Agricultural Administration 22 (1986) 57-78

Using Anthropology in Improving Food Production:

Problems and Prospects*

Robert E. Rhoades

Social Science Department, International Potato Center (CIP),

P.O. Box 5969, Lima, Peru

(Received: 29 April, 1985)

SUMMARY

This paper explores the role of social anthropology in agricultural

research and development. For the first time since the 194Os, social
anthropologists are showing an interest in applying their profession to
problems related to basic ,food production and utilization. Similarly,
development agencies and agricultural research organizations are more
receptive to anthropology than at any point in history. Potentials,
limitations, and misconceptions of using anthropology for improving
basic ,food production are discussed. A case study of agricultural
anthropology at an international crop improvement center is described.

INTRODUCTION

The challenge of producing and distributing more food in developing

countries during the next 16 years is indeed staggering. To keep pace with
population growth while maintaining present levels of nutrition, crop
yields must increase by an estimated 30 per cent while 25 per cent more
land must be brought under cultivation2,r1 These seemingly unattain-
able goals have prompted agricultural organizations worldwide to
diversify production strategies and to seek new technologies responsive to
* This paper was first presented at the workshop Agricultural Research: Approaches to
the Integration of Socioeconomic Studies in Experimental Agricultural Research.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. New York, 2429 May, 1984.
57
Agricultural Administration 0309-586X/86/$03.50 0 Elsevier Applied Science Publishers
Ltd, England, 1986. Printed in Great Britain
58 Robert E. Rhoades

small-scale producers. Emphasis on farming systems research,25

integrated pest management,r2 tropical soils,38 post-harvest tech-
nology, small-scale household food production,24 and agroforestryr*
are but a few examples of relatively new promising approaches.
New hope is also being pinned on interdisciplinary integration of the
social and biological sciences at both the technology generation and
transfer phases.5Technical advancesmade during the Green Revolution
have slowed, never materialized, or brought undesired consequences
especially in ecologically difficult areaswhere marginal small producers
or the landlesssubsist.r 3 Increaseduse of social scientistswas expectedto
help technical projects become more relevant to short- and long-term
needs of producers and consumers.
One outcome of the growing use of social scientists has been a shaky
marriage between the agricultural sciencesand an unknown newcomer,
anthropology.* The hallmark of anthropology is a century-old
preoccupation and close researchcontact with primary food producers,
ranging from shifting cultivators to pastoralists to modern industrial
farming communities. 22Nevertheless,anthropology presentsan unusual
paradox. While anthropologists have had greater, sustainedcontact with
Third World farmers than other scientists, they have had little research
experiencein agricultural organizations. Given contemporary emphasis
on interdisciplinarity, systemsanalysis, incorporating farmer knowledge
into research, effects of socio-cultural forces, and need to understand
household decision-making, anthropologists have been drawn-albeit
unprepared-into the agriculture researchestablishment.
Despite this emerging interest, many agricultural scientists, adminis-
trators, policy makers, economists, and even some anthropologists
remain unfamiliar with how the subject matter and methods of social
anthropology can be fruitfully applied to agricultural research and
development.40 The purpose of this paper, therefore, is to discuss
anthropology’s role in agriculture, especiallyits potential and drawbacks
for interdisciplinary institutes and field teams. Three questions will be
discussed: (1) Why did social anthropology fail to develop an applied
agricutural sub-discipline?; (2) What are the perceived and real
limitations of an agriculturally focused anthropology?; and (3) How are

* Although this paper refers specifically to anthropology, many of the conclusions are
equally relevant to rural sociology and cultural geography (see Newby for an excellent
discussion of recent trends in rural sociology).23
 Using anthropology in improving food production 59

these limitations being overcome by anthropologists who work in

international agricultural researchcenters?

ANTHROPOLOGY AND AGRICULTURE: A BRIEF HISTORY

Anthropology’s interest in past and present non-European primary food
producers (shifting cultivators, peasant farmers, pastoralists, fishing
peoples)is tied to its mid-nineteenth century foundations. Anthropology,
then Europe’s youngest formal academicdiscipline, inherited the study of
non-western, often tribal or village-based peoples whose ‘cultures’ had
been neglected by the established sciencessuch as history, economics,
sociology, archaeology, and even biology.47
Early field anthropologists attempted to study small-scale societiesin
their entirety, including social life, technology, art, language,history, and
even biology. Anthropology thus becamethe ‘holistic’ science,involving
such diverse interests as ethnology, archaeology of common people and
physical evolution of primates and human races. Anthropology’s
contemporary impatience with the application of European models of
psychological or economic behavior to agricultural peoplescan be traced
to experienceswith human systems radically different from those of
European origin.
Anthropologists played an important colonial role in the early
twentieth century, serving as ‘cultural brokers’ between colonized and
colonial or neo-colonial governments. This work focused mainly on
public health, education, community development, law, but not
agriculture. In the United States only during the Great Depression and
World War II did a temporary exchange between anthropology and
agriculture develop.The 1940sin particular witnessedan anthropological
concern for human problems, including food, nutrition, and agriculture.
Projects during the war dealing with specialfood issues(such asrationing
and malnutrition) used anthropologists, largely related to work being
carried out by the committee on food habits of the National Research
Council directed by Margaret Mead.20
An expanding academicjob market in the 1950sled to an expansion of
anthropology posts in the universities. This, in turn, signalled the return
of traditional ethnology and a movement away from applied anthro-
PologY. 21 ‘Human Culture’, a key concept in anthropology, came to be
perceived by anthropologists as something static rather than as a
framework developed by people to handle their problems and therefore
60 Robert E. Rhoades

flexible to admit a modification when they could seethat changewould be

advantageous.46 As a result, farmers’ behavior was perceived by
anthropologists as homogeneousand conforming to a set of time-tested
traditional rules which allowed little deviation or creativity.16 Still today
academic cultural anthropology leans positively toward indigenous folk
practices and ‘traditions’ while sometimes reacting negatively toward
change through intervention. Another barrier to anthropology’s
involvement in international development has been the institutional
separation between anthropology and agriculture in the American
university system. This left anthropology isolated from both domestic
and international agriculture programs that began to blossom in the
1950sand 1960s.
Four developments during the past ten years finally brought
anthropology into a formal relationship with agriculture. First, the
shrinking academicjob market stimulated anthropologists to fall back on
their rural-based experienceto seek non-academic employment. Second,
under the stimulus of the presentworld crisis anthropology itself changed
toward a greater recognition of its applied sub-field.* Third, the rise of
ecological anthropology with its ‘systems approach’ linking subsistence
patterns, social organization, and cognitive structures heightened
anthropologists’ concern with agriculture and agricultural scientists’
interest in anthropology.? Fourth, the unintended effects of the Green
Revolution fostered a growing realization in agricultural development
circles that non-technical social and economic factors beyond cost-benefit
measurements at both the technology generation and impact levels
should be considered.

THE LIMITATIONS OF ANTHROPOLOGY FOR

AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH: FACT AND FICTION
Despite anthropology’s relatively new and tenuous links with agricultural
researchand development, its skeptics have not beenlacking (seereviews
* Also, the post-war expansion of anthropology programs in American Land Grant
Schools (such as the University of Florida, University of Kentucky, University of
Arizona), helped bring a closer interchange between anthropologists and agricultural
scientists.
t Systems models used by anthropologists during the late 1960s and early 1970s to study
small-scale societies10,‘7,27 are strikingly similar to those used by Farming Systems
Research projects today.’
 Using anthropology in improzjing food production 61

by Van Dusseldorp, Simpson, Ryan).37,41,43A recent major report by

Simmonds to the World Bank on Farming SystemsResearchconcluded
unequivocally that anthropology was not needed;40‘Anthropology,’ he
wrote, ‘would be . . merely an expensiveway of avoiding a few, not very
costly mistakes by On-Farm Research/Farming Systems Perspective
Teams.’
Are the methods and theories of anthropologists appropriate to
agricultural development or are they incompatible with the highly
empirical, interdisciplinary and time-constrained environments of
technical research centers? A point by point discussion of the major
criticisms of anthropologists can help answer this question.

Anthropologists as ‘loners’

The most common criticism is that anthropologists are ‘individualists’ or

‘loners’ who disappear into villages isolating themselvesfrom technical
research efforts.40 It is true that in the past among traditional
ethnographers, the highest professional ranking went to those who
‘ritually’ immersed themselvesinto ‘primitive’ societies,enduring personal
hardships away from their own cultures only to return to vividly describe
their experiefices.6Anthropologists, therefore, becamestereotypedin the
minds of agricultural scientistsas those who selectto live among villagers
who are not necessarilyrepresentative of the larger body of regional or
world farmers. The results are considered site-specific,collected outside
the framework of the organization’s gbals and of limited relevance to
centers with national or international mandates.
In overcoming the loner stereotype, modern agricultural anthropol-
ogists are challenged by a special dilemma not faced by most agricultural
scientists: how does one strike a balance between sustained, close field
contact with the clientele of agricultural projects while meeting the special
requirements and needs of agricultural bureaucraciesand team efforts?
That which is perceived as aloofness is frequently a misunderstanding
about the anthropologist’s role definition and problems arising from
differencesbetween field researchand experiment station research.For
example, stories are told in one international institute about their ‘strange
anthropologist’ who refused to ride in marked vehicles, a behavior
interpreted as the anthropologist’s ‘fear’ of being identified with the
institute. The same anthropologist argued that was not the motive, but
rather to have closer contact with villagers co-operating in the institute’s
62 Robert E. Rhoades

project. Institute chauffers apparently refused to give villagers a lift on

orders from the motor pool administration.*
One role of anthropology is to keep research close to the ground,
relevant to local cultural and social conditions while incorporating farmer
perceptions and knowledge into researchdesign. If anthropologists must
give up this intimate, participant observation role, their contribution to
food technology-oriented institutes would be highly restricted. Never-
theless,anthropology requires an adaptation of anthropological methods
to the agricultural research process, as will be discussedin more detail
later in this paper. It may also require greater institutional security for
anthropologists. The ‘visiting’ anthropologist, facing stiff competition in
the academic job offerings, often thinks of gathering data which are
publishable in anthropological journals for better subsequentemploy-
ment opportunities. Temporary institute economists have beenknown to
commit similar sins: e.g., the econometric study no one understands
except economists. Offering anthropologists some degreeof continuity
and a productive function in interdisciplinary team work, not merely as a
service science,can go a long way to eliminating the ‘loner’ syndrome.
For their part, anthropologists must learn how to better communicate
what it is they are doing, why they are doing it, and how it is directly
relevant to agricultural research and development.

The ‘tortoise’ anthropologist

Anthropologists have also been criticized for taking an inordinate

amount of time to conduct researchand at least ten yearsto write it up.35
Agricultural scientistsenjoy declaring that their concern is ‘Hunger’ (with
a capital H) and they don’t have time to wait for the long-winded
anthropologist. One author explains: ‘There is a basic incompatibility
between the stresson speedin developing appropriate technologies and
the valuable methods which generally characterize anthropological
research.’ Also, sincetime is money, the addition of an anthropologist to
a team is not worth the extra cost. Anthropologists should be brought in
only if special problems arise.4,5,40
Two misconceptions are involved here: that anthropological methods

* Most technical agricultural research organizations are set up to facilitate research on an

experiment station or in laboratories. The anthropologist’s research is conducted in the
field where few of the logistical support services of agricultural R&D institutes apply.
 Using anthropology in improving food production 63

are inherently more time-consuming than, for example, formal

questionnairesor on-farm trials; and that ethnographic researchis more
expensivethan other types of agricultural research.Anthropologists are
in fact considerably cheaper than other kinds of scientists since all they
really require are rubber boots, an altimeter, paper, pencil and a
willingness to grub out information in the harsh realities of village life.
They also carry a lower salary price-tag than economists and biologists
since, to date, most have held temporary appointments or post-doctoral
fellowships. One international center recently had to weigh the
comparative costs of adding a soil scientist or an anthropologist to their
farming systems team. Both disciplines were considered important.
However, the soil scientist with lab would havecost more than three times
the anthropologist with one vehicle and two field assistants.
Anthropological research, like most research, can be slow or fast
depending on the job and the researcher’s abilities. However, most
agricultural experimentation tends, by necessity,to be painfully slow. If
personal shortcomings do not slow agricultural scientists, the seasons,
plants, and animals will. For example, to conduct a simple, on-farm
potato storage trial takes over a year, not including data analysis and
writing up. Besides,few self-respecting technologists have faith in only
one season. Compared to on-farm research, anthropology studies are
potentially lightning fast.
A logical research area for combining long-term field anthropology
with technical agriculture is ‘on-farm research’ (OFR) which aims to
identify or generatetechnology for specific groups of farmers (seeTripp
for an excellent discussion of OFR and anthropology).42 As its name
implies, it occurs on farms not on experiment stations and follows a fairly
standard set of procedures. Anthropology, with its total immersion in
participant observation, can be readily blended with agronomic field
techniques. Working with farmers in their fields and stores, recording
their opinions, analyzing how other factors impinge on the outcome of
trials, comparing traditional with recommended techniques, and
reformulating hypothesesfor future testing over the coming years, are all
traditional anthropological activities geared toward agricultural re-
search.42 Used this way, there is no inherent conflict between
anthropological methods and agricultural development research.
To be effective, anthropological research,whether ‘long and clean’ or
‘quick and dirty’ must be geared to the demands of agricultural
experimentation. Planting and harvest dates force decisions, and the
64 Robert E. Rhoades

anthropologist must be willing to deliver information that can be

translated into concrete action at times when crucial decisionshave to be
made. The short-term objective of applied anthropological researchis not
an academically excellent publication, but to get on with the adaptive
agricultural researchprocess. Over the long run, however, agricultural
anthropologists may contribute new theory and methods to traditional
ethnography. On-farm trials, for example, have never been used as an
ethnographic tool by academic anthropologists despite their great
potential to enrich participant observation and provide data about
agricultural organization.

The ‘soft’ anthropologist

The existing ‘pecking order’ from hard to soft scientists in international

centersis often mentioned as a problem in integrating anthropology into
the research process.r5 Economists have a similar problem. Collinson
describes a frustrated attempt to integrate farm economics into the
Kenyan Ministry of Agriculture :* ‘The specialist orientation of the
technical scientists was perceivedto be diluted and his professional peer
group status threatened if he co-operated with economists. Similar
penaltiesexist in working closeto the farmer, where scienceis “less pure”.’
Economists, in turn, often do not wish to be associatedwith what they
perceive to be the weaker social sciences,anthropology and sociology.
It is true that social anthropology is, relatively speaking, ‘soft’ or
‘qualitative’ in a milieu where hard, quantitative data are highly valued.
Fortunately, the past few years have seen an enormous push in
anthropology toward formal survey methods, statistics, and computers.
In some American universities, such as the University of Florida,
economics programs are turning to anthropology for advice and
instruction on microcomputers. The stereotype of the anthropologist
ignorant of random sampling, unaware of hypothesis testing, and
frightened by modelling is rapidly fading into history.
One hopes, however, the pendulum does not swing too far away from
what anthropologists do best. Anthropology represents the discipline
with the comparative advantage to keep development close to the
everyday realities of clients. Qualitative field research complements
formal surveysand on-farm experiments by fleshing out statistical data
and bringing forth valuable information on beliefs, opinions, viewpoints,
tastes, social life-all those phenomena which have never been
 Using anthropology in improving food production 65

successfully reduced to numbers. Frequently, the anthropologist’s

weakness in statistics is compensated by excellent writing skills or other
forms of communication. The traditional agronomist learns to handle
quantification, the traditional anthropologist learns to view relationships
and elicit meaning from context. Anthropology is only half-science, the
other half belonging to the humanities.47
An additional question arises: how much sophisticated quantification
is really needed in field research with small farmers especially when under-
staffed, low-budget national programs are involved? High-powered
academic economics, anthropology, or agronomy are not always clearly
relevant.42 Random sampling, linear programming and factor analysis
may be necessary in some cases, but in the end they must be combined
with common sense and down-to-earth procedures. Otherwise, in our
computer age, the danger is imminent that we grow further away from the
day-to-day realities faced by farm families.

The ‘nostalgic’ anthropologist

Anthropologists are often accused of personally identifying more with

‘target populations’ than with the agricultural research process.40 This
gives the impression that anthropologists are more interested in
defending traditional ways rather than ‘improving’ food production or
working on teams with biological scientists. Agricultural scientists
sometimes claim they find anthropologists ‘preachy’, frequently berating
biologists for not taking into consideration farmer logic, traditional
adaptations, or knowledge.34 One cannot deny that many anthropol-
ogists of the recent past felt uneasy about applied work which was still
not a fully accepted part of their professional value system. Unlike
economics, anthropology did not yet have a ‘client’ relationship with
society.
Anthropologists and other social scientists often see themselves as
defenders of the dispossessed against technology-for-technology’s sake
projects that benefit the rich at the expense of the poor. Agricultural
scientists, however, often find some pure social science research not only
useless but immoral. The Director of an international agricultural center
has observed:39 ‘While anthropologists often viewed themselves as
defenders of traditional agriculture against the negative effects of
modernization, individuals working to improve food production saw the
social scientist’s relationship to rural populations as unbalanced.
66 Robert E. Rhoades

Anthropologists came, lived in villages for a year or more, and went home
to publish books and articles in their language read mainly by other
anthropologists. While many an anthropologist rose to full professorship
on data drawn from farm families, little or nothing remained behind to
improve the lives of their “informants”.’
Using anthropology critically and positively inside a team setting
without giving up what anthropologists do best requires experienceand
vision. Anthropological researchcan help pinpoint traditional ways and
technologieswhich are adaptive and for which no better alternatives are
yet available. Anthropologists should engage in ‘constructive conflict’
with biological scientistsif a technical project is off-basein human terms.
The important factor is whether anthropologists feel they are more than
mere appendagesto researchteams. The role of an agricultural institute’s
administration is important in promoting interdisciplinary involvement,
If anthropologists are assignedonly the jobs of conducting a feasibility
survey before a project or an evaluation after a project, it is logical they
easily end up as outside critics.

The ‘fully replaceable’ anthropologist

Among the first bewildering shocks many anthropologists receivewhen

they begin working in an agricultural researchorganization is the bold,
but common, declaration by established economists that they can ‘fully
substitute’ for anthropologists. This over-confidenceled one prominent
anthropologist to remark sarcastically but understandably: ‘It appears
the “Green Revolution” not only produced Miracle Rice but Miracle
Economists as well.’ Economists, who are still anthropology’s best
defendersin the system,have struggled hard and admirably for their place
in the sun. Whether or not they feel threatened,they realize that research
administrators frequently consider all social scientists, including
economists, as birds of a feather. Everyone knows one rotten apple spoils
the peck. The economists’ challenge to anthropologists to come up with
more than superficial ‘social’ or ‘cultural’ titbits is well taken. At the same
time, economists specializing in Third World agriculture have recognized
the power of anthropology over conventional economics in dealing with
many important themes in agricultural development.7,36
Anyone who stays around agricultural researchworkers any amount of
time observesa pecking order from plant breederto economist and now
to the Johnny-come-lately anthropologist. The breeder claims a good
 Using anthropology in improving food production 67

variety will create its own suction force so why does he need an
agronomist standing betweenhim and the farmer. The agronomist argues
that an ‘economically aware’ agronomist can do farm budgeting so why
does he need an economist. The economist, in turn, says he can make
‘social observations’, so why anthropologists.
The major problem with the ‘anything you can do I can do better’
argument is that it denies the importance of disciplinary expertise other
than one’s own and limits approaches in the solution of technological
problems. Anthropologists can also do partial budget analysis, conduct
on-farm experiments, and make crosses.There is no special magic in any
one of these acts. But each of these techniques is merely the tip of the
iceberg for economics, agronomy, and plant breeding as any good
economist, agronomist, and plant breederwill tell you. The sameis true of
anthropology.

USING ANTHROPOLOGY EFFECTIVELY:

THE INTERNATIONAL POTATO CENTER

The best documented caseof the effectiveuse of anthropologists on food

production teams comes from the International Potato Center (CIP) in
Lima, Peru, where since 1975 a total of twelve, mostly part-time,
anthropologists have worked at various times.2g,33,44,45The CIP
experiment presentsa unique caseto illustrate anthropology’s potential,
as well as how limitations can be overcome.
An understanding of the ‘ground rules’ for social sciencesin technical
researchcenters like CIP, is important for understanding the challenge
faced by anthropologists in making their discipline valuable. It is
important to note at the outset that after its first experience with
anthropology, the center created a permanent anthropology staff
position and has opened up two more continuing positions for
anthropologists. Despite this, the biological science audience still
remains generally skeptical of the value of socio-economic research.
Anthropologists and economists at CIP are expectedto make a positive
contribution to the identification and generation of technology, not to
simply take negative‘pot shots’ during the technology generation process
or in ex post facto evaluations. Biological scientists do not have much
interest in pure social scienceresearch, although they may admit it has
some validity as background information for a project. Thus, whatever
68 Robert E. Rhoades

economists or anthropologists do, their researchmust be relevant to the

technical or policy goals of the center.
CIP’s ground rules require a new breed of anthropologist, willing to
blend, modify and adapt their methods to the needs of agricultural
research and translate ethnographic data into concrete action. The
methodology in particular must be compromised and integrated into a
large framework of social and biological science methods of an
interdisciplinary team of researchers.45The anthropologist must be able
to handle formal questionnaires, on-farm and station experiments, useof
aerial photos, basic agronomy, and technical aspectsrelated to specific
crops or animals. The advantageof this interdisciplinary processis that a
wider view of agricultural change is captured.4s
Social scientists in international agricultural researchalso wear other
hats than members of technical teams. If the center has an international
mandate, macro-level and comparative information is needed by
management for policy considerations and funding. Economists have
filled one part of this needwith econometric models, cost-benefit analysis,
and production trends based on national or international statistics.
However, management also needsanswersto flesh out skeletal statistics.
Common questions are: ‘In what agro-ecological zonesand among what
societies around the tropical world is crop x grown, who grows it, how,
and in what kind of farming systems? or ‘who consumescrop x?, how is it
prepared, and how does it fit into the diet? Such questions are precisely
those that anthropology is equipped to handle.
To be successful, CIP anthropologists modified traditional ethnog-
raphy in the following ways..45(1) clearly focus on researchrelated to the
institute’s crop improvement mandate; (2) use ethnographic researchto
take concrete action in the generation of technology or provide data
useful for technology transfer or building national agricultural programs;
(3) modify and blend methods into an interdisciplinary team approach
and make their findings relevant to non-anthropologists; (4) keep an eye
on the broader relevance of a piece of research for purposes of
extrapolation; that is, if agricultural researchis conducted in one area,
can the principles be extrapolated to other regions.
Despite what may appear to be a highly restricted researchsetting, CIP
anthropologists have neverbeentold what researchto do or how to do it.
‘Pure’, and even modified ‘Lone Ranger research’,is acceptableas long as
it is relevant to technical or policy goals. Generating new useful
knowledge about potatoes in developing countries or providing
 Using anthropology in improving food production 69

information for building national programs are considered appropriate

researchtopics. The challengefacing CIP anthropologists, therefore, was
to integrate themselves into the CIP village, so to speak, and make
themselves productive according to the center’s goals. In finding a
productive niche not occupied by other disciplines, anthropologists
broadenedthe scope of relevant researchthemes, proposed new ways of
looking at problems, and convinced their audience that this new role was
useful, practical and worth the cost. A few examples of anthropologists
at work at CIP will illustrate my points.
Ethno-botanical research: Useful ‘pure’ research
A major reasonfor CIP’s existenceis the collection and maintenance of a
world germplasm bank made up primarily of wild and cultivated native
American potatoes. This germplasm bank contains natural resistances
that can be utilized by breeders in improving potato varieties for
developing countries.
The complex folk nomenclature of native potatoes used by Andean
farmers has long fascinated both anthropological and biological
scientists. However, how or why this information might be useful to a
technologically oriented center such as CIP was not clear. Ethno-
botanical studies conducted in 1977-78 by two anthropologists (Stephen
Brush and Heath Carney), however, provided basic information on
farmer selection of varieties useful to the Center’sefforts at collection and
maintenance of a world germplasm pool for utilization in developing
countries. Their researchrevealedthat farmers use a four-level system of
classification, integrating wild, semi-domesticated, and domesticated
species.Instead of a chaotic and random system, as often assumed by
outsiders, the researcher’sdata revealeda system of farmer classification,
selection and use of native varieties as logical as the modified Linnean
systemusedby biological scientists.3Realization of a complex native folk
taxonomy prompted biological scientists to pay closer attention to the
native classification systems and nomencllature for cataloging the germ-
plasm collection.
Other ethno-botanical data were useful for the design of on-farm
experiments. For example, Brush, Carney and Huaman demonstrated
that mixed plots planted in native varieties are valued for their home
consumption and culinary qualities, while improved varieties are
intended for market or exchangeand planted homogeneously.3 For on-
farm research it is important to understand this simple difference in
70 Robert E. Rhoades

farmer strategies. Otherwise, comparisons of home-consumption plots

with recommended, commercially-oriented trials plots may not make
sensewithin the farmers’ dual strategies.
Similar researchin non-Andean settingshas brought to the attention of
national agricultural research programs the potential value of local
landraces. Until recently, it has been assumed that ‘old’ potato varieties
widely grown in African and Asian developing countries had little value
due to their low yielding capacity and degeneration. Ethnographic
studies, however, have revealedthat farmers highly value local landraces
but based on a different set of qualities than those perceived by potato
breeders.30Sustainability, storability, and taste are as important to
farmers in some countries as yield and diseaseresistance,the two main
traits sought in modern breeding programs. One such study promoted a
national program to begin its own collecting and classification of local
landraces.

Anthropology and consumption research

Unlike the grains, little is known about the importance of potatoes or the
way they are consumed in developing countries. An anthropologist, using
a combination of food habit and consumption research techniques,
conducted a sevencountry comparative studyz6 which has focused on
the role of potatoes in the human diet. It has helpedunderstand consumer
preferencesbetter and to pinpoint areas where the potato could play a
crucial role in solving malnutrition. The research on food habits and
potatoes has brought a degree of cultural relativism to the Center’s
general thinking by emphasizing the important role of consumer
preferencesfor color, taste, shape,and cooking quality in the selectionof
varieties.
This anthropological researchalso helped to dispel severalmyths about
potato consumption and provided policy makers with a more solid basis
for appraising the potato’s value asa food crop. Specifically, CIP breeders
are now aware that considerable variation in color, shape, and size of
potatoes may be more acceptablein developing countries than in Euro-
American countries, where markets demand uniformity in tuber sizeand
color. The study also emphasized the nutritional importance to
developing country consumers of dry matter content, a preferencenow
being taken into consideration in the selection of germplasm materials.
 Using anthropology in improving foodproduction 71

Anthropologists as team members

Anthropologists have generally served in the two roles assignedto them

by funding agenciesand agricultural development project directors. One
role is to conduct a social feasibility study prior to the implementation of
a project and the other is to conduct an evaluation of the project after it
has finished. Rarely are anthropologists incorporated into a project from
beginning to end or called upon to make a substantial, positive
contribution. Anthropologists, like economists, are typically thrust into
the potentially unpopular role of deciding apriori if a project is going to
beworthwhile (a sensitivepoint to technologists promoting the project) or
evaluating ex post Jacto if it was a successor a failure (also a sensitive
point, especiallyif the project fails). Anthropologists assignedtheseroles
are frequently caught between their own intellectual honesty and strong
pressures brought about by what project directors and biological
scientists want to hear.
Experience at the International Potato Center has taught us that the
feasibility and evaluation roles in isolation of the full researchprocessare
dangerous.The few times it has beentried have led to misunderstandings
and serious team arguments with little positive outcome. This does not
mean, however, that the anthropological input cannot be short-term and
specializedwherein the anthropologist conducts a highly focused study to
answer a specific question important to an ongoing project. Such studies
help to zero in on problems, or to incorporate farmer knowledge into the
project design, or to set parameters, but the anthropologist should never
be asked to judge alone whether a project should be conducted or
afterwards whether it was a success.
One type of specific anthropological researchwas conducted as part of
a CIP multidisciplinary farming systemsproject.14 An ethnographer was
contracted to carry out an initial anthropological overview of the
Mantaro Valley, define its major production zonesand delineate types of
producers in each zone. The time: two months. The cost: $2000. The
resulting publication with its land-usemap has subsequentlycome to be a
widely read anthropological study of an Andean region as well as an
inspiration to social scientists in terms of what can be done so rapidly and
expertly.lg The report’s excellence defies the widespread belief that
applied agricultural anthropology is not quality anthropology.
Mayer utilized the theoretical perspective of ecological anthropology
to define the major agro-ecological zones, land-use and cropping
12 Robert E. Rhoades

patterns, and types of producers within the Mantaro Valley. His use of
aerial photographs, government data, and ethnographic ‘ground
truthing’ techniquesare excellent examples of how anthropology can be a
powerful discipline to help focus agricultural projects. With this
information in hand, the newly constituted CIP agro-economic team
could proceed with planning and executing on-farm trials using known
technologies as well as technology being generated on the CIP
experimental station situated in the same region.14
The Mayer input into the Mantaro Valley Project also set the
foundation for illustrating how the informal survey methods of
anthropologists could be used for rapidly and inexpensively gaining a
regional overview of agricultural land-use and cropping patterns. This
work formed the basis of future CIP methodological studies on informal
or rapid rural surveys appropriate for developing countries.28
Another kind of anthropological team input at CIP involves full-time
participation on an interdisciplinary team considering technology from
its generation, through transfer, to monitoring the consequences.The
idea is that inter-disciplinary teams should work on problems not in a
fragmented manner but in a co-ordinated and continuous way. In this
caseanthropologists are expected to do more than fill a short-term job,
but rather to be full-team members as ‘co-designersof technology, co-
monitors of rejection or adoption, and co-evaluators of impact’.45
One example is the work of anthropologists as members of CIP’s post-
harvestteam which concentrateson storageand processing.This research
began originally.with an anthropological baseline survey of potato post-
harvest techniques in the Central Andes.44 Until this study, technical
researchon potato storage in Peru had concentrated on: (1) consumer
potato storage; (2) reducing physiological or pathological storagelosses;
(3) designing free-standing special potato stores; and (4) improving
farmers’ post-harvest management practices which were perceived by
scientists to be backward. These were assumed to be the problem areas
and, in fact, in earlier non-CIP projects large, technically sound stores
addressingtheseproblems had beenbuilt in various parts of Peru at a cost
of severalmillion dollars. These stores, however,were never adopted and
used by farmers.
Using anthropology to look through the farmer’s eyes, it was
discovered that the above assumptions for the Central Andes needed
revision. Ethnographic research revealed that: (1) farmers stressed
solving seedpotato storage problems over consumer potato storagesince
 Using anthropology in improving food production 73

most consumer potatoes are sold at harvest; (2) shrivelled, insect

damaged,or diseasedpotatoeswere not always considered‘losses’but fed
to pigs or processedinto a storable dried product, chz&zo;(3) free-standing
stores were unacceptable due to security and privacy, given that to
Andean potato farmers thesepotato stores are like ‘bank accounts’; and
(4) farmers in fact did not perceive problems with their stores or their
management but rather with new varietieswhich, in their opinion, did not
store as well as native varieties. Their seed potatoes stored in darkness
produced long sprouts which had to be removed at planting, a costly
process in terms of time and labor.31
The anthropologist in his storage study revealed differences in
scientists’ perception of the problem and farmers’ perception.44
As a result, the team shifted its concentration to developing a low
cost technology to better store seed potatoes, not consumer potatoes,
within the farm compound, and which blended into local architecture.
The resulting technology has been tested in more than 25 countries and
been adopted by over 3000 farmers.30,33
If the anthropologist, however, had merely passedalong a report to the
technical scientists saying they should do this or that, the impact on the
direction of the technology designwould havebeenlimited.45 Rather, the
continuous involvement of anthropologists on the team demonstrated
how costscould be scaled-down,and how designcould be made culturally
palatable. It was the translation of ethnographic data into a specific
recommendation for on-farm trials that counted.
The examples given above are but a few of many from CIP involving
positive, practical anthropological inputs. This has beenmade possible by
a favorable institutional setting and a modification of traditional
ethnographic methods and theory to fit the needsof agricultural research.
Specifically, anthropologists have contributed to CIP’s researchprocess
not only through the generation and monitoring of technology but also
through the introduction of a new way of looking at potato farming.
Ironically, given that anthropology is accusedof particularism, one of its
major contributions at CIP has beenthe broadening of relevant research
themes and helping to pull together into a unified framework the narrowly
focused researchof other disciplines. The mature agricultural sciences,
including economics, have clear foci and refined methods. In on-farm
research, for example, the agronomist’s methodological tool kit is well
equipped for dealing with calculating yields asis the economist for dealing
with profit projections. Yields and profits are important but they
74 Robert E. Rhoades

represent only two parts of the farmer’s world. Anthropologists, in the

view of Ruttan ‘. . . have demonstrated a capacity to understand the
dynamics of technology choice and impact at the household and village
level that is highly complementary to both agronomic and economic
research’(emphasis added).

CONCLUSION
The purpose of this paper has beento discussthe role of anthropology in
agricultural research.An attempt has beenmade to explain the paradox:
the absenceof an applied anthropological sub-field devoted to agriculture
given the long tradition in anthropology of field researchamong agrarian
peoples. However, despitethe intellectual and institutional separation of
anthropology and the agricultural sciences,events in recent years have
fostered a new involvement and interchange. Early interdisciplinary
experiencesbetweenagricultural scientists and anthropologists havebeen
characterizedby misunderstanding, misconceptions and disagreements.I
have attempted in this paper to separateout the real versus the imagined
drawbacks of anthropology for applied agriculture.
If social anthropology is to find its proper place in agricultural
research,continued methodological modification and greaterattention to
communication with fellow agricultural scientists will be required. The
establishment of an applied sub-field, agricultural anthropology, which
would assume a complementary role alongside other double-name
agricultural disciplines, may well be a possibility in the near future.32
As anthropology reforms itself, it might be suggestedthat parallel
changesin the training and approachesof agricultural scientistsshould be
encouraged. Anthropology and the other social sciencesclearly need
more technical agricultural training. The question now must be asked
whether biological scientists and agricultural economists need more
appreciation and understanding of the ‘other’ social sciences.
Twenty yearsago, a physical scientist observingthe difficulties faced by
strictly technical programs in Nepal wrestled with this same question.
Professor Dart’s reflections represent the other side of the coin in the
challenge of integrating social science into agricultural research:’ ‘we
(biological scientists)are puzzled and exasperated,yet in our puzzlement
we ourselvesdoubt the relevanceor competenceof our social science.The
very development of westernsciencewhich should help us the most we are
unwilling to use, bravely we struggle aheadwithout it, as though to show
 Using anthropology in improving food production 75

the world we can do it anyway . . even with half our brains tied behind
US.’

If anthropology along with the sister social sciences is given an

opportunity to share the ‘other half of the brains’ with economics, and is
integrated into agricultural research, it is possible that anthropology may
have an impact similar to that of economics when it was first introduced
into the international centers in the early 1960s. Even if less dramatic,
anthropology and the other social sciences could still be-to correct
Simmonds-‘a very inexpensive way of avoiding a few, very costly
mistakes.‘40

REFERENCES

1. Baker, D., Modiakgotta, E., Norman, D., Sierbert, J. and Tjirongo, M.

Helping the limited resource farmer through the farming systems approach
to research, Culture and Agriculture. Issue 19 (1983). Spring, pp. l-8.
2. Booth, R. H. and Burton, W. G. Future needs in potato post-harvest
technology in developing countries. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environ-
ment, (9) (1983), 269-80.
3. Brush, S., Carney, H. J. and Huaman, Z. Dynamics of Andean potato
agriculture, Economic Botany, 35( 1) (198 l), 70-88.
4, Byerlee, D. et al. Planning technologies appropriate to farmers-concepts
and procedures. Mexico City, Centro International de Mejoramiento de
Maiz y Trigo, 1980.
5. CGIAR. Farming systems research at the International Agricultural
Research Centers. Rome, The Consultative Group on International
Agricultural Research-Technical Advisory Committee, 1978.
6. Chagnon, N. Yanomamo: Thejiercepeople. New York, Holt, Rinehart and
Winston, Inc., 1968.
7. Collinson, M. A low cost approach to understanding small farmers,
Agricultural Administration, 8 (1981), 433-50.
8. Collinson, M. Farming systems research in East Afvica: The experiences of
CIMMYT and some national agricultural research services, 1976-81. MSU
International Development Paper No. 3. East Lansing, Michigan, Michigan
State University, 1982.
9. Dart, F. The rub of cultures. In: West and non- West: New perspectives.
(Dean, V. M. and Harootunian, H. D. (Eds.)), New York, Holt, Rhinehart
and Winston, 1963.
10. De Walt, B. Anthropology’s contribution to the international sorghum/
millet program, Practicing Anthropology, 5(3) (1983), 1983, l-5.
11. FAO. Food loss prevention in perishable crops. F.40 Agricultural Services
Bulletin 43. Rome, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations, 198 1.
76 Robert E. Rhoades

12. Glass, E. H. and Thurston, H. David. Traditional and modern crop

protection in perspective, Bioscience, 28 (1978), 109-15.
13. Griffin, K. The political economy of agrarian change (Revised Edition).
London, Macmillan, 1979.
14. Horton, D. Potato farming in the Andes: Some lessons from on-farm
research in Peru’s Mantaro Valley, AgriculturalSystems, 12(1983), 171-84.
15. International Rice Research Institute. Report of an Exploratory Workshop
on: The Role of Anthropologists and other Social Scientists in Inter-
disciplinary Teams Developing Improved Food Production Technology.
Los Bafios, Laguna, Philippines, IRRI, 1982.
16. Johnson, Allen W. Individuality and experimentation in traditional
agriculture, Human Ecology, l(2) (1972), 149-59.
17. Kemp, William B. The flow of energy in a hunting society, Sci. Am., 225
(1971), 108-9.
18. Lundgren, B. and Raintree, J. B. Sustained agroforestry. In: Nestel (ed.).
Agricultural research ,for development: Potentials and challenges in Asia.
(Nestel, R. (Ed.)) The Hague, ISNAR, 1983.
19. Mayer, E. Land use in the Andes. Ecology and agriculture in the Mantaro
Valley of Peru with special reference to potatoes. Lima, Peru, International
Potato Center. 115 p., 1979.
20. Montgomery, E. Anthropological contributions to the study of food-related
cultural variability. In: Progress in human nutrition, Vol. 2, (Margen, S.
(Ed.)), Westport, Conn, AVI Publishing Company, Inc., 1977.
21. Montgomery, E. and Bennett, J. W. Anthropological studies of food and
nutrition. The 1940s and the 1970s. In: The uses of anthropology.
(Goldschmidt, W. (Ed.)), Washington, D.C., American Anthropological
Association, 1979.
22. Netting, R. Agrarian ecology. Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 3
(1974), 21-56.
23. Newby, H. Rural sociology and its relevance to the agricultural economist: A
review, Journal of Agricultural Economics, 33(2) (1982), 129-65.
24. Nifiz, Vera. Household gardens: Theoretical perspectives on an old survival
strategy. Lima, Peru, International Potato Center, 1984.
25. Norman, D. W. Farming system approach : Relevancy for the small farmer.
East Lansing Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural
Economics Rural Development Paper, 5, 1980.
26. Poats, S. Beyond the farmer: Potato consumption in the tropics. In:
Research,for thepotato in the year 2000 (Hooker, W. J. (Ed.)). Proceedings
of the International Congress in Celebration of the Tenth Anniversary of the
International Potato Center, held at Lima, Peru. 22-27 February, 1982.
Lima, International Potato Center. pp. 10-17.
27. Rappaport, R. A. The how of energy in an agricultural society, Sci. Am., 224
(1971), 116-32.
28. Rhoades, R. The art of the informal agricultural survey. Training Document
1982-2, Lima, Peru, International Potato Center. 40 pp., 1982.
 Using anthropology] in improving food production 77

29. Rhoades, R. Breaking new ground: Anthropology in agricultural research.

Lima, Peru, International Potato Center, 1984.
30. Rhoades, R. Traditionalpotatoproduction and utilization in Eastern Nepal
with an emphasis on varieties. Lima, Peru, International Potato Center,
1984.
3 1. Rhoades, R. and Booth, R. Farmer-back-to-farmer: A model for generating
acceptable agricultural technology, Agricultural Administration, 11 (1982),
127-37.
32. Rhoades, R. and Rhoades, V. N. Agricultural anthropology: A call for the
establishment of a new professional specialty. Practising Anthropology, 2(4)
(1980), l&12/28.
33. Rhoades, R., Booth, R., Shaw, R. and Werge, R. Interdisciplinary
development and transfer of post-harvest technology at the International
Potato Center. In: Report of an exploratory workshop: The role of
anthropologists and other social scientists in interdisciplinary teams
developing ,food production technology. IRRI, Los Baiios, Philippines.
pp. 1-8, 1982.
34. Rhoades, R., Horton, D. and Booth, R. Anthropologist, economist, and
biological scientist. The three stooges or three musketeers of farming systems
research? Paper presented in Symposium: Farming Systems Research: The
Integration of Social and Biological Approaches ,for Agricultural
Development. American Anthropological Association Annual Meetings.
Nov. 15-19, Denver, Colorado, 1984.
35. Rockefeller Foundation. Society, culture, and agriculture. New York,
Working Paper, 1978.
36. Ruttan, V. Agricultural research policy. University of Minnesota Press,
1982.
37. Ryan, J. Comment. In: Economics and the design of small-$armer
technology. (Valdes, A., Scobie, G. and Dillon, J. (Eds.)) Ames, Iowa, Iowa
State University Press, 1979.
38. Sanchez, P. A. and Buol, S. W. Soils of the tropics and the world food
crisis, Science, 188 (1975), 598-603.
39. Sawyer, Richard. Foreword. In: Breaking new ground: Anthropologists in
agricultural research. (Rhoades, R.) Lima, Peru, International Potato
Center, 1984.
40. Simmonds, N. W. Thestate ofthe art of,farmingsystems research. Report to
the World Bank. Agriculture and Rural Development Department.
Washington, World Bank, 1984.
41. Simpson, Sharleen. Anthropologist and economist: Partners in regional
development. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for
Applied Anthropology as part of the Symposium, Cultural Problems and
Ethical Issues in Regional Development, 1978.
42. Tripp, R. Anthropology and on-farm research. (Unpublished manuscript.)
Mexico City, Centro International de Mejoramiento de Maiz y Trigo, 1984.
43. Van Dusseldorp, D. B. W. M. Some thoughts on the role of social sciences in
78 Robert E. Rhoades

the agricultural research centres in developing countries. Net/z. J. Agric.

Sci., 25 (1977), 213-28.
44. Werge, R. Potato storage systems in the Mantaro Valley region of Peru.
Lima, Peru, International Potato Center. 49 pp., 1977.
45. Werge, R. The uses of ethnography in agricultural development in the
Andes: Anthropologists of the International Potato Center. Paperpresented
at a Symposium in honor of William Carter at the Annual Meetings of the
American Anthropological Association. Nov. 19, 1983. Chicago, Illinois.
46. Whyte, W. F. Personal communication. 1984.
47. Wolfe, E. Anthropology. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice-Hall, 1964.