fa oociesirt itseas 4 ED 1S0 082 SO 018 688. AUTHOR Freeman, Milton M.R. TITLE Anthropologists, and Policy- Relevant Research: The Case Ie(r_Accountability. ,o, PUB DATE -717 NOTE 30p.;.Reprinted from "Applied Anthropology, in Canada", Proceedings No., 4, pp. 139-166 EDRS PRICE" MF-$0.83 HC -$2.06 Plus Postage.. DESCRIPTORS '*Accountability;.*AnthrOpology; Sias; Data Analysis; Data Colleet3an; Decisibn.Making; Evaluation; Information Needs; Intellectual Disciplines; ' Knowledge Level; Literature Revieve; *Policy Formationl,*ProduCtive ThinkinalPublic_Opinion; 0 . Research Needs; Research'Prnblems; Research Skills:14- *Research Utilization; Scientific Attitudes; 'Scientific Research; Social,Change; Social Science Beseitch; Use Studieur/alues A'STRACT Anthropology research should be relevant tq public policy fdraation. If anthropeldgists continue to prod4Ce research which reflects a.udetached.abserver" perspective, their studies vill niot enjoy widespread oredibility. The use of policy-relevant enthropology (applied anthropology) vill depend iu. large part on the efforts of anthropologists tovard making their value biases and research documentation public. One area in which social relevadce is ri particularly clear is ecological anthropology. This relevance is exemplified by widespread public concern over wilderness, tecreatiot areas, rights of native peoples, and depletion of natural resources. Anthropologists can contribute to policy formation by criticalby approaching an issue, objectively evaluating the data, and providing information to policy makers. A case in point is a 1973 dcntroversy s', between an Inuit Indian community and an oil compaiy consortia' over exploration rights on Bathurst Island, Canada. In this situation, anthropologists re/evaluated evidence relating to ecological damage. and pgovited documehtation to policy. makers. The conclusion. is that anthropologists share the responsibility of all scientists to create an informed public opinion and to\44er ke research in accordance 'with this objective. Conversely) aitlropologipts should avoid :endorsement of-OOlicy-relevant issbes prior to adequate' scientific study, of the.problem., (Autor /DB) ********************e*********************************************1**** ReprodactiOns supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made * * rr- from.the original document. ***************************************************************.******** U S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH. EDUCATION & WELFARE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRO- DUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROM IS C r THE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGIN- ATING IT POINTS CIF VIEW DR OPINITS STATED DO NOT NECESSARILY REP E, st SENT OF F NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION POSITION OR POLICY ANTHROPOLOGIST'S AND POLICY- RELEVANT ,RE EARCH 4 THE CASE FOR ACCOUNTABILITY "PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THIS MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY by or TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) AND 1 USERS OF THE ERIC SYSTEM " Milton M. R. Freeman` ' McMaster UniersitY L Hatirton, Ontario 1 0.0 L - #4 t . Reprinted. from: _ . APPLIEDANXHROPOLoGY IN CANADA. Proteedings'ilo. .4 pages,139-166 Canadian Ethnology Socilety:-Hamilton 1977. 4 f 0 2 r"' I I 4 140 INTRODUCTION Id 1971 I was a member of a CSAA panel inquiring imto.the future of sociblogy and anthropology in Canada. At that time many of todny's anthropology departments in our universities were still j pied to generally larger and more established sociology departments. Thus.t was probably too early then to be making a universal appeal for applied 1$thropology to be added -yo the curriculum, for it appeared a gebulous sdkdiscipline lacking the scholarly and professional standing among academiC,social scientists necessary to advance the developing anthropological-, cause of that day. In my _ report to the CSAA 1 referred to the need, as I.latvit, for anthropology in Canada toAstablish,credibility among the general`_ public and institutional decision make4p, if itwereto continue to deNiAlkitas'a contributing social science. I suggested,on the basis of responses to a quettionnaire survey administeredto nearly500.university-based anthropologists, sociologists andbiologiets in Canada., that anthropologists (1)' had asmore negative image of themselves in comparison to members of the other two disciplines., and (2) they collectivply did less, to counter their perceived irrelevapce 411., (Freeman'1971a). In this present paper I wish tertake.the issue one siege further, and suggest that,oncern to establish widespr4ad vedibility will in tuin depend fr on anthropologists facing/the requirements of public accountability, for credibility'is not readily or.uncritically bestowed on academics by publics outside of academe. I wohld suggest thdt the nature of research we do, as 'applied anthropologists' (and 1 will return to that term later) does not have . the moat direct bearing on our establishing public credibility: the utilization of our research findingi is the-farmore important factor, and it raises a host of related questions, as to, for example, the role of scientist. a I 1-41 4 a JO a. Alb PP INSTITUTIONAL° SUPPORT....... I 4 t a 4' QUALITY OF RECRUITS QUALITY OF RESEARCH A I CREDIBILITY 10. UTILIZATION FIGURE I. RESEARCH/REALITY RELATIONSHIPSIN APPLIED ,ANTHROPOLOGY', - 4' Mrs 142 ,vfo ;77 as advocate. The important relationships between research finding, recruit-1 ment into the profession, utilization of research results and credibility aso . - aresummarizid in Figure 1. I do not wish to speak furthir on these relsNion I ships, other than to emphasize two important aspects of the paradigm: (1) the important feedback relationship between utilization and credibility and (20 indirect and secondary role that institutional support playe; in infiuentzL, 1 ing quality of research. ,CHOOSING A LABEL The anthropological literatureicontaiss 'several labels And descript- ions of suggested roles for anthropologists invblved, an*the ground, with the process of social/cultural change. The alternatives'range from the most de- tached and least intercessionist to the most societally involved an4 activist in napare. Starting from the neutraliSt position, we identify the anthropologist serving as an honest information-broker/ one who doesn't take sides in local 6 issues but who Aims to facilitate the acquisition and free-flow of relevant information to all parties involved in the matter (e.g., Salisbury 1973; . L. Thompson 1976).' The concern to discover knowledge but not apply it had earlier gone under the dame of 'action anthropology' (Tax 1958:18-19) though more recOtitly that termbias,come to imply a far more activist goal-Lorientel, . commitment ,to helping a target population resist changessought by in agency externai to that population (Jacobs 1974:209?. The active 4ntercessionistatance is guided by practical as 'ell as ideological considerations for it has bVn suggested that non-involvement will 2 impede the stquiiition ofimportant data, whose very collection isthe' purpose of the anthropological endeavour (Jacobs 1974). I 4 This interactionist stance has also been called 'clip a anthropology' j 1.443 (Jadobs 1974) and 'advocade anthropology' (Petersen 1974) and is held to differ importantly from the established 'applied. anthropology'(Foster 1969) in that in the latter Case the anthropologist works to achieve practical ends setby , an agency.exterial to the community itself, ends often set prior tothe arrival of the adthropologiston the scene. In 'clinital', "'action! and'adVotate' . anthropology the anthropologist utilizes anthropo.ogical knowledge in the service of'the community, either in is efforts to resist change objectives set from without, or to achieve change goals decided from within, thecommunity: With respect to these alternatives a reCentcommentatorhass4cautiOned that anthropologists should "set no (societal) goals, engineer no solutions, (and) activate no policies" because it is probably harmful to the long range Jealth and viability of the cliedt societyfc4any' outsider toUnterferewith that society's decision making and action prerogatives (L. Thompson 1976; see also Castile 19.75). This view appears noeto be elated by the action school,. p . 4 who seem to assert that either as professionally trained4scient1sts (Petersen 1974) oras concerned human beings (Jacobs 1974) anttropologists must'assert, themselves' actively and purposively In bhe clierres'cduse.On the.othevh,nd; P there is more usually agreement that social policy is rarely iluenced by the results of rercelich, for it appears that a definition of thijoroblem and the .6A solution to the problem has normally been arrived at before the social adieu s enter#the picture (e.g. Jones 1976; Matthews 1975)0 - . , In summary then, we can observethat divergent opinions currently exist , with regard tothe,appropriat,,,practise.Ofthe applied role: However the under- ft ,- 4,11/4s . .. , lying motives maybe in cloger. accord, -for few would likely disagree with the of opinion of Tax that what hecalled action antbropologi, is 8 process directed primarily and Unalterablytotruth-seeking, alternative providing, restriction removing and mutual learning(1958118119). I would suggest here. that praVided e 6 frea411---- , c. e. r- . , FIGURE2 -- . VARIABLE PERCEPTION IN COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS t . A ... 145 the anthropologist obtains the necessary assurance that suchgoll-values, to'be paramount, then it matters not who the patron of the research is, whether the local community ,oar some agepcy external to its \loor , r ECOLOGICAL