Academic Anthropology and Anthropology in Practice: A Brief Note on the Differences

 

1.      Difference between Academic Anthropology and Anthropology in Practice

 

“Engagement and application have always been an integral part of anthropology, of course, and have had a large hand in shaping what the discipline has become” (Rylko-Bauer et al. 2006: 179).

Up through the World War II, much anthropology was both “engaged” and “applied”. Following World War II, for a variety of reasons, academically based anthropologists rose to dominance, effectively redefining the limits and possibilities of the discipline. The application of anthropology became, for many, somewhat suspect.  Some of the traditional anthropological mainstream have had difficulty in grasping the nature and extent of the differences between academic and non-academic practices of this field. Some academicians, who work or consult regularly outside the university, see their applied work as little different from that done by practitioners. Overall, there has been a tendency to minimize – or even deny – differences in this respect. Others insist that all anthropology is really applied in one sense or another. Mullins, for example, says that “virtually all anthropology can claim some measure of practicing engagement somewhere along a continuum of political possibilities.” Practice, for Mullins, “is research that consciously positions itself within public dialogue” . New names for the use of anthropology have appeared gradually over the time period. And so we now have “public” anthropology, “engaged” anthropology, and even “activist” anthropology, together with exhortations for more collaboration, interdisciplinarity, and connection through which anthropologists take responsibilities to connect with people.

we need to acknowledge a set of essential differences between anthropologists working within the academy and those working outside it. These differences are significant, both constraining and enabling how anthropology is done, how it is used, and to what effect. We can begin with a fairly basic difference: where problems come from and how they’re dealt with.

1.       Problems, for academic anthropologists, tend to be self-selected, generated and defined from within the discipline itself. In anthropological practice, however, problems usually come from the needs of external clients. These clients not only define problems, but they may also specify the criteria that solutions must satisfy.

2.       Academic anthropologists often see themselves as providing “critical perspective” on issues or problems, whereas practitioners are expected to provide solutions. And the solutions often have the effect of changing lives, as well as minds. As one practitioner said, “we don’t just stand outside and critique, but work inside to change, guide, and innovate” (Kitner 2011: 35).

3.       For practitioners, action and outcomes are assumed to be the top priority. What they work on is defined and prioritized within the overall social and political context, and not simply in terms of what the academy might think important.

Other differences between academia and practice are also important. These include aspects of structure, work style, patterns of reward and constraints including safety and security.

Differences in terms of Structures:

Structurally, academia is remarkably homogeneous. Although each of our many institutions of higher education can be said to be a distinctive culture unto itself, they are organized in very similar ways. There are a relatively small number of rungs on the academic ladder, and a fairly well-established set of rules and procedures for climbing up them. And there is fairly clear agreement across institutions as to what rights, roles, and responsibilities accompany these different ranks. Outside the university, organizations are considerably more diverse in structure, mission, and mandate. Anthropologist practitioners occupy a very wide range of roles here, at a variety of different levels, and with a bewildering array of titles. Moreover, these organizations are themselves often changing, sometimes fairly quickly, in response to outside forces.

Differences in terms of Work styles:

Work styles also differ significantly between academics and practitioners. Academic anthropologists tend to do their work as individuals, beginning in graduate school, and extending through fieldwork, tenure, and beyond. Work assignments and dead-lines are usually self-imposed, limited mainly by the academic calendar, funding deadlines for grants, and tenure and promotion reviews. Practitioners, on the other hand, often work in multidisciplinary teams. Their work tends to be collaborative and highly result-oriented. Often, these results may not be individually attributed. Although their work is not devoid of theory, practitioners tend to be judged on the basis of what they can do, not simply on what they know. Time pressures, of course, can sometimes be intense.

Differences in terms of Rewards and constraints:

The pattern of rewards and constraints which shape jobs and careers, while relatively uniform within the academy, is again highly diverse and variable outside it. Academics, by and large, are rewarded (i.e., hired, tenured, and promoted) for a very limited number of things, principally teaching, research, publication, and service, and while each of these activities is highly complex and requires a great deal of skill, the path to success is clear.

Judgments about how well or badly these things are done, moreover, are typically made by one’s academic peers. In contrast, practitioners generally work on a succession of projects or assignments, each requiring a somewhat different set of skills, approaches, and activities. Only some of these activities involve research. These assignments, moreover, are not usually chosen or created by practitioners themselves, but by the needs and requirements of the wider organization and its clients. And as a result, outcomes are judged by those clients, and not by peers. The consequences of these judgments are, of course, significant for future practitioner assignments and opportunities.

Other debates center on ethical concerns….

Ethics in anthropology is a broad field, but ethical concerns with respect to practice have focused on issues such as informed consent, the ownership and use of information, and the appropriateness of work for large and powerful institutions . Within the academy, discussion of the ethics of practice tends to be hampered by the relative lack of understanding of and experience with what practitioners actually do on a daily basis. Given that many if not most of the jobs done by practitioners don’t actually have the word “anthropology” in the title, academics are prone to ask, “But it this really anthropology?” John van Willigen provides a clear and straightforward answer when he reminds us that there are really no such things as anthropological problems. There are client problems, and our job is to figure out how to use anthropology to address and solve those problems.

“Practice,” as we use the term in anthropological discussions, has a very specific meaning: it is anthropology done largely outside the university, by non-academic anthropologists. “Applied,” “action,” or “engaged” anthropology – terms often used synonymously which can refer to virtually any extramural work done by university-based anthropologists. The “practitioner” distinction, however, is important because their work isn’t an optional or part-time activity; they work as insiders, full-time. And the contexts in which they work, varied as they are, are all significantly different from university environments, particularly with respect to issues of security, support, and role definition.

One of the most frequently repeated criticisms of practice is that it is theoretical but ‘Expecting practitioners to behave like academics seems oddly ethnocentric’. Practitioners work across a wide variety of sectors, doing an enormous number of different things. They are planners, managers, policy-makers, project and program directors, advocates, and designers. To an increasing extent, they are also influential decision-makers within their organizations. Their work – and how they do their work – differ significantly from that of their university-based colleagues.  And whereas anthropologists – academics and practitioners alike – are very good at providing “thick description” of specific contexts and situations, practitioners must often simplify and prioritize these descriptions to turn them into policy.

Reference: Nolan, R. W. (2014). A Handbook of Practicing Anthropology. Malden, (Mass.: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.