Why do we need to think about our Legacy!

According to the Merriam Webster dictionary a legacy is 

  “1. something (such as property or money) that is received from someone who has died and  2.  something that happened in the past or that comes from someone in the past.”

A legacy can be envisioned as a “cultural atom.” It is initially the symbolic remains of the life of a once living and breathing human being. It is the material evidence of that person’s existence, the biological continuity of his/her presence, and the psychological impression left on one’s contemporaries and successors. The legacy, like “culture”, exists in the corporate memory or tradition of the “group(s)” impacted by an individual’s action and activities during a specific time and in a specific place. What that legacy is, its meaning and impact on the future, are a mixture of the desire by the deceased to influence the future and the futures evaluation of the deceased’s life. A legacy is where personality and culture meet for better or worse. It sets the stage for the next generation being both the source of wisdom and the curse that comes from the “sins of the fathers”.

As professional anthropologist, trained in a tradition passed on to us by those who came before us and as the ones who will be passing on that tradition, we should be both personally and collectively concerned about our legacy.  As knowledge producers and members of the knowledge industry, i.e. researchers, scholars, teachers, and advisers, we have a duty to insure that our work products are made available to our heirs.

Buried on page 4 of the 2009 version of the AAA ethics code, under the major heading III Research, subsection, B. Responsibility to Scholarship and Science is the following item:

6. Anthropological researchers should seriously consider all reasonable requests for access to their data and other research materials for purposes of research. They should also make every effort to insure preservation of their fieldwork data for use by posterity.

Like so many of the “ethical principles” of the AAA, this provision is a wish that has never been truly addressed by the profession in terms of an actionable item. It is offered only as a suggestion with little thought of the important role it might play in the future development and management of the profession and the science.

This is a very important observation. If you read the various versions and note the changes that have taken place in the AAA ethics statements, you would see that there is considerable concern about how one's work will be received, first, by those studied and, then later, with the human subjects issues imposed by sponsors on how the research and data will be managed. Research is made even more complex by the technology for digitally recording field observations and now digitally archiving research documents in their original form. This technology makes public’s access and data retrieval, through legitimate or illegitimate means, easier. It also places the access and use of such data beyond the researcher’s control. Today, the ethical issues involved in human subject research are more complex and challenging.

Concern over one's legacy is not restricted to cultural or social anthropology. It applies to all the sub-disciplines in ways that are both shared across anthropology and which are specific to the sub-discipline. 

Another reason for the original question is that these data are, to the extent you have ownership and control of the data, your responsibility. If you are concerned about how your material might be received, then you have to be concerned about the disposition of your material after your death. Once you are no longer alive, you will have no control over what is saved or how it will be used. Thus, planning and executing a Legacy Plan for the disposition of your materials -- planning for your legacy -- at some point of your career is crucial. This might mean physically destroying material that you don't want to be passed on, or assigning it to a trustee with an embargo on the release of the material to the "public" for some period of time, or you can just leave it to chance.

The challenge we face today is a black or white ethical choice. Remember, one can never expect to satisfy everyone. The choices are: What value do you feel your data might have for the future of the science vs. What harm do you feel that public release of your data  might have do to the individuals and society you studied? 

Do you have a Legacy Plan? Will your legacy be used by the future anthropologists for the benefit of the science? How can the AAA make actionable the ethical concerns of members for safe keeping their legacy?

Professional Ethics or Gamesmanship?

What are some of the beat examples of ethical codes? I think of the Ten Commandments in the Bible or Jesus' "Love the Lord God Almighty with all your heart and your neighbor as yourself" These are short, simple, statements which serve as personal guidelines for one's actions.

 For anthropology the initial concern about professional ethics was two fold. First was to insure that the field ethnographer would have access to their subjects by requiring him/her to behave in a manner that would not prejudice the situation for the next field worker. The second concern was to uphold the scientific integrity of the research product produced from the field work, i.e. be honest and objective in your analysis and share it with colleagues. Two very simple principles.

Religions and philosophies take these statements and then build complex fishnets out of them. So full of  knots to trap you and so many loop holes to allow you to wiggle through, the ethical code becomes a game instead of guide. It becomes a legalistic pastime for those with nothing better to do but to write more specific interpretation of the principle to trap and more subtle distinctions to escape the intent. Anthropological codes put forward over the past 50 years have tended to follow the same course.

As I have seen it, the profession has fail to come to grips with three major problems anthropology faces to achieve these simple goals by writing a code of ethics.

First is a failure to understand the difference between the sub-disciplines and what this means in terms of the ethical challenges one faces. Academic cultural anthropologist assume that cultural academic anthropology is Anthropology and demand an ethical code that represents that point of view. Its rules become too complex and specific for themselves and irrelevant for others such as the applied, administrative, policy or clinical roles or for those who work primarily with material culture, linguistic, or biological subjects or materials.

Second is the failure to distinguish the individual's position in life as a whole person and his/her "professional" role as an "anthropologist." As anthropologist, the individual is representing the tribe of anthropologists. As an individual, he/she is representing themself. As a result of this lack of distinction, codes have been proposed seeking to control the whole range of personal activity under the umbrella of anthropological ethics. Anthropology is a "profession" not a religion.

Third, a professional code and a personal code are very different. A professional code is a door or gate through which the profession (tribe) admits and judges members. It requires an individual to accept the tenets as a condition of acceptance into and by the profession. AND once admitted, it requires the members to adhere to the principles under penalty of ostracism and loss of professional privilege and status if the ethics are breached. Neither major anthropological association, AAA or SfAA, requires acceptance nor imposes punishment of what is called their principles, thus they have unenforceable codes. Such unenforceable codes actually defeat the original purpose for such codes.

In the past fifty years that I have participated, thought about, and written about ethics in anthropology I have yet to see a draft, much less an approved version, of the AAA Code or the SfAA code that addresses the issues outline above in a way that one could actually point to as an ANTHROPOLOGICAL ETHICS CODE.

In the age of Twitter, an ethical principle < 140 characters + (Specific = to define + general = to be understood by all ) might be the best example of what an code of ethics for anthropologist should be.

Why Professional Ethics Count!!

World War II was a watershed for anthropology both here in the US and for anthropology in the European colonial powers. How each reacted, and how individuals from the different traditions reacted to the wartime experience and the post war environment is a fascinating story and chapter in the history of anthropology as an institution and a culture.

While we, as anthropologists, advocate and believe that we can be both "participants" and "observers," the truth is we can never separate the two roles like our physical and biological science colleagues can. We will always be both, even when we attempt to dehumanize our "participant" role to become "more" objective. It is this fact alone which makes "professional" ethics an important and extremely complex issue in my opinion.

For example, the choice to not participate with the military in such areas as human terrain analysis is an individual moral and ethical choice. But is not a collective (professional) excuse nor escape from the consequences of the choice since collective is made up of the range of individual choices.

As a profession, for example, we have no moral right to criticize the actions of others (outsiders) who could have benefited from an anthropological input but were denied that input because some members objected to their colleagues working with the particular group or in a particular situation.

The profession must take a stand on what is ethically acceptable behavior of its members and which is the demarcation between Us (those we speak for i.e. the profession) and Others (those we do not speak for nor represent). The role of the profession is to define and mediate the limits of a member's acceptable behavior as it applies to its unique jurisdictional claim over a member's public behavior as it reflects on the profession and membership.as a whole.

A professional organization is by its very structure both a social/economic institution representing a group of specially trained individuals; and is the intermediary between the professional practitioner and the general public. In the role of intermediary, it sets ground rules for the interaction and, in return, receives (formally or informally) the right to administer those rules from the governing public authority. It is authorized to be self-governing as these rules apply to its official members. But it also limits the professional organizations authority over its members. And this is the problem we face in our organization and structure as "professional" anthropologists.

Where are the Ethics and What is a Code?

The Question is: Where are the Ethics and What is a Code?

Once again the American Anthropological Association is going to vote on an Ethics Code. The link here points to a posting on aaanet.org inviting AAA members to cast their vote in reference to a "new"(?) version of the profession's 'code' of ethics. So much time and thought has been spent over the past half century on the question of what is "ethical" anthropology and still we don't know who or what should be subject to a AAA ethical position.

Anthropologists play many professional roles -- most have nothing to do with being an anthropologist -- and are subject to formal and informal codes, standards, and regulations that impact their performance in those roles. Among these roles are: teacher, employee, researcher, consultant, mentor, writer, counselor, administrator, business person, etc.

As a product of the Viet Nam Era, I have followed and been involved in this search for a unique and common ground where being a professional anthropologist creates a moral or ethic obligation that is not covered by the ethical standards already imposed by one or more these roles.

The Society for Applied Anthropology was the first professional association to be seriously concerned about professional ethics. This was stimulated by concern about the role(s) played by American anthropologists in the World War II effort. Today, the SfAA has replaced the ethics code with a procedure for dealing with Conflicts of Interest on the part of members.

Meanwhile, the AAA presented its first concern about ethics in a 1948 resolution on the Freedom of Publication which ran 5 short one sentence paragraphs. The statement basically reenforced the traditional values of academic freedom and scientific inquiry. The Viet Nam era and Cold War politicized the profession. In 1967, the AAA shifted to a more dogmatic debate over professional ethics. The debate aimed at limiting the anthropologist's professional involvement and conduct, especially as it applied to research. At that point in time to be an anthropologist was to be an academic, a researcher and a member of the AAA. This concentration of roles may have justified attempts to circumscribe professionally accepted behavior at the time. Today this is no longer true.

As the AAA has expanded and been transformed from a professional to a membership organization, its claim to be the moral and ethic center for the discipline has been deluded. Today, there are many conflicting interests collected under the AAA tent. Meanwhile the attempt to "codify" its ethic position has ballooned from 5 simple sentences to the present 9 pages of Do's and Don't's. A visit to the AAA Ethics website will show you the evolution of such thinking within the AAA.

While the intend may be honorable, the biggest problem with these codes and the efforts to regulate behavior is that they are without teeth. And, therefore, as a Code of Behavior, they are without purpose. This position is reinforced in the preamble to the current draft where the document does everything it can to deny that it is a code of ethics. Instead, it is presented as an educational tool.

Elsewhere I have been critical of the AAA and its attempt to be both the ethical guru/spokesman for all anthropologist and a disengaged bystander overseeing the behavior of its members' behavior.

So the questions, I ask are: "Why is the current document titled a 'Code of Ethics'?" And, "Is the AAA the right organization to set the moral and/or ethical rules for what it means to be an anthropologist today?"

REBRANDING ANTHROPOLOGY Part 1 -- What happened to culture?

According to the American Anthropological Association

Anthropology is the study of humans, past and present.

This definition is somewhat different from the usual and traditional discourse we encounter about anthropology. The traditional approach placed “culture” at the center of the anthropological paradigm.  Anthropology’s brand and identity within the social sciences has traditionally been the concept CULTURE. Today, that is no longer true as the above definition clearly shows.

In a recent posting (October 2011) I made to the AAA site on LinkedIn I asked the following question, 

"What definition or metaphor do you find most helpful when you are defining "Culture?"


In 1963, A.L. Kroeber and Clyde Kluckhohn published a book entitled "CULTURE: A critical review of concepts and definitions" In their study of the term and it's history and use, one finds a wide range of ideas about what is the core concept of anthropology. These definitions are, in a way, a road map of the intellectual development within anthropology up to the mid-20th century. Now fifty years later, the concept of culture has changed with the times, the metaphors and the theories of  the profession and prejudices of its students.

What is your definition? What are your metaphors? How do you describe "culture" to your students, colleagues, and clients?

Since then, I have received a total of 8 responses. None of them truly addresses the question except in the most general of terms. It seems that culture is no longer the central organizing principle around which the four fields of anthropology, ethnology, physical/biological, archaeological, and linguistics orbit.

Yet when you ask anthropologists and practitioners, “What is anthropology?”, the most frequent response is “the study of culture.” As a practicing applied anthropologist for the past 30+years, I find that this response has not changed. Most anthropologists coming out of academia appear to think that the concept of “culture” is anthropology’s biggest selling point. Ethnographic research is the new and improved TIDE when it comes to applied social science.

These anthropologists seem to think, or feel, that they are the possessors of the great secret. It is a secret that every potential employer needs to know in order to succeed. As the bearers of this secret, these anthropologists seem to feel that they will be immediately embraced and employed to share this secret. The secret, of course, is – “culture.”

The problem, seen by these anthropologists, is that the potential employer lacks an understanding of the role culture plays in his/her business. What the employer needs is a staff anthropologist, or at least an anthropologically trained consultant, to research and provide answers to “cultural” problems in the business. What they don’t seem to understand is, that outside of academia, the “culture” concept no longer is the exclusive cache of anthropologists.

They are often surprised to discover that the term “culture” has long been accepted and integrated in the popular vocabulary of the employer and most other applied social and behavioral sciences serving the business community. As generally used, “culture” defines the fact that there are “differences” between Us (the business) and Them (Stakeholders).

Meanwhile within the profession, which has defined itself mainly as an academic discipline, the concept itself has lost its unique centrality and meaning.

Dating from the 1940’s, the profession has been struggling with question, “What is anthropology?”

Is anthropology the study of humanity or culture?
Why is anthropology a four field discipline and should it be?
Is the natural focus of anthropology the study of preliterate society?
What is anthropology’s role in the sciences and/or humanities?

Lacking any consistent answer other than “Anthropology is the study of humans, past and present,” it seems that American Anthropology has lost its brand identity.

It may be time to reposition the brand.

Why OPEN ACCESS is Good for the Anthropology

The American Anthropological Association is reconsidering changing its publications policy after openly opposing "Open Access" to scholarly publications. This is a welcome step. However, it should never have been a problem, as I argue below. The problem is the "academic society" business model that still dominates the AAA and many other disciplines. It is time to change the business model so that it serves all of society (especially that part that pays for it).

By OPEN ACCESS here I mean free access to its scholarly publications.
If anthropological research is to be useful to the public and taxpayers who pay for it, then one can argue that "Yes" it should be free.

It should be free because it would be the completion of what today is an incomplete economic transaction. That is, the taxpayer gives money to the government which in turn advertises (RFP) for a product -- research -- through one or more of its social or health science agencies. The academic anthropologist bids on the RFP and is award a grant or contract to produce the product requested. The grant or contract is awarded and the research is performed and a financial report is filed with the government. The product may be delivered to academic community, BUT it is not necessarily delivered to the buyer -- the taxpayer in a usable form.

Taxpayers pay not only for the research but they pay for the publication when academic journals charge researchers for publishing their papers. The "scholarly publishing" practice is really nothing more than in the trade would be called "Variety Press." Then, to turn around and sell these publications (articles) at exorbitant prices through a 3rd party is bad business sense. It cheats the taxpayer, and the author, of the intellectual property they have purchased and/or created. Is this fair??

Among the taxpayers, who support such research efforts, are anthropologists and other social scientist who are not part of the academic community; nor who have direct access to the research product that such affiliation affords. These researchers and practitioners are forced to 1. ignore or remain ignorant of the results from such subsidized government research; or 2. pay exorbitant prices for reprints often with little or no information other than a title of what they are buying ("buying a pig in a poke"). In both cases we end up with an inefficient distribution of information.

From the point of view of the public, the vast amount of economic data and writing produced by that discipline (academic) and government makes economics THE AUTHORITY for social policy decision making. And anthropology, used only by academic anthropologists, remains but an arcane ivory tower activity of marginal economic value. Ask Scott Walker about that.

For those of us who pursue careers outside of the academy, the inaccessibility (logistically and/or financially) of recent anthropological research and discussions means that we come to rely on secondary and tertiary sources or use other perspectives that might produce a similar utilitarian result for us. As a result, those of us who would be supporters and wholesale customers for anthropological products, and who could serve as spokespersons promoting anthropology to the public and the taxpayer are left out. We are left out by the economic barriers that prevent or deter us from using timely anthropological research.

Without the demand that we might create for such research, there is little reason in tough financial times (other than national security spending) to fund what is perceived in the minds of government funding agencies and Congress as basic soft social science research.

Anthropology is not the only social science, it competes with the others for research funding, student recruitment, and external (non-academic) employment opportunities for its graduates. Any barriers to the free flow of information between the branches, and sub-disciplines, of anthropology puts us in a weaker competitive position via-a-vis our sister social/behavioral and policy sciences.

Finally, economic barriers to the free of information is, by the AAA and SfAA's own ethical codes, unethical.

That's my opinion. I will be interest to hear how others feel.

A Little History of Applied Anthropology on the Local Level 1974

The Following is an article I wrote for the Anthropology Newsletter (Vol 16 No. 8 October 1974) about a local self help group formed in Tucson Arizona. The group which called itself the Society for Professional Anthropology (SOPA/aka SPA)was the precursor of the Local Practitioner Organizations and NAPA. It was formed for the purpose of bring unemployed and other "anthropologists" together and to recognize the diversity that exists within the local community of trained anthropologists.

SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ANTHROPOLOGISTS FORMED IN TUCSON
The following material was written by Barry R Bainton,founding member of the Society. —DD\N

In recent years a growing concern among anthropologists and their students has been the changing employment market. If an anthropologist obtains employment outside of the "traditional" academic setting, he or she often finds it difficult or impossible to maintain professional identity as an anthropologist. In November 1974, a group of non-academically employed anthropologists in Tucson, Arizona, began a series of meetings to discuss this problem. Out of these meetings the Society of Professional Anthropologists (SPA) was formed.

The Professional Anthropologist
The use of the term "professional" has stirred and continues to stir debate within the group. Other names for describing the group have been offered, eg, "applied," "nontraditional," "practicing," etc. Yet none so completely encornpasses the concept that the group seeks to express as does "professional." What is a professional anthropologist? At first glance, the answer is obvious: one who is employed as an anthropologist is a professional anthropologist. Very few persons trained as anthropologists, however, are employed specifically as "anthropologists." To restrict the professional identity to those whose job title or description specifies "anthropologist" or "anthropology," is too strict a definition for it excludes all those who have developed new and possibly unforeseen "uses" for the art and science of anthropology and the anthropological perspective. A broader, and for the group useful, definition is an individual who is formally trained in anthropology, is employed or seeking employment in a professional capacity, and identifies anthropology as his or her primary source of professional focus. By "primary source of professional focus," I mean the basic intellectual and ethical foundation of his or her approach to his/her professional activity. That is, the individual brings to his/her employment an anthropological perspective or ethic. Thus, the Tucson group includes in its membership the traditional university level teaching anthropologist and the less traditional anthropologically trained businessman.

Why a Separate Group?
Another issue the Tucson group has considered is "why a separate group, why membership in AAA, the Society for Applied Anthropology, or other special interest groups?" In the discussion it quickly became evident that there exists a very large gap between the needs of the professional anthropologist and the current services available from the national organizations. Among these needs are: timely information about job openings in the range of fields professional anthropologists have exploited or seek to exploit; information about local developments within the professional activity area in which the anthropologist finds himself; a forum where anthropologists employed in similar and/or complementary areas can get together and discuss issues of local concern from an anthropological perspective; creation of a local pool of consultants by fellowship in a common interest group; role models for those who wish to practice their anthropology in a non-academic setting; and contact between the teaching and practicing anthropologist to help each understand and benefit from the perspective of the other.

On another level, then is a need for a local group representing a wide interest base to monitor local legislation and lobby for anthropological interests. Current federal funding patterns, ie, formula grants, revenue sharing and planning and review requirements, make it crucial that anthropologists on the local level be able to influence state and local agencies in the development and implementation of local legislation designed to take advantage of federal legislation. The critical point in the system is frequently the person in the local or state agency who writes the rules and regulations that ultimately put flesh on the bare skeleton of legislation. Therefore, those who initially met and who continue to meet in Tucson feel that the formation of a locally based professional association of anthropologists is desirable for their purposes. Membership in the SPA does not require membership in any other anthropological association, nor does it exclude it. One's professional interest may require membership in a wide range of special interests groups. In fact, the SPA encourages its members to be active in other groups. The information derived and shared with the membership of SPA can only help to meet the needs of group members.

The Purpose
The Society recently adopted the following purpose statement: "The purpose of the Society of Professional Anthropologists is to promote anthropology as a profession. The Society seeks to develop the art and science of anthropology and to promote its use for the betterment of the community. To further these goals, the Society and its members seek self development through active support of formal and informal means of communication between members and to promote the public's awareness of the values of anthropology and the anthropological perspective."

The History of the SPA
The Society developed out of two general local movements in Tucson. One movement evolved among local program evaluators. Recent federal social legislation has included the requirement of program evaluation as a program component.

In Tucson, program evaluators have been hired by the city government, local school district, health and research planning agencies, behavioral health programs and by private consulting firms, among others. In some cases, one-man evaluation programs operate in social or health service agencies. As these evaluators developed contacts with colleagues in other agencies and programs, a number of anthropologists discovered one another. From these discoveries they began meeting to discuss common problems in evaluation and to rekindle their anthropological interests.

At the same time, archeologists at the Arizona State Museum, located at the University of Arizona, have for several years been doing salvage and contract archeology throughout Arizona. In the last year, a new program was introduced at the University. The program, Cultural Resource Management, was stimulated by the federal legislation requiring a historical and archeological impact statement to be filed as part of the environmental impact statement for major construction projects. As a result a number of archeologists trained as cultural resource managers have been matriculated and have met to discuss common problems.

In November 1974, a meeting was called by the author and Margaret Knight to discuss the major events of the AAA annual meeting in Mexico City, which Knight had attended. Members of the evaluation and archeological groups, as well as persons who were known to share an interest in professional applied anthropology, were invited. Out of that meeting was born the Society of Professional Anthropologists.

The SPA
The Society has a mailing list of 125 persons, and an active membership of approximately 105 drawn from the Tucson and southern Arizona community Functionally the membership is drawn from the following activities areas: Services, 20; Teaching and Training, 19; Administration, 20; Research, 16; Students, 25.

Broken down by discipline, the membership shows the following distribution: Education, 32; Government, 7; Health Related Fields, 11; Social Services, 8; Business, 12; Archeology, 6; Housewives, 3; Students, 25.

The Society is governed by a Steering Committee composed of 18 persons. The Steering Committee meets regularly to plan group activities. A workshop on Consultancy, as well as discussion groups on Program Evaluation and Environmental Impact Statements, have been held. A newsletter has been created and published. A jobs network has been created to advise members of local employment opportunities. Plans are currently being made to monitor local and state governments for developments of concern to anthropologists and to prepare the group to help lobby for and against legislation that directly affects anthropologists and anthropological interests. One final point should be made concerning the Society of Professional Anthropologists. That is, it is a local, grassroots organization. Its activities and structure are designed to meet the needs of the professionally employed anthropologists in Tucson. Others in other locales may find their needs are different. We would encourage others who wish to, to form their own groups to serve their local needs. We would welcome word from any such group in the country.

If anthropology is to be successful in marketing its perspective, skills and students in the non-academic market, it will require those of us who profess to be professionals and anthropologists to demonstrate the utility of that perspective and those skills to the public and to potential employers. We may do this individually, but we can also do it collectively. In Tucson, Arizona, we have chosen to do it both ways.

ANTHROPOLOGY Newsletter October 1975

Vol. 16 No. 8 pp. 4 - 6

Where are/is our ambassador? Where is our Margaret Mead?

Who is speaking out for anthropology in the public arena today? I can remember a one time when Margaret Mead was the voice and face of American Anthropology. For those who did not attended the 2010 AAA meetings in New Orleans, Dr. Jeremy Sabloff raised this question.

At the 109th Annual Meeting of the American Anthropological Association in New Orleans, LA Dr. Jeramy Sabloff from the Santa Fe Institute. gave the Distinguished Lecture. His lecture was entitled "The Circulation of Ideas: Anthropology and Public Outreach" was delivered on Friday, November 19.

Dr. Sabloff is introduced by AAA President Virginia R. Dominguez.



2010 AAA Distinguished Lecture: "The Circulation of Ideas: Anthropology and Public Outreach" by Dr. Jeremy Sabloff, Santa Fe Ins at the American Anthropological Assn. from Vimeo.


This is an excellent and timely statement about the issues facing the Anthropological profession and making it relevant to society at large. The insular nature of academic anthropology and reluctance to stand up for and take action on the issues, many seem to feel, are critical and only weakens the brand and influence of what should the prince/ess of the social sciences. Trans-disciplinary is the appropriate word for the potential contribution anthropology can make. For the past thirty years, the opportunity has been there and still in 2010 we are talking about it, rather than having done anything about lending our insight to the public understanding of the problems and solutions of building a planetary socio-cultural system.

What Business needs to know from the Applied Ethnographer

Recently the American Anthropological Association republished an essay by Ashkuff, entitled What Anthropologists Do, and What They Do Wrong in Business in which the author argues that a major problem between anthropologists and businesses is the method of communication. The problem extends not just to business, she concludes, but to almost all communications that take place between anthropology and the outside world.

The heart of Ashkuff’s argument is the contrast between the "needs" of two actors-- the applied ethnographer and the business client -- in the business context. The operand word here is "need" and how each actor defines their need. This is a real issue and conundrum for the applied ethnographer to which I can attest from personal experience.

Applied ethnographers tend to be influenced by their training to write for an academic audience. The whole question of academic writing in anthropology has been brought into question by one of the modern demi-gods of anthropology, Clifford Geertz. Geertz and his followers attack the traditional ethnography using an analysis based on a post-modernist theory of literary criticism. They argue that it is the TEXT rather than the subject which should be the key to the analysis. They point out that the text, written by the ethnographer, creates a bias in our understanding of the subject being written about.

While I don't subscribe to literary criticism as a core anthropological theory or method, I do accept that it calls attention to, and addresses a larger issue in modern science. That issue is uncertainty. The uncertainty arises from the fact that the writer’s conclusions are drawn from an analysis of a particular unique set of observations bounded by time and space carried out by a single observer.

The applied ethnographer is often reflective and cautious. S/he is as concerned about how his/her work might be viewed by academic colleagues as s/he is about not wanting to mislead a business client with "incomplete" data. The result is the temptation to write lengthy and detailed reports. The effect may be good academic ethnography but poor applied ethnography. It can become little more than an exercise in CYA.

For the business person, the need is accurate and timely information. That is, the basic input needed to develop a strategy, create a policy, make a decision, or evaluate an outcome. The business person is action oriented. S/he is aware that things change and it is precisely because of this that s/he looks to internal and external consultants and technician to collect, analyze and interpret the complex data that are generated and required to operate in today's economy. S/he wants the bottom line

The "bottom line" is an accounting term which has a more general meaning in the real world business context. It means simply "what is the meaning and consequence of the situation for our business?"

For the applied ethnographer then, the lengthy report is only the first step in the delivery of the contracted research. It is the interpretation and condensing of that data into a simple set of action statements that answer the business client's question and address her needs in an uncertain context.

The uncertainty that exist in the situation is real and it will result in errors in interpretation and mistakes in any actions arising from it. It is the responsibility of the expert to absorb and reduce the uncertainty. The client needs that information in order to to proceed. And, more important, the circumstances are that the client will proceed with or without the report if he has to.

From the Geertzian perspective, this calls for a TEXT that communicates what the client needs to know to do and what he needs to do. This is a TEXT that presents the applied ethnographer’s "best guess" answer to the business client’s basic question.

This places a burden on the applied ethnographer. She must translate the ethnography from a descriptive to a proscriptive state. Further, she gives up control of the research project. She must design the project to conform to the client’s timeline. This often calls for mini- or micro-ethnography. Mini-ethnography is a totally different art form from the traditional 1 year in the field and 3 years to analyze and write it up the data academic format.

Finally, there is the applied ethnographic format. The applied ethnography does not follow the traditional literary arch in the business context. Instead it begins with the ending -- the executive summary which contains the recommendations and two to three critical points to justify each. Then, comes the back-story, which we would consider as the meat of the ethnography. This back story is read by staff advisers, may contribute to their recommendations and may be used for future reference to defend the client’s decision and actions. Then there are appendices. This is where the mini-ethnography detail will appear. The appendices consist of documentation to support the report and recommendations e.g.the various detailed reports, analysis and budgets etc.

Ashkuff's advise is something that any ethnographer, hoping to work in the real world of business, should take to heart. The applied ethnographer’s most important role is his/er role as a cross cultural communicator who understands the business client’s needs and language, and can produce a product that improves the client’s decision making success.

How the American Anthropological Association got Ethics wrong

For more than 40 years (1970 - 2010), the American Anthropological Association has struggled with the question of professional ethics. In the early 1990s, the Executive Board of the AAA established a Commission to look into the question of professional ethics. "The AAA Executive Board charged the Commission to Review theAAA Statements on Ethics to examine the purposes, content and procedures of the Association Statements on Ethics." 

 To its credit the Commission outlined the problems that it found while the trying to address the problem. The Commission, in its report, lays out a set of "General Principles Applying to Codes of Ethics." These principles were, and are, however, critically flawed. And because they are, the Commission perpetuated the major flaw in the profession's thinking about ethics and especially professional ethics.

 To date anthropologists have failed to distinguish between what are “professional” ethics and what is "religious orthodoxy" or "disciplinary dogma." By “professional ethics” I mean, "What are the moral rules that apply to the unique role of being a professional anthropologist; that is, one who earns their living practicing the discipline of anthropology." By “religious orthodoxy,” I mean those claims to some divine, universal revelation of  what any anthropologically  trained individual is expected to do in all aspects of their personal and public life.

 Anthropologists have failed to apply their own disciplinary rules and principles to study this very cultural of phenomena; nor have they applied the results of such study to the problem's solution. It is by examining these General Principles and evaluating them in terms of anthropological and sociological principles that we can find the fatal flaw in the profession's reasoning as expressed by the Commission report.

In the analysis below the Commission's key principles are numbered and are presented in italics along with my comments in non-italic form on each major principle.

.III. General Principles Applying to Codes of Ethics

In reviewing the purpose and content of a Code of Ethics, the Commission profited from discussions with Bernard Gert, Professor for the Study of Ethics and Human Values, Dartmouth College. Professor Gert provided some general guidelines for developing a disciplinary and professional code of ethics. By way of background, the Commission lists some of those guidelines, some of which were drawn from "Morality, Moral Theory, and Applied and Professional Ethics," (Gert, Professional Ethics, Vol. 1, Nos. 1 & 2, 1992.) 

             1. The  primary  purpose(s) of a professional code of ethics is to help educate and socialize new entrants to the field as well as current members of the discipline; therefore, a code must be of some practical use.

 

 The primary purpose is not to educate new entrants, rather it is set the moral and ethical context/constraints that govern professional behavior of those who claim or are certified as professionals in the discipline. A code of ethics is a social contract and therefore is a statement of the collective beliefs of the membership and the standard by which members evaluate one another’s behavior and enforce a collective standard. Certainly neophyte require training and indoctrination -- but only if it is to be meaningful upon completion of  their initiation.

The primary purpose of a professional Code of Ethics is to present to the society, of which the profession is but a part, a clear statement of the purpose and mission of the profession as it applies to its relation to the community at large. 

        2.  A professional code deals with how a person ought to act, and with behaviors required by one's societal role/job. A code of ethics does not define a person's job or professional title (that is, a code of ethics does not define terms such as "scientist," "humanist," or "anthropologist ").

 

 This is a contradictory statement to say the least, and very poor social anthropology at its worst. If the code deals with “how a person ought to act” then it is describing an ideal “role.” That means, it is MUST, by definition, define a person’s professional role -- regardless of the job or professional status. “Ethics” is about behavior, not a structural position in a social network.

“Professional” is about status in the social network. It is a status, which comprises the membership of the practitioners trained in the body of skills and knowledge that make up the discipline. Thus, unless the Code does define what that  discipline is and who is included and who is excluded, it fails the test of being professional.

             3.  The development of a code of ethics assumes that the majority of persons affected by the code agree that there are shared ethical principles; that is,  "for the overwhelming majority of cases, any equally informed, impartial, rational person would come to the same conclusion " in determining a particular course of action 

.

 How does one determine what a majority is when there is no boundary established for inclusion and exclusion? Based on this definition, the population of the world is the universe. It would seem that the minority, anthropologists, do not constitute a majority to impose their standards on the world. Neither does it seem desirable that that be the case -- since the purpose of a professional code of ethics is to distinguish between what is “professionally” permissible behavior verses what is generally accepted  as permissible behavior. 

 For example, an ordinary citizen will violate the law and morality by using deadly force against another person (Thou shall not kill). He or she is acting immorally/unethically to do so. However, a police officer, as a professional law enforcer, is ethically bound to use such force in self defense AND THE DEFENSE OF THE PUBLIC.

The reason for distinguishing between general/universal ethics and professional ethics is specifically to identify specialized domains of activity (disciplines) which society deems worthy of or which require special identification, and exemption from the general ethical responsibility and accountability that applies to general population. If this were not the case there would be no need for a separate and exclusive professional code.

 4.  A code of ethics is a   "public moral system "  in that (1) all persons to whom it applies, those whose behavior is to be guided and judged by that system, understand it, i.e., know what behavior the system prohibits, requires and encourages; and (2) it is not irrational for any of them to accept being guided or judged by."

 

 I have no problem here because this assumption, or principle, addresses ethics in general. A personal, or even a public code of ethic, should be a public moral system which dictates how one behaves in public and toward others. However the phrase here is “all persons to whom it applies.“  A professional code does not apply to everyone -- it applies ONLY to those who are sanctioned by (1) the discipline, and (2) by the group that society sanctions to represent the discipline. 

 A public code of ethics is inclusive while a professional code of ethics is exclusive. As a citizen of the United States or the world, I am NOT bound by the AMA, nor the ABA, Codes of Ethics. However, I expect and demand that my doctor and my lawyer live up to their professional codes of ethics.

 5. "A public moral system " includes rules, which must be followed (unless a violation can be justified), and ideals, which encourage how people ought to behave.

 A “public moral system” consists of NORMS, not RULES as described here. NORMS are expectations of predictable behavior but not mandatory. RULES, as stated here, are LAWS which are mandatory and enforced by the society upon those over whom the society claims jurisdiction whether formally members of the society or not. “RULES” imply a formal process of enforcement, while NORMS only require an informal process. Breaking RULES carries consequences, breaking NORMS may carry shame or praise.

 As applied by the American Anthropological Association and the Society for Applied Anthropology, the “public moral system,” which their Codes of Ethics claim to represent, is an “IDEAL” set of principles lacking any formal system or process of enforcement.

       6.  Moral rules are not absolute, but justified violations must be impartial (that is, every person may violate the rule in the same situation) and must be public (that is, everyone knows that the specific violation is permitted). It also is understood that there will be disagreement on what constitutes the "same situation."

 

 Moral rules are “culturally” absolute. Moral norms are not.  The allege violation is subject to question on two grounds. Was it a violation of a RULE or a NORM; and Did the circumstances of the alleged violation fall under the jurisdiction of the RULE?

 If the alleged violation was the violation of a norm, then it is a relative violation in the sense that there may be a general agreement that something inappropriate happened but under the circumstances “we”, the public, can accept and forgive that it happened. 

 Rules are by definition RULES which are absolute. The question of whether there is a violation is not whether the violation is justifiable, it is whether the RULE applies under the alleged circumstances under which the alleged violation took place. 

 These are two different tests of the application of the ethical code, public or professional. 

 General conclusion:  The rationale adopted by the Commission on Ethics reflects a decision made by a committee based on politics rather than a logical, "scientific" or "scholarly", assessment of the concept of ethics and its application to the discipline or profession. While the Commission raises a number of valid issues, the poor quality of their standards of reference lead it to produce a confused and loosely defined set of ethical and professional concepts. The final product fails to distinguish the differences between professional and public behavior. 

 As a result the Codes developed under these guidelines are over reaches their jurisdictional claims and otherwise hide the core ethical  issues facing the profession. It is not that the Commission ignored, or even avoided, the conflict that such poorly defined principles reveal. It is that they did not see that the principles applied were flawed. As result, where there were differences in interpretation, the decision seems to have been made to achieve consensus, rather than validity or clarity.

 

 Unfortunately, their recommendations appear to have been accepted by the AAA as guidelines for how and why the AAA is to construct its ethics code.  As they state it, "..., the Commission's recommendation that the AAA focus on an ethics education program and no longer seek to adjudicate claims of unethical behavior has been adopted by the AAA Executive Board."

Today, if this is the case, we wonder why the AAA continues to concern itself with developing a theoretical code of ethics that, while idealistic, is not applicable to the profession or professionals? And further, how helpful can this be to train students, especially the majority of who will be going to work in the real world, to respond to the ethical challenges they will face in that world?

The American Anthropological Association and Anthropological ethics?

Yesterday I opened my email and found the message about the American Anthropological Association's Final Draft Report of the Ethics Task Force. Having just finished a paper on Applied Ethics: Anthropology and Business I rushed to the site to see what was there. I managed to make note of this latest attempt to clarify the AAA's position and hopefully my editor will catch it. However, what I find most perplexing is that the AAA is playing the part of Lucy and I feel like Charlie Brown when it comes to trying to kick the ball

The American Anthropological Association has once again decided to look at "professional" ethics. This time it is a Draft Report from the Ethics Task Force which was released on June 30, 2011. While I know what a challenge this task is, I served from 1983 to 1986 on such a committee for the AAA and NAPA, it seems strange that only last February the AAA published a "new" revised and approved Code of Ethics.  What is going on here???
   

I want to commend the Task Force on its efforts.  I can empathize with the challenge they have been and will face going forward. However, my initial response and primary concern is that while the principles expounded here are an improvement over the 1970 Code and its offspring (1984, 1999, 2009, and the February 2011) they still miss the point. 

The topic headers make for a good start at a set of principles — stating what anthropology and the AAA stand for. However, since the AAA will not enforce the code and the COPE (Committee on Professional Ethics)' 2009 Annual Report has essential state as much, I wonder if the AAA has a need for a “Code.” .

In my experience, as an applied/practitioner, the value of a code of ethics is one of protection for the profession — protections against clients who would ask me to use my skills in an unethical way to further their objective; protection against colleagues competing against me by using unethical, inappropriate, or unprofessional practices; protection for the client and the public against the lack of a standard, reliable and valid way of knowing what is “anthropology” and who is qualified to practice as an anthropologist.

For more than a half century, the anthropological profession — as represented by the AAA — has seen ethics as being all about ME (the individual) — What can I do? What must I do? What can I get away with? 

I find that this ego-centric attitude (or should I say “anthropocentric”) fails to recognize that the AAA is a social institution which exists in a real world of human beings and social institutions who could care less about our personal fears, doubts, and biases. To the degree that they care, they want to be assured that there is some institution that will stand behind its members and guarantees the ethical quality of product it purports to represent .They are looking to the institution for quality control guidelines to reduce their risk of employing an unqualified member.

This is what a Code implies. It is a place to go to find the guarantee and to have that guarantee honored. It implies that the subject, the student, the colleague, the sponsor, and the client have recourse through the institution in the event of malpractice. Otherwise, the court system becomes the default.

If we drop the idea of a Code and simply follow the lead of the SfAA (Society for Applied Anthropology) that these will only be the principles that we expect members to follow, then we would be more honest in our presentation to the members and the public. 

The Principles can be stated in a 10 Commandment format without details and qualifications. " Thou shall or shall not." Since the AAA is not going to enforce them, there is little need to go into detail — that only invites more detail and a theological debate that goes nowhere. As principles, they are goals to aspire to and enforcement can done through rewarding outstanding examples of upholding the principles, rather than the time consuming and costly due process of punishment.

.

The AAA is NOT a professional society. Since the 1984 reorganization, it has become a consortium of clubs and voluntary associations. Unlike such professional association as the Bar Association, Medical Society, or American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, membership is voluntary and not required to practice the discipline in any of its manifestations (basic research, teaching, or practice) nor in any of the venues where anthropologists sell their service and making a living.

I feel that the Task Force should broaden the scope of its effort to consider the basic question — who and what is, or to be, served by an AAA code of ethics? 

Again, I want to commend the Task Force for it work. It is trying, challenging, and thankless job