money into education and research. This invest ment included the National Defense Education Act which offered low interest loans for higher education. The Servicemen's Readjustment Act, known as the G.I Bill was passed into law in 1944 and by 1950, enabled 16% of the eligible veterans to enter postse condary education (Brondo & Bennett, 2012) Legislation like the Magnuson Act (1943) required the consideration of social and economic data in considering management policies. This resulted in the formation of new positions such as the Fisheries Anthropologist role in the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Mike Orbach, an anthropologist, was the first NMFS social a nthropologist. Expansion could also be linked to greater funding of anthropological research wi th the creation of the National Science Foundation in 1950 and the expansion of other government funding agencies. Investment also increased from private funding. Finally, basic demographics increased the opportunities for anthropological research The po st WWII Baby Boom lasted from 1946 1964 and when it ended, it drove up overall enrollment in universities including in anthropology programs. Consequently, the field of anthropology exploded in growth. B rees in anthropology grew more than 400 doctoral and over 1000 masters degrees were awarded each year in anthropology (D'Andrade, Hammel, Adkins, & McDaniel, 1975) This time period is also when the divide between academic s and practitioners or rather the divide between theoretical and applied anthropologists started to e xpand
27 This division will have significant consequences on the practice long term and are explored later in this chapter. Extension and Division (197 3 2000) With the expansion of higher education, this period during the 1960s and early strong gro wth in employment for academic anthropologists and this was accompanied by growth in research methods. As Baba (1994 p. 177 ) notes, about 85% of the 1971 1972 cohort of new anthropology Ph.D.s gained employment as faculty members in anthropology. The expa nsion of anthropology departments ended in 1972, but all those departments continued to take in and train graduate students at the same rate or even an increasing rate as the decade before. Just 61% of the 1975 76 cohort and only 43% of the 1985 86 coh ort found employment as faculty creating what Baba (1994) Departments continued to admit graduate students at the same rate despite the so called crisis of overproduction for two reasons. The fi rst is that students continued applying to the graduate programs. The second was that there was no impetus for departments to reduce enrollment T here were large facult ies in place all of whom wanted their own students and a large pool of students. E ven when the issue of overproduction was noticed in the late 70s and early 80s, and the academic employment opportunities plummeted, departments were not incentivized to decrease production because no department head wanted to lose faculty through attritio n which would be the natural outcome of faculty retiring and not being replaced. That said, the so called crisis of overproduction was based on sound economics at the department level. That surplus of Ph.D.s in the mid to late 1970s and limited academic employment openings pushed more anthropologist s back into policy work. The
28 enactment of the Foreign Assistance Act in 1961 created USAID and offered employment to applied anthropologists interested in development. The National Environmental Policy Act (19 70) and the Housing and Community Development Act (1974) expanded those opportunities and provided multiple avenues to apply anthropological knowledge While e mployment opportunities were strong for anthropologist s outside of the academy, those career path s were often scorned by academics (Van Willigen, 2002) In short, the Ph.D.s in anthropology who came out after 1972 were forced to make themselves competitive in the marketplace. They had little choice but to enter the public/private applied and practitioner sector. Their career innovativeness and ent repreneurship in developing careers as anthropologist s outside of the academy was pioneering anthropology branding, selling, and integration. Van Willigen (2002) agree s and suggests that the increase in non academic anthropologists working in new careers changed both the applied anthropol ogy profession and the craft. He notes that at this time new programs focused on non academic careers formed and guidelines were developed by the S f AA and NAPA for applied anthropologists. Publications by non academic anthropologists increased through th e journal Practicing Anthropology (which started in 1978) and in Human Organization. T here was also an increase in local applied anthropology organizations The Washington Association of Professional Anthropologists (WAPA) is an example of these local app lied anthropology associations Organizations like WAPA further supported local applied anthropology through the creation of the biennial Praxis Award in 1981.
29 D uring the 1960s and 1970s during the time of rapid growth in the academy and then rapid growt h in the applied sector there was also extensive fragmentation of the discipline (Fuentes & Wiessner, 2016) followed by a major transformation in the theoretical underpinnings of the discipline challenging the dis methodological foundation about what it meant for anthropologists to represent the people they study and ev en challenging the ability to develop cultural knowledge and understanding itself. In other words, p ostmodernism and the crisis of represe ntation decentered and chapter). Abundance, Convergence and Commercialization (2000 Present) Following the period of strong growth outside the academy (including private, public, and government roles) and with academic employment remaining flat anthropolog y entered a period where the overall production of Ph.D.s had a couple of spikes but then stabilized to about 500/year. From 1970 to 1990 the production of doctorates rem ained stable, but in 1995 that number jumped to 464 and rose to a peak of 699 in 2007. By 2009, the number had dropped to 503 (Brondo & Bennett, 2012) Masters programs, however, drove continued growth of the discipline (Cohen, 2007) During this time, (Nader, 1972) became more widely accepted along with the idea that organizational research and practicing research while benefit in g some organization s, did not benefit others, including consumers work opened up new areas of research for anthropologists studying businesses, governments, and industries as cultural products, processes, and sites of power (Jordan, 2010) Because of these new topic areas, and the ongoing employment
30 of anthropologist s outside of the academy, during this time the gap between academic and applied anthropology began to close but slowly. There starts to be a larger movement and call for the practice of anthropology to help further refine the discipline. To wrap up on the brief history of applied anthropology in the US we can see the maturation of the practice descripti ve ethnography and the attempt to document the indigenous cultures of North America to its movement towards more policy development and intervention projects, to its place today where a variety of engagement s exist in many different sectors. As one looks at applied anthropology over time two distinct patterns emerge: One is an increase in the types of people, cultures, and topics with which applied anthropologists are involved and the second is an increase in methodological approaches to achieve differe nt outcomes. The significant growth in the number of anthropologists, the expansion of research topics, multiplying career paths, and the force of historical legacies, had long lasting, destabilizing consequences for the discipline The challenges starte d to pull anthropology in a multitude of directions which drove conflict and lack of clarity and resulted in a weakening of the discipline. These issues, in turn, damag ed the overall brand of anthropology (see Chapter 3 ). Below I cover the five main des tabilizations. These include: (1) The practitioner academ ic split, (2) perpetuation of the academy, (3) breakdown of theoretical and representation al positions (4) confusion over the purpose s and goals of the discipline and (5) the breakdown of the four field discipline and separations of discipline s and department s The Practitioner Academic Split One of the most that greatly affect s its current and future competitiveness is the distinctio n between the
31 academic and the practitioner. It is worth taking a moment here to define some nomenclature since there are several terms used to describe the ways in which anthropology can be applied. These include, for example, applied, practicing, engag ed, collaborative, action, and business anthropology. For someone new to the applied anthropology space the various labels can be confusing and with good reason, for all these labels do not form a coherent taxonomy. Business anthropology is applied anth ropology, as is practicing anthropology; collaborative anthropology is action anthropology; and so on. This lack of consistent nomenclature makes discussions about how anthropological knowledge can be applied difficult, fragmented, and confusing and this The two most common terms used in discussing the application of anthropological knowledge are applied anthropology and practicing anthropology Both tend to be more problem centered crafts vs. theoretically centere d disciplines. Historically, applied anthropolog ists were mostly f ull time academics who occasionally appl ied their anthropological knowledge in efforts to solve problems of human rights and social injustice and problems involving protection of the environ mental ; to help in the formulation or evaluation of public policy ; to help in the implementation of agricultural, educational, and public health projects; and other advocacy efforts These applied anthropologists were, and are full time academics who take on temporary roles as consultants or project directors for private, public, or government organizations Young (2008) and Baba (1994) offer clear account s of acting in these rol es full time academic and occasional applied anthropologist. In contrast, practicing anthropolog ists are employed as applied anthropologists, often in the corporate or commercial arenas.
32 Practicing anthropolog ists may focus on product development, adver tising, management consultancy, user experience, and similar business oriented applications. T he historical separation of the academic and the practitioner is unusual, even shocking In many other disciplines, like economic s and chemistry for example, pre paration is the same for academic and non academic jobs This separation is doubly was born out of applied work. Finally, considering that more than 60% of anthropologis ts are not in the academy one would think there would be more integration than separation (L. Bennett et al., 2006) This is not the ca se The division was cemented in 1971, with the publication of the American Principles of Professional Responsibility Those principles included a clause that prohibited any research that could not be published openly a rea ction to the collaboration of anthropologists with the military during the Vietnam War the implications were that no anthropologist could be employed in the private sector conducting propri etary research and continue to maintain their standing in the professional association, thus stigmatizing applied anthropology and elevating academic anthropology. Although this may have been what the authors of the Principles of Professional Responsibilit y wanted, in actuality only one case has been brought against an anthropologist Napoleon Chagnon and his work with the Yanomami and this case was overturned by the Association. Today, looking across programs in anthropology, the situation is more comp lex. Some programs actively embrace applied anthropology, at least in the rhetoric of their
33 formal descriptions, while others stigmatize it or are dismissive of applied programs (Wasson, 2002) Brondo and Bennett (2012) argue against endorsem ent of the point out that career opportunities in anthropology are simply complex. Nonetheless the division is apparent and harms the discipline in terms of its competitive potential. So why is the separation so entrenched? There are three reasons: (1) ethical complications, (2) engagement issues, and (3) value judgements Ethical Complications of Applied Anthropology Many academic anthropologist s see irresolvable ethical difficulties with appl ied and practicing anthropology. For example, there is the potential applied anthropologists might betray the confidences of the people with whom they work Some anthropologists may worry that intervention by anthropologists through development efforts is a kind of disruption that may have unintended consequences. Others feel that working with the government or military creates dangerous political association s or results in research that may be biased. A nthropologists may feel that profiting from anthropolo gical work is inappropriate Their concern is that applied anthropology and practicing anthropology do not benefit the people but rather only the organizations and corporations for whom anthropologists work (Baba, 1994) Baba (1994) al so hypothesizes that the ethical battles can be exacerbated by the sold out to powerful employer p. 183 ). Baba (2009) attributes much of the split between practitioner and academic anthropology to misuses of power, authority, representation, and data during colonial and empire building times and during war time conflict research efforts. Van
34 Willigen (2009) judgments in principl e should be applied to specific real behaviors rather than p. 393). Lack of Reciprocal Engagement between Academic and Practitioner The rewards for academic and practitioner work are so different that they make it difficult for the people in the two camps to engage one another. A cademics in research universities are evaluated on their publications and on citations to those publications, while practitioners rarely have incentiv es to publish. From my own experience, p ractitioners do n ot often engage with their counterparts in the academy or in academic organizations because the value of doing so is not c lear and it becomes a time and cost tradeoff. In contrast, s ome academics feel that practitioners are too bounded by their day to day realities to consider theoretical, epistemological, or aspirational pursuits of academic anthropology (Arnould et al., 2012, p. 246) Baba (1994) explained that the academy often expects the flow of information to extend from theory to application By contrast, she describes a stronger possibility for the flow to be from application to theory to complete the discipline devel opment and training loop similar to medicine. So, where there could be reciprocity and greater collaboration, right now the reward systems are not aligned and the b oundary continues. See Chapter 4 re on economic and structural factors that create lack of engagement between practitioner s and academic s Value Judgments on Applied and Practicing Anthropology In addition to ethical and engagement challenges value judgement s also create separation betwe en academi cs and practitioners that limit the fitness of anthropologists
35 Some academics view applied or practicing anthropology as dirty or impure especially anthropological research in corporations or government Based on the 2007 Committee on the Stat Work Climate, Gender, and the Status of Practicing Anthropologists Brondo and Bennett (2012) found that are frequently told by their professors that an academic career is the model of success. Students are then advised into academic lines, with non academic placements eith er treated as a second class or not even acknowledge d Conversely, practitioners may view academic anthropology as slow and out of touch. Baba (2005) traces these hierarchies to a colonial two tie r model of anthropological know le dge production and application t ier one scholarship and theory was seen as two was the leftover applied work given to junior anthropologists who were assigned an applied study The negative view of applie d work is pervasive in anthropology. Brondo and Bennett (2012) found th at the Am erican Anthropological Association does not treat practitioners and academics equally and that the work of practitioners is not taken as seriously as that of academics Similarly Baba (1994) reported that negative experiences wit h mentoring relationships drove a strong division between the their professors had told them they sold out the discipline and that their work was not real anthropology. Brondo and Bennett (2012) take the division between academic s and practiti oners further. T status quo academic position face public ridicule at professional
36 Overall, the perception is that careers in anthropology outside of the academy do not allow for good anthropology (Dornadic, 2014) The historical and current issues separating anthropology practitioner s and academic s does a disservice to the discipline. The division reduce s what academics and practitioners can bring to one another and the discipline; the division creates hierarchies that hinder better knowledge building and collaboration. Brondo and Bennett (2012) say however, that with regard to education, inclusion and presence within the discipline may be changing as relationships between academic institutions, disciplinary associations, and alumni It is too early to tell, but if Brondo and Bennett are right, t his shift may start to close Perpetuating and Protecting t he Academy In addition to purity and integrity of the discipline, there may be two other reasons why academic anthropology remained resolute: (1) academic reproduction and r eplicat ion, and (2) unpreparedness. Academic Reproduction and Replication As more and more Ph.D. graduates in anthropology found nonacademic employment, s ome academics were threatened by the expansion of applied anthropology and how it changed the discipline. Peacock (1997, p. 12) stated t he problem clearly: the sacred texts it generates, forming a canon reproduced in graduate programs through required reading nd to reproduce themselves Sahlins (2009) says that the careerism that started in the 1960s made the
37 self as the principle object of faculty loyalty. He notes that s elf preservation and self progressive tendency [of the discipline] toward segmentation or perhaps better said, (Sahlins, 2009, p. 1013) Crapanzano (2010) asserts that academics are sometimes more concerned with how their direct institutional and discipline colleagues will respond to their research an inward and academic self perpetuation focus rather than with the way it will be received by the academic community at large. In short, academics may be concerned with themselves and defending an intellectual space, but not as conce rned with the careers of their students careers help further their academic standing. It is not surprising that academic anthropologists aim to produce other academic rket is weak P er the discuss ion above, departments were not incentivized to change their approach to graduate student production Also not surprising is that the majority of students entering graduate programs continue to consider the academy a s their nu mber one path career (National Academy of Sciences, 2014) The 2016 American Anthropological ship survey found that 90% of Ph.D. students surveyed were considering a tenure track job as their next career step (Ginsberg, 2016a) Brondo and (2012) examination of the 2008 Center for Innovation and Research in Graduate Education (CIRGE) survey data found that 64% of anth ropology Ph.D.s reported a faculty position as their priority career goal. That same CIRGE survey found that two thirds of the respondents felt their programs
38 did not adequately prepare them for a career in anthropolog y. The disconnect s between faculty, s tudents, the job market, and curriculum are numerous. Anthropology department hiring patterns also show similar academic (1976) work on status exchange in the profession of anthropology found that academics tend to hire other academics (not applied practitioners ) and mainly from more prestigious/elite schools such as Yale, Columbia, Harvard, Chicago, Michigan and Berkeley This drives academic replication and a larger divide between the practitioner and the academic community Unpreparedness and/or Disinterest in Grooming Applied Anthropologists The other reason why academics may avoid teaching applied anthropologists is their un preparedness to train them Educating students on pursuit of a career in applied anthrop ology is different than teaching anthropology scholarship in pursuit of a career in higher education. As Baba (2005) explains : For example, there arose the notion that real anthropologists could only do research outside their home culture and language, and that one must spend at least one year at a field site abroad, if not more. Methodological training was not necessary, as fieldwork was essentially a rite of pas sage, with the criteria of competency being the production of an ethnography whose quality was judged by others who had produced one. Such epistemological assumptions and standards guarded the gates of professional membership and guaranteed an academic monopoly in anthropology for decades. They also served to de legitimize and de value anthropology that focused on contemporary problems within the United States. (p. 210) Nolan (2017) and still prepare their students less well than what they might for the opportunities which await them, whether in the a cademy itself or beyond p. 198) Likewise Baba (2009) says that universities have not always been able to support professional training and that even the most basic training of technical writing, presentation, publishing, and grant writing are rated p oorly.
39 Goldmacher (201 0) found similar results for undergraduate students. In sum, there may requirements. The protecting, reproducing, and replication of the academy led Knauft (2006) to conclude that By training and intellectual inclination, most anthropologists are more successful as critical researchers, analysts, and teachers than as practical interveners and they tend to be skeptical of unintended impacts from large scale interventions, however well intentioned 416). The academic reproduction and focus on the single as a discipline, opportunities for students careers for professionals and ways of serving the public. Theoretical and Representation Breakdowns such as structuralism, functionalism, Marxism, interpretivism, materialism, essentialism, modernism, and other theories (Knauft, 2006) And a nthropology has also always been a field of contra sts such as science versus humanities, subjective versus objective, and quantitative versus qualitative. T heoretical orientations can build upon one another, c hallenge one another, and evolve a discipline towards a stronger understanding of its common purp ose In anthropology, however, theory has been more divisive than unifying when it comes to building explanations for human behavior and advancing the discipline. In reviewing the history of anthropology I mentioned that d uring the 1980s anthropologists anthropologist s study and represent peo ple and cultures. Postmodernism complicated this crisis by challenging what was knowable and not knowable about the human condition, and what the ant that understanding.
40 Both postmodernism and the crisis of representation decreased and challenged ethnography as a method of human understanding, representation, and essentialism. Postmodern ist s felt each individual had a unique ta ke on history and that therefore there was no real history Ev erything was relative (Rubel & Rosman, 1994) The Postmodernism movement had lasting impact on the field in terms of destabilizing who anthropologists are, what they study, and how they d o it as a discipline. It fragmented cultural anthropology in such a way that the discipline was left without an epistemological output became closer to the humanities, literature, and area studies, than that of the soc ial sciences. Srivastava (1999) notes: Some physical anthropologists think that their accomplishments are true to not more than storytellers. The social anthropologist may regard their work as more impo rtant, by claiming that their work begins where science ends. (p. 550) and literary criticism, most anthropologists have preferred to go about their work unencumbered by the (E. Wolf, 1980, p. E9) Thus, cultural anthropology pulled away from more scientific pursuits. Some researchers like Knauft (2006) tried to resolve the theory breakdowns by bridging differences and not battling between positions Knauft called this post paradigmat ic He argued that some of the best research projects were in the post paradigmatic space ; they through mosaics of part theoretical assertion, part subjective evocation, part ethnographic and historical exposition, and part In other words,
41 polarizations get in the way of good scholarship. U nlike Marcus (2008) he does not believe anthropology is in suspension, but rather that is its path forward. T he theoretical and representation breakdowns of the 1980s drove other discussion in the discipline about ethics, about subjectivity and about collaborative research but these discussions did not set a new course for it. Grimshaw and Hart (1994) call ed where anthropologists lost all sense of direction and grounding in their craft. Whitehead and Wesch (2012) felt that p ostmodernism removed the naive possibility of ach ieving total knowledge of others, but the shift did not lead to new post col onial knowledge goals. These changes weakened culture as a concept and ethnography as a method. Th e crisis of representation and p o stmodernism fragment ed anthropological scholarship, four fields, and created confusion about the future As a result, s ome scholars abandoned efforts to create theory. Bennett (1996) fe value cannot be in theory because it engage d in such a variety of topics and issues that each demand ed a different set of concepts. Bennett decided there was just no clear agreed upon way that seemed appropriate for the anthropologist to describe social reality. and Value Fragmentation and, therefore, also reduced its competitiveness. When I say value proposition, I mean rimary purpose and mission for being. What are anthropologists solving? What binds anthropologists together as a distinctive and connected practice?
42 What is the anthropology value add to the world ; in other words, their value proposition, purpose, and mi ssion. A sometimes confusing Its definitions are wide ranging, but some descriptions share similar attributes such as holism, human understan ding, variation, and diversity. For example, Rubel and Rosman (1994) say : The disciplinary goal i s seen as the understanding of the meanings of unique cultural phenomena. We are enjoined to focus on the construction of reality by our informants and on the ways we as analysts construct cultural statements in collaboration with those informants (p. 337 ) Fuentes and Wiessner ( 2016) put it more simply by saying Ingold (2017) ended, comparative, and yet critical idiographic, dedicated to the documentation of empirical particulars, and that anthropology is nomothetic, dedicated to comparative generalizations and the search for law like regularities in the conduct of rom Peacock (1997) contribution is the holistic and comparative insight into human diversity and commonality, which together with such practices as participant observation, gives us Nolan (2017) states : A nthropology helps us understand human variation, while also uncovering the commonalities in universals which bind us. It helps us understand why we are also different, and why, at the same time, we are also similar. Most importantly, perhaps, it gives us insight into how and why we changed. ( p. 6) T here are countless definitions about what anthropology studies and what its purpose is. The lack of shared purpose can be confusing to professionals, students, academics,
43 and the public. This confusion has led some to declare anthropology is in a lost state concerning its true value proposition. Comaroff (2010) put it briefly when he called anthropology an undisciplined discipline, or an indiscipline. E. Wolf (1980) noted that pecialization brought fragmentation, which in turn rai sed a troublesome question: What, these days, constitutes the discipline of a nthropology ? ( p. E9) value p roposition reduced its distinctiveness and competitiveness as a field. ragmentation in terms of topi cs, professions, theories, and techniques had a thinning and weakening effect on the discipline (Hart, 1990; Knauft, 2006) Sahlins (2009) uch disciplinary mitosis, however, i s often self limiting. Dividing and subdividing over time, specialists risk becoming so arcane and inconsequential that they command no general interest in the discipline (p. 1014). The scholarly ties that connect anthropologist s have stretched too widely Srivastava (1999) belie ves anthropology is more of a group of subjects than 547). At the same time Sillitoe (2007) argues something of the opposite view: The current efforts to apply anthropology reflect the wide spread of the discipline, with persons seeking applications in an array of areas, including retailing, banking, government, business, and leisure. These endeavours suggest that anthropology has relevance to almost everything, which ultimately begs the discipline s existence. (p 148) While some feel anthropology subject matter is stretched too thin or is too fragmented other researchers feel that it has nothing left as a common core value proposition period or society. It is everywhere yet no whe (Peacock, 1997, p. 10) Comaroff (2010)
44 argues that anthropologists have no real subject matter of their own anymore; and a well defined empirical terra in is required for a cohesive discipline. Without that well defined empirical terrain anthropology has diffused itself in anything and everything. E. Wolf (1980) wrote that : T his multifarious activity is accompanied by a sense of unease, which feeds on that very proliferation of purposes in ta sk. What was once a secular Church of believers in the primacy of culture has now become a holding company of diverse interests, defined by what the members do Sillitoe (2007) is concerned about the discipline fragmentation and the enormity of the endeavor. He states that: A nthropology is apparently such a broad church that there is a danger the walls are now too far apar t and the roof is falling in. Is it possible to encompass such diverse subject matter, that is, literally to be the study of humankind, or is this too ambitious ? (p. 149) Anthropology is indeed fragmented. Its value promise is wide and diverse. Anthropolo ability to deliver on that value proposition variation also has wide deviation. Some authors try to resolve value proposition breadth by finding middle ground. Chambers (2009) argues that anthropology is not only different and dynami c because anthropologists have constructed it differently, but also because anthropology is experienced in a world that has changed as well. Rubel and Rosman (1994) say that fragments still share a common epistemological base. They detail that in the example, no one questioned the coherence of the field because at that time there was broad agreement on anthropological concepts and their meanings. A nthropologists cannot agree on exact ly what they do or how they do it though a large amount of reflexive writing is done on this very topic. Stocking Jr (2001) argues
45 that the fragmented value proposition is at a tipping point f anthropology have always been problematic more so, one suspects, than those of other social science disciplines or discourses but n ever, however so problematic as The discipline would benefit greatly from having a more unifi ed vision and purpose and making it distinct from other disciplines/professions. The American Anthropological Association tried to accomplish this with their two mission statement s which read: 1. to advance anthropology as the science that studies humankind in all its aspects, through archeological, biological, ethnological, and linguistic research; 2. and to further the professional interests of American anthropologists, including the dissemination of anthropological knowledge and its use to solve human probl ems. Surely, however, not all anthropologists agree with that purpose. It might be worth but what is anthropological in what an individual anthropologist does (Srivastava, 1999) ? Discipline and Department Separati ons the value proposition, and epistemological divisions all had consequences for departmental structures. The idea of four field anthropology where linguistic, cultural, biolog ical, and archeological anthropology are combined as a total discipline is a founding principle of the field. The debate on whether the four field approach is the right approach, however, is just as old especially as the content under the big tent of a nthropology is ever expanding (Fuent es & Wiessner, 2016)
46 sition on science as an approach to human understanding fuels the debate as to whether anthropology departments should be four field departments or separate d into more specialized areas. Biological/physical anthr opologists and some archaeologists and linguistic anthropologists, take a scientific approach to their research, while the majority but not all cultural anthropologists gain inspiration from literary theorists and philosophers (Kuper & Marks, 2011) Johnson (1998) variation among anthropologists. He describe d how, for scientifically oriented anthropologists method meant approaches for collecti ng data w hile for more critically oriented anthropologists method meant approaches to ethnographic writing. Both camps use the term method but even that seemingly innocuous word has a divisive quality within and across subfields. Although the subfiel ds were often combined in American anthropology programs, the relationships among them were distant but functioning. Th is relationship among the subfields deteriorated, however, in the 1980s and early 1990s with the rise of sociobiology and primate etholo gy among anthropologists trained in biological science, and interpretivism and postmodernism among cultural anthropologists. S ociobiologists inspired by the work of E.O. Wilson (1978) focused on evolutionary forces to explain some components of human behavior, wh ile primate ethologists examined behavioral similarities between humans and other primates. Both of these lines of research challe nged ist paradigm inspired by the work of Clifford Geertz The interpretivist, postmoder n and critical anthropology movement s aligned many cultural anthropologists with the humanities
47 making comparisons between peoples problematic and relative rather than measurable and scientific (Kuper & Marks, 2011) The result was that biological and cultural anthropologists went t heir separate ways, sometime even separating into different departments ( as was the case in Harvard, Duke, and Stanford, for example). Other conflicts concerning science drove further divisions in anthropology In 2004 the Society for Anthropological Scie nces (SaSci ) was formed as a separate organization, in response to rejection of panels that had been proposed by members of the American Anthropological Association meeting. SaSci later became a section of the AAA, to continue the focus on and to protect the anthropological sciences since at that time they had no organized voice within the AAA ("History of the Society for Anthropological Sciences," 2017) In 2010, the American Anthropological Association was again involved in more controversy around the word science. The association eliminated the word science from its long range plan all three mentions of it throughout the plan and replaced it anthropology as the science that studies humank (Wade, 2010a, 2010b) Given this change, The New York Time s reported that Frank Marlowe, then president elect of the Evolutionary Anthropology Society stated outnumbered by the new cultural or social anthropologists, many but not all of whom are postmodern, which se (Wade, 2010b, p. A25) After he
48 statement of purpose remained unchanged continuing to reflect anthropology as a science. The conflicts above shaped how some departments became divided. B iological anthropology may move into evolutionary sciences, physiology, or anatomy Linguistic anthropology may move into linguistics. Cultural anthropology may be a stand alon e department (often the case) or move into literary studies, cultural studies, or sociology In some cases, a rchaeology joins cultural anthropology and other times it joins the anthropological sciences when departments divide As with other tensions that affect competitiveness there are two sides to the choice between having a four field anthropology department or splitting a department. I examine both arguments below: (1) the promise of the four field department and (2) the realities of the four field department. The Promise of Four Field Anthropology The promise of four field anthropology has been a main tenet of the field of anthropology since its inception. Srivastava (1999) shows that it was never clear in the beginning how biologi cal and cultural facts could meaningfully combine in a study. Nevertheless, he argues, American a nthropology pushed its conception that How do anthropologists accomplish su ch a broad remit? M ore importantly what are the additional intellectual or applied value provided by a four field approach? The four field value is seen in Most anthropology publications do not referenc e any scholarship from the other subdisciplines. An example of a four field approach comes from He believes that evolutionary theory is an example of bringing cultural and biological evolution together.
49 T he interac tions between nature and culture help drive the application and explanatory strength of a four field anthropology. He argues that anthropologists can no longer train using the splintered tradition of separate subfields because this does a disservice to the delivery of detailed knowledge of the human condition. This position makes the more Kuper and Marks (2011) described the plight of the separat e anthropology s to Unite They feel anthropology is not in as much of a splintering crisis as the media would have the public believe, but they do argue that anthropology must do better. As described above, t heir call for being dropped from the long range plan for the American Anthropological Association in 2010. Kuper and Marks feel the science uproar was just a symptom of a larger issue. The real issue was that the American Anthropological Association committee struggl ed to come up with an all encompassing plan for the discipline to deliver on the four field anthropology promise They mentioned that The real shocker is that anthropologists cannot agree on what the discipline is about. Many, probably most, anthropologi sts have walked away from their traditional mission, which is to build a truly comparat ive science of human variation The Reality of Four Field Anthropology The reality of the four field approach is different than what founders ar ticulated for three reasons: (1) Some anthropologists feel that a true four field anthropology discipline would cover too much information for a single scholar to command. Stocking Jr (1995) reported that as early as 1904 even Franz Boas had doubts about the preservation of four field anthropology. Boas predicted that biological
50 and ling uistic anthropology would split off and cultural anthropology would focus on the customs and beliefs of people. Boas thought that anthrop ology represented too much information and no individual anthropologist could be equally proficient in all of them Raymond Firth (1944) here could be no real borderlines between the branches of anthropology; the enormous body of accumulated anthropological knowledge rendered essential some degree of specialization and p robably no man stated branches call for entirely separate disciplines, and that the ties of social anthropology 2). not surprising, however, considering he was founder of modern British anthropology which has no tradition of unified, four field anthropology. These early positions give a sense of how divisive and how long the debate has been. Universities and colleges that h ave four field programs may house all four fields in one department but the interaction between the different subfields is typically limited mainly in the form of a course requirement. Rubel and Rosman (1994) note that most graduate anthropology programs today, the four field approach either is paid lip service or has disappeared because it is seen as an anachronism, despite the development of new fields such as medical anthropology which clearly cross sub Stocking Jr (1995) the once traditional requirement of significant training in each of the four fields is at best a vestigial character if it has not entirely withered away (p. 962). He feels people
51 are more likely to find limited communication and occasional competition between the subfields And Chambers (2009) takes the position one step f u rther noting that : unique value, and considerably less time exploring their commonalities or the possible interchangeability of their talents. Add a fifth possible subfield, which is applied anthropology, and all hell breaks loose (p. 375). Rather than debating unification or splitting anthr opology departments into various units some scholar s suggest interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary programs represent a more effective path to take. Kuper and Marks (2011) relate to debates about anthropology unification or division, stating that the unstable idea s of makes it difficult to form larger generalizations about human nature They conclude by calling on anthropologists to participate in cross subfield research returning to a truly comparative science of human beings all over the world, and to debating concrete cases and specific hypotheses. T he Americ an Anthropological Association had similar struggles in determining how to unify itself as a discipline focused organization. Batteau and M orais (2015) wrote that the professional culture of anthropology is evolving, facing a choice between maintaining its deep roots in academic institutions and growing in selected industries and institutions and the larger society. This again creates a div ision in the professional association the academies, and the organiza tions (both public and private). As a result of the anti science era of the 1980s and the 201 0 debate over the use of the term science in the range plan, p h ysical / biological anthropologist s and archaeologists left the organization and drifted towards more focused conferences such as those offered by the Society for American Arch a eology and The American Association of Physical Anthropologists Applied anthropologists exited as well. Many
52 of the applied practitioners drifted to the Society for Applied Anthropology ( established in 1941) and its career oriented journal Practicing Anthropology (after 1978) or to EPIC (Ethnographic Praxis in Industry Conference ( established in 200 5 ), or the National Association for Practicing Anthropology (NAPA, established in 1983 ) This drifting away of physical/biological anthropologists archaeologists and applied anthropologists further fragments the discipline and erodes its fitness its a bility to gain public support for research and to place students into jobs. The American unification by creating new inclusive committees such as the Practicing Anthropology Worki ng Group ( PAWG ) and the Committee on Practicing, Applied, and Public Interest Anthropology ( CoPAPIA ) And on another note of unification, according to the Changing Face of Anthropology two thirds of MA graduates still participate in at least one national anthropological organization t he American Anthropological Association being the most common (Fiske, Bennett, En sworth, Redding, & Brondo, 2009) Networking is seen as the largest value add of that organization. Practicing research however, found that AAA is not retaining the membership of non academic anthropologists, therefore fai ling to realize revenue, and failing to meet the discipline s full potential (L. Bennett et al., 2006) add for no n academic anthropologists. Resolving Four Field Anthropology In terms of the current status of departments splits and unification, Shenk (2006) reported that the split departments of Harvard, Duke, and Stanford have been Stanford has recombined. In 2010 the National Research Council published their book Data Based Assessment of Research
53 Doctorate Programs in the United States In it they measure the strength of 80 doctoral degree granting anthropology programs (see a summary here http://www.chronicle.com/article/NRC Rankings Overview /124703 ). Upon examining websites, it appears that 8 of those 80, or 10%, are likely split programs Note that a department s website content may not reveal whether the program is split at the graduate level, undergraduate level, or both. These split departments include the University of California at Davis, University of California at Los Angeles, University of Michigan at A nn Arbor, Princeton University, Duke University, Harvard University, Rice University, and Columbia University ( A Data Based Assessment of Research Doctorate Programs in the United States (with CD) 2011) Shenk (2006) reports that the splits of Harvard, Stanford, and Duke resulted in better funding, hiring, and focus for the different subfields T his ma y be a result of the sizable endowments for these universities as private institutions, however. S he also notes that the unified programs of Emory, University of Florida, and Arizona State University are likewise successful in terms of c reating a cross fi eld knowledge building discipline. S he concludes that each department should go the way that makes the most sense for their needs and current state. This seems like a safe exit from the conflict but neither remove s the friction in the discipline nor pro vides an evidence based recommendation for anthropology departments. The debate concerning four field anthropology reflects one of the field s most unique and lasting characteristics the balance between humanism and science. roeber, remembers his father describing anthropology as the most humanistic of the sciences and the most scientific of the humanities
54 (Kroeber, 2003, p. 144) a description that E. R. Wolf (1964) reiterate d in his overview of the discipline (p. 88). E. Wolf (1980) sees four field as an area to find and explore new areas of discovery and inquiry for anthropology The four field app roach could be a brand/discipline differentiator but anthropologist s need to consider how to better deliver on that differentiation and to see if it is even worth delivering on Srivastava (1999) sees a similar opportunity in the four field approach distinguishing the practice. H e comments that : Anthropologist s should devote themselves to the task of integrating their discipline. Each stream of differentiation must relate to the central themes of anthropology. If you proceed in this manner, a higher differentiation of the discipli ne will inevitably imply a higher degree of integration (p. 546). And Peacock (1997) offers another way to put an end to the de bate and move forward. He suggests anthropologists pivot the conversation entirely and ask the discipline not to be concerned about four fields as much as being force fields for application and intellectual life. Summary and Discussion: The Discipline and Profession o f Anthropology In this chapter, the origins and effect s of applied anthropology. I also detailed the impact of the discipline s growth of Ph.D.s topics, and career paths. This historical account set the foundation for discussions on the divisions and fragmentation. As the practice grew so too did its divisions. The growth of the disciplin e and applied anthropology in particular, and the fallout that ensued contributed to the decline of the competitiveness and fitness. I described the disciplinary divisions in detail by examining the practitioner academic divide I showed how the divide increased over time as a product of ethical
5 5 disagreements, codes excluding applied anthropology, value applied anthropology, and lack of engagement between applied and academic anthropology I demonstrated how the academic practitioner divide progressed into academic s thereby protecting the academy as a sacred anthropology space. A cademic territorialism happened out of habit, careerism, and a lack of preparedness or desire to train applied anthropology students. This led to breakdowns in theoretical and representation al approaches. Postmodernism and the crisis of representation upended theoretical and methodological base anthropology was left with minimal ways to uncover and describe social realities. The resulting confusion magnified then showed how the many definitions of what anthropologist s do, the variations in ho w they do it, and disagreement on what great anthropology is weakens the discipline Finally, I examined how these fractures have caused departments and organizations to disaggregate taking them further The impl ications are clear and there is no doubt that the histo rical context and fragmentation described above presented and continue to present challenges for the field. Some of these debates bettered the discipline. For example, some divided programs report ed more focus, better faculty, and more funding A unified perspective and overall solution would strengthen the discipline and accelerate its movement forward In Chapter 6 strategies will be detailed for moving from the disciplinary and professional fragme nts of today to a more forward moving whole.
56 CHAPTER 3 THE BUSINESS AND BRAND OF ANTHROPOLOGY Understanding t he Brand, Product, a nd Competition In the last chapter I traced historical develop ment and showed its increasing fragmentation T here were patterns of disarray, disagreement, and discord likely had some impact on well from marketing executives, to trainer s in cross cultural c ommunications, from management consultants, and human rights professionals, to environmental consultants. Often the kind of market value work that anthropologist s do concerns : (1) generating knowledge and research to inform others, (2) assessing programs, projects, and interventions as a monitor, including the assessment of marginalized groups or government programs (3) helping marginalized communities and individuals achieve self determination and empowerment, (4) working in product design and developmen t marketing, and consumer intelligence, and (5) working in management or other consultanc ies Brondo (2010) describes some of the applied anthropology work in advocacy orient ed terms showing contributions to improving race relations, helping people cope with displacement, advancing global health, and developing and carrying out fiscal policy. contribution s, both inside and outside the academy are far reaching and varied. This chapter is about four elements of the business of anthropology: A ompetition. In the brand section, I will define bran d personality and relationships. I will describe brand attributes by examining its former brand and its current brand I will also analyze how t hey affect the brand. I move on to
57 define anthropologists themselves and their skills as products, and then analyze one of ethnography More spe cifically, I examine definition, its relation to anthropology at large its quality controls, and its encroaching competitors. T his chapter concludes by assessing return on investment (ROI) and describin g the competitors who are a nd Marketing Defining Brand Personality and Brand Relationships. The concepts of brand personality and brand relationship will help shape th e thinking and analysis that follows. A brand personality is a set of human characteristics that are attributed to a brand name anthropology which are relatable to an end consumer students, faculty, administrators, the public, employers, and any othe r audience that might consume anthropology and its products. An effective brand increases its brand equity by having a consistent set of communicated traits that consumer s value. Blackston (2000) and Zayer (2012) established the concept of brand relationship. Brand relationships comprise a and the consumer. A brand relationship is the extens ion of a br and personality. It is emotive and personified. The brand is a partner to the consumer, and the consumer a partner to the brand. There are two elemen ts in brand relationships: (1) t rust in the brand and (2) c ustomer s atisfaction with the brand. Fournier and Lee (2009) a step f u rther by framing six comp onents of a brand relationship:
58 1. Love and Passion: This is a component of all bra nd relationships. separation anxiety. 2. Self Connection: This concerns how a brand delivers on the brand delivers on them through uniqueness, and even dependence 3. Interdependence: This component is about maintaining frequent and divers e brand interactions. Consumption rituals often help drive the interdependence. 4. Commitment: Commitment covers the loyalty and duration dimens ion of brand relationships. 5. Intimacy: This is the depth of knowledge the consumer has with the brand and vice versa. 6. Brand Partner: of the quality, performance, and health of the relationship. These six attributes form a rubric t o Throughout the analysis I reference how anthropology is delivering, or not delivering, on these attributes. The State o Brand is a powerful too l The largest brands on the planet such as Samsung, The United Nations, Airbnb, and Google carry great influence, have c lear brand attributes, communicate their brand attributes consistently and frequently, and build customer satisfaction Brand is critical for anthropology as it can help attract students, fu nding, public engagement, employers, and, by consequence, great scholarship and applications of anthropology products. Hannerz (2010) argues that anthropologists need to become more c omfortable thinking about brand as public image or identity Hannerz advocates for the critical role
59 of a brand in a time of market oriented education. She argues that anthropology brand should be simple, quickly grasped, clearly understood, and consis tent. Downey (2011) sees disciplinary branding as a serious issue for anthropology. As an administrator Downey sees the impact the broken brand has on attracting undergraduat es, graduate students, and employers departmental budgets and hiring. brand is struggli ng decreases competitiveness in the marketplace. Hannerz (2010) b ashing She mapped out four flavors of anthro bashing: (1) the cold and distant observers, (2) the less capable than the locals dope, (3) exotic faraway travels that waste time and money, and (4) an out of date discipline To illustrate, Florida Governo r Rick Scott publicly bashed anthropology in 2011 saying that he wanted to focus funding on science and technology fields that produced jobs: need them here. I want to spend our dollars giving people science, technology, engineering, and math degrees. types of degrees, so when they get out of school, they can get a job (Lende, 2011) Scott made a value judgment on anthropology about its employment marketplace competitiveness, and bashed its brand by implying that anthropology is not a science lines. confusing array of topics it covers and its fractured value proposition. These two factors make it difficult to identify exactly what anthropology stands for and what it means to others in
60 other words, why should people care? Differing approaches and topics have always Kroeber and Boas debate d the integration of science and history, and th e combination of reductionist and constructivist approache s in anthropology. According to Fuentes and Wiessner (2016) t hey agreed on the complexity and diversity of human societies but never came to a shared view of anthropological methods, explanations, and interpretatio n Al though they debated the how of anthropological methods, explanations, and including Robert Lowie, Alfred Kroeber, Clark Wissler, Edward Sapir, Margaret Mead, Ruth Benedict, and Elsie Clews Parsons considered t hemselves scientists (Bernard & Gravlee, 2014) scientific bent. He accused Boas of being naturwissenschaft lich eingestellt or science minded, of treating ethnology as a branch of natural science and named his confrres Sapir, Kro eber, Mead as examples of the bad things that happen to cultural anthropologists who follow the path of quantifi cation (Bernard & Gravlee, 2014, p. 6) Peacock (1997) uses marketing language to describe brand nthropology is virtually absent in the minds and hearts of students, student leaders, pa 10). In other words, anthropology has poor brand awareness. Part of the solution is simply better communication and advertis ing (more on that below and in Chapter 6 ). For example, Hannerz (2010) proposes a new brand or tagline for anthropology iversity is our business This phrase is appealing and inclusive. With consistent messaging in the right places to the right people, this kind of rebranding brand momentum and equity
61 Another challenge for we, as anthropologists, tend to complicate points and contradict one another. For example, our branding and lang uage around non academic anthropology is complicated and hard for even the most devout, accredited anthropologist to understand S hould one call it practicing, applied, advocacy, community based, practitioner, professional, public, action, engaged, corpora te, or business anthropology? One of the keys to building a strong brand is simple, consistent, and frequent messaging. As a practice, simple and consistent is not continues to be the glorification of the exotic. A the purpose of I n my experienc e, most anthropologists avoid making their work seem overly exotic, even though the media still authenticates this archetype. Anthropologists themselves as well as what (or who) they study sometimes take on a practically otherworldly brand. Whether e xplicitly or implicitly, anthropology sometimes lives in the shadow of the exotic anthropologists. To illustrate, in applied or practicing anthropology : the surpri se effect ." Bringing ethnography into the field of business studies should create new and different kinds of knowledge making the mundane exotic or challenging. When they consider hiring an ethnographer, they want something different than the traditional role of surveys and focus groups (Arnould et al., 2012, p. 264)
62 Here, Arnould is describing ethnography, but in the corpor ate world the terms ethnography and anthropology are often used interchangeability Suchman (2007) describes a similar position on the legacy of exoticism: While the promise of her unique expertise may provide the rationale for the anthro for the media lies in the unlikely juxtaposition of anthropologist as investigator of exotic other, with anthropologist as exotic other in the mundane, familiar halls of the corporate workplace In this regard anthropology becomes a badge one wears almost as if the employer is (p. 6) Guerrn Montero (2008) also sees the danger of this exoticism brand artifact Sh e The social listening analysis in Chapter 5 shows evidence, however, that the assumed connection between exoticism and anthrop ology is absent. There are several forces behind a decentralized brand. First, anthropologists often work on their own and have their own, personal brand of anthropology they are a brand of one. Anthropologists are more defined by what they study and how they study than by anthropology itself (Comaroff, 2010) Anthropologists may identify as a Latin Americanist s arch aeologists, design strategists etc. rather than as anthropologists. Medical anthropology, political anthropology, economic anthropology, environmental anthropology, marine anthropology t he number of staggering and this perpetuates the problem that the practitioners and their niches are all brands of one. In fact : The failure to address [a anthropology to devolv e into a species of area studies as comparative religion, literary studies, political science, geography, sociology all n untroubled program of synthesizing ethnography to undergird it (Whitehead & Wesch, 2012, p. 220)
63 Srivastava (1999) may have said it best: F or many, anthro pology will be what they do In other words, anthropologists do. Another reason for the weakening of and the concomi tant lack of fitness is the porous and interdisciplinary nature. Anthropology has become a discipline without boundaries and with limited connective tissue to keep it together (Sillitoe, 1998) Likewise Srivastava (1999) comments that one of the consequences of th e American approach to anthropology is that it has become more porous and spongy. a respectable place to people from various disciplines he argues, but is Nolan (2017) called this problem the erosion of distinctiveness Comaroff (2010) loss succinctly. He declares that a s signature method, ethnography; root concepts, especia lly culture; its research terrain, namely, comparative societies and in particular, non Western societies; and it s Chambers (2009) ch anthropology works in the world] we lost it some time ago, on any number of fronts both applied and the same for brand. and Communications A significant contributor to a b rand personality formation and equity public, employers, administrators, and the like) hear, how often, and from whom can drive brand understanding and saliency. Earlier in this chapter I described the
64 glorification of A more s identity which will encourage its competitive differentiation Anthropology is missing a brand marketing and communications strategy that is more reflective of its broad value and impact than being simply the study of the exotic Sabloff (2011) wagers that much of the public does not know what anthropology is and would gues s that anthropologists study d inosaurs; or someone might mention individuals such as Indiana Jones, Margaret Mead, or Jane Goodall ; or they may bring up shows like Bones or Timeless where the primary characters are anthropologists. Indeed, these are brand attributes, so anthropology i s not really brandless, but these P ublic engagement with the discipline is limited and also lopsided by favoring archaeology and biological anthropology This is because the pu blic sectors gravitate toward more science based communications as a common framework. L. Bennett and Whiteford (2013) suggest that the best way to enhance the public visibility of anthropology is to publish res earch outside the traditional discipline. Publish with our Partners is one way to achieve increased exposure; moving anthropological research into public affairs journals, sociology journals, as well as political science and public health publications draws attention to the contributions anthropologist s That is, of course, if the author s identify as anthropologists and their writing s as anthropological. Some anthropologists publish with partners, however, because anthr opology journals do not always accept their work as anthropological. This was one of the reasons why Jeffrey C. Johnson founded the Journal of Quantitative
65 Anthropology in 1989. In either case publishing with partners is a way to enhance brand visibility The missing brand communication also extends from limited public central figure s for anthropology. Perhaps the closest central figure for anthropology is the American Anthropological Association (AAA) The AAA c reates unifying values, policies, and rule s for its members This approach has the potential to inform a unified public message, but that unified message and the influence of the 11k+ membership is not far reaching enough the communications lack consisten cy and frequen cy The AAA is excellent a t position papers, press releases, and publications but the reach, simplicity, and visib ility of those efforts are weak despite its attempts even with social media. Recent organizational pushes helped on the publication front especially by engaging th e applied anthropologists in its ranks to get their work into public space s AAA, CoPAPIA (Committee on Practicing, Applied, and Public Interest Anthropology ) SfAA (Society for Applied Anthropology) and EPIC (Ethnographic Praxis in Industry Conference and their website Ethnography Matters) have all issued publication pushes based on their work sessions (L. Bennett & Whiteford, 2013) Part of personality means having central people (not just associati ons) that the public can associate with the brand. Public figures help personify the brand a nd make it more relatable to non anthropologists For example, consumers associate Elon Musk with Tesla, Bill Gates with Microsoft, Steve Jobs with Apple, and Ste ven Hawking with p hysics. Anthropology has had central figures and public intellectuals over time such as Desmond Morris, Thor Heyerdahl, Richard Dawkins, Colin Turnball, Napoleon Chagnon, Claude Levi Strauss, Brian Fagan, Carlos
66 Castaneda, Don Johanson, Margaret Mead, and Jane Goodall. Some anthropologists take issue with popular izing anthropology, but so long as it is not glorifying the exotic or touting bad science popularizing can help the brand. P opular figures shape public perception and engageme nt in way s that benefit A limited marketing narrative for anthropology is dangerous because defining the brand message is left to others. Anthropolog y finds itself partially in this position. Wilner (2014) documents the absence crisis of representation in the popular business media. She traces how media continues to exoticize anthropologist s and anthropologists miss the opportunity to control their own narrative s She suggest s that media communication must focus on the value that anthropological work provides to support the long term health of the field. Anthropologists need to communicate th e real world value of anthropology its impact, results, and contribution to society to p arents, potential students, and university administrators, and de emphasize its value as critique. Sabloff (2011) argues that anthropology has an obligation to public outreach and communication, but points out that there are four factors work ing against that goal: (1) a cademic a nthropology, through its promotion and tenure process, impedes the growth of public anthropology communication by incentivizing publi cation over communication; disdain for popularizers, (3) ethical issues, and (4) anthropologist s inability to make anthropological knowledge simple Sabloff suggests that the public wants short sound bites and clear assertions. Despite these challenges, anthropologists must continue to engage the public and engage them more where possible. The publ ic distinctive value. In fact,
67 s ome anthropologists argue public engagement is part of moral obligation and that public engagement should meet the service requirement found wit hin academic anthropology departments for tenure The AAA has an opportunity here to support anthropologists who are already engaging the public by helping to refine those ov work/discoveries to the proper communications outlets. The AAA can accelerate public engagement. This would be in line with one of its core purposes T o further the professional in terests of American anthropologists, including the dissemination of anthropological knowledge and ("AAA Statement of Purpose," 2017) Strong public engagement and brand marketing means a brand with more equity, competitiveness, and fitness. Products o f An thropology The business of anthropology has products and services as well as brand What do anthropologists create, sell, and contribute? Part of the answer relates back to my discussion of C hapter 1, and part of the a nswer connects to the discussion above regarding where anthropologist s work and what they do. This section adds to product I mean specifically what do anthropologists sell and what are people (studen ts, employers, clients, etc.) consuming/buying knowledge, for example and how do anthropologists deliver? The field operates like a portfolio brand suite where anthropology is the master brand with several different brand/units T hose portfolio brand s/products may be the four sub fields, area studies, or methods.
68 This section examines anthropology the challenges they face, and how Peacock (1997) outlines the reasons that Jack Cornman a former executive director of the American Anth ropological Association felt worked against anthropologists in the marketplace and made the field less competitive These issues included : (1) anthropologists tendency to treat anthropology as a religion (which prevents good collaboration and drives prea ching ) (2) failure to lead and organize, (3) lack of discipline advocacy and unity, (4) disregard for rigor and quality, and (5) incivility. There are 3 distinct areas I cover with regard to product in this research : (1) people, (2) skills, and (3) ROI. General Anthropological Products product and particularly that of cultural anthropolog y as human understanding Human understanding may revolve around any number of topics (locations, peoples, issues/problem, themes) The unde rstanding may be delivered in any number of ways (publications, press, videos, reports, white papers, etc. ) and perspective, analyze process, context, formation, and structure, and/or attempt to explain human h appenings. The basic principle is that anthropologists create insight s concerning the human condition Some anthropologists feel that one of the most important ways that a nthropologist s are sciences based (Madsbjerg & Rasmussen, 2014) Although it sounds simple, there is a business need for help navigating the complexities surrounding people, systems, dat a, and ideas to create a meaningful path to move forward for a business strategy, product, or brand. Anthropologist s are well suited to find connections and opportunities in complicated data. In fact, Madsbjerg and
69 Rasmussen believe in sensemaking so much they built a business focused on it R e D A ssociates thriving anthropological product is anthropology driven creativity The idea of selling creativity and idea generation via the discipline was f irst brought forward by Ott (1979) The idea is that fieldwork serves as a pr ocess to discover things and to encourage creative thinking This range of product has allowed for multiple anthropologies to form. This is why there is an anthropology of everything anthropology of friendships, anthro pology of war, anthropology of food, and the list goes on and on. Johnsrud (2001) mentions that anthropologists need a strong market niche outside of the academy if anthropology is to be recognized for its potential to have a positive and sustain ed impact on local, national, and global pro blems Similar to brand and value proposition creates niche anthropologies but not the scale and cohesiveness of an anthropological product. J. Bennett (1996) directly critiques the general product of applied anthropology by citing five key issues: (1) applied anthropology has no theory of its own, (2) it lacks power to affect change or influence policy, (3) it has a high failure rate of c onceived programs and projects, (4) it has poorly developed methods and training (more on that later), and (5) the ethics of intervention are questionable. product is further weakened because the end consumer cannot tell what a good anthropo logical product is or is not especially when anthropologists themselves cannot agree about what anthropologists are doing or how they are doing it. Anthropologists know the components of good work, and can critique elements that are
70 not anthropologicall y sound. Dornadic (2014) theory and methodology to look at the world in different ways, to compare perspectives, p. 201). He builds on that position by asserting that good anthropo etics and knowing history in order to understand the present and imagine the future. It enough? Does th is definition provide proper criteria for assessing the quality and worth of the anthropological product? Due to the variation in the overall product lowers fitne ss. In other disciplines great scholarship and product are clearer in terms of strong research design, methods, impact, and conclusions. The resulting data in these disciplines and literary turn, however, it is difficult to assess the quality and worth of the product therefore the consumer also does not know how to engage, buy, or value it. This is even truer with the quality of ethnography as a specific product. I look at that in the section devoted to ethnography which is perhaps the most controversial anthropological product. Anthropology Practitioners as Product Anthropologists are largely the instrument of their craft. As interviewers, researchers, analysts, ethnographers, presenters, and writers anthropologist s are not but they are al product. Professors are mentors and coaches to their students, and students are products of a professor s training/teaching Employers may buy technology and
71 physical items to help them achieve their business goals, but th ey also seek to buy anthropologists/ethnographers to provide a service that originates with the person. The anthropologists and their thinking are part of t he delivery/output and therefore represent a product in and of themselves That said, anthropologists as products have their own In thinking about anthropologists as products I recognize that there is again wide variati on regarding how academic s and practitioners participate in their respective markets. Engagement style, delivery, and performance all have variation. There are some generalizati ons, however, that can be made about anthropologists that are worth consideri competitiveness. Practitioners as products carry a variety of characteristics. They can be imaginative, good connectors, detail oriented and comprehensive, but at the same time have some product challenges to overcome. Fro m a personality standpoint, the idea of the Professional Stranger (Agar, 2008) p ersists and anthropologist s can be seen as cold, detached, and sterile (Hannerz, 2010) In terms of teamwork, M. Wolf (2002) notes that anthropologists historically have worked alone, but with the rise of large and changing research teams and with a focus on problem oriented anthropology, collaboration is required meaning that anthropologists ca n n ot operate wherever or whenever they wish, particularly without local input The solo product is not sustainable but Srivastava (1999) found that [the anthropologist] unless he stands on the steady feet
72 of his discipline, is committed to intellectual osmosis, and constant ly reminds himself of A unique issue with anthropologist s as products, and practitioners as a n is the fluidity of self identification with the discipline. For example, in the Changing Face of Anthropology Study of masters level students sponsored by the American Anthropological Association s Committee on Pra cticing, Applied, and Public Interest Anthropology (CoPAPIA) only 42% of respondents strong ly identif ied as anthropologists (Fiske et al., 2009) professional recognition and support from within their parent discipline and isolated in many cases from their colleagues, these [applied] practitioners no longer self identify as (Nolan, 2017, p. 196) Depending on the context, anthropologist s may identify first with their role rather than wi th their profession. For example, they may identify as a consultant, strategist, designer, ethnographer, or client (Dornadic, 2014) Anthropologists identification as something other than anthropologist may come from four potential places: (1) wanting to avoid an exotic past, (2) not wanting to explain what anthropology is, (3) some kind of shame, or (4) the idea that it is more advantageous and clear to identify as what you do versus your p rofession/training. Nolan (2017) notes that practitioners are especially less likely to identify with the parent brand of anthropology and they struggle to remain engaged (wheth er it be because of time, interest, benefit, or costs). More so, however, Nolan (2017) says, I t is be cause of the persistent tendency of the academy to favor contributions from its own members, to Nolan adds that:
73 there is still a certain privileging of knowledge produc tion through research rather through knowledge application through practice The words applied and practice still appear, all too often, in scare quotes, as part of the overall process of othering and marginalization (p. 194). In other words, why identif y as an anthropologist if your parents disown you ? J ust change your name instead. The inconsistent self identification as anthropologist, and the inconsistency in ways of working as an anthropological practitioner adversely affects the discipline s comp etitiveness and visibility. Ideally anthropologists would wear anthropology as a badge of honor, rather than leverage it when needed. This is not to advocate for self promotion, but rather pride in the discipline I dentification as an anthropologist mig ht help break down the perception of the practitioner as a lone wolf who is cold and out of touch. Skills as Products The a are also products What are the skills anthropologists sell? What are consumers buying? It is safe to say that some of an thinking, analysis, and writing, though some survey data from Brondo and Bennett (2012) show that departments are not doing a good job in terms of even those most basic skills. Ethnography is an and I devote an e ntire section to that topic. Beyond those thinking writing, and presenting skills, however, anthropology seems to lack technical skills as products. Without clear, shared, and value d technical and methodological skills cultural anthropologists especial ly are at a disadvantage in the marketplace. Baba (2014) notes that anthropology has a sink or swim approach you go to the field and you figure it all
74 out as you go that does not nurture proper technical skills. Marcus (2008) agrees and says that the training of anthropologist s is oddly open and nurturing, allowing students to do almost anything they want while be ing ri gid in some aspects such as the fieldwork requirement. This approach does not lead to a standard technical product It leads to individual brands of anthropologist s and anthropological product s Nolan (2017) begins his book graduates are poorly equipped to engage in practicing anthropology or app lied anthropology and succeed. He points out that the technical skills anthropologists do have are : Anthropologists claim to be interested in the totality of human experience, past and present, making it difficult to carve out a proprietary niche of our own. And although clients are certainly willing to pay for the work of anthropologist s that be done by no n anthropologists. (p. 197). The training of technical skills for anthropologists is not just poor. In many cases it is missing completely. Lack of consensus on what skills a cu ltural anthropologist needs increases the difficulty of de veloping proper technical skill training That consensus may not come at a discipline level, but may have to be establi shed at the department level based on a focus. Baba (1994) agrees and asks: What is it within our discipline that future practitioners must know in order to represent our discipline responsibly and ethically, and contribute to its future growth and development? Further, what must future generations of anthropology faculty know in order to prepare future generations of practitioners? Should courses and ethics be required? What about requirements and methodology, or the applicati on of anthropological knowledge. (p. 180) The lack of consensus should not, however, prevent us from making inc remental steps towards gaining skill products. A s early as 1944, Raymond Firth called for greater
75 training and depth in methods (Firth, 1944) needed; more planned research, more coopera tive research, and more quantitative research. By planned research I mean here especially the study from the outset of problems rather than of people p. 21). Firth also pushe d for more quantitative research so that the broad generalizations mad e by anthropologist s might be more systematically tested Suchman (2013) points out that anthropologist s need to have the skills to translate their fin dings into commercially or academically impactful relevant terms P rofessional soft skills she said, such as networking, collaboration, design, problem sol ving, client engagement, and the ability to communicat e with many audiences are all needed and not t aught. The trainin g of technical skill products is improving, but the discipline needs to push harder to stay competitive in the marketplace. For example, the University of (supported by the National Science Found ation ) helps provide training for a variety of skill p roducts. Anthropology programs need dedicated skills/methods courses that are relevant to s, data, and tools. Otherwise anthropology runs the risk of anthropologists (or potential anthro pologists) turning to other programs to gain fundamental anthropological skills such as interviewing, participant observation, and text analysis need ed to be competitive in marketplace (see (Bernard, 2011) Students should gain those critical skills and methods in their anthropology department where the expertise can be specifically groomed and applied for anthropolo gy. E nhanced technical skills do not just aid the careers of applied/practicing anthropologist s but the craft and scholarship of the academic anthropologist also
76 improves Peluso (2017) outputs, skills, and deliverables is no longer just a topic for practicing anthropologists, but an opportu nity for the whole discipline to consider. Institutions and funding councils/foundations require stronger research plans with clearer metrics for successful implementation and completion of a project/inquiry. E veryone wins with more technical skills and products. If not, Baba suggests: we should consider the possibility that business clients may be willing to forgo anthropological analysis and link directly to the consumer for understanding because anthropologists have not yet done all that we could to enhance and explain our discipline based and interdisciplinary expertise as means to analyze and interpret the world (Baba, 2014, p. 6) Ethnography as Anthropological Product O ne of the most prominent and also most controversial products of anthropology is ethnography. The ethnogr aphy brand is strong it had brand resurgence starting in that it can overshadow anthropology brand or is con fused with anthropology itself. Ethnography has a strong historical relationship with anthropology from some of the original salvage ethnographies to corporate ethnographies Anth ropology is tied to ethnography or, as some would say, obsessed with it. Jebens and Kohl (2011) go so far as to say anthropologist s discipline. Ethnography ser ves as a product rallying point because it is a thing a tangible output or process. Ethnography is something anthropologists can point to and say, do that Consumers can see engage, and feel it ethnography can make sense to them. In a discipline with such a range of topics and approaches, ethnography tends to languages In 2005 EPIC (Ethnographic Praxis in
77 Industry Conference) formed on the ba and brand cachet EPIC created a space for the ethnographic product to flourish and a space where social scientist s designers, and technologists could engage it As Mack and Squires (2011) put it, EPIC was EPIC was not the first group to rally around the strength of ethnography and participant observation as a product, however. Anthropologists such as Harry Wolcott, John Ogbu, and George and Louise Spindler did pioneering ethnographic research in the classroom. Ethnography in the cla ssroom was taken up by scholars in education around the same time the Ph.D. program in Ethnography, and participant observation, was never owned by anthropologists but the met hods have always been strongly connected with the discipline of anthropology. Bernard and Gravlee (2014) sociologists did surveys, it was never true that only anthropologists did participant cipant observation diffused into other disciplines over time see the title analysis in Chapter 5 (Bernard & Gravlee, 2014, p. 4) Despite the diffusion into other disciplines anthropology re tains a strong relationship with ethnography. Ethnography and fieldwork serve as perhaps s How do anthropologists define ethnography ? Is the view and delivery of it similar enough to serv e as a standard anthropological product?
78 There is little agreement between anthropologist s as to what ethnography is, and less agreement (or instruction) on how to d o it Many anthropologist discuss the problems in defining ethnography or participant obser vation (Agar, 2008; Arnould & Wallendorf, 1994; Fetterman, 2010; Hammersley & Atkinson, 2007; Moeran, 2005; Musante, 2014; Salvador, Bell, & Anderson, 1999; Van Maanen, 2011; Wolcott, 1999, 2005) Some argue ethnog raphy is an output, while others argue ethnography is a There is even confusion in the language anthropologis ts use to describe ethnography or brand it differently to tr y to draw attention to subtle differences. F or example, fieldwork, participant observation, and even qualitative research are used as synonyms for ethnographic work There are some scholars who distinguish these terms. For example, Ingold (2017) feels that participant observation is more educational, not ethnographic. T o the end consumers, however, these slight variations likel y confuse the m and the product thereby weaken s the brand. Baba (2014) describes ethnography as both a product and a process Wolcott (1999) considers ethnogra phy is a lens by which to translate the world not just collect information. Emerson, Fretz, and Shaw (2011) assert to get close to those studied as way of understanding what their activities and experiences mean to them (p. 12) Bernard (2011) defines participant rveys, or archival research. It narratives or numbers. It has been used for generations by positivist and interpretivists
79 are the instrume nt of ethnography. Bernard (2011) describes this role well: Participant observation involves immersing yourself i n a culture and learning to remove yourself every day from that immersion so you can fieldworkers into ins truments of data collect ion and data analysis. (p. 259) Some anthropologists take an approach of just hanging out and storytelling while others take an approach of doing open ended, semi structured interviews, with full transcription and coding and check ing for intercoder reliability to develop grounded, reliable insights. In either case, Bernard (2011) emphasizes an important point: The implication is that better fieldworkers are better data collectors and better data analyzers. And the implication of that is that participant observation is not an attitude or an epistemological commitment or a way craft. As with all crafts, becoming a skilled artisan at participant observ ation takes practice. (p. 258) V ariation in ethnographic approaches means ethnographic outputs have variation and consumers do not always know what to expect from the product. Neith er the anthropologist nor t he product are interchangeable. It is difficult for consumers to know what good ethnography is or is not there is little consensus on quality ethnography. Hammersley (2017) believes that ethnography lacks rigor He points to th supposed unclear terms such as long term and naturally occurring as problematic Ingold (2014) says that : growing inability to explain what we really mean by ethnography is an increasing source of emba Thus, scholars hold several definitions and approaches to ethnography, fieldwork, and participant observation, all of which create variation s in the marketplace. Another challenge with the ethnograph ic product is that it has lost some of its marketplace reputation. From the late 1980s to early 2000 s ethnography was a popular
80 new method in business for gaining competitive advantage for physical goods. The approach became more integrated over time and did not lose st rength, but lost luster. With the advent of the I nternet, user research and design anthropology helped reinvigorate ethnography and put it in the spotlight again The Yahoo! Group https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/anthrodesign/info and here https://anthrodesign.com/ pe ople interested in anthropology and design. Anthrodesigners practice applied anthropology or ethnographic techniques in the corporate and public sectors to solve industrial, software, an d other types of product design challenges. In November of 2017, this group had 2,943 members. In my experience, however, ethnography and anthropology are less in vogue again even in the HCI (Human Computer Interface) space and practitioners express concern over the future of ethnography in market research (EPIC 2009) Marcus (2008) sums up the challenge of ethnography He says that ethnography itse lf is not the problem product ; the problem is anthropologists and anthropology: Ethnography is a valuable contribution, but does it justify a discipline? I would say only if anthropologists distinctively and collectively process these materials and report s that they accumulate. And this is precisely what they do not do, because the strength of anthropology, as I argued before, is centrifugally in its interdisciplinary involvements rather than in any distinctive discourse among anthropologists themselves ab out what they are doing. The center is fragmented and, while not empty literally, is indeed empty of coherent ideas about what anthropological research is, does, and means in the contemporary world (p. 4 ). Although this point may be distressing, it does po fitness is not determined by its products (or by ethnography) alone, but by the combination of its skills, products, brands, and practitioners.
81 Ethnography and anthropology are not s ynonyms There is a long lasting debate concerning the role of ethnography in anthropology and vice versa. In marketing the confusion between ethnographic methods and the larger field of anthropology is legion (Baba, 2014; Ingold, 2008) Indeed, even within this study I caught myself using the words ethnography and anthropology interchangeably as a result of my readings and experience E thnography I thought, was someth ing tangible that anthropologists could own and sell; it had product traction and cachet and gained momentum in the acad emic and commercial marketplace anthropology and ethnography became interchangeable. Regardless of the perception, however, anthropo logy is not ethnography, and ethnography is not anthropology. The confounding of the words does a disservice to the business of anthropology and its competitiveness. Ingold (2014) conf A nthropology being anchored to ethnography limits the breadth of potential anthropological product impact. Anthropologists have been pigeonholed in the marketplace as ethnographers, wh ich is why job seekers see ads for ethnographers more than for anthropologist s. E thnography is a tangible, known contribution whereas anthropology is not. Ingold (2008, 2014, 2017) makes clear that e thnography is not the end al l be all of anthropology and that the confounding of the two prevents the discipline from having the kind of impact the world needs. Baba (2014) comments that s should worry about whether the anthropological brand is becoming obsolete, and all anthropologists should take more seriously the elision of anthropology from ethnographically branded consumer research firms (p. 56).
82 Ingold (2017) further points out that the over f ocus on ethnography is holding anthropology hostage while other fields accelerate forward. As the researcher explains: T his collapse of anthropology into ethnography has deflected the discipline from its proper purpose, it has hamstrung anthropological eff orts to continue to debate on the great questions of our time, and compromised its role with the academy ( p. 21). I agree with Ingold and have seen this same issue in the practicing space E thnography has taken market share away from a larger anthropolo gical product and from potential career path s Anthropolog ists need to market themselves and contribute to the academic and applied marketplace more broadly to shed the ethnographic handcuffs hropology within the coming university if we make a clean break, once and for all, with the reduction of (Ingold, 2017, p. 25) Quality control and ethnography Further affect ing ethnography as a product is the lack of quality control around it as a product and skill. In my direct experience, I have contracte d many research firms and contractors for ethnographic, or ethnographic like, research. I have observed that the v ariation in research delivery and market demands for faster and cheaper ethnography have in some cases compromised the quality Ethnographic q uality can be difficult to determine since there are few shared best practices, but there have been significant changes in terms of what ethnography is and how it is done it remains to be tested, but a compromised ethnography product could adversely aff ect the business of anthropology. The quality of ethnography has been compromised in four ways. (1) First, in an effort to save time and money to increase margin and revenue, research firms,
83 agencies, and consultancies have tried to standardize ethnograph y in such a way that it l imits the open nature of the approach but accelerates the timeline. (2) S econd, raphy to differentiate it as a product This rebranding increases brand confusion for both eth nography and anthropology in the marketplace. Terms such as cellnography, photo ethnography, digilife, and ethnotracing are examples of this brand diffusion and confusion. (3) Third, businesses began to challenge ethnography more frequently nography can come across as flaky and lacking rigor as they are often unable to discern any (Sillitoe, 2007, p. 155) T his is why practitioners continue to spend so much time educating clients and consumers on what to expect from fluence his or her Sillitoe, 2007, p. 155). This view regarding its subjectivity puts ethnography into a place of building inspiration empathy, idea s and creativity vs. understanding or insight about the causes or consequences of observed beh aviors This problem is truth and falsity as about whether their (Baba, 2014, p. 56) (4) Fourth, ethnography is diluted through its commodification and democrati zation (Lombardi, 2009) Some ethnographic suppliers have taken to arch er time but may compromise data quality Malefyt (2009) call s these technomethodologies Technomethodologies and other techno pseudo ethnographic methods ( such as sensors, life trackers, the quantified self, etc.) Malefyt says, have increased competiti ve
84 pressures to produce faster and cheaper methods for creating and mining big d ata Technomethodologies easily gather data and provide another input into ethnographic inquiry, but little work has been done in terms of how they affect the end result of the ethnography. The real issue with ethnographic technomethodologies is that they place the value (read : cost savings) on data collection while neglecting anthropological ly interesting questions, comparative analysis, contextual grounding, and longitudinal framing of the answer (Lombardi, 2009) Commodification, democratization and dilution of ethnography is rampant These days, it seems that anyone can be an ethnographer. Lack of certific ation, quality standards, and approach differentiation in market research ethnographic approaches weakened the craft and, I argue, anthropology The decoupling of anthropology from ethnography has quickened decreased quality (Baba, 1994, 2005, 2014) Baba (2009) anthropologized f any craft knowledge, and commoditized within the broader spaces of market research, consulting, and technical professionals. Wasson (2002) argues that business clients rarely appreciate the value of anthropology or ethnography and see it as a complement ary way that could be added to efforts already underway by clients. In this regard, and from the overall deskilling of the ethnographic method, she suggests ethnography has become a shell of what it once was. Certification and the ethnographic p roduct The focus on ethnography as a core product, its variation in execution, delivery, and quality, have driven some researchers (both anthropologists and non anthropologist ethnographers) to call for a certification / professional license to be an ethnographer.
85 Batteau and Morais (2015) argue that lack of licensing standards for anthropology or ethnographers means that the proliferation of pseudo ethnographers and pseud anthropologists will continue. When Batteau and Morais undertook the exercise of trying to develop standards, however, they were humbled by the complexity of a potential licensure program (Ensworth, 2012) They came to understand that s tandard licensing takes years of discuss ion and negotiation. Similarly, L. Bennett et al. (2006) argued that certification or the creation of standards o f performance would be worthwhile, but again, felt that the topical coverage of anthropology was simply too broad to accomplish that goal. W ith certification the hope is to increase the typic al requirements to be an ethnographer and to move the standard beyond ethnographer because I say I am Ensworth (2012) made a calling fo Certification She argued that a professional certification was an important demarcation of quality and standardization of a core product for applied ethnographers. Her certification program outlined fo u r component s : (1) shared ethnographic standards and procedures, (2) an actual certification, (3) an ethnographic knowledge building program, and (4) a financing plan for the certification and a membership program. She sees Ethnographic Praxis Professional Certificati on as a way to recruit more people into an ethnographic approach and training ethnographers in a standard approach and skills Ensworth acknowledges that the academy often leaves students without the proper training leaving them at a disadvantage compare d to students in design and engineering schools who may receive training that is more competitive for jobs in practicing anthropology But she also argues that certifications do not simply look better
86 on a r sum ; they will create stronger connections to t he local communities/universities, and strengthen the overall, popular, brand of ethnography. Ensworth (2012) as with others, also acknowledges th ere are several challenges to driving this kind of certification program including developing a business model for it, the boundaries of the ethnographic craft, the actual certification exam tool, and the acceptance of certification criteria. Nonetheless the idea of certification or requirements is gaining currency I f anthropologists cannot achieve it at a discipline level then I think it is worth consider ing whether departments can add certification at the institutional level. The ROI o n Anthropologi cal Product a nd Brand The return on investment (ROI) on anthropological product s and brand for its consumers is critical to maintain competitiveness in both the commercial marketplace and the academy. One of consumer sets is higher educatio n which includes faculty, students, and administrators while another set of consumers is the public (I cover both of these groups in Chapter 4 ied and practicing anthropology specifically, the consumers I am speaking about are employers who contract with anthropologists for social science work (whatever shape that may take). These employers ask questions such as D W and A n anthrop ologist is three times as expensive as [ insert person, company, practice, method] W additional value I gain from an anthropologist value is critical to long lasting employment and marketplace competitiveness for anthropo logy.
87 Many people argue that anthropologist s add and drive value, but the value is not always clear or visible Often the value anthropology provides is indirect meaning the output Then that final output gets the value / credit. For example, a UX (user experience) researcher with credentials in and identify as an anthropologist may be critical to the formation of an idea for a new e commerce platform and for the refinement and execution of that platform If the platform becomes popular and produces significant revenue t he designer who delivers the final product is likely to get credit for the revenue growth indirect value would be both hard to meas ure and hard to make tangible in terms of ROI. Sometimes simply unclear further making the ROI argument difficult. For example, how can a trained anthropologist argue that anthropology based ethnography is better than t hat done by a non anthropology trained ethnographer? Can the anthropology trained ethnographer say something to the effect The answer is no, and this is unfortunate because these a re the kinds of arguments that win in the marketplace T his is why selling technomethodolgies is so compelling it saves concrete dollars on the data collection part of the process but skimp s on the analysis and delivery of insights In my experience, m an y clients will argue for good enough over perfection and so technomethodologies win over robust ethnography. The ROI question is vexing. In commerce, a nthropologists need to quantify their work to employers. Q uantification whether in terms of time, mo ney, interviews, insights, ideas, or another metric makes the work tangible and the market demands
88 in concrete and foreseeable terms (Peluso, 2017, p. 18) Baba (2014) notes that public support for a discipline is based on the perceived benefit (or engagement) the discipline bring s to so ciety the greater the benefit the greater the support. That said, for the public and for the ROI argument must be about never about its process or critiques. opology wins the ROI game. a nd Competitive Landscape New and old competitors have entered into spaces that were once traditionally occupied mainly by anthropologists. The confusion concerning contribution, the fragmentation of its value proposition, the decentralization and create space for others to take market share from the discipline The delay by anthropologists to en gage in certain topics and with participatory methods has created space for competitors to take over domains of expertise that were historically core (Sillitoe, 2007) Kuper and Marks (2011) lament the introduction of subject areas in their piece Anthropologists Unite!: Only a handful still try to understand the origins and possible connections between biological, social and cultural forms, or to debate the relative significance of history and microevolution in specific, well documented instances. This is a great pity, and not only because the silence of the anthropologists has left the field to blockbusting books by amateurs that are long on sp eculation and short on reliable information. Anthropologists hardly bother any longer to take issue with even the most outlandish generalizations about human nature. Not their business. (p. 167) I used the term market share intentionally. In Chapter 4 I e xplore the market forces driving higher education. One of the most critical market forces is employability
89 of a profession, training, and/or degree. Losing market share for anthropology means losing its potential employability which is tantamount to lo sing competitiveness. Kedia (2008) notes: In the contemporary, information driven government and corporate world, job classification requirements are being broadened beyond a specific n on academic work will entail not only collaboration, but also competition for jobs from other anthropologists and those with whom they often work, such as sociologists, psychologists, statisticians, market researchers, and even computer professionals The boundaries between the type of knowledge produced by anthropologists and those in other areas are pts and methodologies in others. (p. 17) Other compe titors are creeping in as well pr ofessionals who claim to have a t the skills to make technology a collaborator. T hese relationships can be complicated because they are collaborator and competitor, or friend and enemy at the same time. T hese new and renewe d forms of competition lower even further competitiveness in the nonacademic marketplace. I examine each of these in turn. Other Professionals as Competitors of Anthropology The entrance of pseudo anthropologists and pseudo ethnographers is part of the new competition. These are professionals who claim identity as anthropolog ists or who do anthropology like work without anthropological t raining. The question becomes: W hat constitutes an thropology qualifications outside of a degree? S ome would argue the work of a good journalist is just as good if not better than that of anthropologists. Sociologists have been doing ethnography since the 1880s and much of the methodological writing about ethnography is by sociologists (Bernard & Gravl ee, 2014) Sherry Turkle, a well known author, has done exemplary work regarding
90 communications, digital media, and culture but does not have a background in anthropology but rather sociology. E ven Bill Gates is reported to be an anthropologist now (Brown, 2005) There are entire industries being formed that compete with anthropologists as well. Suchman (2013) identified three new entrants into the historically anthropological space: (1) the rise of what have come to be called culture industries (2) most basic goods and services can be conceived of as cultural connected with lifestyle s and experiences organizational culture This broadening opens up the competitive space to anyone who may produce goods, services, or knowledge in these areas. Another form of competition comes from within the discipline. Aside from competition across the subfields of anthropology for students, consultancies, grants and other resources, and besides the practitioner academic divide Wasson (2014) points to an increasing practitioner practitioner divide as anthropologist s who are developing or publishing on business anthropology are not engaging with the existing community of business anthropologist s In conceptualizing a new form of anthropology, they ignored the existence of applied anthropology, whose practitioners had been engaging with matters of public concern for years. Srivastava (1999) argues that a discipline should not become so myopic that it becomes incestuous, sterile, and uncreative. At the same time, he says L et [ant (p. 546). He goes on to say:
91 W e already know of health scientists, historians, exper ts in foreign affairs, journalists, filmmakers and many others, who not only call themselves anthropologists, but compete with hard core anthropologists for scarce funds for research, to tenurial positions, chairs of com mittees, awards, etc. (p. 546) That said, as anthropologists we need to show our additional anthropological value add within this new competitive set to out compete the pseudo anthropologists. Interdisciplinary, Transdisciplinary, and Multidisciplinary as Competitors and Collaborators Many anthropologists engage in interdisciplinary, transdisciplinary, and multidisciplinary efforts. Often these area studies are centered on specific fields such or topic studies, Sahlins (2009) says institutional spaces between them with a clutter of centers, institutes, committees, and programs poses a greater risk to anthropology because it essentially creates competing pseudo di promiscuous which helps their effort to be a brand of one but again decenters the overall discipline. J. Bennett (1996) felt that the multidis ciplinary approach causes some intellectual drifting and therefore increases potential attrition from anthropology. I n addition to potentially converting anthropo logists into other professionals other fields run with anthropological concepts more effectiv ely sometimes outcompeting us with our own content. Peacock (1997) says that : Within the academy we are fighting against fields such as law, policy studies, and educa tion, which contest ou r claim on internationalism, di versity, and cultural analysis, often beating us in the game of applicability with the repackaging of our ideas into user friendly parcels ( p. 10).
92 A nthropolog ist s are sometime hired to work in service of another discipline or as contextualizer s or to offer some other added value as when, for example, they are paired with professionals fr om a more dominant (or pragmatic) discipline to provide cross cultural understanding or a global lens. This shows up today as students choose to major in business and minor in anthropology in order to create an international business story. This form of competition is stealthy It elevates the number of minors and creates enrollment in anthropology program s but it does not translate into departmental performance metrics as much as an increase in majors does. Arnould et al. (2012) offers a specific example of this concept with regards to business anthropology. He stepchild of management, marketing, finance or accountancy, or simply reduced to a method of Sill itoe (2007) argues, however, that this kind of academic partnering is one of the best ways anthropology can survive through coupling anthropological knowledge with some other field such as agriculture, engineering or economics. field sometimes the competition becomes more of a game of one upmanship. In this scenario anthropology is the primary focus but then the anthropologist minors or double majors in a separate field to close training and technical gaps I call this anthropology p lus. The challenge with anthropology plus is that it becomes more work for the student (and possibly adds costs) and still pulls the students away from the discipline. If our graduates increasingly must seek training that point s them in other directions, and if they are assuming professional positions in
93 which disciplinary boundaries are blurred, then we are at risk of having future practitioners who may not have been sufficiently enculturated lose their identity as anthropo logists and drift away from our discipline (Baba, 1994, p. 180) This again, makes the discipline less competitive and visible in the marketplace. nthropology p : Is anthropology not enough in and of T he answer to that question is, no, not without marketable skills and direct career paths. This means anthropology needs to create a curriculum and training programs that create competitive scholarship and careers. Summary a nd Discussion: The Business a nd Brand o f Anthropology competitiveness by exami ning anthropology as a business. The anthropology of business has three components : brand, products, and competition. T he early historical divisions of academic vs. practitioner, along with theoretical splits and divisions within the discipline have made anthropology products problematic and opened up space for competit ors to enter In sum, the most observable brand for anthropology is the brand of one where e ach practitioner carries his or her own brand and marketing niche. This makes it cha llenging to have a central message. In terms of marketing communications, anthropologists need to better amplify their central voices and their strong tenets such making the exotic familiar, and the familiar exo the most humanistic of the sciences (E. R. Wolf, 1964, p. 88)
94 brand narrative is sometimes controlled by others rather than by anthropologists themselves and the dominant narrative about anthropology rarely focuses on the value that anthropology brings t o the world. I also analyzed and explained how those products typically add value in terms of sense making and creativity, but also noted the difficulty in telling go od anthropology product from a bad one Nonacademic a nthropology practitioners may work independently or in teams but are more likely to self identify as their practitioner role than as an anthropologist. F inally, while anthropologists need more robust training in research methods in order to be more competitive in the workplace, there is no consensus about what that training needs to be In this chapter I also noted the definitions of ethnography as a product and a process, how ethnography and anthropology are not synonyms and that the confusion of the two and lack o f quality control has hurt the discipline in the marketplace. Finally, I end ed the chapter by raising concern s about about the increasing number of competitors within space s To be competitive anthropology will need to further define its brand and its products and frequently communicate the discipline s overall message and value proposition. Brand is powerful. Communication is critical. Tangible products are sellable. Anthropol ogy is going to need all three to be competitive in the higher education market place and in the knowledge economy C hapter 4 will explore this topic in more detail.
95 CHAPTER 4 THE HIGHER EDUCATION MARKETPLACE Understanding Structural a nd Economic Forces a nd Anthropology This chapter is about the macro p olitical and economic factors that affect One important factor is the current m arket pressure on institutions of higher education in the United States. The perceived failure of libe ral arts programs in the U.S. to produce students who have marketable skills have led many Americans to lose faith in the four year degree (Mitchell & Belkin, 2017) T he economic crash of 2008 and the subsequent lengthy period of high unemployment changed the value of higher education P ublic investment in higher education in the U.S. is at its lowest point in more than a century adjusted for inflation With student debt mounting and wit h the emergence of MOOC (Massive Open Online Courses which are free ) p arents, administrators, governments, and students all demand more results from institutions of higher education (Mullings, 2015) The key to this last sentence is the The notion of higher education results means different things to different constituents T o parents it may mean an affordable education that prepares students for employmen t (Carlson, 2017) ; to students it may mean interesting courses, a great campus experience, and a job; to professors it may mean completed Ph.D.s pu blications, a competitive curriculum, or class attendance (Najmabadi, 2017) ; and to administrators it may mean high university ranki ngs increased enrollment (including international students), and budget management (Almanac, 2017; K. Fischer, 2017) In every case, the results of higher education are under increasing scrutiny and higher education is increasingly treated as a business as well as a place of scholarship and
96 learning (Corbett Broad, 2017) This translates to increased focus on profit, margin marketing, graduation rates, resource management, patents, comparable performance metrics and other business metrics. Sahlins (2009) points to the Patent and Trademark Law Amendments Act (Pub. L. 96 517, December 12, 1980 ) known as the Bayh Dole A ct of 1980 as cementing the commodification of knowledge. The Act allowed universities to pate nt and license sellable products of publicly funded research. Before 1981 universities took out fewer than 250 patents a year, while in 1999 about 5500 patents were filed by colleges and universities (Sahlins, 2009) More recently, according to a report by the Association of University Technology Managers, 6,363 patents were issued in 2014, which was an 11% increase from 2013 (Gordon, 2017) The commercialization of higher education means viewing knowledge as a product, not a service; it considers students as consumers of that knowledge commo dity; it assesses professors, scholarship, and curriculum as inventory and assets, and it focuses on degrees as production. The goal is to make the institution both more efficient and more effective. The commercialization of post secondary education means that anthropologists need more than ever to identify new ways to attract students, facul ty, and funding, and to promote career placement after graduation My position is that the ambiguity of and product makes the field more susceptib le to these new marketplace forces Anthropologists will quickly need to change how they position the field in the higher education market
97 Below I detail three areas of investigation: (1) the commercialization of higher education and anthropology, (2) challenges in career perceptions, and (3) faculty and department implications Anthropology a nd Higher Education Commercialism One of the largest impacts on anthropology with regard t o higher education ducation stakeholde rs, including parents and students, increasingly view college less about supplying a general education and more in terms of specific skills to enter a chosen profession (Copeland & Dengah II, 2016) Anthropology is seen as one of the top 10 worst college degrees has one of the highest unemployment rates, and lowest starting salaries (Carter, 2017; Goudreau, 2012) In Chapter 3 I noted that anthropology does not provide the types of technical skills and products that secure job s outside the academy. There may be a disconnect between job market, the public perception of what anthropology does or can do, and what a higher education stakeholder value s in terms of what an anthropology education provides The pressure to conform to labor market forces is higher for anthropology than for academic programs that prepare students for available jobs The United States Department of Labor (2015) states that a master s degree is required for entry level positions in anthropology which means more schooling and more potential debt, which puts increased pressure on ROI for an anthropology degree The pressure is also higher for anthropology students since the path to employment is a more indirect path than it is in other disciplines: Other disciplines, such as STEM and business fields, accomplish better preparation and awareness of opportunities for their students through similar techniques, in part, because they receive broad support from
98 funders and have not experienced the same perceived separation between academic and practicing endeavors (Copeland & Dengah II, 2016, p. 124) STEM students benefit from stronger development of technical and research skills and stronger public support In general, STEM fields have been expanding quicke r than social sciences and liberal arts According to the U.S. Department of Education (2016) b etween 2008 and 2014 the number of degrees conferred in STEM fields such as computer s cience and information sciences increased by 46% ; the combined fiel ds of engineering and engineering technologies by 29%; health professions and related prog rams by 65%; agriculture and natural resources by 41%; p hysical sciences and science technologies by 29%; and mathematics and statistics by 35%. During that same peri od, however, the number of degrees conferred in social science and liberal arts decreased. A rea, ethnic, cultural, gender, and group studies decreased by 6% ; English language and literature/letters decreased by 9% ; foreign languages, literatures, and ling uistics decreased by 4% ; and Liberal arts and sciences, general studies, and humanities decreased by 4%. There were some exceptions to this trend. For example, the number of degrees conferred in psychology increased by 24% while social sciences and hist ory increased 3%. Thus, for potential anthropology s tudents, especially non academy career oriented anthropologists, the field is interesting, but what they do with it, how they do it, and their professional path post gradation may be murky. S ome anthropol ogist s argue against the commercialization of higher education and instead focus on scholarship as a worth y end goal in and of itself. Caanan and Shumar (2008) say that mar ket oriented d egrees are the and social science disciplines. Ingold (2017) has cautionary words for the disci pline as it relates to the commercialization of knowledge:
99 Anthropology is a university discipline and would not survive without the harbors that universities provide it in which to berth. What is currently happening in universities thus stands to make or break the discipline. Currently, universities are succumbing to corporate neoliberalism and anthropology is on the rack. We are at risk of going down with the whole ship. I think we need to fight for the future of universities as places of tolerance, wisd om, and humanity, where ideas matter, and where people of all nations can come together peacefully to debate these ideas (p. 25) heard but overstated A cademic and applied anthropology have had an uneasy co existence, but a nt hropolog y has long been vibrant outside the academy From my perspective, academic and applied anthropology are not mutually exclusive. This theory remains to be tested, but market pressures seem likely to improve professionalism and career opportunities for anthr opologists. As professionalism increases, there will be a more direct route to many different jobs, while maintaining university bred tolerance, wisdom, and an environment for the creation of ideas While this position is shared by some anthropologist s, p rogress along these lines has been slow for reasons detailed in Chapter 1 until now. Here is Arnould et al. (2012) on why anthropology creating business anthropology is working now : There seems to have been both push and pull factors involved in first phase of the widespread authorization of neoliberal dicta of society as market and individual as entrepreneur/consumer in various domains of expertise. It would be inaccurate to say that, on this basis, research in More fair ly, one might say that the mainstreaming of neoliberal attitudes and domains of expert and popular knowledge helped neutralize the negative valuation of business enough to allow for a more lively and legitimate sub disciplinary margin to emerge (Arnould et al., 2012, p. 252) Likewise, mainstreaming neoliberal attitudes and society as market might now provide the right kind o f conditions for anthropology to adjust its marketplace strategy
100 and become more competitive. Although the current conditions may be painful, the discipline is positioned to change. Misconceptions o n Career s and Employment in Anthropology C areer prospects are an important factor in deciding undergraduate and graduate training i n an economy focused on producing workers, gaining stable Goldmacher (2010) studied why students choose to major in anthropology a discipline without a linear caree r trajectory since higher education is now to train students for the global work force. Her work demonstrated that much of the decision came down t o the passion for anthropology. The undergraduate students however, felt conflicted between the v alues of the disciple and the pulls for a career. There are plenty of jobs for anthropologists and there will be plenty more in the future especially for anthropologists who gain technical training in methods, develop proper professional and soft skills, and gain practical experience during the tr aining years. The marketplace is pressuring anthropology in three ways: (1) marketable skills, (2) indirect career paths, and (3) disincentivized career center s. Indeed, w ithout clear, tactical, tangib le, identifiable, relatable marketable skills the professional path of anthropologists will be difficult. Copeland and Dengah II (2016) in say that: Indeed, we think it is somewhat unfortunate that anthropology students are expected to do something with their degree, often never actually witnessing how more experienced a nthropologist do anthropology. All students need to have hands on training as anthropologists, not only to turn theory into practice, but provide concrete experience and examples of doing anthropology in a variety of applied settings and professions. Ignor ing the training of future practicing anthropologists is no longer tenable as we are doing a disservice to our students by not making their degree irrelevant in the job market and to our discipline, and as our
101 influence in the public sector wanes. If we ar e going to communicate the relevance of the discipline to our own students, funding agencies, and the public, we need to discuss better preparing our students for applied and practicing anthropology by instilling in them skills for success (p. 129) And re call the findings of the AAA/CoPAPIA survey that less than two thirds of anthropology MA graduates hold a job in an occupation related to anthropology, and only a third have permanent employment (Fiske et al., 2009) I f anthropology departments cannot provide viable employment routes via skills for their students their departments will continue to shrink in terms of majors, graduate students, fund ing, faculty, and scholarship. The ways in which students are pre pared for careers has great im pact not just on the students, but on the longevity of departments, and the overall discipline (DiConti, 2004) Students want direct applicability of their skills and these specific skills are largely shaped by the political economy (Goldmacher, 2010; Van Willigen, 2009) The invisibility and indirectness of career paths also competitiveness in commercialized higher education. Earlier I mentioned that there are plenty of jobs for anthropologists t he trouble is finding them. Most jobs for description the role employment opportunities, many practitioners still do not apply for jobs advertised as filled by individuals (Baba, 1994, p. 180) This indicate s an eagerness to land just any job versus a targeted job hunt. Inconsistent and incomplete job descriptio ns does not mean there are few jobs for anthropologists, but it suggests anthropology students have to search harder to find
102 the roles Not all students have the entrepreneurial and salesmanship skills to sel l themselves into a role sometimes students need more direct paths (Johnsrud, 2001) This type of grassroots approach to a time when ethnography became popular, new hires actually had to create their roles, methods, and teams for do ing the work (Mack & Squires, 2011) Again, however, not everyone has th e skill to locate or build a role that is not directly articulated as anthro pology F urthermore in a more competitive and automated employment industry artificial i ntelligence simply scans r sum s for requirements versus a recruiter reading r sum s and screening candidates. A be enough since a recruiter may never hear about it Anthropology departments and career centers need to create those direct paths to employment Making the paths to direct employment clearer will change the job descriptions and employers will have reaso n to directly list anthropology. J ob placement is a key metric i n co mmercialized higher education. U niversity career centers are measured by their ability to place students into jobs e ffectively Anthropology s tudents receive little information about empl oyment opportunities post graduation espe cially for non academic careers (Copeland & Dengah II, 2016) Confu sion ab out the practice of anthropology by academic career centers students, and faculty members about the variety of anthropology career options post graduation limits the breadth of opportunities Copeland and Dengah II (2016) note that lack of professional p reparation means students are unable to translate anthropological skills to potential employers. Additionally, the authors found professors felt unprepared to
103 mentor students through the post graduation, non academic job market. If academic career center s are confused about career options for anthropologists, and they are evaluated based on student job placement, then career center personnel will spend more time with other disciplines, programs, and with students who have a higher chance of landing a job and thereby increasing overall performance metrics (Goldmacher, 2010; Goldmacher & Santee, 2014) Creating Competitive Faculty and Department Policy Departments will need to change some of their policies con cerning tenure and publication i f they want to be competitive in current economic conditions, and if they want to be successful in the commercialized higher education environment. L. A. Bennett and Khanna (2010) argue that with the inc reasing focus on community based, practicing, and public anthropology as career options anthropology departments will have to review their guidelines for tenure. Failure to do so, they argue, will result in failure to retain faculty members who are engag ed in applied and practicing endeavors O f equal importance are the letters of recommendation for tenure that bring forth strong detail on the value of applied/practicing work the faculty member generates. This means that the scholarship of an applied or p racticing anthropologist needs to be reviewed by someone who is credible in that space. CoPAPIA developed a Resource Panel for External Review of Tenure and Promotion and External Program review to deliver on this third party evaluation Traditionally, a nthropology departments did not reward professors for developing practical skills for students They did not reward scholars who participate d in applied or practicing work and did not count the scholarly output of applied work ( for example, reports to agen cies, and non peer reviewed publications). Mullings (2015) shows that
104 radically changed how it teaches and produces knowledg e and values, as well as the criteria for assessing departments, faculties and the overall university system She lists the following as factors that drove this transformation: the rise of for profit institutions ; an expanding anti intellectual and vocal right wing ; decreased public funding ; the growth of a flexible labor force; decreased academic freedom ; changes in information technology, publishing, and knowledge dissemination ; and the growth of joint ventu res with private corporations (Mullings, 2015) Anthropology departments will need to adapt or in some cases continue to adapt, to these new conditions to retain and improve their competitiveness. The requirements fo r tenure are an immediate area that departments can review in order to increase competitiveness. The tenure evaluation focuses on research, service, and teaching. Faculty eligible for tenure are assessed for their contribution in each of these areas. R esearch is assessed by looking at the intellectual contribution s a professor has made to his or her field as measured by the number and placement of publications and by citations to those works Service is evaluated by measuring the contribution s to the d epartment and school in developing different programs and serving on different committees and also on service to the community and to the profession contributions in developing students both under graduate and graduate. Finer weightings around what is most valued in each of these three evaluation areas of and what is not valued varies by university or college In general, especially at larger universities, research is the most heavily weighted.
105 Copeland and Dengah II (2016) argue that the distinct demands of research, teaching, and service make it di fficult for academic anthropologists those who are responsible for training anthropologists to provide tangible, technical skill s for budding anthropologists. Prioritization of publications and doing research means that students may not get the level of skill development they need and deserve. For example, i t may be worth while for departments to reexamin e and give great er credence to how they weigh service They may choose to increase the value of commun ity engagement and action anthropology research/work. Professors are accountable for teaching both fundamentals and, in schools that award advanced degrees, the profession al skills of scholarship or applied anthropology. B alan cing the importance of teaching with that of service and research can be challenging. T eaching, however, is critical to attracting students to anthropology and foster ing passion for its attractive topics. Anthropology departments often fulfill some gener al education requirements particularly with introductory classes These classes provide students with their first impression of anthropology and therefore present an opportunity for attracting students to major in anthropology Improving this alone would build anthropolog brand. T eaching also provides the best opportunity to make anthropology students competitive in the marketplace by teaching them marketable skills, exposing them to problems they can help solve, and offering them direct experiences in which to apply those skills. General education teaching requirements may mean less time for research and a greater focus on teaching, which is less rewarded in larger universities (Peacock, 1997) As with service, teaching (especially undergraduates) may need to be reweighted in
106 tenure evaluation s to protect the quality Furthermore, the ways in which teaching counts towards tenure will affect the type of faculty a department attracts Anthropology departments that want to be competitive by attracting great students and facult y will need to rethink how they value teaching in other words they will want to reward training in methods, skills, and scholarship that supports student employability, as well as interest, for both undergraduate and graduate students. Some anthropologi sts may not be opposed to the idea of enhancing teaching but they are opposed to popularizing anthropology. S abloff (2011) comments on this issue: The academic world is becoming increasingly market oriented with various escalating offers of high salaries, less teaching, better labs, m ore research funds, and so on, and many academics not only are caught up in the system but have also bought into it. At the same time, those scholars who are most successful in the larger marketplace of popular ideas and popular media and who make dollars by selling the popular audiences are frequently discounted and denigrated by the self who often are busy playing the academic market game (p. 411) Sabloff is in favor of better teaching and is not opposed to popularizing anthropo logy. Instead he challenges the readers to reflect on the reasons why departments may resist such change s The social listening analysis in Chapter 5 provide s some ev idence that indicates teaching continues to be an area of opportunity for the field. Rese Carrier (2016) says that marketp lace pressures have forced anthropology and other disciplines to be evaluated by uniform measures of impact, especially by the number of publications and citations D igitization of publishing made tracking these metrics easier so that departments, publishe rs, and authors have instant line of sight into performance
107 Carrier (2016) also hints at the id The researcher notes that when academic s cite a work the wort h of that work, expressed in their decision to cite one publication rather than 28 ). Academics eng ag ed in reciprocal citing can create an artificial inflation of publication impact possibly rewarding the wrong behavior although it might also mean they align on the value of the research Sahlins (2009) referred to this kind of overall intellectual perfor mance assessment and higher education competition as academic capitalism If n on peer reviewed publications are not counted as scholarship the grey literature (project reports, program evaluations, and white papers ) produced by applied and practicing anth ropologists are not valued and counted towards tenure and students will have no examples of applying their craft outside of academe. This, in turn, lowers pportunities for post graduation nonacademic employment. In order to adequately integrate practicing and applied anthropology work into academic anthropology programs departments will have to have practitioners on the faculty and will also have to reward the work of those professors. This means putting students at the center of the academy t development without sacrificing overall scholarship. Rewarding teaching and a focus and its products and will open many new career paths and anthropol overall fitness. Summary a nd Discussion: Understanding Structural a nd Economic Forces a nd Anthropology In this chapter I built on the forces that lowered the competitiveness of anthropology for attracting undergraduate students and for placing adva nced degree
108 graduates in jobs related to their training. The commercialization of higher education and the commodification of knowledge has tracked increasing emphasis on the development of students as workers and the focus the development of skills for te chnical jobs Consumer s of higher education now expect higher education ROI and more secured employment from their experiences. I detailed how higher education commercialization negatively affected anthropology since most anthropology require a de gree. The historical focus on critical thinking versus technical skills and the ambiguity of focus has contributed to lowered fitness With employability a critical success metric for post secondary education, anthropology is at a disadvantage. Job descriptions rarely directly call for an anthropologist C areer centers, and sometimes departments, are ill informed concerning total anthropology career options. That lack of information, as well as the competit ion for career center resources, depri employment hunt. Students who are not career entrepreneurial, who do not know how to directly market their skills, and who do not have practical experience will have difficulty in non linear career paths Academic career centers and departments can help make the in direct career paths more direct and can help students consider how to market their skills and knowledge (in addition to growing them both) Finally in this chapter I examined faculty teaching and tenure. D epartm ents reward scholarship and publications as a primary currency of tenure evaluation. I demonstrated how general education requirements can deprioritize teaching budding anthropologists tangible skills and can distract from coaching anthropology majors on future career tracks. I explained how the lack of comprehensive assessment of
109 scholarship and publications (including grey literature) negatively impacts a this resul ts in both undergraduate and graduate students who do not gain the skills and tactical experience they need to be successful in non academic spaces thereby
110 CHAPTER 5 DATA METHODS AND ANALYSIS The que stion covered in ow can anthropology be competitive as a discipline in the future? Throughout the analysis thus far I have provided expert points of anthropology sc holars. The previous three chapters of this research examined some of the issues affecting the field of anthropology and affecting anthropologists competi ti veness. For example, Chapter 2 It also assessed th e split between academic anthropology and applied anthropology by looking at ethical matters, engagement challenges, and value judgement issues. Chapter 2 also outlined variables concerning the perpetuation of the academy by /purpose fragmentation, theoretical/representation breakdowns, department splits, and challenges with training technical skills. In Chapter 3 public engagement, and compe titors. Finally, in Chapter 4 I outlined the higher education variables also affecting anthropologists such as higher education commercialization, marketability of anthropology, department policy, and career centers. In this chapter, I test some of thes e variables and build on the evidence that already exists. More specifically, I test: 1. 2. the relationsh ip of anthropology and other disciplines to the concept of culture, and the ethnographic method, using a Web of Science title analysis, 3. listening, 4. public engagement and interes t in anthropology using Google search trends.
111 The tests below do not cover all the variables covered in this research because However, it provides incremental insights to help Additionally, there are data limitations. Nonetheless, the tests below do provide evidence, value, and patterns that help inform our understanding of the field and its brand. American Anthropologist Title Analysis The purpose of the American Anthropologist title analysis is to see how the focus of anthropologists has or has not changed over time to use article titles from the Thus, this analysis tests the vari ation in topics and themes over time. Data Collection and Cleaning To collect the data, I imported every title and publication date from the American Anthropologist from the years 1888 to 2017 ( through the month of August); t he years 1888 1955 were expor ted from JSTOR; and the years 1956 through August 2017 were exported from the Web of Science. Only published re search articles were downloaded; this analysis does not include memorand a proceedings, book or film reviews, front matter, back matter, volume information, anthropologic miscellanea, notes, notices, obituaries, or any biographical sections. I n preparation for analysis, I cleaned the data using the program KH Coder 2.0 developed by Koichi Higuchi ( http: //khc.sourceforge.net/en ). KH Coder is a text analysis program that code s and clean s qualitative data to process it quantitatively. To clean the data the titles were changed to lowercase, hyphens were replaced with spaces, and punctuation was removed. Stop words were also removed. Stop words
112 are typically prepositions, adverbs, and other words that add minimal meaning significance 337 stop words was adopted from https://www.ranks.nl/stopwords The complete list can also be found in appendix A. Finally, I standardized all variations of archeology including archeologists, archeologist archeology, and archeological to the archaeologists, archaeologist, archaeology, and archaeological. This way KH coder will stem and count those terms together since they are different spellings of the same words, but not different meanings. After the data were cleaned, they were pre processed by decades in two ways : (1) The dataset was first run through a stemming routine (Snowball Stemmer) to combine similar words that have different endings. For example says and saying would be stemmed to the same word say (2) The second method of processing is called lemmatization and uses the Stanford Parts of Speech (POS) Tagger. In this process the file is compared to a dictionary of words so that saying say and said would all be recognized as the same word. The words are also classified by their parts of speech i n the paragraph. I then exported the data to Microsoft Excel which resulted in tables showing stemmed words by frequency by decade. Once the data were in Microsoft Excel, I used univariate statistics to exam ine the most frequent word usage and changes across decades, and to analyze the usage of specific words. It is important to note that the American Anthropologist is only one journal where anthropologists publish and is not a comprehensive representation of all the anthropological work being published across scholarly journals. The American
113 Anthropologist was chosen for the title analysis component of this study because it is the longest running anthropology journal and it is the primary publication of The American Anthropological Association the most important professional organization for American anthropologists. Data Analysis and Findings The title data analysis has five parts : (1) description of the overall data set, (2) core terms that have left the journal over time and have not returned, (3) core terms that recently entered the journal, (4) top 50 terms that ha ve been stable over time, and (5) fragmentation testing The overall data set contained 4,370 journal titles with a total of 38,236 words, o f which 6, 708 were unique. In terms of word stems there was a total of 23,856, of which 5,469 were unique. Figure 5 1 shows the number of titles, total word count, and stemmed word count by decade. T he decade of the 1960s had the most journal titles wit h 502. The 1880s had the least with 41, but this decade started in 1888. T he decade of the 2010s was not complete in 2017 when this study was done, but had already accumulated 304 titles The average number of words per title has over the years, almost d oubled, from about 6 in the early 1900s to around 11 in the 2010s. Figure 5 1 Description of data set number of titles, word count, and stemmed word count by decade I calculated the type token ratio (TTR) to test lexical variation across decades. I n this test, a word is referred to as a token A TTR is calculated by dividing the different types of tokens (the total number of unique words in a decade) by the total number of
114 tokens (the total number of words in a decade) and turned into a percentage A high TTR mea ns high lexical variation, where as a low TTR means less token variation. Figure 5 2 and F igure 5 3 show the TTR by decade for the American Anthropologist title analysis. Figure 5 2 Type Token Ratio by Decade Figure 5 3 Type Token Ratio by Decade Trend Line The TTR showed an average percent of lexical variation of 59%. The highest TTR was the 1880s at 88%. The 2010s, 1980s, and 1890s were the next highest at 62%. The lowest TTR was in the 1950s at 47%. Higher lexical variation may me an a wider variety of topics covered in a particular period or it could mean that anthropologists were more creative in some periods in titling their papers. Further research comparing
115 anthropology to other disciplines will show if this is high lexical v ariation for a discipline. American Anthropologist has hovered close to the average of 59% over time. Since the data set has thousands of stemmed terms, I reduced the total data set to a core d ata set. The core data set is defined as those stemmed terms that have greater than or equal to 4 mentions in any one decade. There are a total of 488 stemmed core words. The total list of core words can be found in A ppendix B. With the total number of s temmed words and frequency of the core words per decade known, I calculated the percentage of each core word by decade. The percentage composition of core terms by decade can be found in A ppendix C. I address ed the percentages in A ppendix C later when I d iscuss ed variation over time. The focus on the table in A ppendix C is on the presence or absence of a core term by decade. Blank squares that are grey indicate a term was not present that decade. This data visualization offers two insi ghts regarding Table 5 1 below shows the entrants and exits over time. Looking at the exiting were names of tribes or peoples, especially Native American peoples. This finding is in line with the crisis or representation that happened at about the time when anthropologists became concerned about how they represent ed various peoples and their legitimacy to do so. Entr ants, those terms entering the titles of articles in the American Anthropologist since the 1960s, are about current events (such as H urricane Katrina) and topics that anthropologists have more recently come to study, such as
116 neoliberalism, refugees, tran snationalism, and terror. Some fads appear across time. For example, there was , , T able 5 1. Stemmed term exits and entrants over time Stemmed terms Stemmed term exits (not used post th e 1960s) algonkian, certain, chamorro, cheyenn, componenti, congress, copper, factori, filipino, gren, guam, hawaiian, head, mound, pawne, porto, ruin, sampl, sketch, snake, specimen, stock, supper, symposium, tewa, wenner, zuni Stemmed term entrants (u sed in the 1990s or later) afterword, boasian, classic, coetze, conserv, dove, engag, hawk, heritag, imagin, isra, katrina, keith, landscap, negoti, neoliber, otterbein, refuge, terror, transnat, us, video, vietnam, whi was published significantly earlier than the Margaret Mead and Samoa: The Making and Unmaking of an Anthropological Myth (Freeman, 1983) Samoa by saying she was speculative and wrong about Samoan adolescence and culture in general (Caton, 2000; Ct, 2000) resulting in a significant number of M ead related publications during the 1 980s. What do the entrances and exits over time mean? They reflect the changing social conditions that influence d They also reflect ed changes in how anthropologists view their role in understanding p eople and culture. It can be argued, however, that the topical changes indicate some agenda hopping. A change over time analysis can test that.
117 To address change over time, I reduced the core term list of 488 to the top 50 most mentioned stemmed terms ac ross all decades. The top 50 were determined using a scree plot (shown in Figure 5 4 ) that mapped words by frequency. There is a clear bend in the chart at 50 words. Figure 5 4 Total frequency of all stemmed words These top 50 terms account for 21% o f the total stemmed words across all decades (4,9 87 of the 23,856 total stemmed words). Figure 5 5 below shows the list of the top 50 stems, the percentage composition of each stemmed term of the total stemmed words per decade, and the cumulative stemmed work frequency count across all decades. The red, yellow, and green highlighting shows the highest (green), and the lowest (red) percentages across decades by term The table is organized by the highest frequency of each stemmed term across all decades. across decades. Although many of the percentages are small, each decade has thousands of st emmed words (see Figure 5 1). Even a small shift in percentage is large in the total volume of terms.
118 Figure 5 5 Top 50 stemmed terms, their percentage representation per decade, and the cumulative stemmed word frequency count
119 In Chapter 2 I discuss ed split departments as a factor causing some of the terms the stems biological lowest frequency of a stem term across the decade s in the top 50 is a count of 48 for so at first examination is would seem biological anthropology is not four fields are p resent across all decades, with a larger fraction of the journal titles in cultural and physical anthropology, but not at the neglect of linguistic and biological anthropology. Applied anthropology is sometimes referred to as the 5 th subfield, but note tha t coder) is missing from the top 50 stemmed words across all decades. Looking at the words rather than stems reveals at a frequency of 30. This totals 46 for applied/ practicing anthropology still not in the top 50. Many applied anthropology topics such as development, policy, design, and human rights titles For example, t he stem decades. These terms may pertain to applied like topic areas, but the title analysis is
120 limited in that regard. A topic based analysis with a more content center ed approach is required for that interpretation. This is a topic for future research. Also missing from the top 50 is any stem related to ethnograph y or ethnographic subjects In Chapter 3 because of its tangibility and historical relationship with anthropologists. My expectation was that some stem of ethnography would have ranked in the top 50 stemmed terms across decades. Upon further analysis, KH Coder drives several stems from words related to they are different parts of speech some are nouns and others are adjectives this is a limitation o f the tool Adding those three ethnographic related stems together totals a frequency of 95, which would put ethnography related terms in position 14 of the top 50, This high ranking position supports the clai m that anthropology still has a strong focus on ethnography as a product. Also discussed in Chapter 3 and 4 was the idea that marketable skills and training are missing from anthropological teaching and scholarship. Titles that include lands in position 50 with a frequency of 48. Adding the stem methods related terms. This is a high enough frequency to put methods In looking at the concentration total number those st ems peak in the 1940s and 1950s with the exception of the stem
121 which hit its highest percentage of .68% of total stem words in the 1880s. Since the American Anthropologist titles has been half or S ee Figure 5 6 Figure 5 6 The change in methods related stems over time across all decades. Its peak was in the 1940s when it comprised 3.75% of the stemmed words in that decade. The 1940s was a strong period of culture and personality studies by anthropologists such as Abram Kardiner, Cora Dubois, Ralph Linton, Francis Hsu, Antony Wallace, Margaret Mead, Ruth Benedict, Clyde Kluckhohn, and ma ny others that decreased in prevalence over time (Kelly, Chao, Scruggs, Lawrence, & Mcghee Snow) The second highest stem This occur red in the 2010s. In Chapter 2 proposition and focus. Additionally, I explained the perpetuation of the academy in terms of carving out small, individ ual, and ownable niches. The title analysis shows this trend of almost individual level topic branding For example, some of the titles from the 2010s decade so far include: Anthropology in and of MOOCs Anthropolog ical Archaeology in 2012: Mobility, Economy, and Transformation and The Soul of the Biblical Sandal: On Anthropology and Style There which either opens space for more scholars to participate in the dis cipline or creates a boundless discipline with an emphasis on anthropology as a brand of one or both.
122 Correspondence analysis is another way to examine the Top 50 stemmed terms over time T his analysis visualizes the results in Figure 5 5 Correspondence analysis works by calculating the relative stength of the relationships between the rows (the stemmed terms) to other rows, and the relative strength of the relationship s between the columns (the decades) to other columns using normalized stemmed term fre quency data. The strength of the relationship is then map ped to a cartesian plan using x and y coordinates The x and y axes are relevent only in measuring relative distance between point s they are not direct measures of association. See Figure 5 7 below. Bock (2017) provides aproaches for interpreting the correspondence analysis. To interpret the visualization we look at the distance each stem term or decade is from the origin The farther the stem or decade is from the origin the more discri minating/differentiated it is from the other stems and decades. The opposite is also true T he closer the decades or stems are to the origin of the chart, the less distinct they are. Another interpretation method looks at the proximity of stems to other stems, and the proximity of decades to other decades. The closer a stem is to another stem, and the closer a column is to another column the more similar their profiles are. To examine the relationship between stems and decades, we look at the angle for med between the stem term to origin, and the decade to the origin. The smaller the angle formed between a stem, the origin, and a decade the more the stem and the decade are associated Stems and decades are likely not associated if the angle is 90 degr ees; stems and decades are likely negatively associated if they are on opposite sides of the origin.
123 Figure 5 7 Correspondence analysis of the top stemmed terms and decades based on frequency count The correspondence analysis accounts for a total of 33 % of the variation in the table, meaning analysis and interpretation should be taken conservatively. The visualization (Figure 5 7) reinforces the observations from the results in Figure 5 5 , other stems meaning their profiles are most unlike the other stems. As demonstrated in the data in Figure 5 5 this makes sense as their u sage was heavy early on, but ecology, indicating their distinctiveness from other stem terms. In their case, they too indicate a heavier usage at a point in time, but not
124 across all decades. Additionally, the correspondence analysis shows the clumping of the decades 1880s, 1890s, and 1900s together and farthest away from the origin. This indicates that these decades have high as sociation to one another in other words their profiles are similar to one another but they are very distinct from other decades. a t. This indicates that these stems are less distinct from other stems, and are therefore steadier across decades. This make sense as these are key stems that are indicative of some of the core themes of anthropology over time. The decade 1940s is the clo sest decade to the center again indicating that this decade is the least distinct decade. The quadrant in the upper left hand corner of the chart is important. This is one of the tightest bundle s of stems in the correspondence analysis. This bundle seems to center on more scientific and measurement focused stems of anthropology. In this which may indicate a more scientific approach. This observation is reinforced by the proximity of th e decades 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s to one another. These decades were before postmodernism and were more positivist focused Below the x axis on the left side of the chart we see a bundling of the decades 1990s, 2000s, and 2010s or mor another indicating that they are likely highly associated in terms of their pr ofiles. This too makes sense as these are topics more associated with the i nterpretivist /
125 phenomenologist movement. It is worth noting that the 1980s fall close to the x axis, indicating it was one of the transition decades as noted in Chapter 2. Refuti ng the idea of over fragmentation, the top 50 terms also show low average variation across decades. Figure 5 8 below shows the average percent change over all decades of each of the top 50 having the hi ghest word count it ha d the highest average increasing percent change at .2% across all decades at .06% To be clear, is at only 2 tent hs of a percent. In terms of average decreasing percent change over the and .08%. Expanding the analysis of average percent change over time to the top 100 stems we see very similar results: The highest level of increasing average percentage change over time for the top 100 are identical to the Top 50 terms of average decreasing decreasing percent change of .1%. That said, the top 100 and top 50 are similar in terms of bo th stems and amount of change over time. The tightness of the top 50 and the top 100 stemmed terms over all time especially since they represent 21% and 29% of all stemmed word frequency respectively suggests a steady level of cohesiveness and themati c focus of the discipline at least how it is represented in the American Anthropologist
126 Analysis of all the single terms over time tells a complementary tale. When looking at the number of single stemmed terms per decade, meaning stemmed terms that we re only mentioned once in a whole decade, we see a long tail of one offs in every decade. Figure 5 9 shows the percentage of singletons by each decade. Figure 5 8 Average percent change overall decades of each top 50 stemmed terms Figure 5 9 Perc entage of single stemmed terms by decade With expansion of the journal, the total number of singletons has mainly increased in each decade. However, when the data are normalized by the total number of stemmed words in any given decade the total percentage of singletons per decade
127 T he 40% singleton figure is striking. It suggests the field may be fragmented, but that it has always been fragmented. Anthropology has always ha d a long tail of topics and scholarly inquiries that complement its core concepts as illustrated by the top 50 analysis above. In summary, the title analysis has shown change over time with some concepts entering and exiting the discipline. The analysis demonstrated the field is both unified and fragmented at the same time. There is a core set of terms that remain s steady over time and anthropology has always had a topical long tail as well as shown in the singletons chart and the word frequency chart. Ethnography is present in the top 50, Finally all four fields of anthropology are present in the title analysis at a rate that puts them in the top 50 stemmed terms, showing that anthropologists and the American Anthropologist continu es to publish in a way that is inclusive of all four fields. Applied Anthropology terms are present as well, but it does not make the top 50 terms like the four fields do. Web of Science Title Analysis of Ethnography and Culture Titles In my research of a in Chapters 2 and 3 two terms were central to the discussion culture as a concept and ethnography as a method/product. I described how the importance of the concept of culture has changed over the American Anthropologist in the 1940s and has decreased in its title presence since then. With regard to ethnography, I discussed in Chapters 2 and 3 how the method diffused across the acad emy and industry over time. Because of the so Chapter 2 where anthropologists became increasingly critical of culture as a thing to study and ethnography as a legitimate way to study it,
128 these two concepts b ecame decoupled from anthropology brand and increasing competition. The question here is when and where did culture and ethnography go? Data Collection and Cleaning core databases: (1) Science Citation Index Expanded; (2) Social Science Citation Index; (3) Arts and Humanities Citation Index; and (4) Emerging Sources Citation Index. The term s searched across all titles of th e citation indexes from 1956 to September 2017, by decade, with the 1950s and the 2010s as partial decades. The Web of Science title search results were then automatically classified into the Web of Science categories (which connect to discipline/ field na mes), and then aggregated across the databases. I then calculated the percentage of each term, within each field, as a fraction of the total number of title mentions in that decade. Data Analysis and Findings Table 5 2 shows the number of Web of Science ( WOS) titles containing the word title. Of those, 90 (or 63%) were in the field of anthropology, with the remainder (53, or 37%) in other fields. This table, and Figure 5 10 with (and putative hold on) ethnography has decreased steadily over time. As shown in Figure 5 5 the inflection point whe re ethnography was diffused as a method into other practices occurs in the late 1960s and early 1970s.
129 Looking at Table 5 2, the data show an increase from 3 fields where the term klore) to 85 in Table 5 2 them that are in the field of anthropology versus other fields Term "Ethnography" 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 2010s Total number of titles with term 22 143 300 522 1224 1424 2363 Anthropology count 17 90 137 203 364 366 414 Anthropology percent 77% 63% 46% 39% 30% 26% 18% All other fields 23% 37% 54% 61% 70% 74% 82% Highest fields besides anthropology 14% 8% 13% 11% 16% 14% 12% Total number of fields using term 3 15 23 39 58 69 85 The diffusion of ethnography may not come from a loss in anthropology but rather as an outcome of academic field and jour nal growth as well as diffusion of the term. For example, despite the potential growth/emergence of other fields having the other fields in totality overtook the wor had the most WOS titles with the word ethnography in it across all decades. In other words, since 1956 at least, ant hropology has always been the top ranking field for the The implications are that: (1) anthropology is not the proprietor of ethnography (it never was, actually, as Bernard (1994) made clear), but, anthropology continues to be
130 the top user of the term; and (2) as discussed in Chapter 3, there are more competitors than ever in the space of ethnography. The other fields that commonly compete with include sociology, a rea studies, education, history, and ur ban studies. Figure 5 10 percentages of those titles that are in the field of anthropology versus another field over time. Unlike ethnography, anthropology never owned the dominant share of the term culture during the analysis time span. Table 5 3 shows the percentage of WOS anthropology he 1980s there anthropology, with 8,988 (89%) in other fields. Anthropology had the largest share of the nd has decreased ever since see Figure 5 11 below.
131 studies and science and technology studies. In the 1950s there were 48 fields with titles containing the word culture, whereas in the 2010s there were 172 a 358% increase. number of academic fields while another portion is due to the concept being more widely shared and decoupled from anthropology. Table 5 3 that are in the field of anthropology versus other fields Term "Cu lture" 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 2010s Total number of titles with term 1113 3987 6604 10113 19484 24033 25270 Anthropology count 201 702 830 1125 1917 1639 1012 Anthropology percent 18% 18% 13% 11% 10% 7% 4% All other fields 82% 82% 87% 89% 90% 93% 96% Highest fields besides anthropology 13% 10% 9% 10% 10% 8% 8% Total number of fields using term 48 92 133 125 144 144 172 1976. Since then, however, the concep t of culture has been taken up widely. As shown in Figure 5 12, by the mid 1990s, history (12%) overtook anthropology (11%) in use of the term culture in article titles, with sociology close behind at 9%. In the 2000s, the trend continued and the highest were history (8%) and sociology (7.3%), followed by anthropology (7.2%). In the 2010s that gap widened with history (8%) and sociology (6%) holding the top two spots for the
132 studies (4.12%) and education (4.1%) took spots three and four, pushing anthropology (4%) down to the fifth. Figure 5 11 that are in the field of anthropology versus other fiel ds Figure 5 12 that are in the field of anthropology versus the other field with the highest percentage of the term
133 associated with the fact that anthropology has gained more competitors over time. The implication is that anthropology must focus on refining its value proposition and focus areas. Some of those focus areas are demonstrated in the top 50 analysis from the American Anthropologist title analysis, but others will need to be created as the young discipline continues to evolve. See Chapter 6 for further ideas. Social Listening Analysis In Chapter 3 and brand strengths. I said that the brand was dispersed and difficult to articulate. Additionally, anthropologists were sometimes seen as cold, distant, out of date, and glorifying the (Hannerz, 2010) Social listening analysis measures the ways in which different media and people communicate online about specific topics. It analyzes what is being said about a brand online. Social listening analysis can help evaluate how people thin Data Collection and Cleaning To collect social listening data I used Netbase ( https://www.netbase.com/ ). Netbase is a social listening intelligence platform that aggregates user generated content from across the internet and analyzes that text using NLP (natural language processing) to measure the volume of brand mentions, the types of brand attributes present, and the emotional dimensions of the brand. Netbase c ollects (or scrapes) public user generated data from the following social media sources Twitter, Tumblr, Google+, Facebook, YouTube, blogs, forums, microblogs, mainstream news user comments, and consumer and professional reviews and comments.
134 For this a nalysis I aggregated global, English only social media data that Netbase collected and stored over the course of two years (September of 2015 through September of 2017) The material covered several anthropology brands including general anthropology, lingu istic anthropology, physical anthropology and archaeology, biological anthropology, applied anthropology, practicing anthropology, ethnography, and cultural anthropology. In addition, this research leveraged Netbase to collect data on sociology and physic s for a comparative perspective. Cleaning social listening data is a critical step as social data can be very messy. For example, if Netbase is collecting data for Carnival Cruise Lines it will scrape social data concerning a local carnival, or perhaps cap ture a tweet that describes a situation as a carnival. This can lead to a misrepresentation of brand attributes and emotional drivers. The brand anthropology, however, makes cleaning social data easier since the brand is rarely used for anything else exce pt the field of study or something truly anthropologically related. This should give a cleaner data read. Another aspect of data cleaning concerns defining the scraping terms. Defining the keywords for each topic is important because it places the boun daries on what will be digitally scraped by Netbase. Table 5 4 describes how each of the terms was coded into each term was put in double quotation marks. This means Netbase will pull only that double quotes, although I put both forms in to be comprehensive. The goal is to broadly
135 listen (digitally scrape) for the brand of anthropology ( to capture terms such as medical, forensic anthropology, and other variations ) and archaeology ( to capture terms such as historical archaeology, African archaeology, and other variations ). Table 5 4 Netbase social listening queries and keywords Query Keywords Anthropology Anthropology, Anthropological, Anthropologist, Anthropologists Archaeology Archaeology, Archaeologist, Archaeological, Archaeologists, Archeology, Archeologists, Archeologist, Archeological Cultural Anthropology Linguistic Anthrop ology Biological / Physical Anthropology ysical Applied Anthropology Practicing Anthropology Ethnography Sociology Physics That query will pick up all the other mentions of anthropology but would not pick up archaeology was entered. That term turns up over 4,000 times in Google Scholar ( www.scholar.google.com ) but only 5 times in the entire corpus of the WOS, including
136 four times in article titles and once in an article text. Archaeology, without the accompanying word anthropology, appears to operate as an independent brand, so I separated the queries to improve data cleanliness. D igital social listening is not a n exact science. Natural language processing and machine learning need improvement to achieve accuracy. Fo r example, Netbase will occasionally assign a word a negative sentiment score when in reality it may be positive part of speech, or because of user sarcasm. Some users h ave many more followers than others and content from high visibility users has a higher likelihood to be seen, liked, and shared than content from others. Finally, more emotionally charged posts tend to be liked and shared more often, sometimes giving tho se posts a disproportionate share of the total mentions for a query. Despite these challenges with social listening, the mentions, terms, and content comprise the brand that is digitally present and dynamic. It is the brand that readers, browsers, and soc ial media participants see and consume. We will examine these data to get a general feel users, not to measure it with absolute precision. Data Analysis and Findings To start, I calculated d escriptive statistics on the ten social listening queries see Figure 5 13 Over the course of the two year window, physics has the most social mentions at about 30MM (million mentions). A social mention is defined as the posting of the specific word. P hysics is followed by archaeology at about 14.6MM, sociology at 6.1MM and then total anthropology at 5.8MM. These high numbers are expected since they are for the umbrella brands rather than for the different fields or subfields. Note
137 that physics has a noisier social data set than the other social listening queries. Unlike the anthropology terms which have few uses beyond anthropologically related content physics tends to be much broader. For example, in the physics query the term me ntions see the word cloud analysis below for more about this. The real surprise here was archaeology. Archaeology carries significant traction in the social media space and acts as an independent brand. To illustrate, a social listening scrape for any "anthropological archaeology "anthropological archaeologist "anthropological archaeologists "anthropological archeology "anthropological archeologist and "anthropological archeologists" has only 3,4 18 hits. This pales in comparison to the 14.6MM mentions of archaeology alone of anthropology. Archaeology is also favored in social media because there are constant discoveries that capture other anthropology subfields (cultural, linguistics, and biological/physical anthropology) had fewer than 425k mentions, with cultural anthropology being the highest ranked at 423k mentions. Ethnography had about 465k mentions, higher than any subfield. Applied anthropology (4.5k mentions) and practicing anthropology (558 mentions) were barely present as brands in the social listening analysis. This may be due to other key terms concerning t
138 which were more primary descriptors of applied anthropology. (This is something that I also pointed out for the American Anthropology t itle analysis.) Figure 5 13 also shows the calcula scores. Brand sentiment is the calculation of positive or negative mentions in relationship to the keywords in the query. Not all words are counted as a positive or negative sentiment in Netbase some are neutra l. Across the dataset, a conservative range of 5 10% were coded as positive or negative sentiment per query. The net s entiment score measure d the ratio of positive over negative sentiment towards a brand. That r ange is from 100 % to +100 % Figure 5 13 Descriptive calculations of total mentions, net sentiment scores, and brand passion for the 10 Netbase queries over the two year data collection period Brand passion relates to sentiment scores and m easures the amount of passion intensity (strong pos itive or negative emotions) toward a brand. It is s caled to produce a rang e from 0 to 100. This means that use and quantity of words such as hate, love, etc., and modifiers that emphasize an emotion such as really happy, super annoyed, etc., will increas
139 related by brand emotion words, it is possible to have an inverse relationship between the two scores, or a similar one. The net sentiment scores have wide variation. Applied anthropology h as the highest score at 87%, which is interesting considering its smaller number of total mentions. A deeper analysis of user generated terms surrounding the phrase in its practical aspects. User wor ds like spectrum is linguistic anthropology with a net sentiment score of 97 % and a br and only having 239k mentions For example, a single Tumblr post was reposted/engaged 45k times the impact of the single post and its reposts may be disproportional ly affecting the overall sentiment score Not only was the post negative but it also had the word hate which greatly impacts sentiment and brand passion: The post is: I hate linguistic anthropology. Why? One of the most influential experiments in linguis tic anthropology involved teaching a chimp ASl One of the most influential linguistics is named Noam Chomsky. You know WHOLE FIELD. Tags: #linguistics #linguistic anthropology #academia #academi a puns Although their net sentiments are low at 21% and 17% respectively, both physics and total a nthropology queries have high brand passion scores. Physics has a brand passion score of 90, and total anthropology measures at 81. Looking more specificall y at total an thropology this means people feel very strongly about it. There is an opportunity to leverage brand passion for anthropology by transforming the discussion into a more positive direction in other words a strong communications strategy coul d
140 leverage the brand passion to create positive sentiment and, therefore, stronger potential positive anthropology brand perception. Arch a eology has the opposite challenge. Archaeology has a marginally better net sentiment score at 2 4 %, but a low er brand passion score at 4 6 This indicates archaeology is well received but people are not as moved by the brand as they are with total anthropology (81 brand passion score ), cultural a nthropology (6 2 brand passion score ), or e thnography (65 brand passion score ). D espite its low brand passion, users are still inclined to like arch a eological content more than they are to like content about physics The ratio or total archaeology related content likes (12,187,573) to total archaeology related content mentions ( 14, 630,051) is .83, while the ratio of total physics related content likes (10,839,423) to total p hysics related content mentions (30, 240,268) is .36. In other words, content that has archaeology related mentions is 130 % more likely to be liked than physics related content despite physics having 2.06x more social mentions than archaeology. In regards to the likelihood of content sharing, physics and archaeology are similar. T he ratio of total archaeology related content shares (435,884) to total archaeology related content mentions ( 1 4,630,051 ) is .029 while the ratio of total physics related content shares (957,668) to total physics related content mentions (30,240,268) is .031. Likewise a rchaeology (12,187,573 likes) is 8.5 times more liked tha n total anthropology (1,426,778 likes ) and 13.2 times more liked than sociology (920,215 likes)
141 archaeol ogy mention has an 83% chance of being liked, versus total anthropology at 25 %, physics at 36%, and sociology at 15%. and of sociology. Finally, applied a nthropology p resents one of the largest opportunities. Its high sentiment score of 87% could be harnessed by driving more brand mentions and therefore sparking more anthropology brand pass ion. I next analyzed the emotional attributes and driver compositions of some of the anthropology brands, using the top 50 terms for each total anthropology, cultural anthropology, sociology and physics (for comparative perspectives). Brand emotion drivers are terms that relate to emotional language typically modifying a noun but n ot always. A brand emotion is the emotion or adjective associated with the brand emotion driver. For example, in the sentence This analysi s produces a word cloud with the top 50 words in each cloud. A word cloud is a data visualization used to show the strength of a single word in an overall set of words. In these word clouds, the words are sized based on their frequency. The larger the wo rd, the greater percentage frequency it has in the complete set of emotionally assigned content. The words are colored based on their assigned sentiment green for positive sentiment and red for negative. Starting with the brand emotion drivers and brand emotions for total anthropology as shown in F i gure 5 14 the data show the primary brand driver over the two The following post (and repost across
142 a variety of social media such as Tumblr and LiveJournal) was ab out 2% of the t otal a nthropology mentions: Boas was publishing article after article about what a monster Hitler was and how he should be removed immedi ately. At the time Boas was beginning his career, Anthropologists had been incorrectly using skull measurements to determine who was what race and then participate in the associated racism that is innate to the Great Chain of Being (< idea that society is a progression from grass hut to modern western society. Has been debunked over and over, but its pervasiveness still shows in many still popular cultural ideas.). Boas was so ticked off by both the racism and the lack of scientific integrity inherent in t he skull measuring that his ass traipsed all over and measured *thousands* of skulls the largest study ever of the subject and not only debunked the correlation between race and skull measurements, but proved that skull sizes could be influenced by env dictated. Also within Figure 5 14 better ID emotion drivers the data show themes such as students, classes, and learning as drivers. In Chapter 2, social listening analysis does not support this hypothesis. Any notion of exoticism is not present in the top 50 emotional driver di scussion for total anthropology. In general, and in comparison to other brand drivers later in this discussion, the drivers for total anthropology demonstrate few patterns and foci. In terms of total anthropology emotional attributes, the two most prominen t are strong brand passion scores. Looking at the peripheral set of emotional terms, there is a clear pattern of negative emotional noise contributing to total anthr sentiment score.
143 Figure 5 14 social listening query more positive net brand sentiment score as well as its brand passion score see F igure 5 15 the data show the main emotional field a relatively small subfield. On further investigation its appearance can be attributed to mentions of Stanley Ann Dunham (later known as Ann Dunham) who was an economic anthropologist an hence a more popular term due to cultural relevancy. query scinating mainly posting about their affection for their anthropology courses L ater in this analysis a similar theme is identified in the
144 does not Minds thus lending some evidence of the popularizing of cultural anthropology discussed in Chapter 3 : it'll be interesting to see how that [husband] story line carries throughout hopefully many seasons to come. The producers, who felt that a cultural anthropologist was more vital to the show than Lily's legal eagle, transferred Gunn's character's linguistic skills to Clara. She is fluent in 13 languages, inc luding Thai, French and Creole, and De La Garza speaks "six or seven" of them in the first season. As with the total anthropology analysis, there are a series of critical terms on the worded terms are m ainly in reference to coursework, professors, or majors. As the net sentiment score shows these more critical and negative terms, however, do not outweigh the positive term strength seen in the middle of the word cloud. Figure 5 15 Top brand emotion dr social listening query
145 Social listening analysis using sociology and physics as discipline comparisons for the brand assessments were also run. Figure 5 1 6 below analyzes the brand emotional drivers a nd the emotional attributes for sociology first since it is closer in size (number of mentions) and scholarly focus to anthropology than physics. Recall that the net sentiment for sociology is 10% and the brand passion is 45. Thus, sociology is low on se ntiment, similar to total anthropology at 17%, and it is low on brand passion, unlike cultural anthropology whose brand passion score is 62. Figure 5 1 6. listening query The sociology word cloud data show similar themes to the total anthropology driver mentions, sociology shows one prominent brand emotional driver statement about causing its heavy weighting in the driver analysis:
146 stopped being relevant as soon as you stuck a dick in your ass. Second evolutionary attraction is a budding theory within sociology so making any sort of authoritative statement about the implications it has on real word relationships is shaky at best. That being said, nothing that you said is even discussed when looking at the evolution of human attraction. assigned content. This 15% can be mainly attributed to the death of notable sociologists Peter Bergner, Ruth Gruenberg, Zygmunt Bauman, Peter K wong and others related to or some variation of that phrase Also similar to total a nthropology outside of the two prominent brand emotion drivers, the other drivers are scattered without any nota ble pattern or theme. the social listening query for total a nthropology prominent emotion for t otal a nthropology 33% of all emotional mentions totaling 35% of all emotional mentions for sociology. Overall sociology has more emotional brand attributes that are positive than total anthropology but is similar to cultural anthropology in terms of brand emotions (see Figure 5 16). Interesting to note, however, that cultural anthropology has more positive emotional drivers than sociology. Physics provides another comparison discipline. Remember that t he physics query produced a noisier data set than did the other Netbase queries, so any conclusions and interpretations are limited. This becomes evident in the emotional drivers and attributes word cloud analysis see F igure 5 1 7
147 Figure 5 17. Top br query of the total emotional terms. Water physics refers to fluid mechanics a true topic of physics bu t the posts reveal that water physics is also used to describe how water is visualized in video games a s flow, waves, movement, and so on. Users sometimes discuss graphic processor chips (such as Nvidia) in relationship to the visualizations. It can be argued that this is still physics related content, and therefore still related to the physics brand B ut for this analysis it is less valuable because it is not related directly to physics scholarship ver at 8% which, again, often relates to software that runs the motion of water and other movement in video games. comprised 21% of the
148 emotion attributes. As before, some of these positive emotional attributes terms center on the physics of video games F or example, the following comments were related to video games: also, there's hun ting, an armor and weapon system, and even villages later on Fuc k physics for messing up my gpa Next I have fuckin physics I n other words the se posts express frustration about physics as a course. As with sociology and total anthropology, however, the emotional attributes also include feedback on classes, scholarship, or practitioners as well for example: 1. That was the point. Physics h as much greater rigor than psychology. The standards are not the same, you can get away with fluffing more in psychology as opposed to physics o r 2. Robert Lang is a physicist who worked at NASA studying lasers and has 46 patents on optoelectronics to his name. However, that's not what he's best known for now: he's a legend in the world of origami. His intricate designs are second to none, and they actually have applications back in engineering and 3. Congratulations to these 3 American physici sts for winning the Nobel Prize in Physics today! From left to right Rainer Weiss, Barry Barish, and Kip Thorne have been awarded the Nobel Prize based on their discovery of gravitational waves, which were first predicted by Albert Einstein 100 years ago : Now, Barry has become a brilliant, driven and endearingly geeky CSI investigator, whose determination to uncover the tr strange death leads him to follow up on every unexplained urban legend cutting edge particle accelerator, created by visionary physicist Harrison Wells and hi s STAR Labs team, who claim that this invention will bring about unimaginable advancements in power and medicine. However, something goes horribly wrong during the public unveiling, and when the devastating explosion causes a freak storm, many lives are lo st and Barry is struck by lightning.
149 Thus, in a manner through TV show characters and has user posted content concerning classes. Part of building a great brand is having consistent brand communication and public engagement, as described in Chapter 3 digital engagement and brand communication by comparing the number of news stories and mentions for each of the queries. Netbase was again used to extra ct news mentions for specific topics that is, press releases, articles in online news sources, and similar properties/publishers. Figure 5 1 8 below details the calculations for the news mentions by each of the 10 topics. Physics has the largest number of news mentions during the two year data collection period at about 1.4MM. This is not surprising since 2015 2017 had several discoveries in the field, such as the measurement and proof of gravitational wave change caused by the collision of black holes. A rchaeology comes in second in our list with about 1.1 k mentions. Sociology and total anthropology come in at third and fourth highest number of mentions with 504k and 375k respectively. From both a news communications perspective and a user generated content data perspective, the overall brand of anthropology more research is needed on that brand interaction. The news coverage of ethnography versus cultural anthrop ology is also interesting. The ratio here is almost 4 to 1, with ethnography at about 40k news mentions and cultural anthropology at about 11k. Ethnography makes the news more often than cultural anthropology which may indicate that it is seen as more i nteresting, news worthy, or confused with anthropology (per Chapter 3's discussion on
150 anthropology and ethnography as mistaken synonyms). When c ompar ing the data in Figures 5 13 to 5 1 8 the net sentiment of news about anthropology and the net sentiment in social media mentions of anthropology i n every instance, the news is more favorable than the more general social media posts, commentary, and other content. It may be expected that published news content would be more unbiased and potentially favorable, but there were larger differences than expected. For example, when the news only sentiment scores in Figure 5 1 8 were compared to the user net sentiment scores in Figure 5 13 total anthropology increased by 30%, ethnography by 14%, cultural anthropology by 9%, and archaeology by 15%. Linguistic anthropology/s net sentiment improved by a 165%. Cultural anthropology showed an improvement for news mentions net sentiment score at 9%, indicating that user perception and news perception are more aligned for c ultural anthropology than for any of the other social listening queries. Finally, Figure 5 1 9 below shows the mentions by query topic mapped across the two year data collection period. Strong brands require a steady stream of communications. Looking acro ss the topics through the two year data collection period, the chart shows a steady pulse of communications across the anthropology queries. There are some occasional spikes in mentions, but nothing that indicates a news communications brand silence perio d. In summary, the social listening analysis demonstrated that total anthropology has a negative social sentiment but strong brand passion. Archaeology fares better in terms of sentiment but struggles with brand passion. Applied, cultural, and biological anthropology have the most positive brand sentiment despite their lower number of
151 social mentions. Total anthropology is comparable to sociology in terms of its brand that of total anthropology often referred to as great interesting and fascinating emotional term of hate In terms of brand attributes sociology and cultural a nthropology are most similar among the 10 social listening queries Exoticism was not supported in the social listening analysis, though some popularizing of anthropology through TV shows was supported. Overall, news coverage across anthropology fields was steadier than expected and in line with that of sociology Although it is not clea r if the news headlines and content about anthropology are consistent it is supported that the news coverage is positive. Figure 5 18 Descriptive calculations of total NEWS mentions and net sentiment scores for the 10 Netbase queries over the two year data collection period.
152 Figure 5 1 9 Total NEWS mentions charted across the two year data collection period for the 10 Netbase queries The Pull of Anthropology: Google Search Trends Analysis In Chapter 3 I discussed public engagement as a critical co mmunications reviewed some of the challenges regarding public engagement such as fragmentation, multiple perspectives, and no single owner of the brand message. The social listening analysis demonstrated that anthropology has a steady volume of news communications meaning the brand is consistently present and being pushed through news outlets. In terms of public often are p eople seeking out anthropology versus it being pushed to them in some form? In addition to the social media engagement described above, a Google search trends analysis offers some insight into the pull of anthropology. Data Collection and Cleaning Leverag ing the online Google Trends platform ( https://trends.google.com/trends/ ) I selected the key terms for analysis: Anthropology, Cultural Anthropology Archaeology, Ethnography, and Sociology. For this anal ysis, I looked at the last five years 10/15/12 1/15/17 worldwide. I also collected the top 25 search queries with the word anthropology in them. By search query I mean what the user actually types into
153 the Google search bar. For example, in the sen anthropology? The search query provides a sense of the ways in which people are seeking out anthropology and looking to engage th e brand. Data Analysis and Findings Figure 5 20 below shows search trends for anthropology, cultural anthropology, archaeology, ethnography, and sociology across the five year time frame. These data are worldwide search queries. Google does not provide ra w search counts on each of the queries / key terms. Instead the terms and searches are measured relative to one another. This is an index score. The index score measures interest over time for a topic as a proportion of all searches on all topics on Goo gle at that time and location. In other words, (# of queries for keyword) / (total Google search queries) over time Then 100 based on the strength of each ratio across the time period. The index score represent s the search volume relative to the highest point on the chart for the given region and time. For example, a score of 100 is the top popularity for the term meaning it has the HIGHEST score (# of queries for keyword) / (total Google search queries) over time, in that same a normalized, indexed data score of 5 0 means that search volume is 50% compared to 100 score in other words 50% of the HIGHEST (# of queries for keyword) / (total Google search queries) ratio, and a score of 0 means the term was less than 1% as popular as the peak. Looking at F igure 5 20 it is clear that there were some patterns across all time periods for all terms. The lowest search volume index scores were during the last week of December likely because of the Christmas and New Year holidays. The other consistently low scoring period was during the month of July. This may be due to
154 summer holidays and vacationing. There is a consistent peak across all terms in late August and early September, most likely aligning with the beginning of many academ ic school years. For a complete table of the index scores, per search term, across all time periods see A ppendix D. In terms of total search volume over the 5 year period, sociology has more volume than the other terms. Compared to anthropology there ar e about 1.5 sociology searches for each anthropology search. As measured through Google search volume Anthropology has more than double the total search volume compared t o archaeology: for every one inquiry about archaeology there are 2.12 anthropology searches. This is interesting because archaeology had twice as many mentions as that for anthropology in the social listening analysis. This suggests that although the ant hropology brand pulls more people in via search, archaeology is more digitally discussed than anthropology. Cultural anthropology had the lowest total search volume. Figure 5 20 Google Search Trends Analysis (10/15/12 10/15/17, Worldwide)
15 5 When peopl e are pulled to the anthropology brand, what are they seeking from it? Google calculates the top search queries related to the specific term via index scores. Figure 5 21 shows the top search queries and their related index scores for both anthropology a th position) because Google thinks it is a misspelling. In reality Anthr o pologie is a clothing store, which also might explain why The top 25 terms for both sociology and anthropology have similar themes see Figure 5 21 Many of the inquiries are focused on definitions of each field and asking what it is. Both anthropology and sociology have top sear ches around jobs and degrees as well. They differ in the fact that anthropology has more topically focused search queries such as medical anthropology, museum anthropology, physical anthropology, and forensic anthropology. Sociology, on the other hand, t ends to have more academic oriented terms such as major, book, department, education, degree, journal and AQA. AQA ( http://www.aqa.org.uk/ ) develops educational policy, assesses qualifications, provides different exa ms and textbooks, and guides curriculum for a variety of disciplines. In Chapter 2 I spoke about the fragmentation of the discipline, and in Chapter 3, I American Anthropologist show ed there was a core group of 50 words that have been long term concepts in anthropology. Interestingly, none of those terms are in the top anthropology Google queries except archaeology. Despite this, the interest in anthropological
156 content/research areas as shown in the top 25 search terms versus the more academic focus of sociology, shows the brand fragmentation may have some advantages. Figure 5 21. Anthropology Google Search Trends -Top Search Queries Concerning Anthropology and Sociology (10/15/1 2 10/15/17, Worldwide) In summary, the Google Search trend analysis provided evidence for the strength anthropology has a weaker pull. I would argue, however, that anthro higher quality brand pull because comparing the topic terms around the two
157 disciplines the public is seeking more substance around a topic than it is for sociology. Anthropology has more topically focused search queries, such as medi cal anthropology, museum anthropology, physical anthropology, and forensic anthropology. Sociology, on the other hand, tends to have more academic oriented terms such as major, book, department, education, and degree. In this regard, the various anthropo logy focus areas social listening analysis, anthropology shows a stronger pull than archaeology. This may be because people know what archaeology is and do not need to se arch for it, or they may be more interested in anthropology content versus solely archaeology content. Summary and Discussion The journal title analysis, social listening tests, Web of Science analysis, and ide several insights regarding anthropology itself as well as its focus areas, public engagement, products, and brand: The American Anthropologist Article Title Analysis 1. There are topical fads that enter and exit anthropology over time N otable terms tha t exited are mainly terms for groups of people or tribes T erms associated with current affairs topics are more recent entrants. 2. off topics as well. The core set of concepts show s insignificant total average change over time. 3. All four fields of anthropology are present in the core set of concepts suggesting some subfield inclusion. 4. words a are infrequent with a total of just 16 across all anthropology titles seen since the 1880s. 5. Anthropology has always been the top publisher on ethnography, but in the 1970s th e sum of other fields publishing on ethnography surpassed anthropology thus
158 6. The concept of culture also diffused over time, and anthropology was surpassed by history and sociology as the top publisher on c ulture in the 2010s. Social Listening Analysis 7. Archaeology is more popular in social media than any other anthropology topic / subfield, making archaeology the most visible brand online. 8. Anthropology has negative brand emotional attributes, but high brand passion. 9. Cultural anthropology and ethnography have positive brand emotional attributes and high brand passion. 10. at 33% of all emotional mentions main brand emotions g totaling 35% of all emotional content for sociology indicating a more positive brand association. 11. News social mentions over time were very positive for anthropology, and the news mentions came at a stable communicati ons pace, though arguably at an insufficient total volume. Google Search Trends Analysis 12. d by online search query volume is about 13. Search volume queries are higher for anthropology than for arch aeology, which is the reverse for the online discussion of archaeology versus anthropology. In other words, archaeology is more likely to be discussed, while anthropology is more likely to be searched. 14. People often search for anthropology topical areas rat her than for anthropology academic terms the reverse of searches for sociology. In the next chapter, I discuss the implications for these findings in the hopes of ma down the academic practitioner divide? How can tenure policies and other departmental policies alleviate some of the negative social listening sentiment? How can changing topical focus areas
159 integral part of the curriculum and the practice, as well as part of the discussion about anthropolog y and its brand pull? How do anthropologists increase overall brand communication in social media to create discussion and top of mind awareness?
160 CHAPTER 6 STRATEGIES AND TACTICS TO MOVE FORWARD Idea Starters t In this study I have tried to assess current competitive situation in terms or products and marketable skills I examined the obstacles driving disciplinary divisions, affecting its brand and business, and decreasing its overall fitness. In this final section I make tactical, short term and long term recommendations about how to remove some of the barriers that organizations and institutions face, in order to increase their competitive position and not to pres cribe future but to spark a discussion about how anthropology can continue to evolve operationally and intellectually The discipline may not have a straight path forward, but anthropologists can take deliberate and decisive steps to make in cremental progress. This idea list is not exhaustive. I aim to convert some challenges not crises into opportunities to achieve more of what I see as its great potential. In my reading for this study, I found that some scholars have, indeed, made recommendations for improv ing competitiveness and I have integrated those recommendations into the framework below. Competitive business strategy is about making decisions decisions on what not to do and decisions about what to do. e will depend on the ability to make tough decisions about the training that students require, about licensing and certification of practitioners, and about the relative value of academic and nonacadem ic jobs. It is tempting to say that a nthropology must be deliberate ; that anthropology must be decisive. Of course, t his is a fantasy. Anthropology cannot decide to do anything. But
161 individual anthropologists and anthropology departments can take steps th at will make their students competitive for many kinds of jobs both academic and non academic T hese ideas can also be implemented in organizations such as the American Anthropological Association or the Society for Applied Anthropology B ut w riting a c omprehensive master roadmap for What the practice needs is guiding principles, not play by play instructions principles for making undergraduate and graduate students more competitive for the many kinds of jobs that are available. This will involve: building tactical skills ; focusing on value/impact; enhancing teaching ; making clear within departments that careers in nonacademic, anthropological practice are valued; and own ing what human resources professionals employment pathing Below I discuss ways to (1) push past legacy discipline division s (2) enhanc e energiz e the brand, and (4) build Pushing Past Legacy Discipline Divisions Throughout the history of a nthropology, intellectual divisions damaged the strength of or created confusion in the discipline. One immediate change that anthropology can make is to push past those legacy divides. Perhaps the most important of those legacies is the division between applied and academic anthropology. Resolving this requires integrating practicing and applied anthropology fully into academic anthropology programs T his change is especially important due to the increasing non academic career opportunities and the market economy. Bernard and Gravlee (2014) provide strong evidence for preparing graduates for future careers anthropology graduates.
162 Recall that in 1950 just 22 Ph.D. degrees were awarded in anthropology. With t he launch of Sputnik by the Soviet Union in 1957, the United States entered a 15 year period of investing heavily in post secondary education. By 1974, American universities were awarding 400 Ph.D. degrees a year in anthropology and since 2009 there have b een over 500 Ph.D. graduates per year (Bernard & Gravlee, 2014) After 1975 more and more Ph.D. anthropologists entered into careers outside of the academy B y 1986 more M.A.s and Ph.D.s were employed in nonacademic jobs than in academe (Fluehr Lobban, 1991) and thi s remains true today. There was a rebound in the academic job market when the professors appointed in the 1960s began retiring in the mid 1980s, but that market has never grown sufficiently to accommodate the volume of anthropology graduates. Givens and Jablonski ( 1996) reported that from 1985 and 1994 there were an average of 331 academic jobs listed in the Anthropology Newsletter (a monthly publication of the American Anthropological Association). In 2008, however (Fiske et al., 2009) reported that the American Anthropological Associations website listed just 199 available jobs Compare these numbers to the 1,821 nonacademic jobs in anthropology listed r e cently on www.linkedin.com Those anthropology jobs were for all levels of education, including undergraduates. Anthropologists who acquire the skills relevant for jobs in business, the government, and non profit se ctors will be at an advantage. To prepare for anthropology careers outside the academy, students will have to advocate in their departments for changes in the curriculum, in tenure and promotion policies, and in hiring priorities. While the changes must come from within each department, i ntegration of applied and practicing anthropology should be advocated as
163 incremental to, but not at the expense of other research Peacock (1997) argues that the profession cannot survive if the academic arm of anthropology is weak, and vice versa. Engagement with one an other is key. The Practicing Advisory Work Group (PAWG) was established in 2003 That group is pursuing the inclusion of practicing/applied anthropology in several ways and has made progress. After their study i n 2006, they made 53 recommendations to better integrate practicing and applied anthropologist s into the overall organization and into the profession generally. Notable among their recommendations: (1) adding a practicing anthropologist to the editorial b oard of the AAA (2) developing a certification program for schools that are part of the COPPA (Consortium of Practicing and Applied Anthropology Programs (L. Bennett et al., 2006) and (3) creati ng a standing advisory committee in the AAA The Committee on Practicing, Applied, and Public Interest Anthropology (CoPAPIA) Their comprehensive report detailed how the overall discipline can evolve through the better integration of practicing and applied anthropologist s Their recommendations included outreach, publications, meetings, committees, bylaws, membership, training and education, careers, visibility, publications, and even insurance What I document below reinforces some of their re commendations, and extends them as well. recommendations are detailed here: http://tinyurl.com/y7tf5hux Next, anthropologists can acknowledge, appreciat e, and integrate theoretical arguments and divisions into research work, and then move forward The debates about postmodernism, the crisis of representation, positivism vs. humanism, etc. have calmed, but they still seem to divide the practice and decrea se its strength. Rather than
164 dwelling on debates, anthropologists are better off focusing on the value, impact, implications and contribution toward understanding the human condition and making the world a better place. Debates are important for making t he field better, but if the discipline gets stuck in theoretical deadlock, its fitness is diminished as funding dries up and as students vote with their feet. Theory is important, so if not resolving it creates discomfort then anthropologists can focus o n the middle ground. Comaroff (2010) calls for praxis, share d epistemic operations, and mandated research technique s. He argues that the theoretical way forward consists of: (1) mapping how social realities are realized, (2) critical estrangement of the lived world, (3) deployment of the contradiction as a methodological revelation, and (4) a return to grounded theory Some authors called for broader participation of practitioners in theory building (Cefkin, 2010a, 2010b) Rubel and Rosman (1994) we continue to hold to the general goal of the understanding of human cultural behavior. Thoug h there is great disagreement as to produce a good enough ethnography and to suggest limited generalizations that will eventually be replaced by more far solve the tension in theoretical debates is to continue to focus on the longitudinal and comparative legacies of anthropology. To do that, anthropologists need to break down the divisions that prevent us from building incremental knowledge about people an d cultures. The debate needs to move from a discussion of both science and the humanities, interpretivism and positivism, and understanding and explaining:
165 The distinction between quantitative and q ualitative is often used as cover for talk a mistake. Lots of scientists do their work without numbers, and many scientists whose work is highly quantitative consider themselves to be humanis ts. Neither quantitative nor qualitative researchers have the exclusive right to strive for objectivity; neither humanists nor scientists have a patent on compassion; and empiricism is as much the legacy of inter pretivists and idealists as it is of positiv ists and materialists. Humanism is often used as a synonym for humanitarian or compassionate values and a commitment to the amelioration of suffering. The myth that science is the absence of these values is truly pernicious. We must reject a culture that e quates objectivity with being cold. Counting the dead accurately in Iraq is one way not the only way to preserve outrage. We need more, not less, science lots and lots more and more humanistically informed science, if we are to contribute more to t he amelioration of suffering and the weakening of false ideologies racism, sexism, ethnic nationalism in the world. (Bernard & Gravlee, 2014, p. 6) The ethical problems faced by p racticing and applied anthropolog ists are sometimes different from those faced by academic researc hers. The AAA statement on ethics is a useful guide, but the AAA has not functioned as an arbiter of ethics. Ethical issues are everywhere in anthropology. responsibility practitioners, departments, and governing institutions. If t hey have not already done so, e thics training and scenario planning can be built into departmental curriculum requirements. A cademic territorialism and value judgement s about topics of anthropological inquiry need to be deprioritized in favor of focusing o n skills and student development Territorialism and value judgement s will only sta ll the inevitability of required change in departments and the discipline in terms of curriculum, faculty, and career paths
166 A nthropology needs to enhance its product set t o be competitive in terms of producing the best scholarship and having the most marketable skills. products need to be tangible, tactical, and relatable for employers and scholars. product starts with enhancing skills by teaching stronger methods, creating standards for what great anthropology delivery looks like, and having a shared view of what anthropological training is. This training involves q ualitative and quantitative resea rch methods, but needs to move beyond legacy methods and into digital, integrated data, and technology assisted methods to complement our toolkit. For example, Rogers (2009, 2013) does a solid job of helping to categorize new digital ethnographic methods. He thinks about technology enhanced ethnographic methods in two ways: (1) Virtual methods and (2) Digital methods. Virtual methods are more traditional methods that have been adapte d to work in an online environment (2012) live fieldnoting, online social listening, and netnography/cyber ethnography/digital ethnography (Hine, 2000, 2 015; Kozinets, 2010) D igital methods leverage existing digital data as objects of human systems such as c omputational anthropology (Kuznar, 2006) and e thnomining (Aipperspach et al., 2006) Anthropologists can explore how artificial intelligence, big data, and machine learning can all help better their study of the human condition across time and space. A similar view comes from Patel (2011) He pushes being omni methods oriented. As he explains, W hen I say I wanted a rebellion against the quan qual divide, either/or, better than, or one validating the other is stand ing in the way of Patel challenges anthropologists to look deeper at computational sociology and anthropology for data mining techniques that can bring
167 statistical insights to bear on qualitative text data, advance understanding of semantic structures and social network s These hybridized and integrated methods c an toolkit and make them more marketable as both practicing and academic anthropologists. Technology and data enabled, quantitative and qualitat ive, anthropologists will help anthropology compete with and complement STEM fields. A nthropology is not a STEM discipline, but some anthro pologists are doing STEM work. T here is no reason why anthropology cannot be a STEM discip line and a humanities disc ipline, it is a choice by the individual and how to conduct the work. The issue of anthropological product is bigger than just methodological divisions, however. Anthropologists must think more broadly about their product how to acquire and manage data and how all the varied kinds of data help us understand the human condition Fuentes and Wiessner (2016) argue for the reintegration of anthropology but say that this can only be accomplished through data driven theoretically hybrid anthropological approaches. Sillitoe (2007) says that I f we are going to establish applied anthropology as routine, we have to advance faster ways of working than time p. 156). Thus, enhanced methodological, technical, and technological skills are products anthropologist s need to build and learn in order to be competitive in the human understanding business product also needs to be invented and not just enhanced through new methods, techno logies, and technical expertise. W s and deliverables besides ethnography? For a design researcher, this might be an for a business ramework for a museum and for an advertiser it might be a
168 Whatever that end deliverable is, anthropology departments need to consider what makes the output uniquely anthropological. To be competitive anthropologists need practical, hands on experience in anthropolog ical research and anthropological careers in both undergraduate and graduate studies. (Mack & Squires, 2011) write : W hen PhDs entered the practicing they were able to learn by doing and from mentors. This is less common today with expectations higher for immediate employment and lack of time for appr enticeships T vision that differentiates from someone without academic training (p. 25) but they also say that a Ph.D. who lacks practical knowledge, business understanding and interdisc iplinary experience will have a hard time finding employment. Practical, hands on applied and practicing anthropology experience can come from collaborative research, community engagement, corporate partnerships, data providers, state and federal programs or even in house departmental programs that focus on practical problem s. What does an MIT Media Lab like structure look like for an anthropology program, for example? S ince practitioners themselves are also anthropological products, there needs to be a focus on professional skill development and soft skills. Professional skills such as client engagement, managing a business, communication, and project management are critical for applied and practicing careers. M oving from critique to constructi ve input is critical in non academic career s. As Johnsrud (2001) says: The ability to provide critical thinking is essential in industry and government, so that problems are understood.
169 taking risks and making dec isions), critique alone is inadequate Soft skills such as collaboration, conflict resolution, being able to share and accept input from others, dealing with competing interest s and stakeholders, and team building are a part of every nonacademic career (Wolf 2002). Entrepreneurship is also a professional skill that departments should consider teaching especially since many anthropologists are freelancers one third according to (2009) Anthropology pro grams should foster these skills directly in their programs perhaps eve that a student could point out to a potential employer again with the idea of making skills tangible and marketable. Energizing t he Brand Building a s trong brand is fundamental to increas ing competitiveness. Anthropology is particularly challenged on this front due to its topical breadth and lack of centralized control of the brand. There are some steps all anthropologists and anthropol ogy programs can take however, to increase support consistent attributes. Anthropologists need to identify themselves as anthropologist s. T hey need to wear the label as a source of pride. The m ore visible anthropologists are and the more visible the work they do, the more visible the brand will be. Of course, the brand may be visible but it will not necessarily be unified in terms of message or brand attributes U nification of the message will take time and will likely n eed to come from the AAA or will be embodied in the vision statements of various departments. Step one, however, is to identify as an anthropologist and not a brand of one.
170 Invest in the anthropology community. Culture, brand unity, brand strength, and a c ommon sense of purpose comes from engaging with anthropology peers and fellow community members. Anthropologist s need to participate in anthropological organizations such as AAA and SFAA, not just their specialty organizations (e.g., EPIC or Society for American Archaeology). The discipline and practice will only be as strong as anthropologist s collective ly invest in it, not just in themselves, their careers, or their departments. fresh is to study, comment o n, and contribute to research on modern topics F or example, recent topical developments such as work of cyborg anthropology and even post human anthropology (Whitehead & Wesch, 2012) might represent potential subject matter Big data analysts need research input from anthropolog ists. For example, Maxwell (2013) argues that big d ata is a result of human systems, and all human systems carry values, worldviews, and interpretations. boyd and Crawford (2012) argue that b ig d ata is even changing the definition of knowledge itself. These are topics that anthropologist s are well positioned to tackle knowledge, political economy, power, values, systems thinking, and meaning making. Anthropologists will generally not make large advances in the analysis of big data, but they can be instrumental in improving the validity of the analys is interpretation of the findings, and the collection of the data. This will involve collaboration with computer scientists data scientists, and engineers Other capitalism culture, universal income, automation, artificial intelligence and machine learning. Anthropologists need to be more topically competi tive by anticipating what the next
171 great anthropological perspectives needed will b e some of this great thinking is already happening and anthropologists should continue to do more ( See for example, Textor (1995) and Stoller (2017) ) Create a fresh communication plan. Anthropo logy needs frequent, engaging interaction with the public. This communication may come at the AAA level with press releases O r perhaps they can manage a consortium of scholars that can be part marketing force for publications and part pub l ic engagement fo rce This consortium could be held accountable for proactive public discourse and engagement through interviews, columns in popular publications, and the like. Perhaps the AAA could start a popular public anthropology magazine or website. Departments coul d do something similar for their local communities, alumni, and parents of current students As Kedia (2008) notes, this could have remarkable impact for the brand and competitiveness: Public communication, marketing and even advertising in the future will be c ritical. Anthropologist s will need to communicate their goals and make their knowledge accessible to laypeople and participate even more in public discourse, as such work will entail both a far greater community outreach and circulation of research results to new audiences. No longer are study and project result s relegated solely to scholarly academic journals, but are increasingly included in policy reports, press releases, websites, brochures, fact sheets, newspaper articles, speeches, and countless other types of documentation with a variety of readership. (p. 17) Some anthropologists are avid bloggers, tweeters, and public speakers but the brand would benefit from having a more centralized approach to equity building. Part of that brand centralization c ould mean pushing out messages such as Diversity is our business (Hannerz, 2010) that bring the discipline together Hannerz argues that the phrase encompasses the four fields and is friendly to both academics
172 of cultural relativism. Anthropologists can also reignite the two famous anthropology anthropology is to make A nthropology is the most humanistic (E. R. Wolf, 1964, p. 88) What a fantastic way to reignite a communication platform and a brand. These tagline s however, do not resolve the issue regarding our definition and value prom ise. Rather, it simply gives us a way to present a unified message as a discipline. Downey (2011) builds on this by pushing for communications that posit ion anthropological work as discoveries. He claims that anthropologist s underestimate what could be seen as discoveries which means missing valuable opportunities for communication and public engage ment. P ervasiveness, consistency, and frequency are key to solving the Although an unfortunate truth to some scholars commercialization has transformed higher education A nthropologist s can fight that transformation, or they can deal more effectively with the new conditions to be competitive. This means a focus on building a business that helps students gain skills for critical thinking, for empirical research and for comm unication of research results. All of those skills will improve the ability of students to land jobs As students gain skills and land jobs, the value of those skills will be fostered by departments and faculty who provide such skills will be increasingly valued and rewarded. Anthropology business building need s to happen on an institution by institution basis, but larger discipline wide organizations such as the
173 AAA and the SfAA can help create tactical playbooks that facilitate overall change at the depa rtment level. Also at the department level, the building of a successful anthropology business will begin with updating mission statements. Departments can then build local culture, curriculum, communications, and recruiting effort s based on their mission The at the department level institutions can build deep focus, application, and results by rallying students around a central, unifying mission. That unifying purpose might be a to pical area, a commitment to solving or ameliorating some human problem or even an intellectual approach, but something that unifies the department that translate s into tangible, competitive skills, scholarship, and careers is critical. u r reason for being creates concrete boundaries for larger contribution that could be carried over to anthropology: (1) take complex worlds and be able to get to a core question, (2) create a strategic perspective from the end user point of view, (3) champion for the open ended, champion for the contextual, and (4) make things that have value to people (Mack & Squires, 2011) Every department that develops a central focus on a shared belief that turns into a tangible department business plan will help the discipline at large gain competitive ground. K now ing exactly what you stand for, what you do, and the kinds of results your department gets becomes a recruiting tool for students and faculty and helps both turn out the strongest scholarship and funding applications College and university a dministrat ors and the market could get behind such a vision.
174 The question of how to integrate applied and academic work requires two factors : 1) active recruit ing of experienced practicing or applied anthropologist s to infuse their scholarship and expertise into aca demic programs and 2) valuing the applications work of current faculty in consideration for tenure and promotion. With regard to recruiting, d epartments may need to pay more to attract and convert that talent, but the right hire will pay dividends in ter term competitiveness and possible future donors If a department cannot hire a full time practicing anthropologist for financial, political, or other reason s the n departments need to consider a steady rotation of paid guest lect urers or practitioners who may be on sabbatical and who may want to teach as adjunct s or other presenters who can better integrate the academic and applied spaces. Baba (1994) for example, suggests type appointments, continu ing education seminars, and practitioner sabbatical s (where the practitioner joins the faculty for a period of time supported by the commercial or no n profit sponsor and the academic institution) Duke University has already established these clinical or applied tracks to address the challenges with tenure and promotion, calling them Brondo and Bennett (2012) think this trend is starting already: As more and more anthropologists are finding employment outside of academia while maintaining their relationship to departments of anthropology (as teaching adjuncts, research collaborators, internship sponsors, members of community advisory boards ) to public and private interest is decreas ing. (p. 606) T here are jobs for anthropologist s but the path to get there is indirect and landing those jobs takes a certain entrepreneurial spirit. Anthropology departments need to t ake
175 responsibility for directly closing the career building/mapping gap. Having a specific person assigned to this in the department, or assigned to working with career services, is essential. There have been several books recently published to help stude nts chart their professional path in non academic anth ropology (Briller & Goldmacher, 2008; Ellick & Watkins, 2012; Nolan, 2013, 2017) but departments need to have resources (mentors, career session s professional ism courses, online resources, and, most important, networking and coaching) to help students translate their training into tangible, marketable skills. Two ideas could be : (1) connecting applied mentors to current students in a match making, networking t ype approach (Copeland & Dengah II, 2016) and (2) recognizing anthropology alumni through website features, departm ent updates, or other public acknowledgement programs who provide counsel, guest lectures, and other post graduation departmental engagemen t This recognition also offers alumni something marketable for their r sum With regard to tenure and promotion, a nthropology departments need to revisit their policies about grey literature along with metrics for teaching success (even at T ier 1 institutions). Successful teaching can be partly measured by the success of graduate students in landing jobs Brondo and Bennett (2012) suggest that some departments create non tenure eligibl e positions for practicing anthropologists thereby bringing the practitioners into the academic fold without the traditional tenure requirements. And L. A. Bennett and Khanna (2010) argue that the tenure process should be updated to integrate collaborative community in the review. Department heads should consider how to manage the curriculum as a brand portfolio that can accelerate students and advance skill development It is time
176 to revisit anthropology especially related to data and methods skills Baba (1994) states this well: The anthropology curriculum overall needs to be examined. We need to think specifically not only about the needs of the anthropologist who will never enter the academy, but we need to consider the next wave of academic anthropologist s who will tackle new topics, have access to new data and methods, and who will face increasing competition from other departments, practitioners, and industry knowled ge/applied groups. (p. 183) It would be worthwhile for departments to do a competitive audit of other anthropology departments to drive curriculum innovation and to produce a curriculum that supports integration of academic and applied work Baba (1994) reminds us that : if we wish to bond future practitioners regardless of degree level to our discipline in a way that ensures their future identity as anthropologist, then we should consider very carefully the nature of the graduate educ ation they receive and whether or not it meets these objectives (p. 180). Anthropology departments can consider restructuring but only after deciding on a refined purpose. The general consensus in the literature is that the four field approach continues to have promise even if anthropology departments do not always deliver on it. That said, anthropology departments that can deliver a four field product and four field scholarship will have a differentiating attractive marketplace niche for their students. Barnard (2016) points to the four field approach a s differentiating anthropology fro m other disciplines and as a way for anthropologists be more competitive with other social scien tists who may have different understandings of humanity. Besides four field programs it is also worthwhile for departments to consider opening up specialty tracks. For example, the University of Southern Denmark recently opened up a degree in Marketing Management and Anthropology (Arnould et al., 2012) Consider whether centers, innovative programs and topical interdisciplinary units would
177 help create focus for the program or if they would just be a distraction from treating the core issues. Summary and Discussions: Strategies and Tactics t o Move Forward In this chapter I have laid out a number of ideas and perspectives to help and how departments and organizations can create their own business plans. 1. Integrate applied and practicing anthropology i n coursework, curriculum requirements, and evaluation metrics 2. Acknowledge and integrate theoretical arguments into research work, and then move on to the impact of the work. 3. Follow the AAA ethics code of conduct B oth academic and applied anthropologists must remain vigilant on this issue. 4. Avoid academic territorialism and value judgements about the different kinds of anthropological work. 5. Enhance skills by teaching stronger methods, and by having a shared view of what anthropological training is. 6. Offer practical, hands on experience in anthropology and anthropological careers in both undergraduate and graduate studies 7. Coach professional skill development and soft skills 8. Identify as an anthropologist 9. Invest in the community 10. energized 11. Create a fresh communications plan 12. Re think faculty recruiting and requirements 13. 14. Revisit department policies and focus on tenure and promotion. 15. Address structural options after defining a clear p urpose.
178 These thought starters should help any anthropology organization and the long term value and contribution of the discipline.
179 CHAPTER 7 CONCLUSION This study inves tigated the question H ow can anthropology be competitive as a discipline in the future It analyzed the obstacles hindering competitiveness and made suggestions for how the discipline could move forward in a meaningful way. I used a business framework to shape some of my arguments, and took a historical contextual approach for others The first section historical development of anthropology, with a focus on the competitio n between those who advocated for applied anthropology work and those who took an opposing stance by advocating for academic anthropology. I discussed obstacles to enhancing on, the practitioner academic divide, perpetuation of the academy, theoretical divisions, fractured purpose and value, and departmental divides. examined brand, its products, and its competitors. With regard to brand, s are the practitioners themselves, the attributes of the brand I evaluated product as anthropologists its p professional characteristics the practitioners as products themselves and ethnography as a product Additionally in this section I detailed the intricacies of interdisciplinary product collaboration. In the third analytical section on Higher Education Marketplace how marketplace forces changing economic conditions and priorities have made it difficult for anthropology departments and anthropologists to compete for students,
180 funding, and careers. Here, the critical to pics are the commercialization of post secondary education the evolution of the employment marketplace, and faculty/department polic ies and values. In the fourth and final section I made tactical, short term and long term recommendations on how to remove some of the impediments to the long term success of anthropology in training, in collaborations, in careers, and in policy. This research is not about the death of anthropology or even about its erosion. This work is about identifying and removing barr iers to so it can achieve its full potential. When I started this research, I felt as though I needed to save anthropology and that it w as in trouble. During the course of this research, however, I have come to see that anthropolo hesitant and light the path. brand and product. We need more measurement of the current state of anthropolo brand both how the public perceives the brand and how anthropologists themselves view the brand. them both stronger More content ana lysis needs to be done to further understand the cohesiveness of anthropological topics, and the measurements like the TTR and title analysis used for assessing that cohesiveness need to be applied to analogous data from other disciplines. More investi gation needs to be done into the plusses and minuses of split programs vs. four field programs. From my work on this project, four field anthropology is our true brand/product differentiator and more investigation is needed on how to actualize its
181 potenti al. More work is also needed on the changing role of ethnography/participant observation in the field. take more aggressive action and be willing to experiment in building the anthropology of tomorrow. As Peacock (1997) says, That anthropology must receive what it deserves, not just in dollars but flourishes, or becomes extinct depends on anthropolog s ability to contribute: to become integral and significa nt to our culture and socie ty without becoming subservient (p. 9) Grimshaw and Hart (1994) say that anthropology is in a unique position for potential success : A nthropology has remained in important ways an anti discipline, taking its ideas from anywhere, striving for the whole, constantly reinventing procedures on the move. Thus, as the boundaries defining specialist disciplines give way, anthropology contains within itself many elements o f a more flexible, constructive approach to learning about the world. These are it s strengths and creative source (p. 259) Srivastava (1999) feels that: A future of and for anthropology lies in constantly struggling to evolve a sophisticated theoretical and methodological apparat us, conducting solid fieldwork, and unswervingly subscribing to the premises of human rights, democratization, welfare, and the development of people of all shades of life (p. 550) And, my one of my favorite perspective s : Anthropology fails when we stop l istening. I t fails when we stop observing. needs and ambition. Anthropology works best I think when it seems to work less (Chambers, 2009, p. 374) Th e discipline may not have a prescriptive path forward, but we can take deliberate and decisive steps to make incremental progress. We, as anthropologist s
182 can make that progress much quicker We can and must build product, brand, and urgency to be more com petitive.
183 APPENDIX A STANDARD STOP WORDS Stop Words ( 337 ) 11, 38, 39, 50, 70, 76, 90, 95, 96, 99, 150, 400, 500, 1492, 1521, 1671, 1785, 1794, 1795, 1820, 1863, 1866, 1870, 1876, 1878, 1881, 1889, 1890, 1891, 1892, 1893, 1896, 1897, 1899, 1900, 1902, 1 903, 1905, 1908, 1909, 1915, 1916, 1920, 1925, 1926, 1927, 1928, 1929, 1931, 1934, 1935, 1938, 1939, 1940, 1941, 1945, 1947, 1950, 1952, 1953, 1954, 1955, 1956, 1957, 1960, 1962, 1964, 1967, 1970, 1971, 1974, 1975, 1976, 1984, 1989, 1995, 2000, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 17000, '', !, (, ), ..., .2., /sub, :, ?, @, ``, 125th, 17th, 18th, 1930s, 1970s, 1980s, 19th, 1st, 20th, 21st, 2s, 3rd, aaa, a b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k, l, m, n, o, p, q, r, s, t, u, v, w, x, y, z, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 0, ., ,, /, a, about, above, after, again, against, all, am, an, and, any, are, aren't, as, at, be, because, been, before, being, below, between, both, but, by, can't, cannot, could, couldn't, did, didn't, do, does, doesn't, doing, don't, down, during, each, few, for, from, further, had, hadn't, has, hasn't, have, haven't, having, he, he'd, he'll, he's, her, here, here's, hers, herself, him, himself, his, how, how's, i, i'd, i'll, i'm, i've, if, in, into, is, isn't, it, it's, its, itself, let's, me, more, most, mustn't, my, myself, no, nor, not, of, off, on, once, only, or, other, ought, our, ours ourselves, out, over, own, same, shan't, she, she'd, she'll, she's, should, shouldn't, so, some, such, than, that, that's, the, th eir, theirs, them, themselves, then, there, there's, these, they, they'd, they'll, they're, they've, this, those, through, to, too, under, until, up, very, was, wasn't, we, we'd, we'll, we're, we've, were, weren't, what, what's, when, when's, where, where' s, which, while, who, who's, whom, why, why's, with, won't, would, wouldn't, you, you'd, you'll, you're, you've, your, yours, yourself, yourselves, s, $, %, ;, :, 1930, 1980, /sub, ~
184 APPENDIX B CORE STEMMED TERMS Core Terms (48 8 ) aborigin, accul tur, action, activ, adapt, africa, african, afterword, age, agricultur, algonkian, america, american, among, analysi, ancient, andes, anoth, anthropolog, anthropologist, antiqu, apach, applic, applied, approach, archaeolog, area, arizona, art, asia, aspect associ, australia, australian, author, basketri, bear, begin, behavior, belief, beyond, biocultur, biolog, bird, black, blackfoot, boa, boasian, bodi, bone, brain, brazil, burial, calendar, california, capit, case, categori, cattl, cave, central, centuri ceremoni, certain, chamorro, chang, cheyenn, child, childhood, children, china, chippewa, christian, citi, civil, clan, class, classic, classif, coast, coetze, cognit, collect, coloni, color, columbia, comment, communic, communiti, compar, comparison, co mplex, compon, componenti, comput, concept, concern, confer, conflict, congress, conserv, consider, construct, contact, contemporari, context, control, copper, correl, critiqu, cross, cultur, current, custom, danc, data, de, definit, demograph, descent, de script, design, develop, dialect, differ, diffus, dimens, discours, distinguish, distribut, divers, domest, dove, dream, drink, earli, east, eastern, ecolog, econom, economi, emerg, empir, engag, england, environment, eskimo, essay, ethic, ethnic, ethnogra ph, ethnographi, ethnolog, evid, evolut, evolutionari, exampl, excav, exchang, experi, explain, explan, exploit, explor, faction, factori, famili, femal, fertil, festiv, field, filipino, film, find, florida, folk, food, form, formal, foundat, function, fut ur, game, gender, general, genet, global, govern, grammar, great, gren, group, guam, guinea, hawaiian, hawk, head, health, heritag, hierarchi, highland, histor, histori, hopi, hors, household, human, hunt, hypothesi, ident, ideolog, imagin, immigr, implic, incest, india, indian, indigen, individu, indonesia, inscript, institut, integr, interact, intern, interpret, introduct, investig, iroquoi, island, isra, japan, japanes, katrina, keith, kentucki, kin, kinship, knowledg, labor, land, landscap, languag, lat in, law, lectur, legaci, lesli, levi, life, like, limit, linguist, local, look, love, madagascar, make, malawi, man, manag, margaret, marit, market, marriag, materi, maya, mead, mean, medicin, memori, method, mexican, mexico, michigan, middl, migrant, miss ouri, mobil, model, modern, moral, mound, movement, museum, music, muslim, myth, name, narrat, nation, nativ, natur, navaho, navajo, near, negoti, neoliber, network, new, nigeria, nomad, north, northeastern, northern, northwest, northwestern, note, object, order, organ, origin, otterbein, pacif, paleolith, pastor, pattern, pawne, peasant, peopl, perform, person, perspect, peru, peruvian, peyot, philippin, physic, pima, place, plain, plant, plateau, pleistocen, polit, popul, porto, posit, possibl, potteri, p ower, powhatan, practic, precolumbian, prehistor, prehistori, preliminari, present, primat, primit, problem, process, product, properti, psycholog, public, pueblo, question, race, racial, recent, reflect, refuge, region, relat, relationship, religi, religi on, remain, repli, report, represent, reproduct, research, resourc, respons, review, right, risk, ritual, river, rock, role, roman, ruin, rural, samoan, sampl, san, scienc, scientif, select, self, semant, settlement, sex, sexual, shift, signific, site, siz e, sketch, snake, social, societi, sociocultur, sociolog, south, southeastern, southern, southwest, southwestern, soviet, space, specimen, speech, state, status, stock, stone, stratif, structur, studi, style, subject, subsist, supper, symbol, symposium, sy stem, taboo, taxonomi, techniqu, technolog, term, terminolog, terror, test, tewa, texa, theori, time, tool, totem, toward, trade, tradit, train, transform, transit, translat, transnat, trend, tribal, tribe, tusayan, two, type, typolog, unit, univers, upper urban, us, use, valley, valu, variabl, variat, video, vietnam, view, villag, violenc, virginia, visual, war, water, wenner, west, western, whi, white, women, work, world, year, zuni,
185 APPENDIX C PERCENTAGE SHARE OF CORE STEMMED WORD PER DECADE
186 18 80s 1890s 1900s 1910s 1920s 1930s 1940s 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 2010s Total Stemmed word count 151 1071 1573 1359 1261 1617 1387 2178 2757 1822 1472 2014 2928 2266 american 0.66% 0.75% 0.83% 1.32% 1.03% 0.68% 0.50% 1.47% 0.58% 0.49% 0.41% 0.8 4% 0.27% 0.31% among 0.66% 0.56% 0.51% 0.52% 0.56% 0.99% 0.94% 0.83% 1.05% 0.60% 0.48% 0.79% 0.41% 0.53% ancient 0.66% 0.75% 0.64% 0.44% 0.32% 0.19% 0.22% 0.05% 0.07% 0.11% 0.14% 0.10% 0.10% 0.26% anthropolog 0.66% 0.93% 0.51% 0.74% 0.48% 0.43% 1.44% 2. 02% 1.05% 1.37% 1.36% 1.64% 1.81% 3.35% earli 0.66% 0.28% 0.25% 0.15% 0.24% 0.37% 0.22% 0.14% 0.11% 0.27% 0.07% 0.05% 0.10% 0.22% histori 0.66% 0.28% 0.06% 0.15% 0.32% 0.43% 0.36% 0.46% 0.22% 0.16% 0.20% 0.50% 0.27% 0.22% human 1.32% 0.47% 0.19% 0.22% 0 .08% 0.12% 0.22% 0.46% 0.18% 0.60% 0.68% 0.55% 0.65% 0.35% indian 3.31% 2.52% 2.35% 1.77% 2.06% 1.42% 1.08% 0.64% 0.58% 0.22% 0.48% 0.20% 0.14% 0.09% languag 0.66% 0.93% 1.72% 1.18% 0.40% 0.19% 0.58% 0.32% 0.33% 0.27% 0.48% 0.30% 0.75% 0.49% mexico 0.66 % 0.75% 1.08% 0.74% 0.56% 0.37% 0.14% 0.09% 0.11% 0.22% 0.14% 0.20% 0.24% 0.22% new 0.66% 0.65% 1.02% 1.62% 0.87% 0.56% 0.36% 0.55% 0.11% 0.60% 0.34% 0.70% 0.65% 0.35% note 3.31% 1.12% 1.40% 1.69% 1.74% 0.68% 0.87% 0.14% 0.25% 0.16% 0.07% 0.05% 0.03% 0.0 9% origin 0.66% 0.84% 0.25% 0.59% 0.56% 0.37% 0.50% 0.09% 0.29% 0.22% 0.48% 0.25% 0.10% 0.04% social 0.66% 0.19% 0.19% 0.44% 0.56% 0.87% 1.66% 2.16% 1.74% 1.32% 0.48% 0.50% 0.99% 0.71% state 0.66% 0.19% 0.13% 0.22% 0.16% 0.12% 0.29% 0.18% 0.18% 0.38% 0. 34% 0.50% 0.58% 0.44% time 1.32% 0.19% 0.19% 0.07% 0.08% 0.06% 0.14% 0.18% 0.11% 0.05% 0.20% 0.10% 0.34% 0.26% america 0.56% 0.45% 0.88% 0.48% 0.37% 0.36% 0.69% 0.11% 0.11% 0.20% 0.20% 0.17% 0.04% aborigin 1.03% 1.14% 0.52% 0.63% 0.19% 0.14% 0.14% 0.0 4% 0.05% 0.14% 0.15% 0.14% 0.04% archaeolog 0.47% 1.21% 0.96% 0.48% 1.05% 0.14% 0.78% 0.40% 0.49% 0.41% 1.09% 0.34% 0.53% central 0.28% 0.19% 0.07% 0.24% 0.49% 0.07% 0.28% 0.15% 0.11% 0.14% 0.25% 0.14% 0.09% coast 0.28% 0.19% 0.44% 0.56% 0.25% 0.22% 0.14% 0.18% 0.05% 0.07% 0.20% 0.07% 0.09% cultur 0.28% 0.45% 1.10% 1.98% 2.10% 3.75% 2.53% 2.47% 1.92% 1.90% 1.94% 2.19% 0.75% evid 0.19% 0.19% 0.29% 0.08% 0.12% 0.14% 0.14% 0.11% 0.16% 0.27% 0.05% 0.10% 0.09% famili 0.19% 0.32% 0.37% 0.24% 0.12% 0.2 2% 0.37% 0.47% 0.38% 0.20% 0.05% 0.03% 0.09% histor 0.19% 0.06% 0.22% 0.16% 0.25% 0.43% 0.41% 0.11% 0.05% 0.14% 0.15% 0.24% 0.04% island 0.09% 0.19% 0.66% 0.16% 0.31% 0.29% 0.09% 0.18% 0.16% 0.07% 0.10% 0.17% 0.13%
187 linguist 0.09% 0.32% 0.74% 0.16% 0. 25% 0.50% 0.23% 0.36% 0.33% 0.07% 0.15% 0.20% 0.26% marriag 0.19% 0.13% 0.15% 0.16% 0.37% 0.22% 0.14% 0.36% 0.16% 0.20% 0.05% 0.07% 0.13% maya 0.37% 0.32% 0.29% 1.27% 0.87% 0.07% 0.09% 0.15% 0.05% 0.07% 0.25% 0.14% 0.22% north 0.28% 0.32% 1.03% 0.63% 0.87% 0.36% 0.18% 0.25% 0.22% 0.27% 0.15% 0.17% 0.18% organ 0.09% 0.19% 0.37% 0.71% 0.74% 0.94% 0.55% 0.40% 0.38% 0.34% 0.10% 0.17% 0.09% problem 0.09% 0.19% 0.37% 0.24% 0.80% 0.94% 0.69% 0.44% 0.49% 0.07% 0.10% 0.14% 0.09% religion 0.09% 0.06% 0.07 % 0.16% 0.12% 0.29% 0.18% 0.11% 0.05% 0.14% 0.15% 0.03% 0.13% south 0.28% 0.38% 0.59% 0.08% 0.19% 0.29% 0.05% 0.11% 0.11% 0.41% 0.15% 0.17% 0.35% studi 0.93% 0.45% 0.66% 0.48% 0.37% 1.23% 0.96% 1.60% 0.44% 0.95% 0.55% 0.51% 0.22% use 0.56% 0.32% 0.29 % 0.32% 0.12% 0.22% 0.32% 0.07% 0.33% 0.14% 0.20% 0.10% 0.18% western 0.66% 0.38% 0.22% 0.08% 0.31% 0.22% 0.23% 0.15% 0.22% 0.14% 0.05% 0.07% 0.09% belief 0.06% 0.07% 0.24% 0.12% 0.14% 0.18% 0.04% 0.16% 0.07% 0.05% 0.10% 0.04% east 0.06% 0.07% 0.32 % 0.12% 0.07% 0.09% 0.22% 0.05% 0.07% 0.05% 0.10% 0.09% life 0.06% 0.07% 0.08% 0.19% 0.07% 0.18% 0.11% 0.11% 0.14% 0.05% 0.20% 0.22% mexican 0.32% 0.15% 0.08% 0.19% 0.22% 0.05% 0.22% 0.11% 0.27% 0.25% 0.03% 0.31% theori 0.19% 0.07% 0.16% 0.25% 0.5 0% 0.64% 0.54% 0.22% 0.54% 0.20% 0.17% 0.18% concept 0.09% 0.07% 0.32% 0.31% 0.43% 0.46% 0.40% 0.44% 0.14% 0.35% 0.10% 0.04% kinship 0.19% 0.37% 0.32% 1.30% 0.94% 0.92% 0.98% 0.55% 0.34% 0.10% 0.10% 0.22% hunt 0.15% 0.24% 0.12% 0.22% 0.09% 0.07% 0.05% 0.20% 0.05% 0.14% 0.09% northwest 0.15% 0.32% 0.19% 0.07% 0.09% 0.07% 0.05% 0.07% 0.10% 0.07% 0.04% pattern 0.07% 0.16% 0.06% 0.22% 0.23% 0.36% 0.33% 0.27% 0.15% 0.24% 0.09% ritual 0.15% 0.16% 0.12% 0.07% 0.23% 0.18% 0.16% 0.48% 0.35% 0.3 4% 0.35% evolut 0.66% 0.28% 0.13% 0.16% 0.06% 0.29% 0.55% 0.29% 0.38% 0.41% 0.15% 0.14% 0.09% analysi 0.09% 0.06% 0.16% 0.31% 0.14% 0.69% 0.91% 0.66% 0.68% 0.25% 0.17% 0.04% northern 0.09% 0.45% 0.16% 0.43% 0.43% 0.18% 0.22% 0.05% 0.14% 0.25% 0.14% 0.09% research 0.09% 0.06% 0.32% 0.06% 0.58% 0.28% 0.15% 0.05% 0.34% 0.10% 0.24% 0.18% econom 0.66% 0.13% 0.08% 0.06% 0.07% 0.23% 0.44% 0.27% 0.07% 0.20% 0.03% 0.09% societi 0.13% 0.32% 0.43% 0.79% 0.87% 0.51% 0.38% 0.54% 0.40% 0.10% 0.18% poli t 0.09% 0.24% 0.19% 0.07% 0.18% 0.51% 0.60% 0.54% 0.94% 0.85% 1.06% african 0.16% 0.06% 0.29% 0.28% 0.22% 0.16% 0.27% 0.30% 0.17% 0.04%
188 associ 0.08% 0.25% 0.07% 0.09% 0.07% 0.22% 0.07% 0.05% 0.20% 0.04% complex 0.40% 0.06% 0.22% 0.05% 0.1 8% 0.05% 0.20% 0.10% 0.03% 0.04% develop 0.66% 0.19% 0.25% 0.07% 0.12% 0.22% 0.37% 0.22% 0.38% 0.14% 0.25% 0.07% 0.26% system 0.37% 0.32% 0.07% 0.56% 0.36% 0.55% 0.36% 0.38% 0.20% 0.30% 0.14% 0.18% chang 0.06% 0.15% 0.19% 0.65% 0.87% 0.80% 0.55% 0 .68% 0.20% 0.51% 0.35% popul 0.06% 0.07% 0.06% 0.07% 0.14% 0.15% 0.38% 0.61% 0.20% 0.07% 0.09% process 0.09% 0.07% 0.12% 0.29% 0.41% 0.22% 0.33% 0.48% 0.10% 0.07% 0.13% women 0.07% 0.06% 0.07% 0.05% 0.15% 0.27% 0.34% 0.55% 0.20% 0.35% world 0.07% 0.12% 0.29% 0.64% 0.15% 0.05% 0.27% 0.10% 0.07% 0.62% modern 0.09% 0.13% 0.12% 0.14% 0.23% 0.04% 0.16% 0.34% 0.30% 0.34% 0.13% scienc 0.37% 0.25% 0.19% 0.14% 0.14% 0.18% 0.11% 0.34% 0.25% 0.10% 0.31% communiti 0.09% 0.12% 0.36% 0.46% 0.87% 0.49% 0.14% 0.30% 0.41% 0.35% structur 0.09% 0.19% 0.36% 0.92% 1.09% 1.26% 0.82% 0.25% 0.14% 0.04% behavior 0.06% 0.22% 0.14% 0.58% 0.49% 0.07% 0.10% 0.31% 0.09% biolog 0.06% 0.07% 0.05% 0.04% 0.16% 0.41% 0.10% 0.34% 0.44% conflict 0.06% 0.14% 0.09% 0.25% 0.22% 0.27% 0.05% 0.20% 0.09% guinea 0.06% 0.07% 0.18% 0.07% 0.11% 0.20% 0.20% 0.14% 0.09% implic 0.06% 0.22% 0.09% 0.18% 0.49% 0.20% 0.10% 0.10% 0.04% art 0.56% 0.06% 0.29% 0.40% 0.07% 0.14% 0.04% 0.11% 0.07% 0. 15% 0.07% 0.09% peru 0.28% 0.13% 0.07% 0.16% 0.07% 0.05% 0.04% 0.05% 0.27% 0.20% 0.03% 0.09% west 0.19% 0.13% 0.37% 0.24% 0.14% 0.14% 0.07% 0.05% 0.27% 0.05% 0.20% 0.04% ethnograph 0.19% 0.08% 0.07% 0.14% 0.36% 0.22% 0.34% 0.10% 0.20% 0.09% dom est 0.09% 0.08% 0.07% 0.05% 0.04% 0.22% 0.07% 0.05% 0.17% 0.09% prehistori 0.08% 0.14% 0.18% 0.07% 0.11% 0.20% 0.05% 0.07% 0.04% toward 0.08% 0.14% 0.14% 0.15% 0.22% 0.27% 0.25% 0.17% 0.04% hypothesi 0.07% 0.07% 0.05% 0.15% 0.05% 0.20 % 0.10% 0.03% 0.04% individu 0.07% 0.07% 0.14% 0.15% 0.16% 0.34% 0.10% 0.03% 0.04% agricultur 0.09% 0.14% 0.05% 0.11% 0.11% 0.48% 0.40% 0.07% 0.09% anthropologist 0.14% 0.18% 0.11% 0.38% 0.20% 0.10% 0.17% 0.40% case 0.29% 0.18% 0. 36% 0.44% 0.27% 0.20% 0.24% 0.09%
189 ecolog 0.07% 0.28% 0.25% 0.60% 0.41% 0.45% 0.27% 0.13% genet 0.07% 0.05% 0.07% 0.27% 0.07% 0.20% 0.03% 0.22% interact 0.14% 0.09% 0.07% 0.05% 0.14% 0.05% 0.07% 0.22% perspect 0.07% 0.09% 0.07% 0 .38% 0.20% 0.30% 0.31% 0.18% role 0.29% 0.46% 0.18% 0.22% 0.14% 0.15% 0.10% 0.18% sexual 0.07% 0.05% 0.11% 0.05% 0.20% 0.20% 0.20% 0.09% view 0.14% 0.18% 0.15% 0.16% 0.27% 0.15% 0.17% 0.18% properti 0.09% 0.06% 0.08% 0.12% 0.14% 0. 07% 0.05% 0.07% 0.25% 0.17% 0.09% tradit 0.19% 0.19% 0.16% 0.12% 0.23% 0.18% 0.11% 0.07% 0.25% 0.20% 0.13% upper 0.28% 0.06% 0.16% 0.12% 0.09% 0.15% 0.05% 0.14% 0.05% 0.03% 0.04% religi 0.19% 0.32% 0.06% 0.09% 0.07% 0.05% 0.07% 0.05% 0.14% 0.0 4% knowledg 0.29% 0.06% 0.18% 0.04% 0.11% 0.20% 0.10% 0.51% 0.22% settlement 0.06% 0.06% 0.14% 0.07% 0.11% 0.34% 0.25% 0.03% 0.04% symbol 0.28% 0.25% 0.07% 0.08% 0.14% 0.15% 0.16% 0.34% 0.15% 0.03% 0.04% nation 0.06% 0.07% 0.24% 0.09% 0.15% 0.11% 0.07% 0.15% 0.17% 0.31% sex 0.13% 0.07% 0.08% 0.05% 0.15% 0.22% 0.20% 0.10% 0.07% 0.09% ethnic 0.06% 0.08% 0.14% 0.22% 0.05% 0.14% 0.25% 0.14% 0.04% ethnographi 0.08% 0.14% 0.15% 0.05% 0.14% 0.25% 0.24% 0.18% mean 0.66% 0.09% 0.06% 0.09% 0.22% 0.11% 0.14% 0.15% 0.14% 0.13% technolog 0.09% 0.09% 0.07% 0.05% 0.14% 0.05% 0.17% 0.09% context 0.05% 0.15% 0.05% 0.14% 0.15% 0.17% 0.09% control 0.14% 0.18% 0.16% 0.14% 0.25% 0.03% 0.04% ident 0.05% 0. 22% 0.22% 0.14% 0.60% 0.31% 0.18% model 0.05% 0.40% 0.60% 0.54% 0.25% 0.34% 0.13% primat 0.05% 0.07% 0.16% 0.14% 0.10% 0.14% 0.04% white 0.09% 0.15% 0.06% 0.14% 0.07% 0.11% 0.14% 0.25% 0.14% 0.09% brazil 0.06% 0.14% 0.07% 0.05% 0.20% 0.05% 0.10% 0.18% paleolith 0.19% 0.08% 0.07% 0.11% 0.11% 0.07% 0.20% 0.03% 0.04% market 0.07% 0.04% 0.05% 0.14% 0.10% 0.14% 0.18% site 0.22% 0.40% 0.19% 0.04% 0.05% 0.14% 0.10% 0.07% 0.13%
190 narrat 0.08% 0.12% 0.04% 0.05% 0. 07% 0.20% 0.14% 0.13% power 0.06% 0.07% 0.22% 0.14% 0.50% 0.14% 0.22% household 0.08% 0.11% 0.05% 0.07% 0.10% 0.14% 0.09% labor 0.08% 0.07% 0.16% 0.41% 0.10% 0.07% 0.26% communic 0.22% 0.05% 0.14% 0.05% 0.07% 0.04% divers 0.04% 0.05% 0.07% 0.05% 0.10% 0.18% evolutionari 0.22% 0.16% 0.20% 0.10% 0.14% 0.04% mobil 0.15% 0.05% 0.20% 0.05% 0.10% 0.13% respons 0.04% 0.11% 0.07% 0.20% 0.51% 0.18% sociocultur 0.07% 0.11% 0.07% 0.05% 0.03% 0.31% transform 0.04% 0.16% 0.14% 0.25% 0.34% 0.09% peopl 0.19% 0.06% 0.22% 0.16% 0.19% 0.29% 0.09% 0.22% 0.14% 0.15% 0.03% 0.13% age 0.19% 0.06% 0.24% 0.12% 0.29% 0.14% 0.11% 0.14% 0.10% 0.14% 0.13% field 0.13% 0.24% 0.12% 0.29% 0.14% 0.05% 0.07% 0.15% 0.17% 0.09% place 0.06% 0.15% 0.12% 0.22% 0.14% 0.05% 0.20% 0.15% 0.24% 0.35% univers 0.06% 0.07% 0.08% 0.14% 0.23% 0.16% 0.20% 0.10% 0.07% 0.09% practic 0.07% 0.43% 0.09% 0.05% 0.07% 0.10% 0.34% 0.40% museum 0.09% 0. 38% 0.15% 0.08% 0.14% 0.05% 0.07% 0.25% 0.07% 0.09% exchang 0.09% 0.22% 0.07% 0.10% 0.07% 0.04% perform 0.07% 0.06% 0.05% 0.07% 0.20% 0.03% 0.04% explan 0.06% 0.22% 0.14% 0.05% 0.07% 0.04% capit 0.09% 0.05% 0.20% 0.20% 0.07% 0.13% lectur 0.05% 0.41% 0.40% 0.07% 0.04% recent 0.19% 0.38% 0.07% 0.32% 0.12% 0.36% 0.09% 0.04% 0.07% 0.05% 0.03% 0.04% natur 0.66% 0.09% 0.13% 0.12% 0.14% 0.32% 0.11% 0.27% 0.10% 0.14% 0.13% reflect 0.06% 0.07% 0.05% 0.07% 0.07% 0.10% 0.17% 0.13% bodi 0.07% 0.07% 0.23% 0.04% 0.20% 0.10% 0.24% 0.18% transit 0.07% 0.18% 0.04% 0.14% 0.05% 0.10% 0.13% trade 0.66% 0.06% 0.08% 0.09% 0.04% 0.07% 0.20% 0.07% 0.13% emerg 0.07% 0.07% 0.07% 0.15% 0.24% 0. 22%
191 right 0.06% 0.06% 0.04% 0.14% 0.40% 0.61% 0.09% self 0.07% 0.27% 0.05% 0.07% 0.09% work 0.28% 0.38% 0.07% 0.40% 0.06% 0.07% 0.18% 0.14% 0.20% 0.20% 0.22% food 0.09% 0.06% 0.22% 0.14% 0.14% 0.05% 0.20% 0.22% economi 0 .22% 0.14% 0.34% 0.35% 0.31% 0.31% public 0.06% 0.05% 0.20% 0.10% 0.17% 0.71% explor 0.19% 0.25% 0.15% 0.16% 0.07% 0.15% 0.07% 0.04% black 0.08% 0.07% 0.20% 0.03% 0.04% futur 0.07% 0.07% 0.25% 0.03% 0.18% reproduct 0.06% 0.20% 0.20% 0.14% 0.09% gender 0.14% 0.45% 0.17% 0.31% manag 0.20% 0.20% 0.03% 0.26% mead 0.75% 0.05% 0.10% 0.09% network 0.14% 0.05% 0.14% 0.13% risk 0.07% 0.15% 0.14% 0.09% southern 0.6 6% 0.19% 0.25% 0.29% 0.32% 0.37% 0.14% 0.18% 0.11% 0.38% 0.20% 0.10% 0.09% race 0.09% 0.06% 0.15% 0.32% 0.06% 0.22% 0.14% 0.22% 0.11% 0.65% 0.17% 0.31% method 0.66% 0.06% 0.44% 0.32% 0.19% 0.36% 0.46% 0.33% 0.16% 0.05% 0.10% 0.09% eastern 0.19% 0 .52% 0.08% 0.25% 0.22% 0.09% 0.07% 0.27% 0.05% 0.03% 0.04% villag 0.19% 0.22% 0.16% 0.12% 0.22% 0.64% 0.87% 0.16% 0.05% 0.10% 0.09% africa 0.06% 0.56% 0.06% 0.22% 0.23% 0.11% 0.33% 0.10% 0.24% 0.31% southwest 0.24% 0.06% 0.07% 0.32% 0.07% 0. 05% 0.20% 0.10% 0.18% unit 0.66% 0.06% 0.16% 0.29% 0.18% 0.11% 0.22% 0.15% 0.17% 0.18% speech 0.06% 0.07% 0.07% 0.05% 0.15% 0.05% 0.05% 0.03% 0.04% review 0.09% 0.06% 0.07% 0.05% 0.11% 0.22% 0.05% 0.20% 0.31% integr 0.14% 0.14% 0.1 8% 0.05% 0.05% 0.03% 0.09% centuri 0.13% 0.16% 0.06% 0.23% 0.11% 0.11% 0.05% 0.31% 0.22% middl 0.13% 0.24% 0.12% 0.05% 0.18% 0.22% 0.10% 0.14% 0.04% space 0.08% 0.05% 0.07% 0.05% 0.15% 0.27% 0.18% moral 0.15% 0.05% 0.04% 0.11% 0.10% 0.14% 0.40%
192 limit 0.06% 0.14% 0.18% 0.11% 0.05% 0.10% 0.18% rural 0.09% 0.14% 0.11% 0.16% 0.30% 0.17% 0.13% collect 0.38% 0.08% 0.06% 0.07% 0.04% 0.05% 0.15% 0.14% 0.04% local 0.12% 0.04% 0.05% 0.20% 0.17% 0.13% citi 0.09% 0.16% 0.04% 0.05% 0.15% 0.10% 0.18% child 0.19% 0.07% 0.06% 0.07% 0.05% 0.05% 0.05% 0.10% 0.18% madagascar 0.16% 0.05% 0.10% 0.14% 0.04% biocultur 0.05% 0.10% 0.14% 0.13% global 0.05% 0.10% 0.48% 0.18% mem ori 0.16% 0.15% 0.07% 0.22% shift 0.11% 0.10% 0.03% 0.18% nativ 0.13% 0.37% 0.16% 0.25% 0.36% 0.23% 0.11% 0.15% 0.17% 0.09% christian 0.06% 0.07% 0.14% 0.07% 0.05% 0.07% 0.22% indigen 0.08% 0.05% 0.07% 0.15% 0.41% 0.40% class 0.19% 0.23% 0.11% 0.20% 0.07% 0.09% california 0.37% 0.95% 0.22% 0.63% 0.25% 0.29% 0.07% 0.10% 0.10% 0.04% hopi 0.37% 0.32% 0.07% 0.16% 0.43% 0.29% 0.04% 0.05% 0.03% 0.04% intern 0.09% 0.19% 0.29% 0.06% 0.07% 0.11% 0.1 0% 0.10% 0.18% health 0.06% 0.04% 0.25% 0.07% 0.18% muslim 0.04% 0.05% 0.20% 0.04% violenc 0.04% 0.10% 0.27% 0.31% music 0.37% 0.19% 0.16% 0.31% 0.14% 0.09% 0.05% 0.03% 0.04% contemporari 0.22% 0.05% 0.25% 0. 27% 0.13% construct 0.07% 0.25% 0.14% 0.22% subject 0.06% 0.10% 0.10% 0.22% beyond 0.06% 0.20% 0.17% 0.13% boasian 0.05% 0.14% 0.04% classic 0.25% 0.10% 0.09% imagin 0.10% 0.10% 0.26% la ndscap 0.20% 0.14% 0.22%
193 negoti 0.15% 0.10% 0.18% transnat 0.05% 0.20% 0.22% whi 0.05% 0.14% 0.13% stone 0.66% 1.03% 0.32% 0.37% 0.63% 0.19% 0.14% 0.05% 0.04% 0.05% 0.07% 0.07% 0.04% relat 0.37% 0.32% 0.29 % 0.32% 0.31% 0.43% 0.55% 0.47% 0.49% 0.14% 0.17% 0.09% compar 0.09% 0.13% 0.07% 0.06% 0.14% 0.18% 0.29% 0.16% 0.07% 0.07% 0.04% form 0.13% 0.37% 0.12% 0.07% 0.18% 0.18% 0.16% 0.14% 0.20% 0.09% tool 0.06% 0.07% 0.14% 0.15% 0.16% 0.07% 0.07 % 0.04% interpret 0.06% 0.16% 0.22% 0.32% 0.22% 0.27% 0.07% 0.07% 0.13% india 0.09% 0.08% 0.14% 0.11% 0.11% 0.20% 0.10% 0.22% boa 0.07% 0.51% 0.07% 0.05% 0.07% 0.20% 0.04% northeastern 0.13% 0.22% 0.24% 0.25% 0.22% 0.07% 0.05% 0.07 % 0.03% 0.04% australia 0.09% 0.19% 0.07% 0.16% 0.19% 0.14% 0.05% 0.05% 0.14% 0.07% 0.22% scientif 0.06% 0.07% 0.05% 0.22% 0.20% 0.14% 0.13% empir 0.06% 0.05% 0.14% 0.17% 0.18% law 0.66% 0.37% 0.07% 0.19% 0.22% 0.09% 0.40% 0.14% 0.17% 0.13% environment 0.09% 0.05% 0.07% 0.07% 0.24% 0.09% valley 0.28% 0.57% 0.44% 0.24% 0.19% 0.14% 0.04% 0.07% 0.07% 0.04% make 0.19% 0.06% 0.07% 0.06% 0.14% 0.04% 0.27% 0.10% 0.40% govern 0.07% 0.04% 0.14% 0.07% 0.31% s an 0.19% 0.37% 0.32% 0.06% 0.05% 0.07% 0.07% 0.04% ethic 0.06% 0.05% 0.07% 0.17% 0.13% year 0.09% 0.13% 0.09% 0.07% 0.10% 0.40% florida 0.09% 0.37% 0.08% 0.14% 0.07% 0.10% 0.09% find 0.09% 0.07% 0.14% 0.09% marg aret 0.68% 0.10% 0.09% medicin 0.09% 0.32% 0.07% 0.48% 0.12% 0.22% 0.05% 0.07% 0.05% 0.07% 0.04% valu 0.06% 0.07% 0.28% 0.36% 0.16% 0.10% 0.22% present 0.06% 0.15% 0.16% 0.14% 0.18% 0.07% 0.05% 0.07% 0.13% introduct 0.09% 0.18% 0.11% 0.05% 0.10% 0.04%
194 southeastern 0.13% 0.32% 0.19% 0.22% 0.04% 0.05% 0.07% 0.04% war 0.13% 0.22% 0.29% 0.11% 0.05% 0.20% 0.18% activ 0.19% 0.06% 0.11% 0.16% 0.14% 0.04% childhood 0.06% 0.04% 0.11% 0.17% 0.04% action 0.04% 0.11% 0.14% 0.09% film 0.05% 0.20% 0.04% immigr 0.07% 0.07% 0.04% 0.14% 0.18% china 0.08% 0.22% 0.09% 0.14% 0.18% de 0.19% 0.19% 0.07% 0.32% 0.12% 0.05% 0.03% 0.04% current 0.18% 0 .07% 0.04% investig 0.06% 0.07% 0.12% 0.07% 0.14% 0.04% indonesia 0.08% 0.07% 0.07% 0.22% translat 0.07% 0.14% 0.04% bird 0.66% 0.09% 0.06% 0.14% 0.04% conserv 0.20% 0.04% engag 0.07% 0.31 % isra 0.03% 0.22% neoliber 0.27% 0.35% refuge 0.03% 0.18% terror 0.14% 0.04% us 0.27% 0.35% video 0.14% 0.09% vietnam 0.07% 0.18% term 0.09% 0.06% 0.66% 0.40% 0.3 1% 0.58% 0.09% 0.25% 0.27% 0.07% 0.20% 0.04% japanes 0.06% 0.14% 0.28% 0.33% 0.11% 0.07% 0.05% 0.04% approach 0.08% 0.07% 0.18% 0.25% 0.16% 0.20% 0.10% 0.04% product 0.08% 0.14% 0.05% 0.07% 0.27% 0.27% 0.10% 0.18% folk 1.32% 0.09% 0.07% 0.18% 0.15% 0.22% 0.41% 0.05% 0.04% experi 0.09% 0.07% 0.09% 0.04% 0.11% 0.07% 0.25% 0.09% author 0.09% 0.09% 0.15% 0.05% 0.07% 0.05% 0.09%
195 potteri 0.09% 0.13% 0.29% 0.24% 0.43% 0.14% 0.07% 0.05% 0.07% 0.05% 0.04% critiqu 0 .08% 0.22% 0.16% 0.20% 0.25% 0.09% resourc 0.04% 0.05% 0.14% 0.30% 0.04% myth 0.66% 0.32% 0.29% 0.14% 0.14% 0.38% 0.14% 0.15% 0.04% plant 0.09% 0.13% 0.07% 0.08% 0.06% 0.07% 0.05% 0.04% 0.27% 0.05% 0.09% england 0.09% 0.25% 0.15% 0.05% 0.07% 0.05% 0.04% andes 0.07% 0.20% 0.09% man 0.47% 0.57% 0.37% 0.08% 0.19% 0.43% 0.41% 0.25% 0.33% 0.05% 0.04% relationship 0.44% 0.32% 0.31% 0.22% 0.09% 0.25% 0.05% 0.15% 0.09% region 0.28% 0.25% 0.22% 0.16% 0.19% 0. 11% 0.05% 0.20% 0.04% materi 0.19% 0.32% 0.29% 0.16% 0.12% 0.14% 0.05% 0.10% 0.18% pastor 0.05% 0.05% 0.18% soviet 0.19% 0.22% 0.05% 0.15% 0.05% 0.04% style 0.06% 0.09% 0.15% 0.10% 0.04% danc 0.66% 0.47% 0.07% 0.08% 0.62% 0.29% 0.04% 0.05% 0.04% near 0.19% 0.32% 0.15% 0.48% 0.12% 0.04% 0.10% 0.04% latin 0.07% 0.23% 0.05% 0.04% compon 0.18% 0.05% 0.04% heritag 0.05% 0.35% primit 0.75% 0.19% 0.29% 0.48% 0.31% 0.65% 0.18% 0.07% 0.05% 0.14% 0.04% group 0.13% 0.07% 0.32% 0.49% 0.07% 0.83% 0.40% 0.33% 0.07% 0.04% size 0.07% 0.09% 0.15% 0.05% 0.14% 0.04% brain 0.32% 0.04% 0.05% 0.07% 0.04% formal 0.15% 0.16% 0.07% 0.04% name 0.47% 0.57% 0 .15% 0.24% 0.25% 0.07% 0.11% 0.07% 0.09% accultur 0.09% 0.19% 0.94% 0.87% 0.29% 0.07% 0.04% taboo 0.08% 0.12% 0.05% 0.18% 0.14% 0.04% cattl 0.32% 0.05% 0.07% 0.07% 0.04% northwestern 0.09% 0.38% 0.07% 0.16% 0.12% 0.04% 0 .07% 0.04% excav 0.09% 0.38% 0.15% 0.06% 0.04% 0.07% 0.04%
196 posit 0.66% 0.06% 0.37% 0.40% 0.06% 0.14% 0.09% 0.04% 0.05% 0.04% definit 0.13% 0.14% 0.18% 0.04% 0.05% 0.04% southwestern 0.09% 0.13% 0.15% 0.08% 0.31% 0.32% 0.04% 0.05% 0.04% japan 0.08% 0.06% 0.18% 0.22% 0.05% 0.09% object 0.25% 0.15% 0.08% 0.06% 0.07% 0.11% 0.04% train 0.32% 0.05% 0.04% migrant 0.05% 0.26% love 0.04% 0.22% malawi 0.15% 0.04% iroquo i 0.19% 0.19% 0.29% 0.08% 0.05% 0.04% confer 0.18% 0.13% legaci 0.05% 0.18% prehistor 0.37% 0.45% 0.66% 0.71% 0.62% 0.22% 0.14% 0.15% 0.11% 0.20% 0.05% 0.03% aspect 0.29% 0.16% 0.06% 0.50% 0.28% 0.33% 0.55% 0.14% 0. 15% 0.03% cross 0.06% 0.08% 0.19% 0.07% 0.09% 0.58% 0.22% 0.14% 0.05% 0.24% land 0.19% 0.08% 0.06% 0.14% 0.09% 0.07% 0.16% 0.14% 0.15% 0.31% person 0.19% 0.06% 0.06% 0.43% 0.46% 0.33% 0.22% 0.34% 0.15% 0.03% exampl 0.06% 0.14% 0.09% 0 .18% 0.05% 0.20% 0.05% 0.03% femal 0.12% 0.07% 0.05% 0.04% 0.05% 0.14% 0.20% 0.17% subsist 0.07% 0.09% 0.07% 0.22% 0.27% 0.10% 0.07% differ 0.09% 0.13% 0.07% 0.08% 0.06% 0.28% 0.11% 0.16% 0.07% 0.20% 0.10% variat 0.09% 0.07% 0.09% 0.07% 0.16% 0.27% 0.10% 0.14% coloni 0.06% 0.05% 0.04% 0.16% 0.07% 0.05% 0.20% ideolog 0.05% 0.07% 0.11% 0.07% 0.25% 0.24% urban 0.18% 0.07% 0.38% 0.20% 0.25% 0.41% asia 0.13% 0.08% 0.12% 0.36% 0.04% 0.05% 0.07% 0.05% 0.03% represent 0.07% 0.04% 0.05% 0.07% 0.20% 0.14% highland 0.08% 0.06% 0.15% 0.11% 0.20% 0.15% 0.07% color 0.09% 0.07% 0.05% 0.27% 0.34% 0.10% 0.17% select 0.07% 0.12% 0.32% 0.05% 0.14% 0.05% 0.07%
197 distinguish 0.05% 0.41% 0.40% 0.07% signific 0.09% 0.07% 0.24% 0.19% 0.14% 0.09% 0.15% 0.07% 0.05% 0.03% trend 0.09% 0.22% 0.18% 0.04% 0.07% 0.05% 0.03% pacif 0.19% 0.06% 0.29% 0.08% 0.07% 0.07% 0.07% 0.10% 0.03% water 0.09% 0.06% 0.07% 0.07% 0. 05% 0.14% lesli 0.06% 0.07% 0.07% 0.05% 0.17% discours 0.07% 0.40% 0.14% contact 0.08% 0.25% 0.36% 0.05% 0.04% 0.05% 0.05% 0.03% data 0.15% 0.31% 0.07% 0.14% 0.11% 0.05% 0.10% 0.07% preliminari 0.19% 0.51% 0.37% 0.16% 0.22% 0.14% 0.11% 0.11% 0.05% 0.03% stratif 0.07% 0.08% 0.07% 0.05% 0.15% 0.05% 0.05% 0.03% peasant 0.07% 0.09% 0.29% 0.44% 0.05% 0.03% physic 0.19% 0.19% 0.15% 0.08% 0.23% 0.15% 0.11% 0.05% 0.14% dimens 0.05% 0.11% 0.22% 0.05% 0.03% nigeria 0.07% 0.25% 0.11% 0.05% 0.03% repli 0.07% 0.07% 0.33% 0.10% 0.24% faction 0.15% 0.11% 0.05% 0.03% question 0.66% 0.07% 0.16% 0.25% 0.07% 0.05% 0.07% 0.10% 0.07% children 0.66% 0.19% 0.06% 0.15% 0. 08% 0.14% 0.09% 0.15% 0.05% 0.17% order 0.07% 0.05% 0.15% 0.10% 0.03% philippin 0.13% 0.37% 0.08% 0.22% 0.04% 0.05% 0.03% australian 0.37% 0.06% 0.25% 0.04% 0.05% 0.03% festiv 0.06% 0.08% 0.12% 0.05% 0.05% 0.17% roc k 0.37% 0.06% 0.24% 0.05% 0.03% powhatan 0.25% 0.05% 0.03% explain 0.20% 0.07% classif 0.09% 0.13% 0.07% 0.08% 0.12% 0.14% 0.18% 0.07% 0.11% 0.34% 0.03% kin 0.08% 0.12% 0.14% 0.05% 0.18% 0.11% 0.07% 0.10% desce nt 0.06% 0.07% 0.12% 0.07% 0.28% 0.25% 0.22% 0.20% 0.03% test 0.08% 0.07% 0.23% 0.11% 0.22% 0.20% 0.07%
198 categori 0.06% 0.07% 0.05% 0.18% 0.16% 0.14% 0.10% great 0.66% 0.07% 0.31% 0.05% 0.07% 0.05% 0.07% 0.03% adapt 0.05% 0.36% 0.49% 0.14% 0.03% hierarchi 0.11% 0.05% 0.07% 0.14% look 0.04% 0.22% 0.07% 0.07% area 0.06% 0.22% 0.48% 0.19% 0.29% 0.23% 0.05% 0.07% 0.14% type 0.13% 0.59% 0.48% 0.31% 0.22% 0.37% 0.11% 0.07% 0.07% consider 0 .07% 0.08% 0.07% 0.05% 0.18% 0.14% 0.07% demograph 0.04% 0.34% 0.10% fertil 0.07% 0.05% 0.07% 0.14% arizona 0.65% 0.38% 0.22% 0.16% 0.19% 0.07% 0.03% burial 0.09% 0.06% 0.07% 0.08% 0.25% 0.07% 0.03% pueblo 0.47% 0.45% 0.07% 0.40% 0.74% 0.43% 0.18% 0.04% 0.05% 0.03% report 0.25% 0.15% 0.32% 0.06% 0.14% 0.09% 0.11% 0.11% 0.03% comment 0.19% 0.08% 0.07% 0.09% 0.18% 0.05% 0.03% diffus 0.32% 0.36% 0.18% 0.07% 0.11% 0.03% plateau 0.08% 0. 06% 0.18% 0.05% 0.03% comput 0.07% 0.15% 0.05% 0.03% visual 0.04% 0.05% 0.20% exploit 0.22% 0.03% movement 0.08% 0.06% 0.07% 0.14% 0.04% 0.14% design 0.09% 0.25% 0.08% 0.07% 0.05% 0.04% 0.03% bone 0.66% 0.19% 0.06% 0.07% 0.23% 0.04% 0.07% institut 0.19% 0.07% 0.14% 0.11% 0.17% drink 0.18% 0.07% river 0.09% 0.13% 0.15% 0.48% 0.31% 0.22% 0.05% 0.07% two 0.09% 0.13% 0.40% 0.12% 0.43% 0.23% 0.10% columbia 0 .19% 0.19% 0.07% 0.40% 0.06% 0.07% 0.03% virginia 0.28% 0.51% 0.07% 0.03% blackfoot 0.09% 0.29% 0.03%
199 antiqu 0.09% 0.19% 0.22% 0.08% 0.25% 0.03% bear 0.09% 0.08% 0.25% 0.03% like 0.06% 0.17% ke ntucki 0.32% 0.03% afterword 0.14% coetze 0.14% dove 0.14% hawk 0.14% katrina 0.14% keith 0.17% otterbein 0.17% eskimo 1.32% 0.56% 0.13% 0.22% 0. 16% 0.25% 0.07% 0.18% 0.15% 0.22% 0.07% 0.05% function 0.08% 0.43% 0.22% 0.28% 0.18% 0.27% 0.14% 0.10% comparison 0.09% 0.07% 0.08% 0.14% 0.28% 0.11% 0.11% 0.14% 0.05% general 0.09% 0.07% 0.09% 0.15% 0.22% 0.20% 0.05% cognit 0.05% 0.15% 0.16% 0.27% 0.15% status 0.08% 0.12% 0.22% 0.18% 0.27% 0.20% 0.35% ceremoni 1.03% 0.89% 0.29% 0.56% 0.37% 0.29% 0.05% 0.15% 0.07% 0.05% possibl 0.32% 0.12% 0.07% 0.05% 0.15% 0.07% 0.05% applic 0.09% 0.07% 0.06% 0.18% 0.04% 0.14% 0.10% custom 1.32% 0.28% 0.13% 0.22% 0.40% 0.19% 0.07% 0.14% 0.05% tribe 1.32% 0.65% 0.64% 0.15% 0.16% 0.49% 0.29% 0.09% 0.11% 0.05% 0.05% ethnolog 0.38% 0.37% 0.63% 0.25% 0.22% 0.46% 0.04% 0.11% 0.10% civil 0.66% 0.07% 0.12% 0.29% 0.14% 0.25% 0.05% 0.10% variabl 0.06% 0.09% 0.18% 0.16% 0.05% racial 0.09% 0.13% 0.07% 0.08% 0.09% 0.04% 0.27% 0.20% essay 0.09% 0.18% 0.04% 0.11% 0.10% peruvian 0.13% 0.07% 0.12% 0.15% 0.05% 0.05% semant 0.25% 0.11% 0.05% cave 0.13% 0.22% 0.08% 0.25% 0.05% 0.10%
200 dialect 0.66% 0.32% 0.07% 0.06% 0.07% 0.05% 0.04% 0.05% michigan 0.25% 0.08% 0.04% 0.05% dream 0.06% 0.07% 0.32% 0.10% totem 0.09% 0.06% 0.44% 0. 08% 0.07% 0.09% 0.10% roman 0.19% 0.18% 0.05% inscript 0.28% 0.06% 0.48% 0.12% 0.05% samoan 0.20% psycholog 0.06% 0.07% 0.24% 0.06% 0.14% 0.23% 0.15% 0.16% 0.27% plain 0.29% 0.24% 0.37% 0.14% 0.23% 0.07% 0.05% 0.07% terminolog 0.07% 0.08% 0.25% 0.22% 0.18% 0.44% 0.16% 0.20% foundat 0.06% 0.18% 0.04% 0.05% 0.07% navajo 1.32% 0.19% 0.06% 0.18% 0.33% 0.07% anoth 0.08% 0.15% 0.16% 0.14% taxonomi 0.18% 0.05% 0.07 % distribut 0.28% 0.19% 0.15% 0.24% 0.62% 0.07% 0.32% 0.07% 0.14% correl 0.09% 0.06% 0.16% 0.19% 0.07% 0.18% 0.15% 0.07% game 1.32% 0.37% 0.38% 0.22% 0.08% 0.14% 0.05% 0.04% 0.07% incest 0.22% 0.18% 0.22% 0.14% descript 0.15% 0.06% 0.09% 0.15% 0.07% remain 0.19% 0.57% 0.44% 0.07% clan 0.09% 0.06% 0.22% 0.08% 0.25% 0.14% 0.05% 0.04% 0.11% techniqu 0.07% 0.08% 0.06% 0.14% 0.09% 0.18% 0.11% apach 0.19% 0.06% 0.37% 0.22% 0.09% 0.04% 0.05% concern 0.13% 0.07% 0.08% 0.12% 0.36% 0.04% 0.05% pleistocen 0.66% 0.07% 0.08% 0.07% 0.07% 0.27% marit 0.06% 0.18% 0.11% nomad 0.08% 0.15% 0.05% levi 0.07% 0.22% sociolog 0.66% 0.37% 0.06% 0.07% 0.0 8% 0.07% 0.14% 0.05% tribal 0.31% 0.14% 0.05%
201 begin 0.66% 0.37% 0.07% 0.05% grammar 0.06% 0.29% 0.05% navaho 0.19% 0.13% 0.08% 0.74% 0.87% 0.23% 0.07% texa 0.09% 0.13% 0.15% 0.16% 0.25% 0.05% 0.04% hawaiian 0.09% 0.07% 0.32% 0.19% 0.09% 0.04% head 0.06% 0.29% 0.06% 0.05% 0.04% chippewa 0.06% 0.05% 0.15% typolog 0.06% 0.05% 0.15% applied 0.18% 0.04% sampl 0.05% 0.25% symposium 0.18% 0.04% algonkian 0.09% 0.29% 0.32% 0.06% 0.07% 0.04% cheyenn 0.32% 0.29% 0.06% 0.07% 0.04% ruin 0.19% 0.70% 0.52% 0.24% 0.12% 0.04% sketch 0.32% 0.37% 0.08% 0.04% copper 0.19% 0.25% 0.08% 0.04% congress 0.09% 0.13% 0.29% 0.04% componenti 0.22% certain 0.28% 0.32% 0.66% 0.24% 0.12% 0.07% 0.09% peyot 0.08% 0.19% 0.14% 0.23% calendar 0.19% 0.15% 0.32% 0.12% 0.05% factori 0.23% gren 0.18% supper 0.18% wenner 0.18% zuni 0.19% 0.06% 0.52% 0.08% 0.06% 0.14% hors 0.07% 0.25% 0.22% basketri 0.25% 0.12% 0.07% mound 1.32% 0.56% 0.19% 0.37% 0.32% 0.12% pima 0.25% 0.08% 0.06%
202 missouri 0.19% 0.29% 0.06% precolumbian 0.25% 0.07% 0.06% tewa 0.29% 0.16% pawne 0.09% 0.25% 0.24% specimen 0.32% 0.08% filipino 0.25% 0.07% porto 0.13 % 0.37% stock 0.13% 0.44% snake 0.37% 0.06% chamorro 0.32% guam 0.38% tusayan 1.21%
203 APPENDIX D GOOGLE SEARCH TRENDS ANALYSIS (10/15/12 10/15/17, WORLDWIDE) Google Search T rends Analysis (10/15/12 10/15/17, Worldwide) Week Anthropology: (Worldwide) Archaeology: (Worldwide) Cultural Anthropology: (Worldwide) Ethnography: (Worldwide) Sociology: (Worldwide) 10/21/2012 61 32 3 7 82 10/28/2012 54 29 3 7 79 11/4/2012 60 28 3 7 86 11/11/2012 64 28 4 7 90 11/18/2012 58 26 3 6 77 11/25/2012 63 27 3 7 87 12/2/2012 64 28 3 7 90 12/9/2012 66 28 4 6 91 12/16/2012 51 23 2 4 60 12/23/2012 38 20 1 2 35 12/30/2012 42 24 1 3 51 1/6/2013 57 29 3 5 85 1/13/2013 59 27 4 6 84 1/2 0/2013 54 29 3 6 81 1/27/2013 57 31 3 7 85 2/3/2013 58 32 3 8 84 2/10/2013 54 32 3 7 81 2/17/2013 53 30 3 8 75 2/24/2013 56 30 3 8 83 3/3/2013 56 32 3 7 84 3/10/2013 51 28 3 7 76 3/17/2013 52 27 3 6 79 3/24/2013 50 27 3 6 67 3/31/2013 51 26 2 6 7 2 4/7/2013 52 27 2 7 77 4/14/2013 52 27 2 7 80 4/21/2013 54 26 3 7 81 4/28/2013 52 27 3 6 85 5/5/2013 53 25 3 7 83 5/12/2013 48 25 2 6 81 5/19/2013 46 23 2 5 70 5/26/2013 42 24 1 4 57 6/2/2013 44 23 2 5 63 6/9/2013 47 24 2 4 68
204 6/16/2013 45 27 2 4 67 6/23/2013 44 26 2 4 62 6/30/2013 40 21 2 4 52 7/7/2013 40 24 2 4 52 7/14/2013 41 23 2 4 51 7/21/2013 41 23 2 3 52 7/28/2013 42 23 1 3 51 8/4/2013 43 23 2 3 52 8/11/2013 45 23 2 4 56 8/18/2013 50 26 2 4 63 8/25/2013 57 25 4 5 77 9/1/2013 57 27 3 6 89 9/8/2013 58 27 4 7 92 9/15/2013 58 28 3 7 87 9/22/2013 56 28 4 8 93 9/29/2013 57 27 3 8 90 10/6/2013 56 27 4 7 88 10/13/2013 54 28 3 8 85 10/20/2013 54 28 3 7 84 10/27/2013 53 26 3 7 82 11/3/2013 57 27 3 7 92 11/10/2013 62 25 3 7 91 1 1/17/2013 61 25 3 6 90 11/24/2013 51 23 2 6 73 12/1/2013 58 25 3 6 88 12/8/2013 62 26 3 6 92 12/15/2013 49 20 2 4 65 12/22/2013 35 16 1 2 33 12/29/2013 41 20 2 3 43 1/5/2014 54 25 3 4 75 1/12/2014 56 25 3 6 85 1/19/2014 53 27 4 7 82 1/26/2014 56 27 3 8 88 2/2/2014 51 27 3 7 84 2/9/2014 53 27 3 7 82 2/16/2014 50 26 2 7 80 2/23/2014 53 27 2 8 89 3/2/2014 54 27 3 7 82 3/9/2014 49 26 2 7 80 3/16/2014 49 25 2 6 80 3/23/2014 48 27 2 7 78
205 3/30/2014 49 26 3 7 79 4/6/2014 50 25 2 7 77 4/13/2014 47 24 2 7 73 4/20/2014 47 26 2 7 80 4/27/2014 49 24 2 7 83 5/4/2014 48 25 2 7 86 5/11/2014 47 23 2 5 85 5/18/2014 44 23 2 5 78 5/25/2014 38 23 2 5 56 6/1/2014 42 21 2 4 60 6/8/2014 41 22 2 4 72 6/15/2014 42 20 2 4 70 6/22/2014 43 21 2 4 62 6/29/ 2014 36 20 1 3 53 7/6/2014 39 22 2 4 54 7/13/2014 40 22 2 3 52 7/20/2014 40 22 2 3 53 7/27/2014 40 23 2 4 50 8/3/2014 38 22 2 3 57 8/10/2014 42 24 2 4 61 8/17/2014 47 25 3 4 66 8/24/2014 56 25 4 5 85 8/31/2014 56 26 3 6 89 9/7/2014 58 29 4 8 97 9/14/2014 55 29 3 6 94 9/21/2014 55 25 4 7 94 9/28/2014 54 28 4 7 92 10/5/2014 54 27 3 11 91 10/12/2014 52 28 3 7 95 10/19/2014 51 27 3 7 90 10/26/2014 52 26 3 7 85 11/2/2014 54 28 2 7 92 11/9/2014 56 29 3 7 94 11/16/2014 55 31 3 7 97 11/23/2014 47 27 2 5 76 11/30/2014 55 27 3 6 87 12/7/2014 55 28 3 7 93 12/14/2014 48 24 2 4 72 12/21/2014 32 17 1 2 37 12/28/2014 36 21 1 2 42 1/4/2015 46 26 2 5 77
206 1/11/2015 52 25 3 5 86 1/18/2015 49 24 3 6 88 1/25/2015 53 25 3 7 87 2/1/2015 50 24 3 7 85 2/8/2015 52 25 3 7 86 2/15/2015 50 23 2 7 78 2/22/2015 51 25 2 7 88 3/1/2015 50 26 3 7 86 3/8/2015 47 24 2 7 81 3/15/2015 44 23 2 6 82 3/22/2015 46 23 2 6 78 3/29/2015 44 21 2 5 74 4/5/2015 45 22 2 6 73 4/12/2015 47 23 2 6 83 4/19/2015 48 24 2 6 89 4/26/2015 48 23 2 6 85 5/3/2015 51 22 3 7 90 5/10/2015 44 21 2 5 93 5/17/2015 44 22 2 5 79 5/24/2015 40 20 2 5 60 5/31/2015 41 19 2 5 64 6/7/2015 41 20 2 4 66 6/14/2015 43 20 2 4 74 6/21/2015 43 19 2 3 61 6/28/2015 37 17 2 3 57 7/5/2015 41 18 1 3 57 7/12/2015 40 18 2 3 54 7/19/2015 40 19 2 3 53 7/26/2015 40 19 2 3 53 8/2/2015 40 18 2 3 55 8/9/2015 43 18 2 3 62 8/16/2015 47 21 2 4 67 8/23/2015 57 23 3 4 82 8/30/2015 57 25 4 5 89 9/6/2015 57 26 3 6 92 9/13/2015 57 26 3 7 96 9/20/2015 59 25 3 7 92 9/27/2015 57 24 3 7 90 10/4/2015 55 25 3 7 95 10/11/2015 54 24 3 7 91 10/18/2015 53 23 3 7 87
207 10/25/2015 52 23 3 6 82 11/1/2015 55 24 3 7 91 11/8/2015 53 22 2 6 90 11/15/2015 54 22 3 6 94 11/22/2015 48 19 2 5 78 11/29/2015 53 22 2 6 91 12/6/2015 58 21 3 7 95 12/13/2015 51 20 3 5 78 12/20/2015 37 14 1 2 41 12/27/2015 36 16 1 2 42 1/3/2016 48 21 3 4 77 1/10/2016 53 23 3 6 87 1/17/2016 51 23 3 6 87 1/24/2016 54 23 3 6 90 1/31/2016 52 25 3 6 92 2/7/2016 54 24 3 8 91 2/14/2016 5 0 24 3 7 85 2/21/2016 51 24 2 7 94 2/28/2016 51 25 3 6 91 3/6/2016 49 23 2 6 86 3/13/2016 46 24 2 6 82 3/20/2016 46 23 2 5 76 3/27/2016 47 22 2 5 80 4/3/2016 48 24 2 6 83 4/10/2016 52 24 2 7 87 4/17/2016 50 22 2 6 87 4/24/2016 49 23 2 6 87 5/1/2 016 50 21 3 6 89 5/8/2016 48 20 3 5 89 5/15/2016 43 21 2 5 88 5/22/2016 41 20 2 5 71 5/29/2016 40 20 2 4 60 6/5/2016 40 19 2 4 60 6/12/2016 41 18 2 4 67 6/19/2016 44 20 2 4 77 6/26/2016 41 19 2 3 61 7/3/2016 39 19 1 3 55 7/10/2016 39 19 2 3 54 7 /17/2016 38 20 2 3 54 7/24/2016 37 19 2 3 55 7/31/2016 39 20 2 3 53
208 8/7/2016 39 19 2 3 54 8/14/2016 44 20 2 3 62 8/21/2016 52 24 3 4 80 8/28/2016 56 25 3 5 86 9/4/2016 55 26 3 6 91 9/11/2016 58 27 4 6 91 9/18/2016 57 26 3 6 96 9/25/2016 55 24 3 7 95 10/2/2016 52 23 3 6 91 10/9/2016 52 24 3 7 88 10/16/2016 53 22 3 6 92 10/23/2016 53 22 2 7 86 10/30/2016 50 21 2 6 93 11/6/2016 52 20 2 6 88 11/13/2016 56 21 2 7 92 11/20/2016 48 19 2 5 78 11/27/2016 55 22 3 7 91 12/4/2016 58 22 3 7 100 12/1 1/2016 54 20 3 6 88 12/18/2016 40 16 1 3 54 12/25/2016 34 14 1 2 40 1/1/2017 42 18 2 4 64 1/8/2017 53 23 3 4 85 1/15/2017 54 22 3 6 90 1/22/2017 54 22 3 6 93 1/29/2017 54 22 3 6 93 2/5/2017 50 21 2 7 93 2/12/2017 52 22 3 7 88 2/19/2017 51 23 3 7 87 2/26/2017 56 23 2 7 95 3/5/2017 54 23 2 7 91 3/12/2017 47 21 2 6 83 3/19/2017 52 21 2 7 87 3/26/2017 50 22 2 6 86 4/2/2017 56 22 2 7 85 4/9/2017 59 21 2 6 77 4/16/2017 63 21 2 6 82 4/23/2017 65 21 2 7 89 4/30/2017 62 20 2 7 88 5/7/2017 56 22 2 6 88 5/14/2017 40 21 2 5 84
209 5/21/2017 38 20 2 4 69 5/28/2017 36 18 1 4 60 6/4/2017 38 19 2 4 70 6/11/2017 40 18 2 4 69 6/18/2017 43 19 2 4 67 6/25/2017 39 18 2 3 59 7/2/2017 36 17 2 3 59 7/9/2017 38 17 2 3 57 7/16/2017 40 17 2 4 59 7/23/2017 3 8 17 1 3 56 7/30/2017 37 17 2 3 55 8/6/2017 39 17 2 3 55 8/13/2017 41 16 1 4 64 8/20/2017 47 18 3 4 72 8/27/2017 58 20 3 5 81 9/3/2017 61 21 3 6 87 9/10/2017 56 22 3 6 93 9/17/2017 56 21 3 7 94 9/24/2017 55 21 3 7 90 10/1/2017 51 21 3 7 91 10/8/ 2017 56 21 3 8 100
210 REFERENCES AAA Statement of Purpose. (2017). Retrieved from http://www.americananthro.org/ConnectWith AAA/Content.aspx?ItemNumber=16 50&navItemNumber=760 Agar, M. H. (2008). The Professional Stranger Bingley, UK: Emerald,. Aipperspach, R., Rattenbury, T. L., Woodruff, A., Anderson, K., Canny, J. F., & Aoki, P. (2006). Ethno mining: integrating numbers and words from the ground up. Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences, University of California at Berkeley, Technical Report No. UCB/EECS 2006 125. Available at: www. eecs. berkeley. edu/Pubs/TechRpts/2006/EECS 2006 125. html. Accessed May, 21 2011. A lmanac. (2017). Change in Percentage of Bachelor's and Associate Degrees Completed in the Humanities, 1987 2015. Retrieved from http://www.chronicle.com/article/Change in Percentage of/240694 Arnould, E. J., Becker, H. S., Boyer, D., Hannerz, U., Lien, M ., Lfgren, O., Smart, Perhaps, It Should Not Be. Journal of Business Anthropology, 1 (2), 240 297. Arnould, E. J., & Wallendorf, M. (1994). Market Oriented Ethnography: Interp retation Building And Marketing Strategy Formulation. Journal of marketing research, 31 (4), 484 504. Baba, M. (1994). The 5th Subdiscipline Anthropological Practice And The Future Of Anthropology. Human organization, 53 (2), 174 186. Baba, M. (2005). To T he End Of Theory Paper presented at the Ethnographic Praxis in Industry Conference Proceedings. Baba, M. (2009). Disciplinary Professional Relations In An Era Of Anthropological Engagement. Human organization, 68 (4), 380 391. doi:10.17730/humo.68.4.e13746761128648v Baba, M. (2012). Anthropology And Business: Influence And Interests. Journal of Business Anthropology, 1 (1), 20 71. Baba, M. (2014). De Anthropologizing Ethnography: A Historical Perspective On The C ommodification Of Ethnography As A Business Service. In R. Denny & P. Sunderland (Eds.), Handbook of Anthropology in Business Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press, Inc. Barnard, A. (2016). Unity Versus Interdisciplinarity: A Future For Anthropology. Current Anthropology, 57 (S13), S145 S153. doi:10.1086/686022
211 Batteau, A. W., & Morais, R. J. (2015). Standards Of Practice For Ethnography In Industry. Retrieved from https://www.epicpeople.org/standards of practice for ethnography/ Benedict, R. (1967). The chr ysanthemum and the sword: Patterns of Japanese culture : Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. Bennett, J. (1996). Applied and action anthropology: Ideological and conceptual aspects. Current Anthropology, 37 (S1), S23 S53. Bennett, L., Ferguson, T., Paredes, A., Squi res, S., Tso, J., & Weidman, D. (2006). Final Report: Practicing Advisory Work Group (Pawg). American Anthropological Association Bennett, L., & Whiteford, L. (2013). Anthropology And The Engaged University: New Vision For The Discipline Within Higher Ed ucation Introduction. Annals of Anthropological Practice, 37 (1), 2 18. doi:10.1111/napa.12014 Bennett, L. A., & Khanna, S. K. (2010). A Review Of Tenure And Promotion Guidelines In Higher Education: Optimistic Signs For Applied, Practicing, And Public In terest Anthropology. American Anthropologist, 112 (4), 648 650. doi:10.1111/j.1548 1433.2010.01287.x Bernard, H. R. (1994). Methods Belong to all of Us. In R. Borofsky (Ed.), Assessing Anthropology (pp. 168 179). Bernard, H. R. (2011). Research Methods In A nthropology Plymouth: AltaMira Press. Bernard, H. R., & Gravlee, C. C. (Eds.). (2014). Handbook of Methods in Cultural Anthropology New York: Rowman & Littlefield. Blackston, M. (2000). Observations: Building Brand Equity by Managing the Brand's Relation ships. Journal of Advertising Research, 40 (6), 101 105. doi:10.2501/jar 40 6 101 105 Way You Think). Retrieved from https://www.displayr.com/interpret correspondence a nalysis plots probably isnt way think/ boyd, d., & Crawford, K. (2012). Critical Questions For Big Data. Information, Communication & Society, 15 (5), 662 679. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2012.678878 Briller, S. H., & Goldmacher, A. (2008). Designing an anthropolo gy career: professional development exercises : Rowman Altamira. Brondo, K. V. (2010). Practicing Anthropology In A Time Of Crisis: 2009 Year In Review. American Anthropologist, 112 (2), 208 218. doi:10.1111/j.1548 1433.2010.01220.x
212 Brondo, K. V., & Bennett, L. A. (2012). Career Subjectivities In U.S. Anthropology: Gender, Practice, And Resistance. American Anthropologist, 114 (4), 598 610. doi:10.1111/j.1548 1433.2012.01517.x Brown, P. M. (2005, June 25th). Bill Gates As Anthropologist. New York Times Retrie ved from http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/25/business/media/bill gates as anthropologist.html?mcubz=0 Caanan, J., & Shumar, W. (2008). Higher Education In An Era Of Globalization And Neoliberalism. Structure and Agency in the Neoliberal University 1 32. Ca rlson, S. (2017). Why Colleges Need to Embrace the Apprenticeship. Retrieved from http://www.chronicle.com/article/Why Colleges Need to Embrace/240248 Carrier, J. G. (2016). After The Crisis: Anthropological Thought, Neoliberalism And The Aftermath (Vol. 29): Routledge. Carter, S. (2017). The 10 Worst College Majors to Choose If You Want a High Paying Job Retrieved from https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/11/avoid these 10 college majors if you want a high paying job.html Caton, H. (2000). The Mead/Freeman Cont roversy is Over: A Retrospect. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 29 (5), 587 605. doi:10.1023/a:1005122414533 Cefkin, M. (2010a). Practice At The Crossroads: When Practice Meets Theory, A Rumination. Paper presented at the Ethnographic Praxis in Industry Co nference Proceedings. Cefkin, M. (Ed.) (2010b). Ethnography And The Corporate Encounter: Reflections On Research In And Of Corporations (Studies In Public And Applied Anthropology) New York: Berghahn Books. Chambers, E. (1979). The Burden Of Profession: A pplied Anthropology At The Crossroads. Reviews in Anthropology, 6 (4), 523 540. Chambers, E. (2000). Applied Ethnography. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 851 869). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications. Chambers, E. (2009). In Both Our Possibilities: Anthropology On The Margins. Human organization, 68 (4), 374 379. doi:10.17730/humo.68.4.d611464j2561x754 Cohen, A. M. (2007). The Shaping Of American Higher Education: Emergence And Growth Of The Contemporary System : John Wiley & Sons.
213 Comaroff, J. (2010). The End Of Anthropology, Again: On The Future Of An In/Discipline. American Anthropologist, 112 (4), 524 538. doi:10.1111/j.1548 1433.2010.01273.x Applying Anthropology. Annals of Anthropological Practice, 40 (2), 120 133. doi:10.1111/napa.12096 Corbett Broad, M. (2017). Educating the Public on the Value of a College Degree. Retrieved from http://www.chronicle.com/article/Educatin g the Public on the/240005 Ct, J. E. (2000). The Mead Freeman Controversy in Review. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 29 (5), 525 538. Crapanzano, V. (2010). The End The Ends Of Anthropology. Paideuma 165 188. D'Andrade, R. G., Hammel, E. A., Adkins, D. L., & McDaniel, C. K. (1975). Academic Opportunity In Anthropology, 1974 90. American Anthropologist, 77 (4), 753 773. A Data Based Assessment of Research Doctorate Programs in the United States (with CD) (2011). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. DiConti, V. D. (2004). Experiential Education In A Knowledge Based Economy: Is It Time To Reexamine The Liberal Arts? The Journal of General Education, 53 (3), 167 183. Dornadic, A. (2014). From Helping Hand To Hired Gun: Having The Courage And Cred entials To Be In The Business Of Anthropology. Practicing Anthropology, 36 (2), 47 51. doi:10.17730/praa.36.2.716138266464040p Downey, G. (2011). Brand Anthropology: New And Improved, With Extra Diversity! Retrieved from http://blogs.plos.org/neuroanthr opology/2011/01/28/brand anthropology new and improved with extra diversity/ Drucker, P. (1951). Anthropology in Trust Territory Administration. The Scientific Monthly, 72 (5), 306 312. Eddy, E. M., & Partridge, W. L. (1978). Applied Anthropology In Americ a New York: Columbia University Press. Ellick, C. J., & Watkins, J. E. (2012). The Anthropology Graduate's Guide: From Student to a Career : Left Coast Press. Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R. I., & Shaw, L. L. (2011). Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes : University o f Chicago Press.
214 Ensworth, P. (2012). Badges, Branding And Business Growth: The Roi Of An Ethnographic Praxis Professional Certification. Ethnographic Praxis in Industry Conference Proceedings, 2012 (1), 263 277. doi:10.1111/j.1559 8918.2012.00028.x Fetterm an, D. M. (2010). Ethnography: Step by step (Vol. 17). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. Firth, R. (1944). The Future Of Social Anthropology. Man 19 22. Fischer, K. (2017). Many Colleges See a Drop in International Students, Chronicle Survey Finds. Retrieved from http://www.chronicle.com/article/Many Colleges See a Drop in/241109 Fischer, M. M. (2009). Anthropological Futures Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Fiske, S. J., Bennett, L. A., Ensworth, P., Redding, T., & Brondo, K. (2009). The Changing Face Of Anthr opology: Anthropology Masters Reflect On Education, Careers, And Professional Organizations. AAA/CoPAPIA Fluehr Lobban, C. (1991). Professional Ethics and Anthropology: Tensions Between its Academic and Applied Branches. Business & Professional Ethics Jo urnal, 10 (4), 57 68. Fournier, S., & Lee, L. (2009). Getting Brand Communities Right. Harvard Business Review, 87 (4), 105 +. Freeman, D. (1983). Margaret Mead and Samoa: The making and unmaking of an anthropological myth Canberra: Australian National Un iversity Press. Fuentes, A., & Wiessner, P. (2016). Reintegrating Anthropology: From Inside Out: An Introduction To Supplement 13. Current Anthropology, 57 (S13), S3 S12. doi:10.1086/685694 Giddens, A. (1996). The Future Of Anthropology In defense of sociol ogy: essays, interpretations and rejoinders (pp. 121 125). Ginsberg, D. (2016a). Students Look Toward the Job Market, 2016 Membership Survey Report #4. Retrieved from http://s3.amazonaws.com/rdcms aaa/files/production/public/FileDownloads/pdfs/MemberSurv ey2016_Report4.pdf Data. Retrieved from http://s3.amazonaws.com/rdcms aaa/files/production/public/FileDownloads/pdfs/IPEDS%20anthro%20bachelor%2 7s%20degrees.pdf Givens, D. B., & Jablonski, T. (1996). 1996 AAA Survey of Departments. AAA Guide, 1997 304 315.
215 Goldmacher, A. (2010). "Something You Love And Something More Practical": Undergraduate Anthropology Education In The Neoliberal Era. Retrieved from http://digitalc ommons.wayne.edu/oa_dissertations/212 Goldmacher, A., & Santee, A. (2014). Introduction To Practicing Anthropology In The Private Sector: Reflections On Work Experiences And Opportunities For The Future Of Business Anthropology. Practicing Anthropology, 36 (2), 2 4. Gordon, L. (2017). How the UC system is making patents pay off. Retrieved from http://beta.latimes.com/local/education/la me uc patents 20151011 story.html Goudreau, J. (2012). The 10 Worst College Majors. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.c om/sites/jennagoudreau/2012/10/11/the 10 worst college majors/#3dc3313d2586 Grimshaw, A., & Hart, K. (1994). Anthropology And The Crisis Of The Intellectuals. Critique of anthropology, 14 (3), 227 261. Guerrn Montero, C. (2008). Introduction: Preparing An thropologists For The 21st Century. Annals of Anthropological Practice, 29 (1), 1 13. Hammersley, M. (2017). What Is Ethnography? Can It Survive? Should It? Ethnography and Education 1 17. Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P. (2007). Ethnography: Principles In Practice New York: Routledge. Hannerz, U. (2010). Diversity Is Our Business. American Anthropologist, 112 (4), 539 551. doi:10.1111/j.1548 1433.2010.01274.x Hart, K. (1990). Swimming Into The Human Current. Cambridge Anthropology, 14 (3), 3 10. Hine, C. ( 2000). Virtual ethnography : Sage. Hine, C. (2015). Ethnography for the internet: embedded, embodied and everyday : Bloomsbury Publishing. History of the Society for Anthropological Sciences. (2017). Retrieved from http://sas.anthroniche.com/history/ Hurlb ert, B. M. (1976). Status And Exchange In The Profession Of Anthropology. American Anthropologist, 78 (2), 272 284. doi:10.1525/aa.1976.78.2.02a00020 Ingold, T. (2008). Anthropology Is Not Ethnography. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the British Acade my.
216 Ingold, T. (2014). That's Enough About Ethnography! HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory, 4 (1), 383 395. Ingold, T. (2017). Anthropology Contra Ethnography. HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory, 7 (1), 21 26. doi:10.14318/hau7.1.005 Jebens, H., & Kohl, K H. (Eds.). (2011). The End Of Anthropology? Wantage: Sean Kingston Publishing. Johnson, J. C. (1998). Research Design and Research Strategies. In H. R. Bernard (Ed.), Handbook of methods in cultural anthropology Walnut Creek, California: AltaMira Press. Johnsrud, C. (2001). Integrating Anthropologists Into Nonacademic Work Settings. NAPA Bulletin, 20 (1), 95 98. doi:10.1525/napa.2001.20.1.95 Jordan, A. T. (2010). The Importance Of Business Anthropology: Its Unique Contributions. International Journal of B usiness Anthropology, 1 (1), 15 25. Kedia, S. (2008). Recent Changes And Trends In The Practice Of Applied Anthropology. NAPA Bulletin, 29 (1), 14 28. Kelly, P., Chao, X., Scruggs, A., Lawrence, L., & Mcghee Snow, K. Anthropological Theories: Culture and P ersonality. Retrieved from https://anthropology.ua.edu/cultures/cultures.php?culture=Culture%20and%20Pe rsonality Knauft, B. M. (2006). Anthropology In The Middle. Anthropological Theory, 6 (4), 407 430. Kozinets, R. V. (2010). Netnography : doing ethnogr aphic research online Los Angeles, Calif. ; London: SAGE. Kroeber, K. (2003). Curious profession: Alfred Kroeber and anthropological history. boundary 2, 30 (3), 141 155. Kuper, A., & Marks, J. (2011). Anthropologists Unite! Nature, 470 (7333), 166 168. K uznar, L. A. (2006). High Fidelity Computational Social Science in Anthropology Prospects for Developing a Comparative Framework. Social Science Computer Review, 24 (1), 15 29. Lende, D. (2011). Florida Governor: Anthropology Not Needed Here Retrieved from http://blogs.plos.org/neuroanthropology/2011/10/11/florida governor anthropology not needed here/ Lewin, K. (1946). Action Research and Minority Problems. Journal of Social Issues, 2 (4), 34 46. doi:10.1111/j.1540 4560.1946.tb02295.x
217 Lombardi, G. (2009). T he De Skilling Of Ethnographic Labor: Signs Of An Emerging Predicament. Ethnographic Praxis in Industry Conference Proceedings, 2009 (1), 41 49. doi:10.1111/j.1559 8918.2009.tb00126.x Mack, A., & Squires, S. (2011). Evolving Ethnographic Practitioners And T heir Impact On Ethnographic Praxis. Paper presented at the Ethnographic Praxis in Industry Conference Proceedings. Madsbjerg, C., & Rasmussen, M. B. (2014). The Moment Of Clarity: Using The Human Sciences To Solve Your Toughest Business Problems Boston, M assachusetts: Harvard Business Review Press. Malefyt, T. d. W. (2009). Understanding The Rise Of Consumer Ethnography: Branding Technomethodologies In The New Economy. American Anthropologist, 111 (2), 201 210. doi:10.1111/j.1548 1433.2009.01113.x Manners, R. A. (1961). Anthropology and Community Development. Social Service Review, 35 (3), 268 277. doi:10.1086/641085 Marcus, G. E. (2008). The End(s) Of Ethnography: Social/Cultural Anthropology's Signature Form Of Producing Knowledge In Transition. Cultural An thropology, 23 (1), 1 14. doi:10.1111/j.1548 1360.2008.00001.x Maxwell, C. (2013). Accelerated Pattern Recognition, Ethnography And The Era Of Big Data. In B. Jordan (Ed.), Advancing Ethnography in Corporate Environments: Challenges and Emerging Opportuniti es (pp. 175 192). Walnut Creek, California: Left Coast Press, Inc. Mitchell, J., & Belkin, D. (2017). Americans Losing Faith in College Degrees, Poll Finds. Retrieved from https://www.wsj.com/articles/americans losing faith in college degrees poll finds 1504776601 Moeran, B. (2005). The Business Of Ethnography: Strategic Exchanges, People And Organizations Oxford, UK: Berg. Moore, H. (Ed.) (2003). The Future Of Anthropological Knowledge : Routledge. Mullings, L. (2015). Anthropology Matters. American Anth ropologist, 117 (1), 4 16. doi:10.1111/aman.12165 Musante, K. (2014). Participant observation. In H. R. Bernard & C. C. Gravlee (Eds.), Handbook of methods in cultural anthropology New York: Rowman & Littlefield. Nader, L. (1972). Up The Anthropologist: Pe rspectives Gained From Studying Up. In D. H. Hymes (Ed.), Reinventing Anthropology (pp. 284 311). New York: Pantheon Books.
218 Najmabadi, S. (2017). How to Revamp a Curriculum Quickly but Not Too Quickly. Retrieved from http://www.chronicle.com/article/Ho w to Revamp a Curriculum/240130 National Academy of Sciences, N. A. o. E., and Institute of Medicine. (2014). The Postdoctoral Experience Revisited Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Nolan, R. (2013). A handbook of practicing anthropology : John Wiley & Sons. Nolan, R. (2017). Using Anthropology In The World: A Guide To Becoming An Anthropologist Practitioner : Taylor & Francis. Anthropology. Ludus Vitalis, 18 (33), 321 324. Anthropology News, 20 (6), 2 2. doi:10.1111/an.19126.96.36.199.3 Patel, N. H. (2011). For A Ruthless Criticism Of Everything Existing: Rebellion Against The Quantitative Qualitative Divide. EPIC Board of Directors 43. P eacock, J. L. (1997). The Future Of Anthropology. American Anthropologist, 99 (1), 9 17. doi:10.1525/aa.19188.8.131.52 Peluso, D. M. (2017). The Ethnography Of Versus For Question In An Anthropology of/for Business. Journal of Business Anthropology, 6 (1), 16. Pink, S. (Ed.) (2005). Applications Of Anthropology: Professional Anthropology In The Twenty First Century New York, NY: Berghahn Books. Posner, B. G. (1996). The Future Of Marketing Is Looking At You. Fast Company, 105 109. Price, D. (2000). Anthropolog ists as Spies. Retrieved from https://www.thenation.com/article/anthropologists spies/ Rogers, R. (2009). The end of the virtual: Digital methods (Vol. 339): Amsterdam University Press. Rogers, R. (2013). Digital Methods : The MIT Press. Rubel, P., & Rosm an, A. (1994). The Past And The Future Of Anthropology. Journal of Anthropological Research, 50 (4), 335 343. doi:10.1086/jar.50.4.3630557 Sabloff, J. A. (2011). Where Have You Gone, Margaret Mead? Anthropology And Public Intellectuals. American Anthropolog ist, 113 (3), 408 416. doi:10.1111/j.1548 1433.2011.01350.x
219 Sahlins, M. (2009). The Conflicts Of The Faculty. Critical Inquiry, 35 (4), 997 1017. Salvador, T., Bell, G., & Anderson, K. (1999). Design Ethnography. Design Management Journal (Former Series), 1 0 (4), 35 41. Shenk, M. K. (2006). Models For The Future Of Anthropology. Anthropology News, 47 (1), 6 7. doi:10.1525/an.2006.47.1.6 Sillitoe, P. (1998). The Development Of Indigenous Knowledge: A New Applied Anthropology. Current Anthropology, 39 (2), 223 2 52. Sillitoe, P. (2006). The Search for Relevance: A Brief History of Applied Anthropology 1. History and Anthropology, 17 (1), 1 19. Sillitoe, P. (2007). Anthropologists Only Need Apply: Challenges Of Applied Anthropology. Journal of the Royal Anthropolo gical Institute, 13 (1), 147 165. Singer, M. (2008). Applied anthropology. A new history of anthropology 326 340. Sponsel, L. (1990). Does Anthropology Have Any Future? Anthropology Newsletter 32. Srivastava, V. K. (1999). The Future Of Anthropology. E conomic and Political Weekly, 34 (9), 545 552. Stapp, D. C. (Ed.) (2012). Action Anthropology and Sol Tax in 2012: The Final Word? (Memoir) : Northwest Anthropology LLC Stocking Jr, G. W. (1995). Delimiting Anthropology: Historical Reflections On The Bound aries Of A Boundless Discipline. Social Research 933 966. Stocking Jr, G. W. (2001). The Shaping Of National Anthropologies: A View From The Center. Delimiting anthropology. Occasional essays and reflections Stoller, P. (2017). Writing for the Future. Retrieved from https://culanth.org/fieldsights/23 writing for the future Suchman, L. (2007). Anthropology As" Brand": Reflections On Corporate Anthropology Paper presented at the Colloquium on Interdisciplinarity and Society, Oxford University. Suchman L. (2013). Consuming Anthropology. In S. Wallman (Ed.), Interdisciplinarity: Reconfigurations of the social and natural sciences (pp. 141 160). Textor, R. B. (1995). The ethnographic futures research method: An application to Thailand. Futures, 27 (4), 46 1 471. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0016 3287(95)00011 K
220 U.S. Department of Education, N. C. f. E. S. (2016). Digest of Education Statistics, 2015 (NCES 2016 014) Chapter 3. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=37 US Department Of L abor, B. O. L. S. (2017a). Occupational Outlook Anthropology/Archeology. Retrieved from https://www.bls.gov/ooh/life physical and social science/anthropologists and archeologists.htm US Department Of Labor, B. O. L. S. (2017b). Occupational Outlook Poste secondary Teachers. Retrieved from https://www.bls.gov/ooh/education training and library/postsecondary teachers.htm Van Maanen, J. (2011). Tales of the field: On writing ethnography Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Van Willigen, J. (2002). Applied Anthropology An Introduction Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey. Van Willigen, J. (2009). Disciplinary History And The Struggle For Legitimacy And Effectiveness: Reflections On The Situation Of Contemporary Anthropologists. Human organization, 68 (4 ), 392 394. Wade, N. (2010a). Anthropology a Science? Statement Deepens a Rift. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/10/science/10anthropology.html Wade, N. (2010b). Anthropology Group Tries to Soothe Tempers After Dropping the Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/14/science/14anthropology.html Wallman, S. (2003). Contemporary Futures: Perspectives From Social Anthropology : Routledge. Wang, T. (2012). Writing live fieldnotes: Towards a more open ethnography. Ethnograph y Matters Wasson, C. (2002). Collaborative Work: Integrating The Roles Of Ethnographers And Designers. In S. Squires & B. Byrne (Eds.), Creating Breakthrough Ideas: The Collaboration of Anthropologists and Designers in the Product Development Industry. B ergin & Garvey, Westport, Connecticut (pp. 71 90). Wasson, C. (2014). Two Reflections On The Symbolic Position Of Business Anthropology. Journal of Business Anthropology, 3 (1), 11 14. Whitehead, N. L., & Wesch, M. (2012). Human No More: Digital Subjectivi ties, Unhuman Subjects, And The End Of Anthropology : University Press of Colorado. Wilner, S. J. (2014). A Crisis Of Representation? Anthropology In The Popular Business Media Handbook of Anthropology in Business : Routledge.
221 Wilson, E. O. (1978). On Human Nature : Cambridge : Harvard University Press, 1978. Wolcott, H. F. (1999). Ethnography: A Way of Seeing : Rowman Altamira. Wolcott, H. F. (2005). The art of fieldwork Walnut Creek, CA: Rowman Altamira. Wolf, E. (1980). They Divide And Subdivide, And Call I t Anthropology. New York Times, 30 E9. Wolf, E. R. (1964). Anthropology : Prentice Hall. Wolf, M. (2002). Future Of Anthropology: An Ethnographer's Perspective. Anthropology News, 43 (6), 7 7. doi:10.1111/an.2002.43.6.7 Worsley, P. (1966). The End Of Anthr opology. Paper presented at the Transactions of the Sixth World Congress of Sociology. Young, P. D. (2008). Practicing Anthropology From Within The Academy: Combining Careers. Annals of Anthropological Practice, 29 (1), 56 69. Zayer, L. T. (2012). Consumer Brand Relationships Theory and Practice. International Journal of Advertising, 31 (4), 921 923. doi:10.2501/ija 31 4 921 923
222 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Chad Maxwell is a cultural anthropologist who has extensive experience practicing and applying anthropology at the intersections of technology, culture, design, media, and marketing. Chad studied Spanish and Cultural Anthropology at Illinois Wesleyan University earning his BA there. He earned his MA in Anthropology from the University of Florida 2004, and fini shed his Ph.D. in Anthropology from the University of Florida in 2017.