Do you have the people skills to be a "career" anthropologist?

I was recently contacted by a graduate student from a prestigious local university where I had volunteered to provide counseling/mentoring assistance. The student is enrolled in a PhD program and going through an identity crisis -- to be an academic/researcher or to pursue a career outside of the academy, i.e. real world. The student wanted to discuss options in "consulting" and "management" as career paths. I have done a bit of  each  most of my professional career, so I accepted the student's request to meet and discuss the topics.

Arriving at a time and place, of course, is always a challenge first time out. So when we didn't connect immediately, we exchanged emails and eventually synchronized our schedules. Personally, I found the meeting to be interesting and hopefully the student did too. But there are a few things I observed that, should we meet again I will have to bring up, especially if the student plans to succeed in the real world. This is what I want share here.

About the initial contact:

In the email exchange to set up the appointment, the first message was initiated by the student and was correctly addressed and in the salutation my name was correctly spelled. In my response, I signed the email with my full name. Subsequently, the student responded but misspelled my surname and continued to do so in all subsequent emails.  This could easily have lead to a decision on my part to cancel the meeting. My response would have been, "If you are not concerned enough to spell my name correctly what value are you going to give to my time spent helping you?"

Lesson: BAD MANNERS ALWAYS CHECK AND MAKE CERTAIN YOU SPELL NAMES CORRECTLY AND KNOW HOW TO PRONOUNCE IT.

The Meeting: The meeting was scheduled for a local coffee shop, "my office" so to speak. I generally like to hold my first meeting with a client or student in a public setting to see how they act in public and to assess the areas that they might feel free to discuss candidly and what they might prefer to hold back on to discuss privately. An important part of this first contact is punctuality. This student was 10 minutes late and gave only a very cursory or flippant excuse. BAD IMPRESSION. Not being on time can be viewed as a sign of disrespect if not for the person with whom the appointment is made, then at least a sign of how important the meeting is to the one who asked for it. Excuses don't work, an explanation is called for. That, "sorry to be late" is weak. "I had trouble finding a parking spot" especially in the reality of our meeting would have been quite valid.

Lesson:  BE ON TIME. NO EXCUSES! IF ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY, GIVE EXPLANATIONS.

The Discussion:  When one is asked to counsel or mentor someone, you want to learn both what their concern is for seeking help and also something about where they are coming from emotionally and objectively. That is you want to know what the personal context is which brought them release there  is an issue. This means you want, in this case, the student to carry most of the conversation. To do this the student should be the interviewer. They should have a "story" which outlines who they are; why they have a problem:; what they are looking for in the way of assistance; and most of all why they picked you.   Next, they should have a series of specific questions they hope to find answers to. These don't need to be detailed or require detailed answers. But, they should be topical covering such things as "what do I need to know?" "Where should I look?" What can I expect ?"or What was your experience?" That is, the student should take charge of the interview. It is as much an audition as it is a research project

In this case, I found myself carrying the conversation. The questions that would have lead to answers the student might have been interested in hearing where not asked. Instead I found myself being expected to raise the questions and the answers. There is enough of the academic in me to fall into the lecturing trap, especially when a student takes the passive role.

But as a mentor, there is a buyer's regret that sets in afterwards when you realize that you have lectured the mentee rather than mentored or coached an "aspiring professional."  Lesson: If you ask someone for help -- know what it is you want before hand and use the mentor/coach/counselor's time efficiently, especially when it is given for free. You may think it is free and treat as such, but the mentor does not see it either as free nor worthless just because he/she does not charge you for it.

Lesson:  RESPECT THE SITUATION YOU HAVE CREATED AND THE PERSON YOU HAVE ENGAGED TO HELP YOU.

Follow-up:  After our hour long  "discussion" or better "session," we parted with the normal courtesies. I left it open as to whether the student wanted to do follow-up meeting. Later in the day, since I had mentioned several books that might be consulted to followup on points raised in the "lecture.", I wrote an email to the student with information and links to the source. I include a confirmation of the meeting. Here it is a week later and I have not yet received either a email thank you for the meeting or the follow up information I sent, but more importantly no feed back about what had transpired been helpful or not has come from the student. Which begs the question, Do we meet again? I doubt it.

Lesson: NEVER CLOSE A DOOR YOU HAVE OPENED UNLESS YOU KNOW FOR CERTAIN THAT YOU WILL NEVER NEED TO GO THROUGH IT AGAIN.

What has been your experience?

"Anthropological Entrepreneurship," A Career Strategy

Many anthropologists, academic and applied, have become addicted to the federal government to fund their research or jobs. For those considering as career in program evaluation and/or the non-profit sector, federal funding has become a crutch.

It is time to realize that the world is bigger than that. In addition to federally funded programs there  are the private, state and local government supported programs. There are also opportunities in the private sector, but that is a different story.

In today's funding climate, the federal government is not the most secure source and the successful non-profits are forced to compete by improving their performance and finding alternative funding sources. Program evaluations are needed to justify continued funding, to sell grant applications to new or other sources, and internally, to develop new and more efficient management systems as well as new funding and business models in order to survive..

A recurring complaint or question that I hear from anthropologists who want to transition into the real world, is: "They won't consider me because I don't have the experience;" or, "How do I get the experience I need?"

I  recommend a strategy that I call "Anthropological Entrepreneurship". What you can do is create a job for yourself. And in the process, you are creating your professional personality and a self identity as a product that you can sell. That is, you take control of your career by becoming your own product.

The first step is to think like an entrepreneur, not like a day laborer or corporate drone or academic bureaucrat. To think like an entrepreneur, you have to take control of your life. This begins by defining your product as a solution to someone else's problem and your market as the someone else who has the problem you can solve.

Next, you have to be willing to take a risk and trust in yourself by investing your own resources (time, money and talent) to get started.

Third and most important, you have to be willing to fail and learn from your failures but not surrender to them. If you can do these then you are ready to venture out into the real world and get some practical experience.

 A good place to start looking is locally and at the small non-profits that have limited professional staff. These agencies are always in need of a skilled social science or business planner to help them develop their evaluation plan and/or to do their evaluation work. They are also generally unable to buy or pay for such services. The advantage here is that you can test yourself as a product. Failure here is not a bad as failing in a bigger and better know job/assignment. At the same time, the agency gains from your free service and whatever benefits or value your efforts contribute to organization. Remember your failure is not necessarily theirs nor is their failure necessarily yours.

Non-profits depend heavily on volunteers and generally have "working" boards of directors rather than "policy" boards. They are therefore often hard put to find board members to replace or fill vacancies that occur when volunteers are burned out. Boards are made up of local leaders and activists. This is great place for you to start building a profession network outside of academic anthropology and to prove yourself to potential clients. In some cases, this can lead to a paying job or a project contract.

Finally, the difference between an applied anthropologist and a career anthropologist is that the applied anthropologist expects clients to come to him/her, while a career anthropologist goes out and shows potential clients why they need his or her services and why they should pay for them.

Applied Anthropology - The Second Branch

A recent comment appearing in The Anthropological Network stated the following about the role of applied anthropology and business. "In particular, it seem to me that anthropology hasn't been very successful at 'marketing' its method to industries and businesses (with some exceptions, of course). The author of the comment then asked  

"Would you agree?" 

The fact that the author was looking for an explanation of this state of affairs speaks volumes about the realities of the anthropological profession and how it approaches its role in society and to society. The traditional third world, non-literate, socially isolated, tribes and bands that spawned the development of cultural anthropology and ethnography, are today very rare and for all practical purposes no longer isolated. Instead we find ourselves today entering fields well populated by the multitude of social and behavioral sciences that arose during the 20th century. As a late comer, the professional institutions established to recruit, train and support anthropologists have been faced with a crisis of identity.  Is anthropology simply an academic discipline or does it have a distinct application to the real world?

The Institutional Structure:

 

I would say the problem is to be found in the formal professional institutions controlled by Academic anthropology -- professors, departments, and the "professional" associations. These institutions do not understand the business world or its language. Even more than the lack of understanding is a narcissistic moral "contempt" directed toward business and government organizations displayed by academic anthropology.

For those of us, and there are thousands of us, who have found a home in these non-academic institutions based on our anthropological perspective and training -- we have long ago accepted that fact that our academic colleagues look down on the work we do. We know that we are often judged by their applying academic standards that have no significant meaning nor add value to our work. 

Fifth sub-discipline or Second Branch:

 

 Applied anthropology is not academic anthropology. That is, it is not the 5th sub-field. It is the second branch of anthropology. It is client focused, service orient, and problem solving. It uses the anthropological perspective but is not constrained by academic orthodoxy, fadism or current fashion. Instead, it is pragmatic, realistic, specific and ethically relativistic. Most of all the applied business anthropologist lives in the world and culture of business and a business institution. The applied anthropologist can have many different status names and play many different roles. In this environment, these names are determined by the local organizational chart. Rarely is the name "anthropologist."

The academic lives in the world of the university, college, research institute or the museum, also known as the ivory tower. Here anthropologist have a few, well defined statuses and roles they can occupy based on the academic social structure. One of these status/roles is based on the discipline one was trained in and hire for within the institution. Most often this is as an "anthropologist."

Preparing for a Career in the Business world: 

There are similarities between academic and applied anthropology. Applying anthropology to the business world begins with the basic steps that one would take to do an ethnographic study of a tribe in some far off location.

1. Learn the language
2. Read up on the history and context in which the tribe exists. Since businesses are literate institutions, read the basic business literature (such as a text book or popular "how to" or history book on the business subject area you are interested in studying
3. Read what applied anthropologists have written about business cases that are related to your area of interest from the anthropological perspective.
4. Study the business media to keep up to date with the social, political, and economic forces affecting your particular business interest, subject, or institution.
5. Find a problem that THE BUSINESS wants to solve and apply an anthropological perspective to solve that problem for them (not just the reviewers for the American Anthropologists) 

Re-branding Anthropology Part 2 -- Heart, Mind, and Pocket Book

The basic guidelines for American anthropology were laid down by Franz Boas and taught to his students and passed down as the American anthropological culture. These traditions are a powerful force within the discipline and its organization and create a set of contradictions that have plagued the profession for three quarters of a century. The conflict can be summarized as in four words: Heart, Mind and Pocket Book.

Anthropology is founded on two basic principles – its subject is the human species; and how the species adapts to the physical and cultural environmental challenges it faces. The question is how do anthropologists apply these principles in their role as a member of the human species, as a scientific and humanistic disciple, and as individuals with basic needs and self interests? That is, where do the anthropologist’s heart, mind, and pocket book interests lie?

Where is the anthropologist’s heart when it comes to his/her subjects and to his/her role in developing the discipline? Where is the anthropologist’s mind when it comes to his/her subjects and to his/her role in developing the discipline? And, where is the anthropologist’s pocket book when it comes to his/her subjects and to his/her role in developing the discipline?  Three simple questions!

These questions, however, are not so easy to answer without admitting the basic contradictions that exist in the profession between the “emic” and “etic” perspective toward the behavior of the practitioners of anthropology whether they are academicians or social engineers.

The Anthropological Heart

In our “hearts”, I think and my experience suggests, most of us are philosophical liberal in our view of humankind. It would be hard not to be when a fundamental axiom of our discipline is based on the “psychic unity of humanity.” If we begin with the belief that we are all of the same species and that collectively we share a common biological heritage, then it is not a difficult step to a second basic axiom, “cultural relativity.”

The axiom of cultural relativity leads us to the conclusion that human behavior is “cultural behavior,” and arises from a common biological and mental base in response to diverse environmental challenges.  This does not discount minor variations between individuals or groups. But it does focus our attention on the behavior as the response to, rather than the motive for, cultural actions. Thus, when it comes to a “judgment” about the actions of others, we have a built-in bias to side with “the other”. This is where our hearts are, to suspend our judgment and seek to understand differences. 

The anthropological heart reveals itself in the causes we advocate for or oppose. It is revealed in the century of debate over professional ethics and our obligations to our subjects, the use of the data we collect, and the long running battle with University IRB and government sponsors over “informed consent,” just to mention a few. It can be summed up as an ethic that favors a role as the protector and interpreter of “our” people, i.e. the subjects of our research. For better or worse, it is the origin of our humanistic impulse.

The Anthropological Mind

In our “minds,” I think and my experience suggests, most of us try to be objective with our subject and subjects regardless of our practice as scholars, researchers, or applied practitioners. We try to operate and conduct ourselves based on another foundational axiom: “the holistic approach”.  To be holistic is to be open to and look for evidence from any quarter that may contribute to our understanding of the collective behavior of the individual within the group, and the group within its environment. The holistic axiom implies that we should adopt a systemic perspective toward the evidence that we collect and use to reach our conclusions.

The holistic axiom leads to another basic axiom: Human behavior is bimodal. That is, all human behavior consists of a balance between the individual’s emotional and/or physical (emic) response to an event or context and what we observe to be the group’s interpretation and meaning (etic) attached to the event or context.  This “emic”/”etic” perspective leads directly to our unique methodological response -- participant/observer. 

This methodological bias toward both an experiencing of the affect of the phenomena we study and the detached observation of its effect on the subject is most pronounced in the central organizational structure in our discipline – cultural anthropology.  Participant - observation is extended to the other sub-disciplines of anthropology through the role we give to culture as the “contextualizing” element in interpreting in recording events and structuring their context. This is where our professional mind is, understanding human behavior in context. It is the origin of our scientific impulse, for better or worse.

A corollary to “emic”/”etic” on an individual level is the “status”/”role” at supra-organic or societal level. This implies a structural-function approach to human behavior in a social context where status limits the legitimate range of individual behavior within the group and the role describes the individual’s performance in that status as it relates to the group.
  

The Anthropological Pocket Book

As anthropologists, we are first human beings. We live our lives as individual human beings. Much of our life is oriented around the practical problems of living, i.e. pocket book issues. While the early founders of modern anthropology were amateurs, that is, individuals who pursued their anthropological interests as an avocation, most anthropologists today pursue their anthropological interests as a vocation. They make their living doing something called, “anthropology.” 

In 1879, John Wesley Powell, in his address as the first President of the Washington Society of Anthropology and as Director of the Bureau of American Ethnology, called for a more scientific and professional approach to anthropological research. When Boas was hired to teach and head a new department of anthropology, in 1889, at Clark University, he brought with him an idea of how the professional anthropologist were to make his/her living. Boas set the standard for dealing with the pocket book issues when he proposed that the professional anthropologist pursue a tradition of employment in a research setting associated with a museum or university. Powell’s focus was on the government as the employer of anthropological researchers; Boas focused on the private university and museum as the vocational home for the research anthropologist.

Early on, the objective of a career as a professional anthropologist has been defined as basic research with an emphasis on non-literate, small scale socio-cultural systems as the subject of study. Teaching, lecturing and writing would be part of the job description following the tradition of other sciences and scholarly careers. While this career model was supposed to protect the scientist/scholar from outside influence by providing an environment that is based on the sacred principles of “academic freedom” and “freedom of scientific inquiry,” it has produced a mind-set filled with cognitive dissonance that echos through the profession and discipline today.

Anthropologists, as employees of the academy, government, non-profit sector, corporation, are staff personnel. They are hired to perform a specific set of tasks for the organization that has hired them. We are essentially bureaucrats. Despite were our heart and mind are, we consciously and unconsciously, are conservative and risk avoidant in the way we build our careers. In an earlier day, when going into the field to do our field work leading to our PhD, we might have been seen as risk takers, and even considered ourselves to be risk takers. But this has always been a risk based on the belief that some benefactor, sponsor, or employer would be there to pay the bills. 

Foundation and government grants have, as Patterson has pointed out, had as much influence on the development of anthropology in general, and in the USA in particular, as the professional development of the discipline. While today we still rebel against certain claims of control over anthropological research made by the granting sources, and we protest the use of anthropologists in such activities as human terrain analysis, basically we are bureaucrats and happy to collect our paychecks from our employers.

The overproduction of graduates at all levels is critical to ongoing sustainability of anthropology departments in museums and universities. But employing these graduates is a real problem facing the profession organizationally and philosophically. Applied anthropology, defined as the application of anthropological and other social science principles to the solution of practical problems faced by human institutions, is the solution to the employment issue in one sense and a threat to it in another. 

Re-branding Anthropology

Re-branding anthropology means identifying anthropology as a practical discipline, instead of the egghead eccentric hunter of rock and bones, the comic Indiana Jones, or the overly rationale and emotionally distant  forensic anthropologist. Anthropology, as a practical discipline, can lead students to become more critical in their thinking and their approach solving everyday problems. It can help them to adapt these critical thinking skills to whatever career they chose. To re-brand anthropology we must recognize the three dimensions in the life of an anthropologist – heart, mind and pocket book.

How old is "applied anthropology"?

Applied anthropology -- the application of anthropological concepts to the solution of human and institutional problems -- is, despite the biases of the academic community,seen today as the road to the profession's salvation. Applied anthropology is really no different from the academic sub-species. It just occupies a different ecological niche in today's world. Rather than the exploiter of the intellectual property of their subjects, the applied anthropologist is the translator and communicator of intellectual property of others to their clients.

As pointed out earlier in this blog What does it mean to be a career anthropologist these are somewhat different skill sets but part of the same intellectual species. We might say that "anthropology" or the "anthropological" meme emerged in the west in Classical Greece and the writings of Herodotus. The "anthropological meme" took the form of history and eventually transformed into a social science in the 19th century scientific revolution. But what about the "applied anthropology" meme?

When did the "applied anthropology" sub-species emerge?

Interesting enough, this question was addressed in an editorial that appeared in Human Organization in the Spring of 1958 entitled: Applied Anthropology in 601 A.D.. The article quotes a letter from Pope Gregory VII to his priests who were attempting to convert the "heathen" Britons to Christianity. In the letter he proposes a policy to overcome local resistance.

We must refrain from destroying the temples of the idols. I t is necessary only to destroy the idols, and to sprinkle holy water in these same temples, to build ourselves altars and place holy relics therein. If the construction of these temples is solid, good, and useful, they will pass from the cult of demons to the service of the true God; because it will come to pass that the nation, seeing the continued existence of its old places of devotion, will be disposed, by a sort of habit, to go there to adore the true God.
It is said that the men of this nation are accustomed to sacrificing; oxen. I t is necessary that this custom be converted into a Christian rite. On the day of the dedication of the temples thus changed into churches, and similarly for the festivals of the saints, whose relics will be placed there, you should allow them, as in the past,to build structures of foliage around these same churches.
They shall bring to the churches their animals, and kill them, no longer as offerings to the devil, but for Christian banquets in name and honor of God, to whom, after satiating themselves, they will give thanks. Only thus, by preserving for men some of the worldly joys, will you lead them more easily to relish the joys of the spirit.

We can see today that Gregory's advice established a policy that was to serve the Church well. This was especially true when a 1000 years later it ventured into the New World. It is also an example of what today would be considered a sound applied anthropological based policy.

What do YOU mean by "employment as an anthropologist?"

What do YOU mean by "employment as an anthropologist?" This is an important question that we are discussing in the Career Anthropologist group in LinkedIn.

Before you commit your time and resources to pursuing additional training at the MA or PhD level,and definitely before you go rushing off with your newly minted MA or PhD, ask yourself this question, "What do YOU mean by being employed as an anthropologist?"

So many students trained in anthropology, especially at the graduate level, assume or desire that to be an anthropologist, is to be labelled by others as an anthropologists. The reality, however, when they enter the job market is often quite different.

If you want to be recognized and labelled as an "anthropologist", then the only place to look is the university, the museum, and some government jobs where there is an official job title and description for an anthropologist. If you want a career as an "anthropologist." This is route you will have to travel.

Others, I include myself in this, are trained in anthropology and have adopted a self definition as an anthropologist which is independent of any job description or need to be recognized by coworkers, clients, or employers as "an anthropologist." For us, to be an anthropologist is a way of looking and responding to world that is based on the "anthropological ethos" or to borrow from C Wright Miles, "The anthropological imagination."

Many non-traditional, career anthropologists have found the business sector to be both interesting and promising. This is where the opportunity is for someone trained as an anthropologist has real potential. However, it will require additional training (formal or self study) in the language and culture of business. The most important is some basic accounting and finance language and skills. This is really learning the culture of those with whom you will be working.

One needs to be aware of the status structure in the industry one enters. In the business world, the MBA and similar Masters level degrees are considered to be the professional degree. In the more technical staff positions, a PhD may be required in order to have the appropriate status within the organization. For example, to become the CEO of a company a BA and/or MA degree,the right experience and connection are what count. But to be head of the Research Department, a PhD may be an absolute requirement.

As for the jobs side of it, it depends on what your "anthropological" interests are which can help you to establish your "expertise. This includes your interests and experience in the particular cultures and societies. What might be called your area studies. Another skill set is your linguistic skills. These can be another selling point. Also the specific problem area you find most interesting and where you can demonstrate your competency.

Some examples of job areas are: Marketing which draws upon cross cultural communication skills; Management which draws draws upon people and organizational skills; Staff positions which draw upon technical skills such as applied research, teaching (training), etc.; or Consulting which draws upon training, teaching, mentoring skills in a specific domain of human activity where you can claim expertise.

So the questions are: Do you want to be defined by others as an anthropologist, or do you define yourself as an anthropologist? Who do you want to impress? Where do you think you can make the greatest contribution to anthropology? And, Do you want to show the world why anthropology has made you are the best person for the job you want to do?

It is in your hands and up to you to decide! Good luck!

What does it mean to be a career anthropologist?

Anthropology is a formal discipline that seems to affect some by awakening a spiritual sensitivity. Whether secular scientists or humanists, the anthropological ethic transcends the skepticism of agnostic secularism, by offering a alternative way to understand and accept the human condition.

To accept the anthropological ethic doesn't require the individual to be exposed to a professionally trained academic, or applied anthropologist. One can come to the discipline through introspection and informal contact with the anthropological legacy.

For these individuals, converted by the unique perspective that anthropology gives them to the human condition, it comes from a melding of humanistic science with scientific humanism. This melding transcends the tribally bound tradition of their sectarian belief systems. This perspective forms the foundation for the "career" anthropologist - the individual who lives his/her life based upon the anthropological ethic.

Not all anthropologists share this view. Some feel that only the anointed, PhD academic researcher qualify for sainthood. Others would extend the inner circle to those who teach and hold the precious PhD degree. Still others, more liberal in their theology, would extend membership to those who apply their formal anthropological training in the real world and are paid to do so -- i.e. professionals. These "conservatives" forget, if they ever knew, that at one time, none of these priestly professional classes existed in American before 1879.

The early western "anthropologists" came to their conversion through an interest, curiosity and secular acceptance of the principle of human universality often found in their own sectarian religious beliefs, but more often ignored in practice by their coreligionists. It was a conversion that came when the formal traditional ethic failed to explain to reality of life as experienced through day to day living. It cames from accepting the relativity of life, as explained by cultural differences, as against the absolute certainty imposed by religious and traditionalist formalities. For these emergent "anthropologists," this new ethic was based on the avocational pursuit of personal curiosities, interests and enlightenment rather than any vocational or professional desire for personal financial enrichment.

Today, we have a cast and class structure within anthropology. It is a system which draws a line between the academic caste and other professionals, on the one hand, and between the vocational or "professional" (class) and the avocational anthropologists, on the other.

In my mind, these are false distinctions which, unfortunately, have real negative consequences for individuals and the discipline. The true distinction between anthropologists and the general population should be based on the matter of commitment to the anthropological ethic. Such a commitment leads to a CAREER ANTHROPOLOGY. A career anthropologist is one who lives a life based on the core values of anthropology regardless of the financial rewards or costs of such a commitment.

What is this core ethic?

As I look back on the events of my life since I first encountered "anthropology" in the early 1960s; and I consider the path that I have wandered since then, I find a singular consistency. That consistency is found in the original anthropological perspective which I have come to call the Boasian Principles. These are the principles that lead to a "Career anthropological" ethic.

As an ethic for anthropology, Boas and his students established a set of 11 informal rules for anthropology. As the founder, and “god-head” of American anthropology, Franz Boas' principles became the normative ethic for future generations of American anthropologists. The 11 Rules of an Boasian Anthropological ethic form a American anthropological tradition and ethic.

These rules are:
1. a combination of humanistic and scientific values;
2. a focus on the concept of culture;
3. an emphasis on non-literate, small scale sociocultural systems as the subject of study;
4. a holistic perspective in the study of sociocultural phenomena;
5. a reliance on the comparative method of analysis;
6. a tradition of employment in a research setting associated with a museum or university;
7. an orientation toward historical particularism, i.e. understanding the role and function of sociocultural phenomena in context;
8. a tradition of participant-observation in a personal field work experience;
9. the ideal of the scientific role as a standard for judging professional status;
10. an objective and relativistic moral and ethical position;
11. a four field approach in the basic training of recruits to the profession and in the organization of the profession. (Bainton 1979: 127 - 128)

Even in our deeply segmented 21st century discipline, I find it amazing how well these rules have held up. Despite the monumental changes that have taken place in the social sciences and in the world at large, I find that most of these principles as valid today as they were when first established. However, I question the sixth principle which imposes a limitations on employment to a university or museum setting. This is like condemning all Christians or Buddhists to a lifetime in the monastery.

The strength and longevity of any belief system, philosophical or religious, rests in its practical application by providing a method for answering the questions of daily life for the individual and the community of believers.

With the exception of the sixth principle, I find this in the Boasian ethic. I have learned that we do not need to pursue our careers in the museum and/or the university even as these are still the ideal our teachers and mentors hold up to the aspiring student. But we can perform the functions that these metaphors represent by choosing to become Career Anthropologist and applying the Boasian ethic.

What has been your experience?