Applied Anthropology

RIALL W. NOLAN
Purdue University, United States

Types of anthropology

The application of anthropology to real-world problems—and, in particular, how

this is being done by nonacademic anthropologists—has emerged as one of
the most important developments in the discipline in recent decades. Applied
anthropology—anthropology put to use outside the confines of the university—is
being conducted today by two quite different groups. The first of these, academically
based, goes forth from time to time to use anthropology in a variety of ways, often
involving research and often as a short-term consultancy. These individuals have
traditionally been referred to as “applied” anthropologists. The second group, which
may work on very similar sorts of problems, does so from an entirely different point
of departure—that of anthropologists working full time outside the university, often
as employees in a private, public, or nonprofit organization. These individuals, who
have risen to prominence in the past several decades, are now generally referred to
as “practicing” anthropologists, primarily to distinguish them from their academic
colleagues. One way to represent these divisions is shown in Figure 1.
This structure is less neat than it might appear, however. In fact, there is a great deal of
discussion within anthropology about application, practice, and the use of terms. Some
anthropologists, indeed, maintain that every anthropologist is an applied anthropolo-
gist, regardless of what they do. Others are careful to define applied anthropology as
those activities that involve research, and—for some—specifically those activities call-
ing for ethnography, the anthropologist’s traditional stock-in-trade. Others, however,
include a variety of activities under the umbrella designation of “applied,” such as advo-
cacy work, design, or policy making.
If some definitional approaches stress what is done and how, others—and partic-
ularly those using terms like “practice” or “practitioner”—lay stress on where the
anthropologist in question is based. It is here, of course, that the differences between
university-based and non-university-based anthropologists come into high relief.
Career arcs, structures of sanctuary and support, expectations and consequences are
but some of the things that distinguish academically based anthropologists from their
practitioner colleagues. As the literature of practice grows, so too does appreciation of
how these differences influence the ways in which practitioners think about and do
their work, as well as the types of things they actually do.

The International Encyclopedia of Anthropology. Edited by Hilary Callan.

© 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2018 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/9781118924396.wbiea1597
2 A P P L I E D A NT HR OP OL OGY

Academic Applied Practicing

anthropologists anthropologists anthropologists

University Externally
based based

The discipline of anthropology

Figure 1 Academic, applied, and practicing anthropology.

In this entry, the term “applied anthropology” refers to any use of anthropology—by
any anthropologist—to solve problems, while the terms “practitioner” and “practicing
anthropology” refer specifically to those anthropologists based outside the academy
who are also engaged in problem solving.
These distinctions have emerged out of a growing literature of practice written mainly
by practitioners themselves, documenting the realities of their work and some of the
issues of particular significance to them. Three important things have so far emerged
from this literature that illuminate key aspects of practice.
The first is that, for practitioners, knowledge alone (and the discovery of knowledge
through research) is not sufficient; of equal if not greater importance is an understand-
ing of what to do with that knowledge. Practitioners hardly ever engage in research or
other work for its own sake—they tend, by and large, to work on problems brought to
them by clients, and they are expected to deliver results.
The second important aspect of practice is that, for the most part, practitioners do
not work alone but in collaboration with others, many of whom may not be anthro-
pologists at all. As a result, the methods, findings, and recommendations of practicing
anthropologists are subject to others’ judgments. They are not only expected to collabo-
rate and to co-think closely with others, but they must also expect to be challenged and
to defend their views in ways that they would not normally expect within academia.
Finally, practitioners are fully involved with their work in ways that academics doing
part-time applied work may not normally be. Generally speaking, practitioners are not
part-time consultants and they are not outsiders to an organization. They tend, for the
most part, to be full-time employees, participants rather than lookers-on. As such, they
must take long-term responsibility for their work, work that often has significant con-
sequences for others.

History

One of the more interesting aspects of application and practice within anthropology
is the way in which it has been treated historically. Although it is certainly true that
 A P P L I E D A NT HR OP OL OGY 3

application in anthropology has a long and somewhat complex history, it is also

true that the discipline has, until relatively recently, ignored much of the work of
nonacademic anthropologists and, more specifically, the implications of this work for
the broader discipline.
Until fairly recently, it was not generally acknowledged that anthropology had in fact
been an applied discipline from the very beginning. Today, a number of analyses exist
that look in some detail at how application and practice developed, both in the United
States and in Britain (see, e.g., Baba 2009; Brondo and Bennett 2012; Grillo and Rew
1985; Rylko-Bauer, Singer, and Van Willigen 2006). These show that, rather than appli-
cation being a recent development in anthropology and outside the mainstream, the
discipline was based on application and practice from the outset.
Part of the reason for this embeddedness is historical and lies with anthropol-
ogy’s colonial association, a relationship that has been heavily criticized at times.
Interestingly, most of these critiques miss the essential point that the colonial con-
nection was not, as is often assumed, a misuse of an already existing and otherwise
pure discipline. Rather, the needs of the colonial administration drove the overall
development of the entire discipline, in a sense, so it is really not possible to speak of
an early anthropological discipline as having anything other than a strong colonial
basis.
Anthropologists, whether or not they worked directly for the colonial administra-
tion, were usually in the field with both the permission and, if need be, the protection of
their respective imperial powers. Although they carried out largely independent stud-
ies, these nonetheless proved useful for governing subject populations. Uncertainty
still remains, however, as to how useful this work actually was, given that in some
well-documented cases administrators could be quite hostile toward anthropologists.
In the United States, colonialism was a more internal matter, and early anthropolo-
gists paid a great deal of attention to Native American populations, at times working
closely with the federal and state governments. Later on, US anthropology focused on
immigrant groups and their assimilation and still later, during the Great Depression, on
issues of race, class, and economic hardship.
The advent of World War II brought great changes for the discipline of anthropology
and, in particular, for aspects of its application. The Society for Applied Anthropol-
ogy was formalized in 1941, just before the entry of the United States into the war. This
organization, conceived as a multidisciplinary group of social scientists (not just anthro-
pologists) with an interest in application, became an important focal point for many in
the discipline, eventually producing the first code of ethics for anthropologists.
The war itself provided a variety of opportunities to make anthropology useful, and
the discipline responded. While precise figures are lacking, estimates of the number of
anthropologists who contributed directly to the US war effort range from 50 percent to
95 percent. They were involved in intelligence activities, training, culture and person-
ality studies (the most famous of these being Ruth Benedict’s Chrysanthemum and the
Sword), and work on the notorious internment camps for Japanese Americans. There
appeared to be little ethical reluctance to participate in what was seen at the time (and,
indeed, by many later on) as a necessary and basically just war. Ethical objections to
government work were some years in the future.
4 A P P L I E D A NT HR OP OL OGY

After the war, two important developments occurred that were to shape anthropol-
ogy and its application. One was the enormous and rapid expansion of universities in
the United States; the other was the equally rapid growth of what came to be termed
“international development.”
Universities in the United States embarked on ambitious programs of expansion, and
the relatively young discipline of anthropology took advantage of this to establish itself
more firmly within the academy. At the same time, the United States began to engage
more directly with faraway areas of the world, such as remote Pacific islands that had
recently been liberated from Japanese control.
In 1950 there were twenty PhD programs in anthropology in North America; by 1975
there were eighty-seven. At the same time, some interesting and important projects in
the application of anthropology outside the university were taking place, led by academ-
ically based anthropologists. One of these was the Fox Project, led by Sol Tax (based at
the University of Chicago), a long-term series of activities carried out in collaboration
with the Meskwaki Indians between 1949 and 1959. This project involved an approach
that came to be known as “action anthropology.” Another initiative, the Cornell–Peru
project, began in 1952 and was led by Alan Holmberg and other anthropologists at
Cornell. It lasted for over fifteen years.
The expansion of US influence overseas, the growth of the international develop-
ment industry, and the deepening rifts of the Cold War produced a sharp rise in the
need for what might be termed “social knowledge” of others in the world, and anthro-
pology seemed ideally suited to meet this need. Within the universities, anthropology
worked to establish itself as a respectable and vibrant discipline focused on understand-
ing other cultures, in particular, remote and non-Western ones. Federal money was
available to send anthropologists overseas, and many academics at this time engaged
in short- or long-term assignments involving some aspect of development. A small but
important literature emerged from the work of anthropologists at this time, detailing
how an anthropological approach could facilitate community development, change, and
improvement.
By the mid-1960s, however, the attractions of tenure and its accompanying secu-
rity and support appear to have pulled many academically based anthropologists away
from considerations of application and inwardly toward considerations of a more purely
scholarly kind. The engagement and activism that had characterized earlier cohorts of
anthropologists seemed forgotten as scholars focused instead on theory. Partridge char-
acterized the change in this way:
Almost all energies were [now] thrown into the proliferation of theoretical taxa … The
profession as a whole became increasingly oriented to the college and university setting,
academic rather than practical matters, and teaching 18- to 24-year-old Americans as
the only career of bona fide anthropologists. This institutional setting in which abstract
anthropology thrived failed to demand a theory of practice from the discipline, by which
anthropology could emerge as a politically effective and ethically relevant social science
in other institutions of the modern world. (1985, 139–41)

The academy became increasingly suspicious of nonacademic and “nonscholarly”

uses of anthropology. For one thing, now that the war was over, the discipline had
 A P P L I E D A NT HR OP OL OGY 5

begun to look upon its earlier involvement with government with decidedly mixed feel-
ings. Anthropology had, in the postwar period, engaged in a great deal of intensive,
long-term fieldwork in some of the poorest and most marginal areas of the world, and
it was perhaps natural that a concern with the ethics of what anthropologists were doing
there began to assume a prominent role in academic discussions. And, if the ethics of
university-based fieldwork research could be problematic, it stood to reason that work
for nonacademic entities—corporations and governments in particular—was perhaps
even more ethically fraught.
The Vietnam War and its associated turmoil merely added to this disdain for appli-
cation and practice. Anthropologists, most of whom opposed the war, were surprised
and then outraged by the revelations concerning the notorious Project Camelot and
then, shortly thereafter, by reports of anthropological work on counterinsurgency
programs in Thailand. Despite there being little or no concrete evidence of anthro-
pological involvement in either set of activities, the discipline elevated these stories
to near-mythic status as examples of the ethical pitfalls awaiting those who chose
to work for the government. Applied and practice work, already viewed with
some doubt and disdain by many within the academy, was now marginalized even
further.
Negative attitudes toward application continued to characterize mainstream aca-
demic opinion well into the 1970s, even as university growth began to slow. By this
time, the discipline was producing ever-greater numbers of PhDs while insisting that
tenured professorships were the only worthwhile and legitimate careers that graduates
should be thinking of. As requirements for tenure and promotion became ever more
demanding, those anthropologists whose interests lay primarily outside the academy
and outside what the academy defined as “scholarly” research and publication found
themselves unable to compete for what had now become a declining number of
positions.
Although a substantial number of graduates had in fact chosen work outside the
walls of the academy since the mid-1960s, these practitioners were regarded by most
academic anthropologists as failed scholars, not good enough for serious work. Aca-
demically based anthropologists who did applied work outside the university from time
to time were certainly tolerated and in places encouraged, but their prospects for tenure
and promotion depended, as before, on traditional forms of scholarly activity.
By this time, anthropology had established itself academically, and from its place
within the walls of the university had begun to speak officially for the discipline, influ-
encing what was to be taught and how, what constituted ethical behavior, and—most
importantly—how anthropology should relate to the wider world. If hands-on involve-
ment with government and the corporate sector was now seen as ethically suspect,
critical analysis—from a safe distance—became the preferred mode of engagement for
many anthropologists. The arrival of postmodernism in the 1980s reinforced and per-
haps intensified this tendency. This was the period of disciplinary history that has been
termed “the era of diverted gaze” (Rylko-Bauer, Singer, and Van Willigen 2006) as aca-
demics busied themselves with what were essentially internally generated issues and
concerns and paid little, if any, attention to what their nonacademic colleagues were up
to out in the world.
6 A P P L I E D A NT HR OP OL OGY

The rise of anthropological practice

Academic jobs continued to decline in number, however, and increasing numbers of

graduates continued to choose nonacademic careers. The view that graduates chose
practice because there were no academic positions for them was certainly true for some
people but by no means all and, as experience with nonacademic application developed,
so too did the viability—and attractiveness—of this option.
Although the academic establishment in anthropology took precise account of its
members and their activities (summarized, e.g., in the American Anthropological Asso-
ciation’s voluminous Guide to Departments, which is published annually), no such effort
was being made to track nonacademic practitioners. By some estimates, however, as
many as half of each graduating cohort were going into nonacademic work by the 1980s
(a proportion that has probably increased since then). The implications were becoming
clear to all: the majority of actual anthropologists were now no longer in universities
and no longer engaged, for the most part, in anything resembling traditional scholarly
activities.
Some within the academy responded to this. In 1974 the first master’s program in
applied anthropology began at the University of South Florida, to be eventually fol-
lowed by others. Today, the website of the Society for Applied Anthropology lists over
forty departments that have “shown a commitment in applied anthropology” through
classes, field schools, or degrees. Today there is also a smaller—but growing—number
of departments offering the PhD in applied anthropology.
In 1978 the journal Practicing Anthropology began, with the explicit aim of giving
younger practitioners a place to publish in addition to the more scholarly journal
Human Organization. In 1981 the Group for Anthropology in Policy and Practice
was founded in the United Kingdom. Local practitioner groups began to appear in
some major American cities. One of these, the Washington Association of Practicing
Anthropologists remains a strong and influential organization to this day. The National
Association for the Practice of Anthropology was founded in 1983 as a section of
the American Anthropological Association and, two years later, began to publish
the NAPA Bulletin (now Annals of Anthropological Practice), providing accounts
of applied anthropology from academics and practitioners alike. In 1993 the film
Anthropologists at Work: Careers Making a Difference appeared, detailing the range of
things anthropologists were doing outside the university.
Since the mid-1980s, textbooks and edited volumes devoted to application and
practice—including several books on career planning for practitioners—have been
appearing with increasing regularity. Originally, most of these volumes were written
by full-time academics with an interest in applied anthropology. More recently,
books by full-time practitioners themselves have also begun to appear, detailing what
anthropologists do in specific sectors or industries. Such publications have become
an increasingly valuable asset for those teaching in programs that aim to train future
applied anthropologists and practitioners.
The mid-1990s saw the emergence of a new group of anthropologists engaged
in application—MA-holding practitioners. These younger anthropologists, many of
whom were graduates of the applied programs referred to earlier, had decided for
 A P P L I E D A NT HR OP OL OGY 7

a variety of reasons not to seek the PhD but to go straight into practice. With their
master’s degrees in applied anthropology, they proved to be well qualified for a wide
variety of jobs and entered the nonacademic market just as interest among the wider
public began to build concerning the usefulness of anthropology in the workplace.
By the early years of the twenty-first century, nonacademic practitioners had begun
to develop and expand professional networks of their own. The Ethnographic Prac-
tice in Industry Conference, held yearly in a major city, brought people together—not
all of them anthropologists—who used ethnographic approaches in business settings.
Online, websites such as The Versatile PhD appeared, serving as a platform for dis-
cussion and professional career development among degree holders of all disciplines
working outside academic organizations.
These networks, while not in competition with more established academic forms,
were in no way based on them and had several interesting and significant features.
They included many other specialists than anthropologists alone and so promoted a
kind of cross-disciplinary conversation that is difficult to achieve within more tradi-
tional academic structures. They focused, for the most part, on practicalities rather
than on theoretical concerns alone. Younger anthropologists, and particularly students,
found networks like these ideal places to meet actual practitioners and to learn about
their work.
In 2010 the American Anthropological Association’s Committee on Practicing,
Applied and Public Interest Anthropology (CoPAPIA) published a landmark study of
master’s graduates entitled The Changing Face of Anthropology. One of the few studies
of nonacademic anthropologists—and certainly the most comprehensive and useful
to date—the study highlighted the importance of training, the wide range of jobs
practitioners do, and their feelings about their discipline.

What lies ahead

Today, practitioners far outnumber academically based anthropologists. Recent stud-

ies emphasize that today’s graduates opt for practice and nonacademic application by
choice far more than by necessity. We appear to have reached a “critical mass” of prac-
titioners whose activities—and the publicity attendant thereon—have provided addi-
tional encouragement to students. The CoPAPIA study referred to earlier found that,
in general, practitioners with master’s degrees had managed to find good jobs and were
satisfied with their careers (Fiske et al. 2010). As more practitioners gain experience in
the workforce, they have used their networks to recruit others.
Practitioners now work in a very wide variety of places, some of them—such as the
military—formerly controversial. Business or corporate anthropology seems particu-
larly strong at this time, as well as advertising, marketing, and design. Practitioners
continue, of course, to be involved in the more traditional applied sectors of health and
international development.
The future, for practitioners—if not for academics—appears bright. Recent US
government statistics predict strong overall growth for anthropology-related positions
(albeit mainly outside the academy), and articles appear several times a year in
8 A P P L I E D A NT HR OP OL OGY

various business-related publications acknowledging the usefulness and relevance of

anthropology.
Most of this, however, appears to have had little effect as yet on the academy as
a whole. With the obvious exception of those few programs that now specialize in
the training of applied and practicing anthropologists, most departments continue to
maintain their overall production of PhDs even as the number of academic positions
decline.
At the same time, few would deny that the experience of application and practice,
and in particular the growth of nonacademic anthropology, is bound to have a trans-
formative effect on the discipline sooner or later. The application of anthropology to
contemporary concerns is, in effect, helping to create the future while at the same time
providing opportunities, direction, and new learning for the discipline as a whole.
Application and practice have always been an integral part of anthropology, but this
has not, as has been seen, always been either recognized or appreciated by the main-
stream. Today, in important ways, practice has become the mainstream, and the expe-
rience of practice has brought into existence new ways of being an anthropologist.
Although the academy remains the wellspring of the discipline, it now exerts less and
less influence on what happens to its graduates.
In some of the sectors or domains where practitioners have established a presence,
anthropologists are relative newcomers. In others, however, they are slowly assuming
the status of experienced old hands. In some of these last areas, anthropologists
have moved into leadership and policy positions. Some relatively new domains of
application—one thinks of the military or advertising—are areas that have been
traditionally considered ethically out of bounds for many. Today, the anthropologists
prominent in these fields are leading a nuanced discussion within the discipline
concerning the nature of the work practitioners do in these domains, the contributions
anthropology is able to make, and—above all—the ethical issues of engagement.
In all of these various domains of practice, anthropologists do much more than
research; they are designers, analysts, managers, advocates, planners, and policy
makers. And, although many of them still rely on traditional ethnographic techniques,
they have also pioneered newer approaches to discovery and meaning making, such as
rapid assessment and the use of video.
Anthropologists outside the university do their work very differently from most of
their academic colleagues. Traditionally, the image of an academic anthropologist is
someone who has a great deal of control over what he or she decides to study and how.
Research topics often emanate from theoretical concerns, grants for research are usu-
ally garnered individually, fieldwork is done largely on one’s own, and individuals are
responsible for write-up and publication. All of this work is meticulously documented
in order to give individual academics the appropriate credit for promotion, tenure, and
other forms of recognition.
Nonuniversity practitioners, as mentioned earlier, tend to work for clients and
within hierarchies. The work they do is often done in teams, and these teams usually
consist of highly trained individuals from other disciplines. Anthropologists may
or may not get individual credit for their work; indeed, in many cases, the work
belongs to the organization with no mention of authorship at all. In such workplace
 A P P L I E D A NT HR OP OL OGY 9

situations, the anthropologist’s input—and opinions—are one among several, and in

the process of what has been termed “co-thinking” or “co-creation” the anthropologist
can expect to have his or her work carefully scrutinized, and at times challenged,
by nonanthropologists. And to the extent that some of these practitioners have now
moved into roles as advocates or policy makers, the explicitly political aspects of the
work also come to the fore.
The experience of working with and for others and of engaging in cross-disciplinary
problem solving has been largely beneficial to anthropologists with what might be
termed a more classical background. At the same time, however, it has led some of
them to experience a form of disciplinary “drift.” Most practitioners, in their writing,
are very clear: they value anthropology, rely on many of its methods, and see the
anthropological approach and perspective as highly important for their work. At the
same time, they also acknowledge the need to learn new things, to absorb the essentials
of other disciplines, and to adapt what they do to the problems at hand.
The 2010 CoPAPIA study asked a sample of over 700 practitioners with master’s
degrees whether or not they identified as anthropologists in their professional work
(Fiske et al. 2010). Only 42 percent “strongly agreed” with the statement; 17 percent
did not. For some practitioners this distancing appears as a generally positive devel-
opment, involving an engagement with a particular set of problems or opportunities
together with an associated widening of intellectual frameworks. For others, however,
this dissociation may be connected to the overall lack of interest in their work shown
by the academic establishment.
The resurgence of applied and practicing anthropology in recent decades and the
growth of a substantial community of nonacademic anthropologists have provided the
discipline with both challenges and opportunities. For example, the split between aca-
demic and nonacademic anthropology—probably never as wide or as severe as some
assumed—appears to be slowly healing, at least in terms of the rhetoric being used.
In addition, the disciplinary discussion of ethics—always a concern within
anthropology—has become more nuanced and sophisticated as practitioners develop
the dialogue with their academic colleagues. Anthropological practice has surfaced
ethical dilemmas that often lie somewhat outside the historical experience of the
academy. These began to appear in the 1960s as anthropology became involved with
international development; since then, disciplinary involvement in areas as diverse
as advertising and marketing, military training, and bioethics has added to our
understanding of the complexities of using anthropology in the world. Although the
ethics debate is occasionally a heated one, the discipline has clearly been enriched
by it.
If the discipline has learned something from the ethical concerns of practitioners, this
does not seem to be so much the case in other areas, particularly in academic training.
Because application and practice were for some time marginalized and discounted by
many within the academy, there is, even today, a fair amount of institutional ignorance
in most university departments concerning who practitioners are, what they do, and
how they work. Communication and interaction between practitioners and academics
remains somewhat sporadic and, with a few notable exceptions, practitioners are largely
absent from most academic training programs. Students in these multiyear graduate or
10 A P P L I E D A NT HR OP OL OGY

undergraduate programs may in fact never encounter an anthropologist who is not a

university professor.
As a result of this persistent gap, many interesting accomplishments, lessons learned,
warnings, and new findings that arise from the experience of practice fail to find
their way into disciplinary conversations. In consequence, training in anthropology
programs, with a few exceptions, has not managed to take account of the realities of
practice in ways that might provide better preparation for life after the degree. Present-
ing anthropology to students as if it consisted mainly of research and critical theory
while at the same time neglecting the long tradition of application and practice has
left many of them less able than they should be to take advantage of the opportunities
for nonacademic work now available to them. With the exception of a small number
of well-designed programs in applied anthropology, there is still a substantial gap
between most graduate education today and the needs of the market.
Despite these issues, practice and application are clearly integral to anthropology’s
future, both as a discipline and as a profession. Today’s global grand challenges cannot
be addressed—let alone solved—through technical approaches alone. Until relatively
recently, anthropology has chosen to remain largely on the sidelines in many of these
high-level debates, commenting critically and at times constructively but in a relatively
disengaged fashion. As practitioners have established themselves within nonacademic
organizations, however, they have become more involved—and more skillful—with
policy matters. For practitioners, policy is not something that they do part-time; it
demands skill, will, and risk. To remove oneself from the policy arena is to leave the
field to others.
Becoming more effectively engaged, however, will require anthropology to pay more
attention to a theory of practice—specific concepts, approaches, and methods to trans-
form what anthropologists know into positive, successful, and sustainable outcomes.
The understanding of how best to do this will come, in all likelihood, from the experi-
ence of practice itself.
All of this was foreseen years ago. In 1985 Grillo and Rew, commenting on the issues
surrounding practice and application in anthropology, wrote that these issues
are quite fundamental, raising problems which lie at the heart of the discipline. They
are concerned with what the limits of anthropology are, or might be, and with what its
practitioners can or should do, intellectually, morally and politically, and each generation
needs to review such matters afresh, reaching its own conclusions in the context of its
own time. (1985, 3)

Today’s generation of practitioners is indeed reviewing, reshaping, and redefining the

character of their parent discipline, often in ways that seem largely independent of the
academy. Their concerns, passions, and preferences are in many ways quite different
from those that preoccupy their academic colleagues, despite their strong and common
disciplinary roots.
As anthropology confronts the issues and opportunities of the present, challenging
and complex choices lie ahead for both academics and practitioners. Closer integration
between the academic and nonacademic faces of the discipline, each drawing inspira-
tion and energy from the other, would create a redefined and redirected anthropology,
 A P P L I E D A NT HR OP OL OGY 11

one capable of considerable positive influence in an increasingly diverse yet intercon-

nected world. In this effort the experience and skill of applied and practicing anthro-
pologists will be among anthropology’s most useful assets.

SEE ALSO: Action Anthropology; Activism; Aguirre Beltrán, Gonzalo (1908–96);

American Anthropological Association (AAA); Anthropology beyond the Academy:
Communicating the Subject to Nonspecialists; Anthropology, Careers in; Anthropol-
ogy, Public Perceptions of; Anthropology: Scope of the Discipline; Australia, Aboriginal
Rights in; Bartolomé, Leopoldo José (1942–2013); Bonfil Batalla, Guillermo (1935–91);
Bureau of Indian Affairs; Business Anthropology; Capability Approach; Caregiving;
Chile, Anthropology in; Colombia, Anthropology in; Colonialism and the Museum;
Community-Based Ethnography; Conflict and Security; Consciousness; Consultancy,
Anthropology and; Corporate Social Responsibility; Corporations; Counterinsur-
gency; Cultural Brokers; Cultural Resource Management; Design, Anthropology of;
Development Agencies; Development and Forced Displacement; Digital Anthropol-
ogy; Disasters, Anthropology of; Educational Issues in Development; Empiricism;
Energy Issues in Development; Environmental Anthropology; Environmental Justice;
Environmental Vulnerability and Resilience; Fieldwork; Forensic Anthropology;
Geertz, Clifford (1926–2006); Global Health; Globalization; Health Determinants;
Hermitte, Esther (1921–90); HIV/AIDS; Indigenous Peoples and Higher Education;
Indonesia, Anthropology in; International Development, Anthropology in; Israel,
Anthropology in; Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practice Surveys; Legal Expertise; Market
Research, Anthropology in; Medical Anthropology; Medical Anthropology Methods:
Biocultural Perspectives; Mexico, Anthropology in; Militarized Anthropology, Con-
troversy and Resistance to; Museums and Source Communities; Needs Assessment,
Baseline Studies of; Nongovernmental Organizations; Policy, Anthropology and;
Population Issues in Development; Positive Deviance; Postdevelopment; Praxis;
Protected Areas; Protest; Public Anthropology; Quality-of-Life Issues in Development;
Rappaport, Roy (1926–97); Representation, Politics of; Research Traditions on Law
in Anglo-American Anthropology; Rural Development; Science and Technology in
Development; Social Capital; Social and Cultural Anthropology; Social and Environ-
mental Impact Analysis; Soil Knowledge; Stakeholder Analysis; Sweden, Anthropology
in; Syndemics; Tax, Sol (1907–95); Theater, Anthropology and; United Kingdom,
Anthropology in; United States, Anthropology in; Warman, Arturo (1937–2003);
Worldviews

REFERENCES AND FURTHER READING

Baba, Marietta L. 2009. “Disciplinary–Professional Relations in an Era of Anthropological

Engagement.” Human Organization 68 (4): 380–91.
Brondo, Keri V., and Linda A. Bennett. 2012. “Career Subjectivities in U.S. Anthropology: Gen-
der, Practice, and Resistance.” American Anthropologist 114 (4): 598–610.
Chambers, Erve. 2009. “In Both Our Possibilities: Anthropology on the Margins.” Human Orga-
nization 68 (4): 374–79.
12 A P P L I E D A NT HR OP OL OGY

Fiske, Shirley J., Linda A. Bennett, Patricia Ensworth, Terry Redding, and Keri Brondo. 2010. The
Changing Face of Anthropology: Anthropology Masters Reflect on Education, Careers, and Pro-
fessional Organizations: The AAA/CoPAPIA 2009 Anthropology MA Career Survey. Arlington,
VA: American Anthropological Association.
Grillo, Ralph, and Alan Rew, eds. 1985. Social Anthropology and Development Policy. London:
Tavistock.
Guerrón-Montero, Carla, ed. 2008. Careers in Applied Anthropology in the 21st Century: Perspec-
tives from Academics and Practitioners. Oxford: Blackwell.
Kedia, Satish, and John van Willigen. 2005. Applied Anthropology: Domains of Application. West-
port, CT: Praeger.
Morais, Robert J., and Timothy de Waal Malefyt, eds. 2014. “Ethics in Business Anthropology.”
Special issue, Journal of Business Anthropology 1.
Nolan, Riall W. 2003. Anthropology in Practice. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
Nolan, Riall W., ed. 2013. A Handbook of Practicing Anthropology. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.
Partridge, William L. 1985. “Toward a Theory of Practice.” American Behavioral Scientist 29 (2):
139–63.
Rylko-Bauer, Barbara, Merrill Singer, and John van Willigen. 2006. “Reclaiming Applied Anthro-
pology: Its Past, Present and Future.” American Anthropologist 108 (1): 178–90.
Sabloff, Paula, ed. 2000. Careers in Anthropology: Profiles of Practitioner Anthropologists. Wash-
ington, DC: American Anthropological Association.
Wasson, Christine, Mary O. Butler, and Jacqueline Copeland-Carson, eds. 2011. Applying
Anthropology in the Global Village. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.