Introduction
The understanding of life in different societies is the primary task set by anthropologists, and its importance is defined by the necessity to address issues related to human existence as a whole. Such a complicated matter requires the use of specific approaches, and fieldwork is the most beneficial method in terms of receiving extensive and reliable information on population groups. In order to understand the mechanism of its work, the paper defines the concept, provides corresponding theoretical models and the experience of Franz Boas in the relevant sections.
Fieldwork is the cornerstone of anthropological expertise used by the majority of scholars. This term means the process of gathering data on the problems of communities in the natural environment, such as, for example, interpersonal conflicts or contested identity (Nelson, 2020). The results of these studies are useful not only for anthropologists but also for business specialists (Krause-Jensen, 2017). Therefore, the paper aims at defining the implication of fieldwork for business anthropology by projecting its outcomes on the needs of companies and considering the case of Franz Boas.
Observation vs. Participant Observation
In order to conduct an anthropological study, one needs to determine the method of gathering data, and this task leads to the selection of either observation or participant observation. Both approaches seem to be similar, but the process differs depending on the role of the researcher. In the case of observation, he or she examines the interaction of people and the influence of the environment on all of the aspects of their lives (Nelson, 2020). In the case of participant observation, the researcher takes part in the activities of his or her informants to gather the necessary information for further analysis (Nelson, 2020). Hence, the difference between these two techniques is in the degree of one’s involvement in the study.
Advantages and Limitations of the Methods
The use of observation and participant observation is beneficial for the research, but the selection of the latter provides better results in terms of details and reliability. Direct involvement in a group’s activities allows understanding the way of thinking behind the actions and, therefore, receiving more reliable data on the matter (Nelson, 2020). However, this method has its limitations since it is more time-consuming than simple observation. Under time constraints, it is possible only to observe people and write field notes in a form of a personal journal or diary, which can be beneficial in terms of receiving general information (Nelson, 2020). Hence, both methods have their advantages and limitations, and the selection of one of them depends on the circumstances.
Franz Boas and His Role in Fieldwork
Anthropological research is a practical approach to exploring cultures and peoples, and the full understanding of the process is possible only with the consideration of works of specialists. One of the most known anthropologists, whose contributions to the field are recognized by the present-day researchers, is Franz Boas (Darnell, 2017). He is known for particular views on the prevailing impact of culture and social factors on human behavior in contrast to biology (Nelson, 2020). However, Boas was not a mere theorist since he was mostly engaged in fieldwork. His main achievements in this area are the studies of the Kwakwaka’wakw people and the Inuit of Baffin Island in Canada (Glass, 2018). Therefore, Franz Boas can be considered as one of the lead practitioners in anthropology.
Relationships with Informants
The successful communication between researchers and informants from various population groups is one of the principal conditions of an informative study. The main factor that has an impact on their relationships is the proper choice of people who possess sufficient information on the subject. These people are referred to as key informants, and their participation allows the researcher not only to learn about specific traditions of the group but also to explore the meaning behind them (Nelson, 2020). This principle applies to the studies similar to the ones conducted by Franz Boas who was engaged in the first attempts to establish communication between the tribes mentioned above and the researchers.
Personal and Professional Dilemmas
The relationships with informants, as well as other aspects of anthropological explorations, imply the existence of specific personal and professional dilemmas resulting from the interaction. These considerations are included in the Code of Ethics developed by the American Anthropological Association, founded by Franz Boas (Nelson, 2020). The personal dilemma is the necessity to distract from one’s worldview to examine the beliefs and behavior of other people through the lens of their traditions and values (Nelson, 2020). As for professional dilemmas, they relate to obtaining informed consent of participants, maintaining their anonymity, and making the results accessible to them (Nelson, 2020). Thus, compliance with the Code of Ethics allows the researchers to conduct studies in an ethical way.
Funding Issues
The success of anthropological projects is conditional not only upon ethical considerations of the interaction with various population groups but also upon the ability of scholars to find funding. The experience of Franz Boas proves that this task can be challenging, and the interests of different people should be considered. His work for the Anthropological Department of Columbia University implied teaching rather than organizing expeditions, and the administration did not approve of such initiatives (King, 2019-20). The situation changed only when the necessity to study immigration patterns in the United States appeared, and the commission from the US Congress decided to allocate funds for the research (King, 2019-20). Therefore, anthropological studies occur mostly in the case of the government’s support for the resolution of sensitive issues.
Emic vs. Etic Perspective
The interpretation of the received data depends on an approach preferred by the researcher, and it can be either emic or etic. The emic perspective used by Franz Boas reflects his views on the importance of cultural specificities in shaping the population groups’ behavior (Glass, 2018). It represents the consideration of their beliefs from the point of view of culture and allows for the interpretation of meaning by the community members (Nelson, 2020). In contrast to this approach, the etic perspective is limited to the perception of an observer who makes a judgment based on his or her explanation for people’s behavior (Nelson, 2020). In terms of reliability, the emic approach seems to be more beneficial.
Application of the Fieldwork in Business Anthropology
The methods of anthropology find application in the present-day businesses, and this tendency is defined by the similarity in approaches regarding values of different population groups. For example, human resources consultants use anthropological techniques to identify, describe, and communicate fundamental corporate values (Krause-Jensen, 2017). Therefore, it can be complicated to distinguish such employees from anthropologists. They both also strive to find the meaning of life and motivation and track the progress of groups of people (Krause-Jensen, 2017). It allows concluding on the usefulness of anthropology for marketers and HR managers of companies due to the resemblance of their field of work to the tasks set by anthropologists.
The Use of Data Collection Methods in my Future Career
The practical implication of anthropological knowledge within a company also relates to the use of participant observation. Hence, this technique will be useful for my future career in the field of Business Anthropology. The culture of organizations as a subject for study refers to the consideration of social relationships between actors in correlation with their common goals (Krause-Jensen, 2017). The achievement of such objectives is solely dependent on the correct results on observations, which sometimes require direct participation in their realization. Hence, participant observation will be a good option for enhancing cooperation based on anthropological models.
Conclusion
Anthropology as a field provides a variety of opportunities for specialists in the area of business consulting. Its practical implementation refers to the use of classical anthropological models of gathering and analyzing reliable data. However, the difference between classical and business anthropology is in the focus of the latter on specific companies rather than pre-identified population groups. In this way, the method of participant observation seems to be extremely beneficial for defining a business’ problems and finding solutions to them.
The experience of Franz Boas proves the usefulness of these anthropological approaches. His contribution to the field allowed formulating the regulations regarding ethics, communication with informants, and personal and professional dilemmas. This knowledge is also beneficial for both classical and business anthropology since these considerations are applicable to any group of people. The preference of emic perspective, in turn, promotes a deeper understanding of social processes by specialists. At last, projecting anthropological knowledge on the sphere of business will enable the employees to reach a mutual understanding.
References
Darnell, R. (2017). Who was Franz Boas? How do we know? And why should we care?. General Anthropology, 24(1), 1-7. Web.
Glass, A. (2018). Drawing on museums: Early visual field notes by Franz Boas and the indigenous recuperation of the archive. Web.
King, C. (2019-20). Genius at work: How Franz Boas created the field of cultural anthropology. Columbia Magazine, 22-25.
Krause-Jensen, J. (2017). Fieldwork in a hall of mirrors: An anthropology of anthropology in business. Journal of Business Anthropology, 6(1), 102-120. Web.
Nelson, K. (2020). Doing fieldwork: Methods in cultural anthropology. In N. Brown, T. McIlwraith, & L.T. de Gonzalez (Eds.), Perspectives: An open introduction to cultural anthropology (pp. 45-69). American Anthropological Association.