Comments on: Whining about Practitioners

By: Wednesday Round Up #27 « Neuroanthropology

Wednesday Round Up #27 « Neuroanthropology — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 11:28:48 +0000

[...] Whining about Practitioners Academics vs. practitioners—anything to learn in “objectivity” vs. “just give me the [...]

By: Finally! A Drinking Age Debate « Disparate

Finally! A Drinking Age Debate « Disparate — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 16:48:07 +0000

[...] with issues such as these, there’s a strong tendency for advocates of any position to dig for data supporting their claims. Stephen Jay Gould called this “advocacy masquerading as [...]

By: Alexandre

Alexandre — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 04:45:18 +0000

Some important issues, especially in the intro. But I can’t help but sense frustration, here, instead of the desire to strike a polyvocal conversation. I’m theory-oriented enough to be “on your side,” but I also think that peace can be made more easily if we treat practitioners and applied ethnographers as human beings, worthy of our consideration. A bit “meta,” maybe, but worth a try.
A worldview isn’t a prison but the common “mindset” on each side is somewhat incompatible with the other. To be perfectly honest, I often struggle with the fact that activists and policy advocates with an anthro background care more about issues than about knowledge. In fact, they sometimes seem to forgo some basic tenets of anthropology for the sake of a “cause.” Difficult for me to grok this. But I’m biased toward understanding, not toward a deeply held set of ethical principles.
I just wish I could better understand these people, some of whom are dear friends.

Still, your blogpost contains some important points which are too rarely discussed, including the whole “the ends justify the means” stance with the accompanying “marketing is effective” claim.
One of the most recent mentions of anthro in popular press was precisely about this. Not that I disagree with the goal or even with the method. But I notice the difference in “mindset.”

By: Tony

Tony — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 23:29:16 +0000

Hi Mike,
You make good points. But, I still reserve the right of the polemicist to point out that skipping a few lunches in order to read a book can be a good use of limited time! This does not mean that academics do not have a responsibility to write clearly and accessibly, as you advocate.
I also feel that when it comes to polemics, the academics are more often on the receiving end than the practitioners. See e.g. Mark’s complaints about the left leaning biases of academics on ethnography.com earlier this month. My post is meant to even the score, at least a little bit. If we have a responsibility to write clearly, practitioners have a responsibility to read responsibly.
Much of this frustration comes from my own years as both a practitioner and academic in Tanzania and elsewhere, in which I encountered high level embassy and UN officials who had no familiarity or interest in the most basic scholarly research about that country. I would ask their views about some of the most important books about refugee work, or Tanzanian history. Typically they did not have one, and the often they had not heard of anything that had not been written on the New York Times editorial page, Newsweek, or maybe Foreign Affairs.

Tony

By: Michael A. Innes

Michael A. Innes — Sat, 16 Aug 2008 22:56:57 +0000

Tony, I sympathize, truly, but the criticism that academics have an equal responsibility to communicate complex ideas more effectively is a valid point.

Those who benefit from or rely on serious research outcomes have legitimate time pressures to deal with – it’s not as simple as suggesting that they cut short the power lunch, or skip the in flight movie, to pay closer attention to detail. We academics have the luxury of reading, researching, and writing in depth. Others don’t – or at least, frequently don’t.

I agree in general with your criticism, but I wonder if what you recommend is really the happy median.