Writing this article began as an effort for us, three junior scholars, to better capture a range of varying experiences in which we had been told our research approach, projects and/or findings were not considered ‘anthropological enough’. We experienced these claims of not being ‘anthropological enough’ exhibited through scepticism of other anthropologists in peer-review revisions, grant application feedback, and during seminars and discussions with colleagues at professional events. This statement was levied at us even though we have each completed advanced graduate-level training in anthropological theory and practice. Despite a long history of anthropological research conducted within the USA, the fact that we followed in this tradition was often at the foundation of this criticism. Even though all three authors have been trained in an applied anthropology programme, the disciplinary rite of passage is still traditionally/broadly regarded as spending an extended period abroad conducting ethnographic fieldwork in a single field site (particularly, incorporating the use of participant observation).
As many students and faculty experienced since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, research and what is considered ‘anthropological’ has been complicated. While we are certainly not the first ones to raise issues related to the institutional devaluation of fieldwork that does not fulfil these criteria, the standard answer for what differentiates anthropology from other social sciences still seems to be largely synonymous with experience ‘in the field’, leaving rather unexamined questions of marginalisation, accessibility, feasibility, ethics, privilege and activist forms of research (Berry et al. 2017; Gupta and Ferguson 1997).
Events that unfolded in the USA and globally in 2020 gave new traction to conversations on the future of anthropological fieldwork, methods and training. In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic and requirements of social distancing, statements about the need to change how anthropologists understand research and their obligations to those involved in it began to circulate (Rutherford 2020). The pandemic has been described as a game-changer in terms of understanding structural inequalities in higher education and posed the question of whether ‘anthropology was ready to answer’ to the inevitable changes ahead (McClaurin 2020).
Building on these conversations, we argue through- out our article that the sometimes-archaic methodological expectations of anthropology have a tremendous impact on what is considered ‘enough’ in the discipline, but that these expectations can and should be challenged.
We draw on examples from fieldwork conducted in the USA between the years of 2016 and 2021. We offer methodological insights with the intention of not only highlighting some of the unexpected and sometimes mundane logistical challenges of conducting fieldwork in the USA, but also offering clues to how anthropologists can re-imagine their work and methodologies in a way that allows us to redefine what is ‘anthropological enough’. Instead, we want to initiate a conversation that opens anthropology as a discipline which accepts applied and collaborative contributions rooted in racial and social justice.
In the following sections, we elaborate on the topic of institutional devaluation of fieldwork conducted at home in addition to how methodological challenges and choices led us to be at times considered not ‘anthropological enough’. We then summarise our respective case studies and discuss shared challenges in connection with the aforementioned themes. We close with a set of recommendations and applied outcomes that scholars in the discipline and departments should consider incorporating to address blind spots in anthropology and, thereby, forge a reimagined anthropology that is more inclusive, accepting and effectual.
Background: What is ‘Anthropological Enough’?
Anthropology was born largely out of the desire to know the ‘Other’ (i.e. colonised peoples and people of colour) and for scholars in the discipline this has traditionally meant conducting research outside of the anthropologists’ ‘home’ (typically Western Europeans conducting research in the Global South). And, although anthropologists today use a wide variety of data collection strategies (e.g. participant observation, interviews, visual methods, surveys, mapping) and an increasing number of scholars ‘stay home’ to conduct research, traditional methods such as participant observation and long-term immersion in the field (normally at least one year) often relegate research as being determined ‘anthropological’ or not. This may affect the project and findings so much that ‘whether a piece of research will be accepted as “anthropological” is the extent to which it depends on experience “in the field”’ (Gupta and Ferguson 1997: 1).
Moreover, scholars have pointed out that the demands of a total experience of long-term fieldwork taking place in a distant location may ‘no longer suffice even as a serviceable fiction for many contemporary ethnographers’, for whom the gap between the ‘archetype’ anthropology and the actual experience remains wide (Vered 2000: 7). The implicit privileging of distant field sites over ‘home’ sites has led to debates regarding hierarchies and purities of field sites and anthropological fieldwork, although it is worth mentioning that anthropology conducted at ‘home’ today forms a significant portion of the discipline's literature and has produced many applied contributions (Gupta and Ferguson 1997; Masley 2007).
For example, anthropologists have contributed towards an enriching dialogue on key issues in race, gender, immigration and health in studies that have been conducted in the USA. Norma Mendoza-Denton's (2008) study on youth gangs and bodily representation among young Latinx women in Los Angeles and John Jackson's (2001) ethnography on New York neighbourhoods present critical insights on race, gender and social class. Seth Holmes’ (2013) study on migrant farmworkers in the USA highlights how socio-economic marginalisation profoundly impacts health and well-being. Likewise, Heide Castañeda's (2019) research on mixed-status Latinx families highlights institutionalised racism that is embedded in immigration policies in the USA. Finally, Ashanté Reese (2019a) has written about the impacts of grocery store redlining and modes of self-reliance and resistance in Black communities in the USA, while Savannah Shange (2019) has written about the pervasiveness of anti-Blackness in the school environment despite efforts to promote racial solidarity.
Additionally, in his article on multi-sited ethnographies, Ulf Hannerz (2003) challenges the notion of the single field site in which an anthropologist spends an extended period, providing an in-depth analysis of the culture studied. He argues that one of the key factors driving the expectation of prolonged fieldwork in the past was the need to observe cultures during different seasons. He makes the point that such expectations do not apply in modern-day fieldwork as the livelihoods of informants have also changed, in other words, ‘What do you do when “your people” spend hours alone at a desk, perhaps concentrating on a computer screen?’ (Hannerz 2003: 211). Hannerz (2003) further argues that changes in how participant observation is done are not merely driven by intellectual debates but by practicalities, such as increased competition in the profession regarding funding.
Indeed, for graduate students and junior scholars in precarious academic positions in the field, the reasons for ‘not being anthropological enough’ in terms of conducting a ‘proper’ amount of fieldwork are multiple and include less often talked about institutional constraints such as financial burdens, lack of grant/institutional funding, care work and other obligations. For example, lack of funding available to conduct research further complicates the ability for students to conduct research abroad (or potentially even in the USA). Major funders of anthropological research, such as the Wenner-Gren Foundation and the National Science Foundation only fund about 50 graduate students annually or 11–15% of all applicants, respectively (National Science Foundation, n.d.; Wenner-Gren Foundation, n.d.). As such, students and scholars may instead have to conduct multi-sited research split among several visits to the field in place of a prolonged period as it may be practically and financially impossible otherwise (Hannerz 2003).
Ultimately, despite the above-mentioned examples of fieldwork completed at home, as well as the multiple challenges related to conducting long-term fieldwork, anthropology as a discipline still fosters an image of the lone ethnographer and appears reticent to accept new forms of or adaptations of data collection in the field. In the following section, we detail our experiences conducting research and the collective challenges we encountered.
Assessing Our Collective Experiences and Shared Challenges in US-based Field Sites
In this section, we first present succinct descriptions of our research projects and then elaborate on shared themes and how we encountered issues, adjusted our approach and/or went in new directions. We demonstrate that, despite three different topical projects, there were common challenges experienced in conducting research in the USA. These challenges not only relate to data collection but also have implications for disciplinary gatekeeping if the resulting research is deemed not ‘anthropological enough’. Each of our projects was approved by the University of South Florida's Institutional Review Board (IRB). All participant names are pseudonyms. For consistency, we write in the third person unless describing challenges we jointly experienced.
Summaries of Our Case Studies and Positionality
Ryan Logan's research analyses the lived experiences of community health workers (CHWs) in Indiana. These workers, like their counterparts throughout the USA and in other countries, typically come from the communities they work within and share a variety of sociodemographic characteristics, such as culture, race, ethnicity, language, education, socio-economic status. CHWs are non-clinical in their approach and focus their activities on health education, health prevention, chronic disease management and advocacy. Their role as an advocate is crucial to help their communities overcome the social determinants of health (e.g. housing, safety, income, violence, lack of food) and strive toward health equity. Identifying as a White, male anthropologist, Logan was in a field site mostly dominated by women of colour. And, although Logan is bilingual and trained as a CHW by the collaborating CHW organisation, his positionality sometimes stood as a barrier during data collection. Traditional data collection methods, such as participant observation, were difficult due to the trusting nature of the CHW–client relationship in addition to restrictions placed by the IRB and Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) guidelines. The latter is a law that, among many of its provisions, protects patients’ privacy regarding their health information. As such, collaboration was an essential component of this project to circumvent traditional power dynamics in research and take a horizontal approach to the design, data collection and data analysis. Following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, Logan shifted to participating in online data collection, via attendance at public Zoom meetings held by the partner organisation.
Laura Kihlström's research is a multi-sited ethnography which investigates how dietary acculturation is impacted by factors such as race, class and gender in two immigrant communities in Florida, USA. Dietary acculturation or the ‘Americanisation’ of diets among immigrants has been linked to various chronic health conditions, such as hypertension, cardiovascular diseases and type 2 diabetes. The research sought to critically assess how structural constraints affected the process of dietary acculturation in a Black (Ethiopian) and White (Finnish) immigrant community. Kihlström is a White female and while conducting fieldwork in the USA she also held the status of an international student and a non-permanent resident in the USA. Kihlström's work presented challenges in terms of negotiating access in the field. While the communities Kihlström worked with represented people from her own country of origin, as well as a country in which she had lived for an extended period of time, Kihlström was still at first an outsider accessing spaces that she had no prior connection with. Kihlström spent nearly three years (2016–2019) building rapport with both communities before beginning actual data collection. Kihlström's positionality also sometimes left her wondering whether she was in fact ‘at home’ conducting research or whether she was a foreign anthropologist in a foreign country. These reflections in the field raised questions that led to some of the arguments in this article: When is a locality foreign to us? What is considered a ‘field site?’ When are we at home if home is a temporary place? Because Kihlström's research included multiple field sites, she drew on Hannerz's (2003) lessons learned from multi-sited ethnography, and tried to balance her fieldwork with logistical, funding and care work related challenges similar to the approach of patchwork ethnography. While completing her research, Kihlström sometimes received feedback that ‘this research is perhaps more sociology than anthropology’, leading her to wonder if a focus on race was not considered ‘anthropological enough’ or whether this statement stemmed from the fact that the fieldwork for her project was completed in several shorter stints.
Kanan Mehta's research examines the patterns of cancer communication and the disclosure of a cancer diagnosis in the Indian immigrant community in the USA. Mehta incorporated narratives from patients/survivors, family members and clinicians to explore the lived experiences of individuals who have been affected by cancer. Her research highlights the challenges in conducting participant observation regarding a sensitive topic and the restrictions under HIPAA. Traditionally, family members play a crucial role in critical decisions regarding important issues, including an individual's health, since families often occupy a centre stage position in mainstream Indian culture (Broom et al. 2017; Chittem 2013). This often implies that the onus of sharing important health information in cases of serious health conditions such as cancer has often rested on family members. In addition, the popular perceptions regarding cancer often depict it as a death sentence, given its inherent capacity for proliferation and the possibility of terminal illness in certain cases. Hence, it is not uncommon for health providers to honour family members’ requests for withholding a cancer diagnosis and/or providing family members with the authority of sharing it as they consider appropriate. Although this scenario is changing, it is still prevalent in certain social settings in India.
In this regard, Mehta's research examines the broader social, medical and ethical implications of this practice through a series of in-depth interviews with cancer survivors, family members and health professionals. It explores the lived experiences of individuals who have been diagnosed with cancer and family members who have served as caregivers to individuals diagnosed with cancer. Additionally, her research explores interpersonal communication among patients, caregivers and healthcare providers and the impact of cancer disclosure and illness on therapeutic decision-making and treatment.
Ethical Dimensions and Challenges of Participant Observation
We each ran into a variety of methodological issues. Logan and Mehta were faced with challenges due to both HIPAA and IRB guidelines, which complicated and/or made collecting data via participant observation an impossibility in many situations. For example, they were prohibited from attending doctor's appointments with participants—even if permission had been given by participants. Instead, Logan and Mehta adjusted data collection strategies to elucidate how participants encountered medical appointments.
Logan drew heavily on interviews with CHWs to speak generally to their interactions with medical professionals and clients as well as issues within the community. While Logan shadowed several CHWs, his presence sometimes felt intrusive and potentially damaging as a community outsider. As a result, these adjustments in data collection were necessary to not risk harming relationships within the field site. Logan also drew on photovoice, a visual data collection method in which participants take photographs about a particular theme(s) or prompt(s), interpret the photographs and co-construct meaning with other participants at a later meeting. Logan refrained from taking photographs for the most part and instead, through photovoice, empowered participants to provide their own visualizations of the field site and of their lived experience.
Given the sensitive topic of research, Mehta anticipated challenges regarding recruiting and interviewing participants. Initially, Mehta intended to shadow patients and oncologists in clinical settings. However, adhering to HIPAA regulations hindered the possibility of shadowing health professionals and patients at local clinics and hospitals. Additionally, conducting participant observation at social gatherings did not work out as expected since the study primarily consisted of in-person and phone interviews due to the delicate nature of the topic. For the same reason, it was hard to locate in-person support groups where individuals were sharing their stories about cancer in this population. Many of the participants shared that they were least likely to seek support from in-person or online cancer support groups since most of the individuals relied on social networks of family and friends for emotional and functional support. While Mehta recruited some participants via referential sampling and was referred to other individuals, it rarely led her to gain multiple contacts for the study since some participants were hesitant to do this. To adapt, Mehta collected rich ethnographic data through semi-structured interviews.
In Kihlström's case, time spent in the field was a constant reminder that fieldwork should always be coupled with ethical considerations and reflections on power dynamics. For example, if she gained access to sensitive information in a marginalised community through the method of participant observation, she would sometimes bring up the issue in a separate one-on-one interview. This granted participants with agency to comment on their story rather than simply being passively observed.
Recruitment, Logistics and the Blurring of Field Sites
While we intended to draw on the use of traditional research methods such as participant observation and long-term engagement in the field, these were sometimes impractical due to structural and personal reasons, such as visa requirements, lack of funding and difficulties in recruitment of participants. For example, Mehta's challenges regarding data collection led her to recruit participants from other states in the USA and metropolitan Atlanta to achieve sufficient sample size, invoking a multi-sited research approach. Additionally, it led her to explore public and social media platforms as an alternative for observing conversations surrounding cancer. For instance, outlets such as Instagram, Facebook and public online Indian communities provided insight on the interactions and attitude towards cancer, such as events organised by The Max Foundation and AccessLife America and yoddhas [warriors], which is an online support group for Indian cancer patients.
Additionally, Mehta's research on cancer disclosure illustrated the significance of exploring cancer communication and its impact on lived experiences of cancer in a local setting. At the same time, the benefit of conducting research in a domestic setting enabled Mehta to course through an extended period of recruitment and data collection without worrying about issues related to funding and visa extensions. Conducting the study ‘at home’ also enabled Mehta to continually enrich her findings through additional data collection, preserve ties with her participants, disseminate findings to local health agencies and foster understanding among patients, caregivers and healthcare professionals.
Kihlström similarly ran into challenges in recruiting participants in her multi-sited research study. This led to alternative strategies of recruitment, such as allowing participants in a women's group in one of her field sites to promote the research study in their own networks outside of the main physical field sites. Interviewing participants over the phone or from other states was not part of Kihlström's original sampling strategy, but it allowed for expanding the number of participants in the research. While this alternative data collection strategy blurred the concept of Kihlström's field site(s), it was a necessary adjustment and also respected the participants’ lived experiences as they too frequently needed modifications for data collection due to busy schedules and/or travel.
Collaboration as Challenge to the Solo Fieldworker Mythos
Conducting research in US-based field sites resulted in Logan and Kihlström challenging the solo fieldworker mythos—particularly in partnering with participants in a collaborative approach to data collection, analysis and publication. Recognising the partnership between researcher and participants, ownership of the findings and including participants as co-authors and co-data collectors thereby upended traditional power dynamics.
Logan took a collaborative approach in research and later co-authoring a policy brief with a participant. This heavy involvement of research participants in the design, data collection (particularly, photovoice) and data analysis challenges the solo fieldworker and privileges the voice of participants in all aspects of the research process. Amplifying the voice of research participants and recognising their expertise are critical ways in which collaboration addresses traditionalist notions of data collection. Moreover, methods such as photovoice amplified the role of the research participants and addressed issues of representation in visual imagery. Collaboration also addressed issues encountered due to positionality as well as restrictions related to HIPAA and IRB.
Kihlström partnered with the research participants in her study by assisting them with their grassroots organising. After spending time in the field with a Black immigrant women's association, she co-authored a grant application for a non-profit organisation to provide financial support and to ensure the continuance of the women's activities. While the application was not funded, the document provided a template for future organising. Furthermore, Kihlström would offer her expertise and local networks when discussing pertinent issues in community meetings, as well as participate in fundraising events.
Although collaboration largely refers to working partnerships between researchers and community members, it is an inherent component of anthropological fieldwork given the amount of time and effort that goes into developing trust with community members and making inroads into the community. This is especially true in studying sensitive topics, as Mehta discovered in her study of cancer disclosure. Recruiting participants and exploring the dynamics of cancer disclosure was uniquely challenging since many of the interviews did not always lead to additional ones. Gradually, she collaborated with select participants who helped Mehta reach more participants. Had it not been for their trust, cooperation and ability to place value in her study's objectives, Mehta would not have completed her fieldwork. Furthermore, unearthing people's experiences with cancer was another exercise in collaboration because it required a shared willingness for her to be receptive towards their stories of loss and pain and for them to let Mehta into their lived experiences of cancer.
Discussion
Our case studies presented in this article demonstrate critical issues related to methodological and structural issues in conducting research in the USA, showcasing a disconnect between what the discipline views as ‘anthropological enough’ and what is already taking place in the field. As Gökçe Günel and colleagues (2020) note, traditional anthropological fieldwork and its ‘truisms’ were being questioned even before the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. The separation between ‘field’ and ‘home’ and the expectation of unconditional availability to conduct research anytime anywhere is steeped in the masculinisation of fieldwork and neoliberal labour conditions at universities. This has been challenged by feminist critiques, in the call for the decolonisation of anthropological fieldwork, the rigid publication processes, environmental concerns, and the reality of family obligations and the strive for a work–life balance. We assert that expanding the scope of what ‘anthropological enough’ means, particularly with increasingly uncertain funding and global issues such as the COVID-19 pandemic, will position anthropology as a more accepting, inclusive and future-oriented discipline. This gatekeeping can be challenged, as the pandemic has shown, but we should keep on re-imagining what ‘proper’ fieldwork looks like including being more open and accepting towards various iterations, forms and adaptations throughout the research process.
These issues have broad implications for students and junior scholars conducting research in the USA (or wherever their home is) and how some in the discipline undervalue projects that do not adhere to a traditionalist notion of fieldwork and, thereby, risk deeming research as not ‘anthropological enough’. Our case studies demonstrate how anthropologists and other social scientists can successfully supplement data collection through interviews, visual methods and other strategies to elucidate findings when faced with challenging situations where participant observation may present ethical dilemmas. Indeed, data collection through other means such as interviews, digital ethnography, collaborative approaches and visual methods must be conceptualised as anthropological enough.
Günel and colleagues propose an alternative model called ‘patchwork ethnography’, which they define as ‘research efforts that maintain the long-term commitments, language proficiency, contextual knowledge, and slow thinking that characterises so-called traditional fieldwork’ (2020). This ethnographic approach considers often stigmatised factors, such as care work and precarity, in planning fieldwork. Additionally, this approach offers ethnographic adaptations when faced with policy restrictions, IRB guidelines, and the material and social constraints/realities of the researcher, which complicate the use of traditional data collection methods, particularly participant observation and long-term engagement in the field. Similarly, rapid ethnographic assessments have been proposed as a practical way of implementing anthropological methods in a variety of fields (Sangaramoorthy and Kroeger 2020). We assert that patchwork ethnography and rapid ethnographic methods can play a pivotal role in expanding our notions of what constitutes anthropological data and as avenues for building a more inclusive discipline for current and new students of anthropology. We dispute the notion of US-based research being undervalued as not considered ‘anthropological enough’ and rather appreciate the challenges, structural factors impacting data collection and the resiliency of using such methods as patchwork ethnography in the face of these issues.
Apart from these issues, the specific nature of the research topic itself might require multi-sited research, such as in the case of Kihlström and Mehta. Also, unstable social and political climates might place undue pressures on researchers while they struggle to complete fieldwork on site in each amount of time. These factors and many others that might be unspoken have cultivated the demand for patchwork ethnography that reunites ‘field’ and ‘home’. Considering the aforementioned issues and the surfacing of novel ethnographic insights, there is a need for rethinking (and accepting) these forms of research.
Laws and policies produce significant barriers for data collection, especially participant observation, in terms of HIPAA for medical anthropologists who conduct research in the USA. Additionally, IRB guidelines provide an additional layer of protection for participants but also complicate the collection of data depending on location. However, adjusting data collection methods in the face of IRB, HIPAA or infringing on the relationships of participants brought risks. This includes data not being accepted as ‘anthropological’ due to not being collected via traditional methods such as participant observation and/or long-term immersion in the field (Gupta and Ferguson 1997). Logan was unable to attend medical appointments with CHWs due to both HIPAA and IRB restrictions. As a result, data had to be collected through interviews with CHW participants and, rather, speak to generalities about the interactions between physicians, clients and CHWs. Likewise, Mehta faced limitations in shadowing patients and health care providers in clinical settings due to HIPAA and IRB guidelines. As a result, institutional barriers in this form impeded the use of participant observation and complicated its use—thus requiring an adjustment to data collection, again drawing on patchwork ethnography.
Here, we are not discrediting the use of participant observation, a method which is known for producing rich, ethnographic data, yielding insights into what people do instead of what they say they do, and the prospect of forming deeper relationships through being present in the field. Indeed, the message holds true to this day with contemporary scholars advocating participant observation's revelatory potential. Alpa Shah cites participant observation as the ‘core of ethnographic research’ and ‘a potentially revolutionary praxis’ (2017: 45). Similarly, Kathleen Musante notes that participant observation is predominantly considered as the ‘central and defining methods of ethnographic research’ (2015: 238). While the role of participant observation is intricately tied with the notion of immersion in the field, we advocate that the definition of immersion and its practice in anthropological work and beyond has transgressed the temporal boundaries of geographical space. Given the emergence of multi-sited ethnographic work and the use of multiple digital platforms in anthropological inquiry, participant observation and being present in the field has evolved from being an absolute and static presence to an engagement and a dialogue that operates in multiple dimensions in anthropological work.
Collaboration represents another methodological choice that has multiple benefits. Philippe Bourgois and Jeff Schonberg posit the utility of collaborative approaches in conjunction with this method, asserting that collaboration has ‘the advantage of being able to scrutinise one another's contrasting interpretations and insights’ (2009: 11). As such, the role of the participants is elevated—disrupting the traditional power dynamics—and addressing issues that may impede or problematise data collection through this method. Logan also involved research participants as co-authors. These approaches, in terms of collaboration that involves participants after data collection and analysis, serve to upend traditional power dynamics and challenge the solo fieldworker mythos.
In this article, we have coupled our experiences of being labelled ‘not anthropological enough’ with the sometimes practical and mundane challenges of doing fieldwork. It is important to guide future anthropologists and current graduate students through these challenges, which are often less touched on in graduate seminars. Ultimately, we contend that anthropology can and must adapt to the realities of conducting fieldwork in an increasingly uncertain era. Following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, adopting and accepting new forms of data collection will help the discipline thrive and foster inclusion and diverse viewpoints, thereby strengthening it.
Recommendations and Applications
The challenges, adjustments and issues we experienced are also relevant to other subfields of anthropology and the social sciences in general. Anthropology as a discipline ought to value the adjustments and shifts in data collection (e.g. patchwork ethnography) as a sign of changing times. Especially as structural constraints (e.g. lack of available grant funding, caregiving responsibilities) and global issues, such as the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, complicate extended time in the field and conducting research abroad, valuing research completed ‘at home’ will produce an increasingly inclusive discipline and step toward the future.
Adapting data collection methods is an important consideration depending on the sensitivity of the research topic (Li 2008; Watts 2011). Drawing on patchwork ethnography and implementing a collaborative framework can radically reshape data collection, analysis and publication. Developing research projects that draw on these frameworks upend traditionalist and colonialist power dynamics and instil horizontal relationships between researcher(s) and participants. Ideally, these approaches could assuage issues in collecting participant-observation data, increase the internal validity of the data and produce applied results. Anthropologists, students and participants may consider conducting team-based research projects instead of projects with the traditional, solo ethnographer. In collecting data (an inherently subjective process) as a team, researchers and participants could then compare their documented findings.
Applied anthropology programmes, which have traditionally favoured and pushed the discipline to new ways of engaging with theory, method and public engagement, can and should foster these new approaches. Aside from team-based approaches, conducting (and accepting) shorter stints of data collection may be another approach to help tackle the new and multiple structural constraints many students and professionals experience, given the limited amount of funding and time for the completion of research projects. Furthermore, these approaches also speak to the overlap between professional and personal obligations that have become apparent in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Conclusion
Our collective experience of being faced with the criticism of whether our research is ‘anthropological enough’ illustrates a colonialist notion still present in anthropology. Its effects are detrimental to the future aspirations of anthropology students, junior scholars and professionals. However, the findings we presented in this article demonstrate the value of domestic research, its potential for highlighting systemic issues within the discipline and its central role in achieving long-term partnerships amid practical issues of global concern. By reflecting on the lessons we've learned and the recommendations we offer, anthropology as a discipline can become more accepting and inclusive of research collected in an increasingly uncertain world.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the participants, the anonymous reviewers, and the editorial team at Anthropology in Action.
References
Berry, M. J., C. Chávez Argüelles, S. Cordis, S. Ihmoud and E. Velásquez Estrada (2017), ‘Toward a Fugitive Anthropology: Gender, Race, and Violence in the Field’, Cultural Anthropology 32, no. 4: 537–565.
Bourgois, P. and J. Schonberg (2009), Righteous Dopefiend (Berkeley: University of California Press).
Broom, A., M. Chittem, V. Bowden, N. Muppavaram and S. Rajappa (2017), ‘Illness Experiences, Collective Decisions, and the Therapeutic Encounter in Indian Oncology’, Qualitative Health Research 27, no. 7: 951–963.
Castañeda, H. (2019), Borders of Belonging: Struggle and Solidarity in Mixed-Status Immigrant Families (Redwood City: Stanford University Press).
Chittem, M., P. Norman and P. R. Harris (2013), ‘Relationships between Perceived Diagnostic Disclosure, Patient Characteristics, Psychological Distress and Illness Perceptions in Indian Cancer Patients’, Psycho-Oncology 22, no. 6: 1375–1380.
Günel, G., S. Varma and C. Watanabe (2020), ‘A Manifesto for Patchwork Ethnography’, Member Voices, Fieldsights, 9 June, https://culanth.org/fieldsights/a-manifesto-for-patchwork-ethnography.
Gupta, A. and J. Ferguson (1997), Anthropological Locations: Boundaries and Grounds of Field Science (Berkeley: University of California Press).
Hannerz, U. (2003), ‘Being There … And There … And There! Reflections on Multi-sited Ethnography’, Ethnography 4, no. 2: 201–216.
Holmes, S. M. (2013), Fresh Fruit, Broken Bodies: Migrant Farmworkers in the United States (Berkeley: University of California Press).
Jackson, J. L. (2001), Harlem World: Doing Race and Class in Contemporary Black America (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press).
Li, J. (2008), ‘Ethical Challenges in Participant Observation: A Reflection on Ethnographic Fieldwork’, The Qualitative Report 13, no. 1: 100–115.
Masley, K. (2007), ‘The Anthropology of the U.S.: Cited Not Nearly Enough and Still Earning Respect’, North American Dialogue 10, no. 1: 1–5.
McClaurin, I. (2020), ‘A Game Changer for Grad Schools and Anthropology’, Anthropology News, 3 June, https://www.anthropology-news.org/index.php/2020/06/03/a-game-changer-for-grad-schools-and-anthropology/.
Mendoza-Denton, N. (2008), Homegirls: Language and Cultural Practice among Latina Youth Gangs (Malden: Blackwell).
Musante, K. (2015), Participant Observation, in Handbook of Methods in Cultural Anthropology, (ed.) H. R. Bernard and C. C. Gravlee (Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield).
National Science Foundation (n.d.), ‘Cultural Anthropology Program – Doctoral Dissertation Research Improvement Grants (CA-DDRIG)’, https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2015/nsf15556/nsf15556.htm (accessed 29 November 2019).
Reese, A. (2019a), ‘When We Come to Anthropology, Elsewhere Comes with Us’, Anthropology News, 30 August 2023, https://www.anthropology-news.org/articles/elsewhere-comes-with-us/.
Rutherford, D. (2020), ‘Funding Anthropological Research in the Age of COVID-19’, American Ethnologist, 1 May 2020, https://americanethnologist.org/features/collections/covid-19-and-student-focused-concerns-threats-and-possibilities/funding-anthropological-research-in-the-age-of-covid-19.
Sangaramoorthy, T. and K. A. Kroeger (2020), Rapid Ethnographic Assessments: A Practical Approach and Toolkit for Collaborative Community Engagement (Milton Park: Routledge Press).
Shah, A. (2017), ‘Ethnography? Participant Observation, a Potentially Revolutionary Praxis’, HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory 7, no. 1: 45–59, https://doi.org/10.14318/hau7.1.008.
Shange, S. (2019), Progressive Dystopia: Abolition, Antiblackness, and Schooling in San Francisco (Durham: Duke University Press).
Vered, A. (2000), Constructing the Field: Ethnographic Fieldwork in the Contemporary World (London: Routledge).
Watts, J. H. (2011), ‘Ethical and Practical Challenges of Participant Observation in Sensitive Health Research’, International Journal of Social Research Methodology 14, no. 4: 301–312.
Wenner-Gren Foundation (n.d.), ‘Application Procedures’, http://www.wennergren.org/programs/dissertation-fieldwork-grants/application-procedures (accessed 29 November 2019).