The Sex in Your Violence: Patriarchy and Power in Anthropological World Building and Everyday Life
In: Current anthropology, Band 62, Heft S23, S. S92-S102
ISSN: 1537-5382
10 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
In: Current anthropology, Band 62, Heft S23, S. S92-S102
ISSN: 1537-5382
In: Annual review of anthropology, Band 49, Heft 1, S. 355-372
ISSN: 1545-4290
Alloparental or extramaternal care is an integral aspect of human childrearing. This behavior has been explored both as an extension of the primary mother–infant dyad that evolved to meet the demands of altricial offspring and as an economic exchange of energy and resources. Much of this research centers on foraging or small-scale communities and positions the household as the central unit through which to explore negotiations of care. In this review, I use evidence from Black Caribbean communities living in industrialized countries to challenge the broad applicability of the analytical model of the bounded household and to question whether our current articulations of theory and empirical assessments of extramaternal care are well suited to investigations of these behaviors in the vast majority of contemporary human populations. Alloparental practices in the Caribbean reflect dynamic responses to maternal migration and the local influence of global labor markets. The children who remain at home experience variability in the care received from their surrogate parents. The dynamic aspect of the care practices enacted by these transnational families reveals the behavioral flexibility that has been integral to human survival.
In: American anthropologist: AA, Band 121, Heft 2, S. 469-470
ISSN: 1548-1433
In: American anthropologist: AA, Band 119, Heft 2, S. 298-307
ISSN: 1548-1433
In: American anthropologist: AA, Band 112, Heft 2, S. 309-310
ISSN: 1548-1433
In: Current anthropology, Band 62, Heft S23, S. S5-S12
ISSN: 1537-5382
In: American anthropologist: AA, Band 119, Heft 4, S. 710-722
ISSN: 1548-1433
ABSTRACTNumerous studies use quantitative measures to evaluate retention, advancement, and success in academic settings. Such approaches, however, present challenges for evaluating the lived experiences of academics. Here, we present a qualitative thematic analysis of self‐reports of positive and negative experiences that occurred while conducting academic field research. Twenty‐six semistructured interviews highlighted two central themes: (1) variability in clarity of appropriate professional behavior and rules at fieldsites, and (2) access, or obstacles therein, to professional resources and opportunity. In some instances, respondent narratives recalled a lack of consequences for violations of rules governing appropriate conduct. These violations included harassment and assault, and ultimately disruptions to career trajectories. A heuristic construct of a traffic light describing Red, Yellow, and Green experiences illustrates the ramifications of this distribution of clarity and access within fieldsite contexts. These results extend the findings from our previously reported Survey of Academic Field Experiences (SAFE) about the climates and contexts created and experienced in field research settings. Moreover, this study addresses specific tactics, such as policies, procedures, and paradigms that fieldsite directors and principal investigators can implement to improve field experiences and better achieve equal opportunity in field research settings. [work environment, gender, field experiences, harassment]
In: Annals of anthropological practice: a publication of the National Association for the Practice of Anthropology, Band 48, Heft 1, S. 20-35
ISSN: 2153-9588
AbstractWe use a mix of qualitative and quantitative analyses to examine 1354 survey responses from members of the American Anthropological Association about their practice and teaching of cultural anthropology research methods. Latent profile analysis and an examination of responses to open‐ended survey questions reveal distinctive methodological clustering among anthropologists. However, two historical approaches to ethnography remain prominent: deep hanging out and a mixed methods toolkit, with the former remaining central to the practice and teaching of all forms of contemporary cultural anthropology. Further, many anthropologists are committed to advancing research methods that account for power imbalances in fieldwork, such as through community‐based and participatory approaches. And a substantial number also teach a wider array of methods and techniques that open new career pathways for anthropologists. Overall, our study reveals a core set of ethnographic practices—loosely, participant‐observation, informal interviews, and the experiential immersion of the ethnographer—while also highlighting the great breadth of cultural anthropological research practice and pedagogy. The findings presented here can help inform how current and future anthropological practitioners and educators position themselves to meet the ever‐changing demands of community members, funders, clients, collaborators, and students.
The intensifying pace of research based on cross-cultural studies in the social sciences necessitates a discussion of the unique challenges of multi-sited research. Given an increasing demand for social scientists to expand their data collection beyond WEIRD (Western, educated, industrialized, rich and democratic) populations, there is an urgent need for transdisciplinary conversations on the logistical, scientific and ethical considerations inherent to this type of scholarship. As a group of social scientists engaged in cross-cultural research in psychology and anthropology, we hope to guide prospective cross-cultural researchers through some of the complex scientific and ethical challenges involved in such work: (a) study site selection, (b) community involvement and (c) culturally appropriate research methods. We aim to shed light on some of the difficult ethical quandaries of this type of research. Our recommendation emphasizes a community-centred approach, in which the desires of the community regarding research approach and methodology, community involvement, results communication and distribution, and data sharing are held in the highest regard by the researchers. We argue that such considerations are central to scientific rigour and the foundation of the study of human behaviour.
BASE
The intensifying pace of research based on cross-cultural studies in the social sciences necessitates a discussion of the unique challenges of multi-sited research. Given an increasing demand for social scientists to expand their data collection beyond WEIRD (Western, educated, industrialized, rich and democratic) populations, there is an urgent need for transdisciplinary conversations on the logistical, scientific and ethical considerations inherent to this type of scholarship. As a group of social scientists engaged in cross-cultural research in psychology and anthropology, we hope to guide prospective cross-cultural researchers through some of the complex scientific and ethical challenges involved in such work: (a) study site selection, (b) community involvement and (c) culturally appropriate research methods. We aim to shed light on some of the difficult ethical quandaries of this type of research. Our recommendation emphasizes a community-centred approach, in which the desires of the community regarding research approach and methodology, community involvement, results communication and distribution, and data sharing are held in the highest regard by the researchers. We argue that such considerations are central to scientific rigour and the foundation of the study of human behaviour.
BASE