TOC and Applied Anthropology

The Applied Anthropologist is a role. Applied Anthropology is a perspective. Just as Academic Anthropologist is a role, while Academic anthropology is a perspective.

Applied anthropology is the application of an anthropological perspective to the solution of a human problem. As a perceptive, it is a holistic definition of a human problem (diagnosis), based on the history of human social and/or cultural solutions to such problems (evaluation), to arrive at a solution that addresses the socio-cultural needs defined by the client (prescription). TOC or the Theory of Constraints is a management tool for analyzing an organizational/business/manufacturing problem (diagnosis); analysis of the situation (evaluation); and identification and recommending altering the situation to meet the client's need (prescription). Implementation of a solution or recommendation is the Client's right and obligation to accept or reject.

Applied Anthropology is based on the vast library of  anthropological studies of social and cultural systems that have established an ethnographic library of cases of human experience. It is like a law library -- a collection of cases, rules, and theories to be used as a resource to research and prepare a case to defend or implement a case. TOC is a formal method for developing a case to overcome or adjust to a physical, social or ideological constraint.

The Applied Anthropologist is trained in the use of the Library and how to build a case based on the clients needs. He or she or they (because it can be a team sport) build a case by identifying first, the client's need, and then researching how that need has been met in the past, and then comparing the present situation with past solutions to devise an action plan that addresses the need. What the Applied Anthropologist does with the information depends upon the role she, they or he plays in reference to the client.

The Applied Anthropologist is basically a consultant to the client. As such they, he or she provide knowledge, advice, and recommendations based on THE CLIENT'S perceived need and not the Anthropologist's need. This does not mean that the Anthropologist validates the Client's desires or biases, rather it means providing the Client with the best available options to the situation that the anthropologist has identified. And making recommendations for addressing the problem.

TOC is a technique for identifying the problem and leads to a behavioral solution or option for the client or client's authorized manager to evaluate and manage. TOC is the theoretical bases for a PERT  analysis of the options identified by the Applied Anthropologist. The analysis enables the Applied Anthropologist to translate his/her/their recommendation.

Translation is often a major barrier between the academical inclined anthropologist and the professional applied anthropologist in their relation to the client. Ideally, the Applied Anthropologist can present a report in the language understandable and actionable by the Client. That is, in terms of the time and cost savings and expense that the client might expect by implementing the recommendations.

This last point is what distinguishes the Applied Anthropologist from the Academic anthropologist. TOC can be a valuable tool in making this distinction.

HUMAN EVOLUTION --- The ANTHROPOLOGICAL ADVANTAGE

“Anthropology is the most humanistic of the sciences and the most scientific of the humanities”

If we are to apply our evolutionary advantage as a species, we must recognize that humanity is both the observer and participant in the evolutionary process of life on the planet Earth. This is the power of the Anthropological perspective. Anthropology, as a science, seeks to understand how we have become the dominant biological organism on the planet. Anthropology, as humanity, seeks to understand how we view ourselves as individuals and as individuals living in societies through time.

The most humanistic of the sciences means that as human beings we attempt to understand the workings of the universe that we have inherited, through human eyes. We seek this understanding by describing the elements that we experience through our human senses. From these observations, we construct mental models of the universe we discover; and in the process, we discovered a “STRUCTURE” for the universe. 

As the most scientific of the humanities, we seek to understand the dynamic of these structures through our observations and, in the process, ascribe “FUNCTION” to the elements. In FUNCTION, we discover Purpose and Meaning. However, over time and space, we discover as humans, that these elements can be combined into different patterns. We also observe that our idea of Function is relative to our experience with a given Structure. We embody our experience in the Meanings we assign to structures and their elements. We label this as “CULTURE.”  A hallmark of anthropology is Cultural relativity, i.e. the meanings of structures and events are relative to the observer’s experience.

As organic beings, we have a unique ability to be self-reflective. We share our reflections with others through Language. Language is a meta-phenomenon that encodes our experience into a set of signs and symbols that shares “Meaning”. We express our discoveries, experiences, and feelings through the physical signs and symbols we create and share with others.  Humans experience not only discover the “purpose” of structural elements, but also the part(s) they play in creating and maintaining the larger structures of which they are a part.  We, as humans, discover and seek “MEANING” to the purpose. As a self-reflective species, we seek our meanings from explanation about how these structures apply to us, personally, collectively (a part of society), and as a species (among all species).

 “Meaning” expresses “purpose” in a relativistic way. It explains the links we find in nature in terms of “cause to effect”. It provides the answer to the old philosophical question, “If a tree falls in the woods, does it matter if no one hears it?” From the Human perspective, the answer is “No.” If we cannot, or do not experience, the event, for us the event does not exist. The experience is not existential, only an ideational possibility. Scientifically, an ideational explanation of a experience without physical evidence is a hypothesis, a belief based on a “best guess.” Again, an example of CULTURAL RELATIVITY.

The recognition of Cultural Relativity is one of the greatest discoveries of Anthropology. While often underplayed in public discourse, it gives us an advantage over other disciplines by recognizing the role of ethnocentrism as a part of the human condition. Like all organisms, biologically we recognize our own species. But, as a self-reflective animal, we separate ourselves as a clad or society from others sharing our environment by attributing meanings and purposes to the other in relations to us.

While this feature of human life is so evident today, why is it that the anthropological perspective has emerged in the last three centuries in the human mind only? This is the questions that I will be addressing in future installments of this blog.

Auto-ethnography, a validation process for ethnographic research

Auto-ethnography is the second tier in validating the scientific (objective) observations of the field ethnographer. Auto-ethnography is those observations and recordings that the field ethnographer makes that describe what they did as both observer and more importantly, as a participant in the community being studied.

In socio-cultural anthropology, the data is behavior, human behavior recorded by and through the observations and participation of a human being of the socio-cultural system or subsystem of a community of human actors. The questions that haunts cultural anthropologists are, "How objective is the reporting?" "Can the anthropologist truly divorce him/herself from ones own cultural and gender biases?" "How do we deal with subjectivity?" Unlike the other three field of Anthropology, there are no real external standards for judging the validity and reliability of the data reported.

In archaeology, one has the physical evidence of the artifacts collected, and the maps drawn of the site according to well established mapping techniques and standards including the physical measurements of the relationship between features and feature and artifacts. Because archaeology is a destructive activity, it is crucial that the research and future generations can reconstruct the site from the records long after they have been destroyed in the initial process of recovery.

In biological and physical anthropology there are protocols, standardized physical instruments and biological test. These standard instruments and procedures produce a data set that can be replicated if desired when applied to the same or similar subjects at another time by the same or different trained researcher. This insures the validity of the first study and demonstrates the reliability of the record and procedures used.

In linguistics data collection is fairly simple using audio equipment to record the phonetics, and morphemes as well as spoken sentences which once captured can be analyzed by standard procedures. Where and when recording devices were not available, a standardized phonetic alphabet was used to record sounds, words, and word elements. Anyone trained to read and write the alphabet could reconstruct the language as recorded and if necessary test the meanings reported in a translation against what any native speaker of the language in question would interpret the translation.

Cultural anthropology historically has been carried out by lone wolves who went off to an "unknown" or "little" known "primitive" community and came back to write an ethnography in which they described the "culture" of the studied group. This description was to be in objective terms based on the data collected by the researcher in field notes and photographs etc. All of these would be the product of the field worker. Yet there was no calibration the principle instrument, the field worker him/herself, to any "real" standard other than the claims of the researcher him/herself. There was no way to replicate the research at one point in time by a restudy at a different point in time.

As an undergraduate, in the early 1960, I was told that it would be best, if one planned a career in cultural anthropology, that one  have themselves psycho-analyzed before going into the field in order to understand what biases they bring to the field situation. Whether this was ever a widely held belief or practice I can not attest to, however, the idea of some form of "calibration" of the field worker as the recording device struck me as sound at the time. Later, as a Peace Corps Volunteer, I experienced what I suspected that process might be when we underwent extensive psychological evaluation before being finally selected to serve overseas.

So how do field ethnographers validate their work and how do they evaluate each others' work?

One of the first ethnographies I read as an undergraduate was Allen Holmberg's Nomads of the Long Bow. Its format was very typical of the time with sections on the social structure and kinship system, the economic system, political and religious systems, the annual group and individual life cycles. As far as I could tell, and I guessed the University of Chicago and my professors at Brown, this was a model ethnography. Yet there was something I found disturbing in the study. It was my first exposure to what has come to be called "auto-ethnography." Let me quote from Holmberg

“…in a society like the Siriono, where the food supply is both scarce and insecure, a person’s status necessarily depends on his ability as a provider of food than on any other single factor. This was clearly brought home to me [Allan Holmberg] time and time again while I was at Tibaera [located along the Rio Blanco in eastern Bolivia]
.
“One case deserves special mention. Enia (Knee) was the brother-in-law of Chief Eantandu.  He had  had some contact with the outside, but because of maltreatment had run away from his patrón and returned to native life. He was an intelligent man with an unusual ability (for a Siriono) to adjust to White civilization. He was a hard worker and reliable, and he knew considerable Spanish.  His one weakness was that he could not hunt as well as his countrymen. Time after time I saw him leave with his bow and arrows, and time after time I watched him return empty handed, while his fellow tribesman left after him on the same trail and return with game.He was generally referred to as "not knowing how to hunt." He was openly insulted at drinking feasts for his inability to hunt.He had lost one wife to a better man. His status was low; his anxiety about hunting, high. He had, however, made some kind of readjustment to native life by planting more crops and collecting more forest products than the others and trading some of his vegetables for meat. But still he was not satisfied. Noting this condition, I set out to raise his status. First he accompanied me with his bow and arrows on hunting trips. He carried in game which I shot [Holmberg had a shotgun to hunt for his own food], part of which was given to him and which we told others was shot by him. His status began to improve. Shortly thereafter, I taught him to use a shotgun, and he brought in game of his own. Needless to say, when I left Tibaera he was enjoying the highest status, had acquired several new sex partners, and was insulting others, instead of being insulted by them." (Holmberg, Allen 1960 p.60)

Here is a case of autoethnography where the researcher in the role of participant describes how he intervened into the lives of the people he was stdying and was able to test a hypothesis developed in the field about the relationship between male hunting skill and his social status or rank. He also reports on an intervention to teach one of his subjects how to use a shot gun in place of the traditional bow and arrows to hunt meat.

When I read this, back as an undergraduate I was struck by what I saw as the unanswered ethical question -- what happened when Holmberg left? Did he take the shot gun with him? How and where did Enia acquire shells for the gun, if Holmberg left it with him? These questions would not even have come up, had Holmberg not self reported his own role in the lives of this particular Siriono Indian and indirectly in the power struck of the band.

At the time I did not see this as an example of auto-ethnography. The term had not yet been invented. But situation Holmberg describes, did raise certain ethical questions in my mind about just how involved should or could a field researcher become with his subjects in the participant observer role?

It does, looking back on it today, provide an insight into Holmberg, as an activist field ethnographer who later chose to lead the legendary Vicos project..

Source: Nomads of the Long Bow: The Siriono of Eastern Bolivia. Allan Holmberg (Reprinted for the Second-Year Course in the Social Sciences) Syllabus Division, University of Chicago Press, Chicago. March 1960