Theory and Non-Theory in Anthropology - Research Proposal Example

 Theory and Non-Theory in Anthropology Introduction Irrespective of one’s discipline every research proposal has to introduce the topic chosen in terms of a “research question” and a “hypothesis” (a “preliminary”, i.e. ahead of the actual research, answer to the question). One then has to proceed by clearly stating the aim of the research and how one wants to “explore the problem” by comparing one or the other “literary source and concepts”. Importantly, one also has to define the “setting” and/or the “sample” and qualify these and the literature in terms of a particular set of “methods” to be used, be they ethnographic and qualitative, or of a more quantitative nature. Finally, one has to note what one is likely to “‘conclude” in terms of the research problem and one’s hypothesis (an early conclusion in other words). All this goes into a brief and concise introduction, to be termed “Introduction” and/or “Abstract”, of the proposed research. To illustrate the research process thus described, I shall in the following adopt the perspective of anthropology, the science of culture, as an example of a an inductive, empirical social science with appropriate methods to tackle social science research questions ‘ Literature Review Having thus described the contents of the proposal, one now turns to these items, one by one, beginning with a focused analysis of relevant literary sources and notions in order to answer the research question. The review reflects “the state of the art” regarding knowledge of the research topic. The review will highlight various issues that are particularly relevant to solving the identified research problem. Setting and Sample: Next, one describes the setting and/or sample size. Depending upon one’s choice of research problem one describes the setting which, when social science research is conducted, may be a community (e.g., affluent, middle-class, poor), an institution (e.g., a school, a bank), a neighbourhood, street corners, a slum, etc. (Hannerz, 2007). Based upon this choice, a sample is defined. One may want to work with a small, large, partial or complete sample, a random selection, a certain quota or a representative sample. The economic anthropologist Polly Hill studied cocoa faming and development in southern Ghana. She used maps and air photography to define her sample (Hill, 1963). This may seem an extreme choice, but it isn’t for an anthropologist conducting research in a non-Western setting. Methodology 1. Induction-Deduction Research, the search for knowledge and problem-solving, is a process whereby one continually adds to knowledge (Ellen, 1984). By this understanding, research is an ongoing process. There are, however, certain procedures to be followed and standards to be adhered to, be they of an “inductive” (experimental: “arriving at a theory based on facts”) or “deductive” (“facts are organized to match theory”) nature. Based on this division, one arrives at a “positivistic” and “relativistic stance”, resulting in a contrast of “explanation” (deduction, positivism) and “understanding” (induction, relativism) (Manners and Kaplan, 1968; Alexander, 1983; Gellner, 1985). Within anthropology and with its emphasis on induction and empirical research, the contrast between induction and deduction has been conceptualized as two modes of inquiry that are opposed to one another. The renowned anthropologist Bronislaw Malinowski advocated 90 years ago long-term immersion in the research site chosen and the use of a set of qualitative methods, considered suitable to such an approach (Malinowski, 1922). Since the nineteen twenties and Malinowski’s statement, the tension of deduction and induction is thought of as contrast between the natural sciences, such as biology, insisting on distance, and the human and social sciences stressing the value of experience-nearness. The contrast has been exemplified by the different emphases placed upon structure and upon process; upon positivist, empiricist observation as against intellectual inference and propositions about deep structures of society; by notions of detachment and objectivity opposed by more subjectivist views; by assumptions of validity and certainty of generalisation set off against those of ambiguity, uncertainty of findings. Such contrasts are not unilineal; they often overlap (Firth, 1992, p. 215). Firth’s last sentence is revealing. Contrasts between a quantitative and qualitative approach are often being set up but they do not refer to “real” differences in the end. It is, as another distinguished anthropologist notes, rather “a matter of degree” since both dimensions (induction and deduction) are indispensable for an understanding of other people and their worlds (Geertz, 1974). The alleged contrast is as straw man argument. Nevertheless, the methods of anthropology or ethnography and its theorizing by induction about culture are, I contend, very appropriate when attempting to solve a qualitative research question. This will also explain the setting chosen and/or the choice of sample size and its quality. 2. List of methods to be used: participant-observation interviewing case studies questionnaires Participant-observation To begin with, anthropology bases many of its data on the key qualitative method of anthropological field work and participant-observation. Participant-observation involves the immersion in a local community by (often) living in the neighbourhood participating in activities, observing these and, of course, taking notes in one’s notebook (recordings=data) (Ellen, 1984, 213-93). There may be many challenges involved in using this method, in a foreign culture but also in our own (Western, Euro-American). One issue concerns defining or explaining one’s role within the community, the reason for doing what one is doing, the benefit of the research, one’s position (neutral or involved, taking sides?), and rapport with the informants. The researcher finds him-herself often in a dilemma, having to conduct supposedly academic or “pure” research in places of oppression and poverty (e.g., Farmer, 2005). These pose acute, often difficult to solve, ethical or political predicaments and questions of commitment. Interviewing Interviewing is another basic tool in data collection. The interview identifies the interviewee as both an informant (provider of elicited information) as well as a respondent (providing non-elicited information=responses) (Kemp and Ellen, 1984, pp. 229-36). One usually distinguishes between informal or unstructured interviewing and semi-structured and structured interviewing where pre-determined questions limit the interviewee’s freedom of expression. Often anthropological researchers use a mix of informal and semi-structured interviewing. “The whole point of not fixing an interview structure with pre-determined questions is that it permits freedom to introduce materials and questions previously unanticipated” (ibid: 230). Case studies This takes us to considering the value of case-studies whereby anthropologists add flesh to the bones of their descriptions and analyses. Cases are organized around events where communities, families, individuals engage with one or the other question under investigation. Case studies introduce detail and shed light on data collected through participant-observation and interviewing. Case studies are the detailed presentation of ethnographic data relating to some sequence of events from which the analyst seeks to make some theoretical inference…What distinguishes case studies from more general ethnographic reportage is the detail and particularity of the account. Each case study is a description of a specific configuration of events in which some distinctive set of actors have been involved in some defined situation at some particular point of time (Mitchell, 1984, p. 237). The Questionnaire While anthropological research has a strong qualitative emphasis, anthropologists generally realize that for reasons of validity, reliability and comparison it is imperative to support their qualitative findings (largely based on participant observation over extended periods of time) by a quantitative approach. It is of course only after a qualitative phase has already yielded profound insights in basic variables and their significant variation, that the phrasing of topics and questions for quantitative research can at all be contemplated and a questionnaire and other quantitative methods can be considered. E.g., in connection with anthropological research in Ghana (West Africa) on child care Bierlich (1998) based his questionnaire on such variables as “worldview”, “personhood”, “sex”, “age”, “circumstances of birth”, “birth order”, “status of child” (as a biological, step or fostered child), “the size of the family”, “season” and “food availability”, “the economic and educational status of family members”, “child care by paternal and/or maternal kin”. The quantitative phase of a project is deliberately conceived as a strategy to test and support the insights gained by participant observation and interviewing. Many anthropologists seek to avoid a massive and difficult to manage production of quantitative data for their own sake. They seek to keep the quantitative phase to a necessary minimum while making it of maximum relevance to their projects. Time schedule Following Hannerz (2007) the collection of data often takes place in various settings and in different phases or at particular points in time. In the first phase, data are collected in one locale and then, in the next stage, these data are compared with those obtained earlier. We can, therefore, think of two research cycles with each phase spanning over a period of time. Ethical considerations The research is premised on the notion that full consent of the participants in the study will be required and their anonymity will be guaranteed. Any names cited are therefore fictive. The research results are to be made available to the parties of the study. Data Analysis Following the paragraphs on setting, sample and methods one arrives at the presentation of data, its analysis and discussion. This section may usefully be termed “Data Analysis”. In this section you explore the research problem at length by discussing and testing literary sources and concepts vis-à-vis the fresh research data obtained. This test may prove your initial hypothesis both correct and also modify it. This testing will therefore often imply verification as well as modification of the introductory answer to the research question. Conclusion The results of the data analysis and test find expression in the final section of the proposal where conclusions are made and possible recommendation regarding future research or interventions are made. In other words, the conclusions also note in which sense they are/are not in agreement with the “early conclusion” presented in the INTRODUCTION. The data one collects are likely to throw up new questions or answers to one’s research question, to modify the answer. That is the great reward of carrying out proposed research. Bibliography Alexander, Jeffrey Theoretical Logic in Sociology. Vol.1: Positivism, Presuppositions, and Current Controversies. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983. Bierlich, Bernhard Intra- and Inter-Household Variations in Child Care (Health, Nutrition, Socialisation) Among the Dagomba of Ghana. Research Report, Netherlands-Israel Research Development Program, University of Haifa, 1998. Ellen, Roy Ed. Ethnographic Research. London: Academic Press, 1984. Farmer, Paul Pathologies of Power: Health, human rights, and the new war on the poor. With a Foreword by Amartya Sen. Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press, 2005. Firth, Raymond ‘A future for social anthropology?’ In: Editor Sandra Wallman Contemporary Futures. London and New York: Routledge, 1992. Geertz, Clifford “’From the native’s point of view’: On the nature of anthropological understanding”. Bulletin of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 28(1):26-45, 1974. Gellner, Ernest Relativism and the Social Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985. Hannerz, Ulf ‘Being There …And There… And There. Reflections on Multi-Site Ethnography. In: Editors Antonius Robben and Jeffrey Sluka Ethnographic Fieldwork: An anthropological reader, pp. 359-366. USA, UK, Australia: Blackwell Publishing, 2007. Hill, Polly The migrant cocoa-farmers of southern Ghana: a study in rural capitalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963. Kemp, Jeremy and Ellen, Roy ‘Informal interviewing’. In: Editor Roy Ellen Ethnographic Research, pp. 229-32. London: Academic Press, 1984. Malinowski, Bronislaw Argonauts of the Western Pacific: An account of native adventure in the archipelagoes of Melanesia, New Guinea. Prospect Heights, Ill.: Waveland Press, 1984 (orig., 1922). Manners, Robert and Kaplan, David. ‘Notes on Theory and Non-Theory in Anthropology’. In: Editors Robert Manners and David Kaplan Theory in Anthropology, pp. 1-12. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1968. Mitchell, J. Clyde ‘Case studies’. In: Editor Roy Ellen Ethnographic Research. London: Academic Press, 1984. Read More