Search

In recent decades the field of anthropology has been characterized as sharply divided between proscience and antiscience factions. The aim of this study is to empirically evaluate that characterization. We survey anthropologists in graduate programs in the United States regarding their views of science and advocacy, moral and epistemic relativism, and the merits of evolutionary biological explanations. We examine anthropologists' views in concert with their varying appraisals of major controversies in the discipline (Chagnon/Tierney, Mead/Freeman, and Menchú/Stoll). We find that disciplinary specialization and especially gender and political orientation are significant predictors of anthropologists' views. We interpret our findings through the lens of an intuitionist social psychology that helps explain the dynamics of such controversies as well as ongoing ideological divisions in the field. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Sociologists have drawn considerable criticism over the years for their failure to integrate evolutionary biological principles in their work. Critics such as Stephen Pinker (2002) have popularized the notion that sociologists adhere dogmatically to a “blank slate” or cultural determinist view of the human mind and social behavior. This report assesses whether sociologists indeed ascribe to such a blank slate view. Drawing from a survey of 155 sociological theorists, we find the field about evenly divided over the applicability of evolutionary reasoning to a range of human tendencies. Although there are signs of a shift toward greater openness to evolutionary biological ideas, sociologists are least receptive to evolutionary accounts of human sex differences. Echoing earlier research, we find political identity to be a significant predictor of sociologists' receptiveness. We close by cautioning our colleagues against sociological reductionism and we speculate about the blank slate's political-psychological appeal to liberal-minded social scientists. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The proficiency in vernacular has long been a methodological ethos pervasive among field researchers and—despite new dynamics of fieldwork—still overshadows discussions related to collaboration with translators and interpreters, which are either marginalized or hidden within the category of a 'research assistant'. The purpose of this study is to take a step beyond anecdotal evidence and explore trends in language proficiency and use of translation services among US based field researchers who had conducted international or domestic studies in an area where a language other than English was present. We conducted the largest-to-date survey on the subject and analyzed 913 responses from faculty at sociology and anthropology programs in the United States. We documented their global fieldwork activity and found only limited proficiency in field languages accompanied by a proliferation of reliance on translators and interpreters, not matching any methodological discussion present in the textbooks and other scholarly sources. We indicate disparities in the use of vernacular and translation services in the post-colonial societies and point out related ethical and methodological concerns. Furthermore, we analyze the researchers' decision-making processes and their general perspectives on the importance of vernacular's knowledge and opinions on the admissibility of translators in the fieldwork. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article applies Social Network Analysis (SNA) to illuminate the task forces created by US-based activists undertaking public relations on behalf of migrant caravan participants that travel from Honduras through Mexico toward the US. Four functional roles – influencers, messengers, support groups, and founding members – are identified and described in detail. When taking into account the characteristics of the individuals involved, these roles facilitate "bridge-actions": the mobilization of support across distinct political structures such as Native American tribal governments, international human rights venues, and US political parties. The result is a flexible public relations venture that has ability to influence diverse audiences – and extend beyond this particular mobilization effort. This has been most useful in the current American debate concerning restrictive US immigration policies and border security measures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]