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.

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.

Anthropology and Consumer Resaerch -- An applied paradigm

Robert Tian, Business Anthropology, Anthropology of Business Blog, makes a good point about the technological overload that is emerging in the consumer research field. Data, tonnes of data, will be available and are available about consumer behavior. It is becoming available in real time to marketers and business strategists. But what does it mean? This is where the anthropologist, strategically positioned in the supply chain and in the corporation, has an advantage. The gathering of market data is the same as international espionage and we all know how good that process works, especially when it is stove-piped.

Anthropology is more than participant observation. Go back to the Boasian protocol and you will see that a holistic, comparative, and historically/environmentally contextual approach to the data -- confirmed through participant observation is the heart of the anthropological analysis. We go through so many fads and linguistic games to be unique that nobody, least of all many of our colleagues, know what anthropology really is and what an anthropologically trained person can do.

An effective strategy for the business anthropologist is to become the data consolidator and interpreter for the business owner, or the client. While David describes what can be collected, he did not explain how this can be used in anyway different from what is now being done, only more detail. Anthropology can provide another interpretive paradigm linked to the broader business context - such a market trends, disruptions and discontinuities. But this requires some new thinking within anthropology as well as within the business community. Maybe this more than most would be willing to attempt.

The easy escape for the anthropologist interested in consumer behavior is to try to retreat to the academy or museum -- the ancestral nurturing grounds of anthropologist -- and avoid the real world. However, like the sparrow fledgling popping out of our bird house this past June, you have to learn to spread your wings and take chances with the equipment you have been given and are trained in if you want to get over to the bird feeder with the big boys/girls..

As an applied anthropologist, in the consumer research field, It is what you can do for the client or employer that counts -- not the brand name "anthropology"  -- which counts. The paradigm is: 1. Do a good job selling your abilities to solve the client's or employer's problem; 2.Create value for them; and then, 3.. Sell the brand, Anthropology. This will give it meaning.

Right now accounting and law have created a proven brand and therefore command a premium price. Anthropology is still Indiana Jones and Bones, "rocks and bones." Today it only commands a generic researcher's price. Show the business world how it can use anthropological skills, profitably, and how to get value from all that data they are buying, then anthropology will become a brand. And the Consumer Anthropologist will command a premium price for his/her services.

Basic principle: Prove the product and give birth to a brand. Not the other way around.