the relationship of theory and practice - carole e. hill

7/25/2019 The Relationship of Theory and Practice - Carole E. Hill

1/16

. The Relationship of Theory and Practice

Strategic Issues for Rebuilding a Theory and Practice

Synthesis

Carole E. Hill

Changing the Relationship of Research, Theory, and Practice

An examination of the relationship between theory and practice ne-

cessitates a critical examination of the origin and usefulness of theory in-

side and outside the academy. It also requires an examination of discipli-

nary responsibilities for generating and strengthening anthropological

theory. Theory is given to practitioners (Angros ino 1997) for tes ting. It is

not crea ted in applied settings . Recently, however, several practicing

scholars have asserted that theory is generated in practice

(i.e.,

Cernea

1991,1995; Partridge 1987). There appear to be within anthropology two

cultures that have divergen t views on the generation and use of theory. At

least four pertinent questions are at the center of this debate: (1) What kind

of theory is generated by nonpracticing anthropologists that is helpful to

the practice of anthropo logy? (2) What kind of theory is generated by p rac-

ticing anthropologists that increases knowledge in academia? (3) Is the

theoretical basis of anthropology strong enough to link theory and prac-

tice? And (4) why are theory and practice so antagonistic in anthropo logy?

Answers to these questions reveal a great dea l about anthrop ological

habitus. The contributions to this volume cand idly ad dress these issues

in both persona l and concep tua l ways. While this volume is not the first to

be concerned about theo ry-practice relations, a cursory review of w ritings

on these issues over the past three decades reveals that thinking about

these issues is at a critical point. It is time that this thinking be brought to

print for critical review from the discipline. Some of the essays in this vol-

ume were given in a symposium at the 1996 annual m eeting of the Am eri-

can Anthropological Association. The intention of the symposium was to

begin a dialogue, incite a riot, and/or just get anthropolog ists talking about

what we feel is the most important issue of our times. That is also the goa l

of this volume. The contributions d iscuss h ighly controversial issues in the

discipline and , at times, cha llenge the discipline's sac red know ledge or,


2/16

2 STRATEGIC ISSUES

at the least, its rece ived know ledge . Our intention is not to be popular;

rather, we hope to be provocative and maybe, just maybe, begin a proc-

ess of synthesis between anthropology's two cultures of theory and prac-

t ice.

It is important to point out, as Nader does in the p reface, that many of

the issues concern ing theory and practice are peculiarly North Am erican.

Baba and Hill (1997) suggest that fractures in theory-practice relations

predominately developed between the culture of academic anthropology

and the culture of practicing anthropology in countries that were histori-

cally the colonizers rather than the co lonized.

Brief Review of Past Ideas

A brief review of some of the ideas about theory-practice relations

seems approp riate to provide a context for the present volume and to let

the reader know that we are quite aware that we are not the first to tackle

these issues. In 1969, George Foster suggested that applied anthropolo-

gists were viewed by academicians as contributing little to theory. He ar-

gued against this dichotomy by ascertaining that practitioners test theo-

retical knowledge because they work outside of traditional academic

settings ; they advance knowledge but not in the traditional sense of scien-

tific discovery, making their theory different from that produced in aca-

dem ic cu lture. Earlier, Sol Tax (1952) sugges ted that the process involved

in generating theoretical knowledge and generating solutions to practical

problem s shou ld share equal status in action anthropology . Later, Tax, ob-

viously identifying w ith the culture of pra ctice , stated that the first thing to

make clear is that we are theoretical anthropo logists (1975:172). More re-

cently, Rubinstein (1986) characterizes action anthropology as having

both methodolog ical and ethical notions, stating, The methodological no-

tion is that when working in applied settings (as well as when doing 'tradi-

tional' ethnographic research) we canindeed ought tobe concerned

with the creation , testing, and elaboration of basic theory (1986:271).

Theory in practice was addressed by several authors in Applied An-

thropology in America

(Eddy and Partridge 1987). Part I of that volume is

entitled The Dialogue between Theory and Ap plica tion, add ressing how

theory is used in applied settings. Like Foster, its authors assum e that ap-

plication is the testing of theory. Arensberg (1987), for example, argued

that the practice of anthropology in industry continues to feedback into

knowledge about organizational theory. Hill-Burnett (1987) demonstrates

that applied research in educational settings demands flexibil ity of meth-

ods and theoretical perspectives which, she argues, leads to the formula-

tion of new kn ow ledge . Pa rtridge (1987) ends the section w ith an essay on

a theory of practice, using the writings of Bourdieu (d iscussed in some de -

tail by Baba in this volume). Those articles, for the most part, fail to addre ss

the generation of theory in practice.


3/16

NAPA BULLETIN 18 3

In the 1990s several articles appeared using contemporary theory as

a basis for discussions of the theory-practice relationship. For example,

following Partridge's theory of practice, Warry (1992) examines the impli-

cations of praxis theory for applied anthropology, suggesting that the col-

laborative nature of praxis theory is critical for practicing anthropology and

can heal the fracture. Johannsen (1992) proposes that certain aspects of

postmodern ism (particularly a self-reflexive and critical pe rspec tive), while

relevant to applied anthropology, cannot foster theory development in

practice. Singer (1994) suggests that the driving theoretical force for ap-

plied anthropology should be a com munity-centered nonimperialist praxis

rather than postmodernism. Finally, Rappaport (1993) suggests develop-

ing an engaged anthropology for solving societies's troubles by m od i-

fying M arcus and Fischer's concep tion of cultural critique

and,

thereby, in-

tegrating the two cultures. He argues that anthropologists should attempt

to com prehend contemporary difficulties in anthropologically derived

terms but would resemb le applied anthropology in attempting to deve lop

programs for correcting them (1993:297).

Recently, Bennett (1996) suggests that the discipline of an thropology

as a whole has generally failed to generate strong theory. In an article ex-

amining the ideological and conceptual aspects of applied anthropology,

he asserts that anthropologists conduct their work, for the most part,

through borrowing theory from other disciplines. If theory in anthropology

has been diffused from other disciplines and most anthropologists assume

that the theory used by practicing anthropologists is borrowed from aca-

demia,

then it shou ld com e as no surprise that theory in applied anthropo l-

ogy is considered, at best, a distant cousin to the processes involved in

theory development. Bennett's argument places practicing anthropolo-

gists in the position of borrowers of borrowers of theory. Whether one

agrees with Angrosino (1997) and Bennett or not, both scholars certainly

raise important issues concerning the place of theory in practice and the

place of theory in academia. The contributions to this volume build upon

these past ideas in an attempt to synthesize and advance the discipline's

fractured social and cultural processes in theory-practice relations.

Review of Present Work

This volume continues the dialogue on theory and practice in the hope

of demonstrating the truly dialectical nature between theory and practice

and highlighting the necessity of narrowing the schism between academ ic

and practicing anthropology. Most authors argue that theory is indeed

generated in practice : applied se ttings provide an opportunity and a need

for anthropologists to create new knowledge. There are several themes

that integrate the essays in this volume. All address the need for uniting

practicing and nonpracticing anthropo logists in ordec to develop a theory

of practice. This involves the unification of two cultures. Most give exam-


4/16

4 STRATEGIC ISSUES

pies of the contributions that theory and practice make to each other and

the me thodo logical contributions practice m akes to theory. Method is inex-

tricably bound to theory, a point that shou ld not be forgotten in any theory-

practice discussion. Furthermore, methods are important for the testing of

theories; it is one thing to sit in academia and developed logical models

and another to test them . Practice can be viewed as a kind of ultimate test

of theory through empirical research. One final theme solidifies this vol-

ume: The ethical issues that circumscribe practice are thorny problems

that have yet to be su fficiently a ddressed in the disc ipline . They are en-

demic to all research and particularly to practice. As several contributors

point out, ethics should not be a battle cry against practice . There is a dif-

ference between critiquing injustice and actively working toward rectifying

injustice.

Section 1 addresses the general relationship of theory and practice.

The essays explicitly call for a unity between the two. Baba discusses the

intellectua l foundation for the know ledge content of practice . She critiques

several theories of prac tice, for the pu rpose of developing a paradigm that

she feels closes the gap between the perception and use of knowledge

generated by academic and nonacademic anthropologists. She suggests

that an actua lized theory of practice connecting applied work and theory in

anthropology requires a reconceptualization of applied anthropology as a

knowledge-generating activity that tests, refines, and builds theory. She

takes app lied anthropo logists to task for participating in the fractured syn-

thesis by stating that applied anthropolog ists in Am erica have partici-

pa ted in a proce ss that alienates our knowledge from the discipline, first by

defining our practice as basically external to anthropology and then by

structuring our work in ways that makes integration w ith theoretical anthro-

po logy difficult if not imposs ible (pp. 18-19). Baba rem inds us that our

conceptualization of applied anthropology in America is culturally con-

structed and as such can be transformed toward a more mature practice.

She leaves us to think about the underde velopment of theory in anthropol-

ogy and that the true mean ing of praxis is a theory-p rac tice synthesis.

Indeed,

the concep t most often linked to a reconceptualization of the-

ory in practice is

praxis.

Partridge (1987) rekindled theory-action issues

tracing the deba te to Aristotle and , more recen tly, to Marx. After an insight-

ful discussion of the situational reasons for the theory-practice fracture,

Kozaitis argues for their interdependence (recoupling). Kozaitis declares

that interdependence can be achieved through anthropological praxis.

She uses a cultural assessment research and engagement (CARE) model

to illustrate a synthesis of the components of anthropological praxis:

intel-

lectualism, pragmatism, and compassion. Kozaitis also suggests, l ike

Peacock does later in this volume, that academic anthropo logists are also

prac ticing anthropologists. She states, Acade m ics are as much en-

trenched in practice as are extra-academics in the production of knowl-


5/16

NAPA BULLETIN 18 5

edge. . .

The ques tion, thus, is not whether academ ic anthropologists are

practitioners, but why we deny being so (pp . 47, 50).

Section 2 examines the contribution of practices to theory and vice

versa, through specific empirical examples. What better place to begin

than with the concep t of culture. Angros ino states, Throughout m uch of its

history, applied anthropology has functioned on the basis of an implicitly

positivist epistemology of culture: Culture was somehow out there; it in-

hered in data that could be collected, described, and analyzed, and it

could be expressed in terms of testable hypotheses (p. 68). He divides

the culture conce pt between two alternative epistemologies: the substan-

tivist, wh ich defines culture as measurable and reinforces the us

vs.

them

dichotomy, and the interactionist, which defines culture as a set of guide-

lines that emerge from people coping with their everyday lives and obfus-

cating behavioral boundaries. Angrosino uses his experiences as a prac -

ticing anthropologist in mental health settings to illustrate the superiority of

a culture theory using an interactionist epistem ology for app lied anth ropo l-

ogy. We should not pretend that culture can be absolutely defined.

Ham ada uses a case study on total quality m anagem ent in a multinational

company to illustrate the contribution that practice makes to theory within

the context of organizational transformation. She argues that old theoreti-

cal concepts are often unworkable in practice, particularly the multiple

theoretical assum ptions of the culture concep t. She argues that new theory

is being generated in studies of business organizations unde rgoing rapid

global chan ge . Ap plied anthropologists must assume that culture is emer-

gent; theoretical models based on a positivistic perspective assuming that

culture is com posed of static categories are obsolete in a global society.

Studies of organizations dem and that practicing anthropologists construct

new p aradigm s of collective cognition and action : new theories of culture.

Peacock suggests that practice includes an thropologists working in a

myriad of tasks, including those in acad em ia. He asserts that applied roles

are not con fined to 'practicing anthropo logy' in a narrow sense of app lying

the discipline but are, rather, expa nde d beyond the conven tional confines

of research and teaching in academ ic anthropo logy (p. 104). Using exam -

ples from his wide experiences in an academic setting, Peacock deline-

ates the an thropological and nonanthropo logical theories that are used in

his practical experiences. Like Bennett (1996), he feels that other disci-

plines make a major contribution to the theories used in practice. Further-

more,

he strongly argues that practical expe riences shape theory and that

academ ia needs to develop reflective practice with anthropology stand-

ing in a strategic pos ition to bu ild distinctive and rich practice-based the-

ory, as well as theory-based practice (p. 117). Little uses exam ples from

development anthropology to illustrate how prac tice contributes to theory

and vice versa. He discusses the unnecessa ry polarization between aca -

dem ic theorists and practitioners that reinforces the fracture w ithin the dis-

cipl ine. Ironically, in the era of globalism and transnational capital ism,


6/16

6 STRATEG IC ISSUES

Little contends that the critical questions about the nature of theory a re left

to nonanthropologists.

Section 3 con tains two essays that exp licitly ca ll anth ropo logists to ac-

tion for the pu rpose of uniting theory and prac tice. Moran reviews con tribu-

tions the practice of environmental anthropology makes to theory develop-

ment. He says that the relationship of theory to practice has plagued

anthropology from its beginning. Moran presents these issues in an eco-

logical perspective, narrating a personal account of his experiences as a

aca dem ic theore tician and a practitioner. The critical issues related to the

human dimensions of globa l change demand an integration of theory and

pra ctice . Moran states, I think that human eco logy, cultural ecology, and

all other variants of anthropo logical study of human-environment relations

provide a nexus between theory and practice that makes a separation of

the two not only difficult but impractica l (p. 133).

Likewise, Barth speaks to the necessity of a connected theory and

practice if anthropologists are to rebuild their status in public policy. He

contends that theory in anthropology is flawed and that its most fundamen-

tal premises and concepts need con siderable restructuring in order to in-

corpo rate practice. In the exce rpts from two abridg ed articles, Barth sug-

gests that all concepts are embedded in practice and can never be

reduce d to statistical m odeling. Analysis,

then,

should emphasize genera-

tive models of processes, particularly of disordered systems and not of to-

talizing cultural mode ls. He argues that anthropology is in a weakened po-

sition for providing disciplinary insights in global economic problems. He

states, We

fail,

because we are so afraid to seem simple-minded in front

of each other that we avoid clear statements and clear thought, and obfus-

cate our foundational findings and insights, whereby we also end up

speaking only to each other (p. 154). He calls for a theoretical framework

capable of analyzing complex social relations, complex organizations,

and complex meanings. Just as important, anthropologists need to be

able to deliver analyses that are convincing to those who are not already

convinced of the utility of the discipline. In the interview initially published

in the

Anthropology Newsletter

Barth suggests that anthropologists need

to be better trained in theory and method for policy work, for pra cticing the

discipline. He states, We cannot sit in a position of academ ic isolation and

develop the fund of knowledge that is needed, as a manual or blueprint,

and then go out and apply it by simply p resenting a set of answ ers and so-

lutions to a listening w orld. We must engage public o pinion, policy m akers,

and government by inserting ourselves in the areas where policy an d

opin-

ion are formed, and then develop and deploy anthropological insights,

methods, and m odels where we are able to make them useful, compe lling,

and effective (p. 161).

The final contribution, by Greenwood, reviews and critiques the

indi-

vidual articles and compares and contrasts their common points. Green-

wood takes the contributions beyond anthropology; he firmly believes that,


7/16

NAPA BULLETIN 18 7

if a synthesis of theory and practice happens, it will occur in a context

larger than the discipline. His comments are insightful and provocative.

Traditional and Applied Research Models

An underlying force in this volume involves the differences between

the traditional and applied research processes. The traditional research

models in practicing and academ ic anthropology vary in terms of problem

definition and outcom e. The conventional differences can be seen in Table

1.

Clearly, these m ode ls are not mutually exclus ive, particularly in terms of

the implicit or exp licit use of the theory and methods of anthropology . The

middle-range theories, borrowed or not from other disciplines, certainly

guide all anthropological research in conceptua lizing problems. Likewise,

if research is cons idered anthropo logical, researchers select their spec ific

techniques from the methodological toolkit developed in the discipline.

Techn iques used to collect, manage, and analyze da ta are very similar, al-

though app lied anthropologists tend to use more rapid assessment

tech-

niques than academ ics. These are the obvious overlaps in the m odels. The

implications of these overlaps w ill be discussed later in this chapter.

Differences between these models facilitate an understanding of the

disparity between a pp lied and traditional anthropologists, as perceived by

most anthropologists. The respective work of applied and traditional an-

thropologists is fundamentally different in some important ways. First, ap -

plied anthropologists participate in solving concrete human problems

whether they are working in the fields of education, health, business, gov-

ernment, or nongovernmental organizations. While I contend that concep -

tualizing these prob lems always involves theory, this is not the main objec -

tive of app lied research . The driving force of app lied research is to collect

data that will be used to solve human problems. The expected outcome,

then,

of such research is to alleviate human suffering or injustice or to rede -

fine local, national, or international issues within the framework of cultural

diversity. In doing this, applied anthropologists certainly incorporate fun-

damental epistemological underpinnings of the discipline into their work.

On the other han d, academ ic anthropologists not engaging in applied

work have a different set of priorities involving d issimilar objectives and ex-

pected outcomes from those of app lied work. Problem-solving practice re-

search is not viewed as a legitimate part of the discipline. While academic

research certainly can have applied implications and even be used to

solve concrete human problems, its objective is usually stated in theoreti-

cal terms, not concrete ones . The primary outcom e of such research is to

increase and dissem inate know ledge in the

field.

The final outcome is con-

sequently the publication of research findings . This outcome is suppo rted

by academic structures that emphasize publishing as the major criterion

for promotion and tenure. The variation in outcomes dem ands that applied

anthropologists incorporate more steps in their research process. Once


8/16

Table 1. Comparison of Traditional an d Applied Research Processes

Objective Theory

Methods

Policy Analysis Intervention Evaluation

Outcome

Traditional

Research

Process

Applied

Research

Process

Solve

theoretical

problems

Middle-range

theory

Solve concrete Middle-range

human problemstheory

Qualitative/

quantitative

toolkit

Qualitative/

quantitative

toolkit

Alternative

solutions to

problems

Implement

most feasible

and equitable

solution

Qualitative/

quantitative

toolkit

Contribute to

anthropological

knowledge

Solve human

problems

o

o


9/16

NAPA BULLETIN 18 9

data are analyzed about a human problem, alternative solutions must be

examined for solving the problem. I call this phase policy analysis since it

involves using anthropological data to develop feasible solutions to the

concrete problem that may be used to set policy and guide plan ning.

Once policy and/or local level solutions have been selec ted, a plan is

devised to implement the solution. It is clear that applied anthropologists

are involved in planning for change. They are change agents using re-

search data to develop and implement interventions. Theirjob,however, is

not finished . The final step is to eva luate the intervention in order to m eas-

ure whether a problem has been solved or not or whether it has gotten

worse.

Evaluation involves using either-or qualitative and quantitative

methods. The results of this process comprise, primarily, a written report

and, secondarily, an academic journal article. These different models, as

previously s tated, are not mutually exclusive, especially in regard to those

anthropologists who primarily work in academia but also practice anthro-

pology.

Cernea has recently stated that the task of generalizing em pirical

data resulting from applied research is not the charge of only those who

define themselves as applied anthropolog ists. It is equally a task of those

working in academic and theoretical anthropology and sociology. A vast

volume of factual m aterial is laid out in countless applied reports and stud-

ies and is readily available to those interested in extracting theory from em -

pirical findings. No tribal taboo forbids the access of non-applied aca-

demic anthropologists to the empirical treasure reported in applied

studies (1996:348). He is cha llenging all anthropologists to participate in

the generation and critique of all theory, not just theory generated in the

traditional research model. Responding seriously to this challenge in-

volves cha nges in the intellectual traditions in anthropo logy and in the cul -

ture of applied anthropology, in order to develop a unifying paradigm.

Such changes involve the cultural categories, social actions, and emo-

tional attachments which characterize the enculturation of both traditional

and prac ticing anthropologists.

As many chapters in this volume suggest, an

incorporation process

will require changes in the way academic and nonacademic anthropolo-

gists perceive of theory and p rac tice . Changes in the relationship between

the two research models involve:

1. reflection upon the nature of an thropolog ical theory and its ap pli-

cations to the 21st-century w orld,

2. critique of the history of the Western tradition in the disc ipline's the-

ory development

theoria),

3. reflection upon the structural constraints of the boundaries of tradi-

tional an thropology,

4. creation of conceptual strategies and structural mechanisms

which integrate the work of theoreticians and practitioners, and


10/16

10 STRATEGIC ISSUES

5. design of graduate programs that synthesize theory and practice.

These changes will undoubtably cause conflicts between the stake-

holde rs in historically traditional anthropo logy; questions abou t authority,

science, power, and ethics will be the icons on which these debates

will be p layed out. Nonetheless, if anthropo logy is to survive and flourish in

the 21st century, this great divide between prac tice and theory must be

narrowed.

What are the first steps toward narrowing the gap? The rest of this

chapter will briefly attempt to answer this question by discussing what

I

re-

gard as issues regarding disciplinary responsibilities, particularly those of

academ ic anthropologists, for bridging the gap between theory and prac-

tice and between academ ic and p racticing an thropologists.

I

will frame my

discussion within what I call the internal and external reconstitution of an-

thropological know ledge and boundaries.

Internal and External Reconstitution of Anthropological

Knowledge and Boundaries

One of the major responsibilities of academic anthropologists is to

make it a practice to seriously reflect upon the advances in anthropologi-

cal kn ow ledge over the past century. What theories have been generated

that explain emerging social relations and cultural forms from global to lo-

cal organizations and communities? How much of anthropological re-

search is ideograph ic, at best, or reifies con cepts that have become a part

of anthropo logical belief system, at worst? W hich theories that explain re-

production and transformations of globa l social systems w ill make the

tran-

sition into the 21st century (Baba and Hill 1997)? Are the theories of the

past relevant to the new forms of local and globa l com plex social organiza-

tions and com munities em erging in next century? Serious consideration of

these questions are crucial for setting a respon sible a genda for academ ic

anthropologists to incorporate practice into their work.

Two historical events triggered changes in the way anthropological

know ledge is viewed from outside the discipline an d, concom itantly, how it

is being view ed from inside the disc ipline. First, the exp ans ion of the world

system and capitalist enterprises into even the most isolated areas of the

wo rld has resu lted in linkages between traditional soc ieties. This event

has brought about tremendous changes in the peoples anthropologists

traditiona lly study a nd , not surprisingly, a question ing of traditiona l anthro-

polog ical theory for explaining these cha nge s. The seco nd event bega n in

the 1970s with the questioning of the

canon :

the bas ic p remises of higher

education traced to Western civilization. A great dea l of knowledg e

taught in academia is being questioned as Eurocentric, including anthro-

polog ical know ledge and its history.


11/16

NAPA BULLET IN 18 11

Anthropology is an artifact of the West. It is a product of colonialism

situated within an academic structure that reflects traditional Western bi-

ases.

The ability to rationally reflect upon the status of the an thropolog ical

knowledge system and the structural position of anthropology in the world

system and academia is certainly a sign of maturity. No longer can tradi-

tional anthropologists remain cloistered in academia with their eyes fo-

cused on microlevel existences. No longer can traditional anthropologists

deve lop hierarchical ties to their village or com munity. No longer can de -

partments focus most of their energy on internal departmental politics. No

longer can traditional anthropologists exclusively focus on increasing

knowledge for know ledge's sake.

As no ted in several of this volume 's chap ters, the discipline is expe ri-

encing rapid transformations resulting in a general feeling of disorder. The

boundaries and ownership of anthropological knowledge are being

chal-

lenged from both within and outside the university. The focuses of these

challenges include the nature and relevancy of anthropological theory.

The traditional research process in anthropology is not adequa tely fulfilling

many contemporary university demands for accountability (Hill in press).

The re co n s tit u te of anthropological knowledge within academ ia requires

that anthropologists take responsibility for rendering their work relevant not

only to the peop le they study but to the society in which they live. The use-

fulness of theory demands that it encompass the practical aspects of the

discipline. At the time of writing this chapter, only

34%

of anthropology de -

partments offer app lied anthropology (Price in press).

It is time for the establishment of new contacts between academic an-

thropologists and applied anthropologists, for the purpose of integrating the-

ory and practice. Traditional anthropologists have the responsibility to de-

velop research agendas that utilize applied data to test theory. If theory

developed in academia has explanatory power, its test is in practice, particu-

larly

in

measuring the effectiveness of the intervention phase of the applied re-

search process. It is practitioners who get involved in global and local

changes. They, moreoften,are the ones on the front lines witnessing and ex-

amining the information-based transformation of social structures and the

emergence of new cultural forms. Practitioners can build new theory from

these experiences. It is time that all academic anthropologists, not just those

who teach in app lied graduate programs, integrate the practical aspects of

the research process into the traditional know ledge base. Responsibility for

these changes is squarely in the hands of all anthropologists.

A Responsible W hole Profession

Carrying out the responsibilities that lead to a whole profession,

which synthesizes theory and p ractice , requires patience , innovation, and

laying aside academ ic biases (traditionalism). It is particularly important to

work on leveling the departmental hierarchies that exist between those


12/16

12 STRAT EGIC ISSUES

who em phasize teach ing the traditional model of research and those who

teach and practice the applied research model. Taking responsibility for

who leness in the discipline, for working toward an integrative process of

theory development, requires rethinking the culture and structure of re-

search,teaching, and the nature of the professional organizations.

Linking Research and Teaching Issues

Making a transition from a separate con texts/cu ltures to integration

must begin on some common ground. That common ground, in my

opin-

ion, is theory and metho d. Whatever the differences in the research mod-

els,it is too often forgo tten that both traditional and app lied anthropologists

share the theoretical and m ethodo logical underpinn ings of the discipline.

Hopefully, such common ground can serve as a translation devise for

heal-

ing the fracture. The connections between method and theory, from the

real world of things and events to middle-range theory and vice versa

(Pelto and Pelto 1978), undispu tedly lies at the core of all an thropological

research.

Several years ago , Iargued that deve loping an applied cu rriculum in-

volved several issues that often go beyond the traditional mode l of anthro-

polog ical education : First, faculty must have some experience in applied

settings and continue ongoing linkages to agencies, institutions, and cor-

porations through research and consultancy, and second, courses must

provide a balance between traditional concepts and methods and teach

how to app ly them in nonacadem ic settings. I stated that we do not want

to graduate 'technicians', nor do we wish to graduate only 'thinkers'. We

want studen ts to connec t these two aspects of their graduate experience.

Consequently, courses must include both theoretical and operational

problem -so lving (Hill 1988:45). Courses must include for students practi-

ca l experience that teach them how to utilize resources outside the univer-

sity through involvement in applied projects. The rationale for involving

practitioners in university teaching has great potential for establishing

clear feedback between the experiences of practice and academia

(Chambers and Fiske 1988). It seems to me that all graduate programs,

not just those that emphasize applied anthropology, need to involve the

prac tice of anthropology in their theory and research cou rses.

These suggested changes in graduate education require expanding

the research paradigm of anthropology graduate programs. The applied

research model needs to be incorporated into the teaching of graduate

courses in theory and method, notwithstanding the type of program. All

graduate students need to be taught the research assumptions of prac-

tice,

even though they may not anticipate engaging in such activities. The

fact that over 50% of all new Ph.D holders are em ployed outside academ ia

definitely behooves everyone who teaches research theory and methods

to incorporate the practice paradigm into their courses. It is the responsi-

ble thing to do.


13/16

NAPA BULLE TIN 18 13

Another responsibility of academ ic anthropologists for integrating the-

ory and practice is to take up Cernea's cha llenge: read data collected by

practicing anthropologists with a critical eye toward the use and genera-

tion of theory. These data exist in all public and private agencies, wh ich are

futile fields for theoretical analysis. Reading and critiquing these reports

can serve as a basis for dialogue about theory a nd , at the same time, as a

critique of anthropologica l theory in genera l. A critical examination of these

materials cou ld begin in graduate cou rses. Students wou ld then be able to

discover d ifferences between traditional and ap plied research and, more

importantly, discover the comm on grou nd.

Professional Challenges

An arena for building bridges between the traditional and applied re-

search models involves changing the nature of professional organ izations.

Since the objectives and activities of the American Anthropological Asso-

ciation are, for the most part, that of a learned society rather than a profes-

sional one, it has yet, organizationally, to fully integrate the ethos of prac-

tice with traditional research and to promote the practice of anthropology.

The differences between a learned society and a professional organiza-

tion,in many w ays, m irror the sch isms that exist between models of trad i-

tional and applied research. It is the responsibility of professional organi-

zations to go beyond organizing professional meetings and publishing

journals (Hill 1994). Professional involvement means more than that; it

means getting involved in the real world and p rotecting the interests of all

anthropologists. The AAA's NAPA section and the Society for Applied An-

thropology (SfAA) are certainly making great strides toward these goals.

NAPA, however, is only one small entity of AAA, and the SfAA is an inde-

pendent organization further separating traditional and practicing anthro-

pologists. There are certainly good historic reasons for this separation.

Perhaps it is time that reflection spurs these organizations to rethink inte-

gration.Although SfAA and NAPA collaborate on a great number of activi-

ties, these activities are sidelighted, especially in the shadow of the AAA.

Academic anthropology has the responsibility to work within professional

organizations to develop structural mechanisms for fostering unity be-

tween traditional and applied anthropology, resulting in the linking of the-

ory and p ractice.

Another structural facet of the disc ipline that could take respons ibility

for closing the gap comprises local practitioner organizations (LPOs).

LPOs are voluntary groups organized to meet various needs of current

and future anthropologists active primarily outside the university setting

(Bennett 1988:1). They attempt to fill a niche in U.S. anthropology that, ac-

cording to Bennett, has not been adequately addressed by academia or

national anthropological organizations. They function to provide identities

for practicing anthropologists and to expand the visibility of the discipline.


14/16

14 STRATEG IC ISSUES

These organizations are critical for linking the traditional and applied sec-

tors,for linking theory and practice.

Eleven years ago, Bennett stated that

LPOs can serve as a neutral meeting place in which academic and nonaca-

demic anthropologists can ensure a productive balance among these three

dimensions of the

field:

(1)intellectualthoughttheoryand co nceptual frame-

works used in the discipline for understanding human kind culturally and bio-

logically; (2)

empirical data

information derived from research and applied

activities that is systematically documented; and (3) practice or applica-

tionsconverting anthropological knowledge and skills into effective action.

[1988:3]

There has been l i t t le movement toward the integrat ion of these funct ions

on loca l p rob lems.

Developing and maintaining connections between academic-based

departments and LPOs is ideally a reciprocal relationship allowing both

practicing anthropologists and academic anthropologists to collaborate

on research projects, provide data for mutual analysis, and teach students

that theory bu ilding is a dialectic between theory and practice. The mem-

bers of organizations . . . more closely approx ima te traditional roles of ap-

plied anthropologists (Fiske and Chambers 1996:3). Since they are

mostly em ployed locally and have, in varying degrees, endured the encul-

turation processes of both traditional and applied, their responsibility for

linking theory and practice conceptually and organizationally is evident.

Finally, perhaps the most critical responsibility lies with the anthro-

pologists who work in academia and, at the same time, practice

ex-

trapractitioners,

according to Kozaitis). While many are located in aca-

demic training programs in applied anthropology, many are employed in

traditional gradua te program s throughout the country. They have one foot

inside aca dem ia and one foot in the pra ctice of their d iscipline. A tremen-

dous respons ibility lies with anthropologists who are in academ ic applied

programs. It is certainly a place for the synthesis to begin .

Summary

In this chapter, I have addressed what I consider to be some of the

key issues involved in uniting fractured relationship between theory and

practice. The fusion process requires a practice of theory which expands

the research models of app lied and traditional an thropologists. It is essen-

tial that both groups take responsibility for understanding the worth and

contribution to anthropological knowledge of the others' perspective and

practice : to see the others' mode ls in its own terms. While m ost anthropo lo-

gists share some core epistemological assumptions, they play out their

separate cultures as though the other matters little to their work, as though

the dichotom y between practige and theory is a given. Healing the fracture

requires a redefinition of and a change in the enculturation process of both


15/16

NAPA BULLETIN 18 15

practice and traditional anthropology. Only by reconstituting their internal

and external worlds can anthropologists strengthen theory as theory and

practice truly unify into praxis.

References Cited

Angrosino, Michael

1997 Well,Do They? The New Applied Anthropology Twenty Years Later InPracticing

Anthropology in the South. James Wallace, ed. Pp. 13-21. Athens, GA: University of

Georgia Press.

Arensberg, Conrad

1987 Theoretical Contributions of Industrial and Development Studies. InApplied An -

thropology in America. Elizabeth Eddy and William Partridge, eds. Pp. 59-88. New

York: Columbia University Press.

Baba, Marietta, and Carole E. Hill

1997 The Global Practice of Anthropology. Williamsburg, VA: College of William and

Mary Press.

Bennett, John

1996 Applied and Action Anthropology: Ideological and Conceptual Aspects. Current

Anthropology 36.S23-S53.

Bennett, Linda A.

1988 Bridges for Changing Times: Local Practitioner Organizations in Am erican Anthro-

pology. NAPA Bulletins, no. 6. Washington, DC: American Anthropological Association.

Cernea, Michael

1991 Using Knowledge from Social Science in Development Projects. World Bank Dis-

cussion Papers, 114. Washington, DC: World Bank.

1996 Social Organization and Development Anthropology. The 1995 Malinowski Award

Lecture. Washington, DC: W orld Bank.

Chambers, Erve, and Shirley Fiske

1988 Involving Practitioners in App lied Anthropology Programs. nAnthropology for To-

morrow: Creating Practitioner-Oriented Ap plied Anthropology Programs. Robert

T

Trot-

ter

II,

ed . Pp. 47-58 . Washington, DC: American Anthropological Association.

Eddy, Elizabeth, and William Partridge, eds.

1987 Applied Anthropology in America. New York: Columbia University Press.

Fiske, Shirley, and Erve Chambers

1996 The Inventions of Practice. Human Organization 55(1):1-12.

Foster, George

1969 Traditional Cultures and the Impact of Technological Change. New York: Harper

and Row.

Hill,Carole E.

1988 Critical Core Curriculum Issues. InAnthropology for Tomorrow: Creating Practitio-

ner-Oriented Applied Anthropology Programs. Robert T. Trotter II, ed. Pp. 37-46.

Washington, DC: American Anthropological Assoc iation.

1994 Professional Organ izations and the Future Practice of Anthropology. Practicing An-

thropology 16:23-24.

1999 Challenging Assumptions of Human D iversity: The Teaching Imagination in Anthro-

pology. InTeach ing for the 21st Century: Understanding and Rebu ilding the Social

Worlds of Higher Education. Ron Aminzade and Bernice A. Pescosolido, eds. Pp.

271-279. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Hill,Carole E., and Marietta Baba

1997 The International Practice of Anthropology : An Overview. nThe Global Practice of

Anthropology. Marietta Baba and Carole E.

Hill,

eds . Pp. 1-24. Williamsburg, VA: Co l-

lege of William and Mary Press.

Hill-Burnett, Jacquetta

1987 Deve loping Anthropological Knowledge through Application.

In

App lied Anthro-

pology in Am erica, Elizabeth Eddy and William Partridge, eds. Pp. 123-139. New York:

Columbia University Press.


16/16

16 STRATEG IC ISSUES

Johannsen, Agneta M.

1992 Applied Anthropology and Post-Modernist Ethnography. Human Organization

Partridge, William L.

1987 Toward a Theory of Practice. nApplied A nthropology in America. Elizabeth Eddy

and William Partridge, eds. Pp. 211-233. New York: Columbia University P ress.

Price,Laurie J.

1998 Commentary. Society for Applied Anthropology Newsletter 10(1).

Pelto, Perito, and Gretal Pelto

1978 Anthropo logical R esearch: The Structure of Inquiry. New York: Harper and Row.

Rappaport, Roy A.

1993 Distinguished Lecture in General Anthropology: The Anthropology of Trouble.

American Anthropologist 95(2):295-303.

Rubenstein, Robert A.

1986 Reflections on Action Anthropology: Some Developmental Dynamics of an Anthro-

polog ical Tradition. Human Organization 45(3):270-278.

Singer, Merrill

1994 Community-Centered Praxis: Toward an Alternative Non-diminutive Applied An-

thropology. Human Organization 53(4):336-344.

Tax Sol

1952 Action Anthropology. America Indigenia 12:103-109.

1975 Action Anthropology. Current Anthropology 16:171-177.

Warry, Wayne

1992 The Eleventh Thesis: Ap plied Anthropo logy as Praxis. Human Organization 51(2):

155-163.

the relationship of theory and practice - carole e. hill

Documents