Anthropologists only Need Apply: Challenges of Applied Anthropology

Author(s): Paul Sillitoe

Source: The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, Vol. 13, No. 1 (Mar., 2007), pp.
147-165
Published by: Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4622905 .
Accessed: 27/02/2014 11:46

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve
and extend access to The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 200.123.187.130 on Thu, 27 Feb 2014 11:46:40 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Anthropologists only need
apply: challenges of applied
anthropology
PAUL SILLITOE Universityof Durham

Theapplicationof anthropologyis attractingincreasingattention,whereonce it was thoughtat best

a dubiousenterprise.Theresurgenceof appliedanthropologyreflectsthe discipline'sbroadspread,
with personsseekingapplicationsin an arrayof areas.InthisarticleI reflecton some contentious
issuesthat I haveencounteredin tryingto takeup the challengeof applyinganthropology,notably
in the contextof 'indigenousknowledge'in developmentinquiries,issuesthatdemandattentionto
takethisworkforwards.A briefhistoricalreviewsuggeststhata failureto deal withthese arguably
hinderedpreviousattemptsto establishan appliedanthropology.Theyincludedefinitionof the
forthe socialsciences,and the matter
subjectwe seekto apply,the implicationsof interdisciplinarity
of expertstatus.Otherconsiderations concerngivingethnographicmethodsan applicableedge,
engaging,forexample,withthe challengingdemandsof participatory research.I outlinefivewaysto
envisageapplyinganthropology: facilitatingothers'exploitationof exogenousknow-how;using
knowledgeof localunderstanding to furtherdevelopment;transferring people'slearningand
practices seeking
cross-culturally; ways to assistmarketuse of knowledge; andfinallyradical
ethno-criticismof development.Theyall presentus withchallenges.Andsignalinterestingtimes
foranthropology.

What practical use is anthropology?This is an increasinglypertinent question in

today'spolitical-economicclimate,as market-drivenchangesimpact on higher educa-
tion. But it is disconcerting, after 150 years, that it is necessary to ask at all. The
disappointingreturnson successivegenerationsof anthropologists'effortssuggestthat
the way in which the discipline defines and approachesissues has inhibited it making
applied connections. If we do not agree that our preoccupationsprevent meaningful
involvement,why do we seem to have such trouble with practicalengagement?Some
twentyyearsago Redcliftput a similarquestion in a volume devotedto putting applied
anthropologyback on the agenda,asking'Arethe blockageswhich exist within anthro-
pology todaythe resultof an inabilityto make compromiseswith reality,or a symptom
of something deeper?'(1985:202). Progresstowardsan answerseems limited.
Perhaps we are thinking of 'applied' in the wrong way. The discipline is not
amenable, as Evans-Pritchard (1946: 92), Hogbin (1957: 245-6), Mair (1969: 3), and
others pointed out some time ago, to applicationssuch as engineering,medicine, or

Institute(N.S.) 13,147-165
Journalof theRoyalAnthropological
@RoyalAnthropological Institute2007

This content downloaded from 200.123.187.130 on Thu, 27 Feb 2014 11:46:40 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
148 PAUL SILLITOE

agriculture.And in this vein, I havepointed out that the idea of applyinganthropology

is 'something of a contradictionin terms' (Sillitoe 2000: 7-8), asking how one could
apply knowledgeof, for example,totemic beliefs and taboos, or knowledgeof kinship
terminologies,prescriptivemarriagearrangements,or ancestorbeliefs.The challengeis
to agree what application implies for anthropology,and, from there, address issues
currentlyinhibitingengagement.Pastexperiencesuggeststhat this will be no straight-
forward endeavour (Firth 1981;Grillo 1985).
The currentefforts to apply anthropologyreflectthe wide spreadof the discipline,
with persons seeking applicationsin an arrayof areas,including retailing,banking,
government,business, and leisure. These endeavourssuggest that anthropologyhas
relevanceto almost everything,which ultimatelybegs the discipline'sexistence.Forme
the enterprisefocuses on so-called 'indigenousknowledge'inquiries in development,
where I can see a ready application of anthropology.' Their emergence, following
changesin developmentoverthe last two decadesor so (increasinglyinvolvingpeople's
participation),gives a new edge to the question 'how might we apply anthropology?'
(Antweiler1998;DeWalt1994;Purcell1998;Sillitoe1998).The opportunitiesfor anthro-
pology to contributehave perhapsnever been better,looking back.Yet,even with the
advent of participatoryapproaches,it still seems reluctantto engage, such that non-
anthropologistsare largely taking these forwards.When I have tried to take up the
challengeof applyinganthropologyI confessthat I havebecome increasinglyperplexed
by the paradoxesI seem to encounterat everyturn.We surelyhavethe wherewithalto
contend with such contradictoryissues,having refinedways to resolveothers'cultural
contradictions,notably in structuralistand post-structuralistdiscourse.

Historyof applied anthropology

A reviewof anthropology'shistory revealsthat it has sought to show its relevancesince
its inception,albeitcomprisinga catalogueof largelyfrustratedexpectationsfrom early
attempts to establish ethnology bureaux to current efforts (Sillitoe 20o6b). Initially
promoted as having something to contribute to the training of colonial officers and
others serving in dominions overseas,then as supplyingpersons trained to accessthe
'nativeview' and present this to administratorsand policy-makersto facilitatebetter
government,the subject today seeks to contribute not only to work in international
development, but also to problems facing industry, government, and society more
widely.
After the US governmentfounded a Bureauof Ethnology in 1879(which came to
focus its efforts largely on 'salvageethnography'of subjugatedAmerindianpopula-
tions), repeatedattemptsin the UK in the late nineteenthand earlytwentiethcenturies
to establisha similarinstitutionto work with peoples of the Empireprovedunsuccess-
ful, advocates failing to convince those in power that anthropology had anything
significantto offer the Colonial Office (Harvey2006). They faredlittle better in later
years.The position was equallydifficultin the US, where Brintontalkedabout applied
anthropologyas earlyas 1896 (Foster1969:198),but some (e.g. Herskovits1936)came
to question its propriety.In the UK, Evans-Pritchard(1946)subsequentlytook up this
theme, arguingthat academicnot practicalprioritiesshould determineanthropology's
agenda.Opinion hardenedeven furtherwhen increasingnumbersof colonies became
independent.This coincided with many studies criticizingthe colonial era (Asad1973;
Buruma & Margalit 2004; Prakash 1995; Said 1978; Spivak 1990), which spilled over into
critiques of international development, seen as descending directly from earlier

Journal of the Royal AnthropologicalInstitute (N.S.) 13, 147-165

? Royal Anthropological Institute 2007

This content downloaded from 200.123.187.130 on Thu, 27 Feb 2014 11:46:40 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 PAUL SILLITOE 149

colonial endeavours.Subsequently,applied anthropologyfaced a severesetbackin the

US when it emerged that the authoritieshad used anthropologicalknowledge in the
VietnamWar (Price2000), albeit a positive outcome was to reinforcecodes of ethics -
and we hear echoes of these concernscurrentlyin the debateover the PRISPinitiative
of covert CIA training in anthropology.2It became dubious for anthropologiststo
associate themselves with applied work that might be manipulated against others'
interests.On top of this the discipline had few opportunitiesto demonstrate its rel-
evancebecausethose ignorantof its limitationsexpectedit to take on work that it was
not able to do proficiently.Or it was preventedfrom contributingto work where it
might have played a significantpart, such as internationaldevelopment,by arrange-
ments biased againstit.
A responsewas to avoid the word 'applied'with its unpleasantassociations(the US
AppliedAnthropologySocietywas an exception), and to make invidious comparisons
with 'pure'anthropology.Severalnew organizationscame into existence with bewil-
dering acronyms (Grillo 1985:2; Wright20o6), such as, in the UK, GAPP (Group for
Anthropologyin Policy and Practice),and in the US, NAPA(NationalAssociationfor
the Practiceof Anthropology) with its LPOs (local practitionerorganizations).The
outcome was patchy,and all the UK organizationsbecame defunct;more recently,the
Associationof SocialAnthropologistshas agreedto act as an umbrellaorganizationfor
a Networkof AppliedAnthropologists3establishedby some workingoutside academia.
It shows signs of emulating the expansive efforts of US anthropology by seeking
applicationsin many areas.The RoyalAnthropologicalInstitutehas shown little incli-
nation to representapplied anthropologists,although it recentlyadded the LucyMair
Medalfor AppliedAnthropologyto its honours;the position may changewith current
challengesfor the discipline to demonstrateits worth.
During the later period, British social anthropologyincreasinglyoverlappedwith
sociology in seeking professionalrelevance,such that it is difficult now to distinguish
between much anthropologicaland sociological work, except on the grounds that
practitionersof the formermay be sympatheticto cross-culturalcomparisonand have
some familiaritywith non-Westernethnographicclassics.This poses problems of dis-
ciplinarydefinition,it becoming increasinglydifficultto saywhat anthropologyhas to
offer specifically(sociology itself is strugglingagainstright-wingcriticismto justifyits
applied work in social policy, community work, social welfare, etc.). The costs for
applied anthropologyare potentiallylarge.

What is this subject we seek to apply?

It is necessaryfirstto agreea definitionof anthropology,for only then might we discuss
its application. Several publications have lately debated the identity and future of
anthropology,some even talking of a crisis (Moore 1996;Pina-Cabral2005; Shore &
Ahmed 1995).4As Stocking observes, 'The boundaries of anthropology have always
been problematic- more so, one suspects,than those of other social science disciplines
or discourses.Never,however,so problematicas they aretoday' (2001:305). He goes on
to discuss the proliferationof sub-disciplinegroups within the AmericanAnthropo-
logical Association and concerns about the discipline's fragmentationpreventing a
coherent approach to today's challenges.Anthropology is apparentlysuch a broad
churchthat there is a dangerthe walls are now too far apart and the roof falling in. Is
it possible to encompass such diverse subject matter,that is, literallybe the 'study of
humankind',or is this too ambitious?

Journal of the Royal AnthropologicalInstitute (N.S.) 13, 147-165

? RoyalAnthropologicalInstitute2007

This content downloaded from 200.123.187.130 on Thu, 27 Feb 2014 11:46:40 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
150 PAUL SILLITOE

It seemsthat anthropologists,who haveengagedin argumentsoverthe natureof the

discipline since the nineteenth century,cannot agree a definition, promoting endless
discussion, currentlyexacerbatedwith post-modern deconstruction.It is a problem
that I face annually,like others I suspect,in introducingfirst-yearstudents to anthro-
pology,flounderingon, to the consternationof my audience,for two lecturesor so. We
can expect trouble applyinga disciplineof which one authorityhas recentlyobserved
that it is 'a very odd subject'because'it is hard to say what it is the study of', and 'it is
not at all clearwhat you haveto do to study it' (Ingold 2000: 14).In this event,how are
we going to promote its applicationand convince others of its worth?
In a recentvolume on applicationsof anthropology,Pink also observesthat anthro-
pology,appliedor academic,is'hardto define'and'vagueand contested',and notes that
authors of introductory texts commonly skirt 'around the issue by describingwhat
anthropologistsdo',but she seeksto makea virtue of this by arguingthat'we should not
essentialiseanthropology... there are ... many differentways one can be/or call oneself
an anthropologist'(2006: io). But she still wishes to define, as opposed to 'essentialise',
anthropology as 'a type of approach,paradigm or a set of ideas that informs our
understandings'which involves a 'way of constructingand analysinga problem,pro-
ducing and critically reviewing "evidence"and reflecting on the wider social and
cultural contexts'.In attemptingto show how anthropologydiffers from other disci-
plines in tacklingproblems,she cites Nolan, who arguesthat anthropologists'under-
standthat cultureis key to many of the patternswe see and to manyof the problemswe
try to resolve' (2003: 119-20); approach problems inductively;'are holistic in their
approachesand perspectives';realizerelationshipsare important;and 'areinteractive'.
An anthropologistalso self-evidently'learnshow to speakthe languageof the organi-
sation [s/he works for], understandsits power hierarchies,and social and cultural
systems'(Pink 200oo6: 11),althoughhow her/his knowledgediffersfrom othersworking
for the same organizationis unclear.
All this has the feel of tail-chasing,and an alternativeis to give up any attempt to
define the subject,as Greenadvocatesin the same volume, thinking that

Arguments within the discipline about the roles and obligations of anthropologistsconducting
so-called appliedwork,hinge on an assumptionthat doing anthropologyor being an anthropologist
are clearlydelimited fields of activity ... These views depend on an unrealisticnotion that one can
delimit anthropology,as a practice,and as a profession (20o6: 119).

Alternatively,as Van Willigen notes, applied anthropologists'work is 'definedby the

problem and not by the discipline'(1986:7). This leavesus with the undivided social
sciences (although anthropologyfor many also includes biological science). I do not
think that this is helpful.If we wish to think about appliedanthropologyas opposed to
appliedsocial studies,we haveto specifythe difference.Theseproblemsarenot unique
to anthropology.The issue of discipline definition characterizesmany neighbouring
social sciences with which it seeks to agree boundaries,as does the dilemma of aca-
demic versus appliedwork as well as the misunderstandingsthat exist between quali-
tative and quantitativeresearch.These suggest that we have to consider changing
ways of doing anthropology in view of its changing role in an emerging era of
'transdisciplinarity'.
What comprisesthe kernelof anthropologyfrom which we might seek applications,
beyond sayingthat its studyimpartssome skillsthat aredifficultconvincinglyto specify

of theRoyalAnthropological
Journal Institute
(N.S.)13,147-165
? RoyalAnthropologicalInstitute2007

This content downloaded from 200.123.187.130 on Thu, 27 Feb 2014 11:46:40 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 PAUL SILLITOE 151

as differentfrom those acquiredstudyingother subjects,as well as an approachto life

that is equallyhardto define?The current'crisis'in anthropologymay indicatethat we
have reacheda sociologicallimit, for, as someone commented recentlyto Henley,

I was speaking to a Cambridge PhD student the other day and she gave me a list of theses in
production ... very few of them were set in obvious anthropologicalterrain.Insteadit was the likes of
gay sub-culturein Berlin... I rememberthinkinganthropologyhas even lost its subject-matter(2006:
184-5).

Earlyon in my careerI was told that I was irredeemablyold-fashioned in under-

taking researchin a New Guinea highland valley studying the exchange of pigs and
pearl shells when my contemporarieswere increasinglyworking in rural Britain or
engagingwith urbanimmigrantcommunities,some subsequentlystudyingthe behav-
iour of football supporters,the anthropologyof shopping, coming of age parties,and
so on. As time passed I assumed that I was becoming increasinglyfossil-like, until
recentlyI startedto wonder if I have unwittinglybeen hanging onto something that
'essentially'defines anthropology.It featuresthe crossingof some socio-culturalfron-
tier into a world quite different from our own, taking with us the non-judgemental
axiom of cultural relativity.It involves learning a markedlydifferent language and
strugglingwith the nuancesof foreignexpression.It entailswinning the trust of a small
group of people with whom we work closely in painstakingdetail, employing that
vauntedbut contradictorymethod of participantobservation,and engagingin holistic
micro-level community research. While anthropology's focus may be local, we
acknowledgethat we have to set it in broad perspectiveand take into account the
complex interactionbetween micro- and macro-scaleforces,encompassingglobaliza-
tion issues (Knauft1999:5-7). The resultis ethnography,anotherkey word heardoften
in defining anthropology.The ethnographicrecord comprises the unique knowledge
that we customarilyfill librarieswith, which we might drawon in appliedcontexts;in
addition to using it in cross-culturalcomparisons,albeitsubjectto endlesscontroversy,
that seek to furtherunderstandingof humanity.How can we apply such knowledge?

Anthropology as interdisciplinary partner

The discipline's breadth is paradoxicallyboth a strength and a weakness from an
appliedperspective.While a problemregardingdefinition,it may be an asset regarding
usefulness (Sillitoe 2004). Anthropologists are well equipped to negotiate not only
cultural boundaries, but also disciplinaryones. This suits them to interdisciplinary
work (Rew 1985;Strathern2005). We can trace the origins of this interdisciplinary
impulse to the subject'sfocus on small-scalesocieties.As the only disciplineto esteem
such social orders,it found itself alone and by default set about studying everything
pertainingto them.5Anthropologistscame to realizethat one could not predictwhat
issues may relate to others, and the functionalist tenet was born stipulating that as
cultures comprise interrelatedwholes, we can ignore no aspect without risking a
distortedunderstanding.This truismhas subsequentlybecome enshrinedin the notion
of 'holism',the study of the whole (Grillo 1985:21-2). This is all well and good, and
comprisesa key part of anthropology'sdisciplinaryidentity,but the dangeris that the
subjectappearsto purport to study everything.One consequencehas been the prolif-
eration of 'anthropologies'noted previously.
We can make a furthervirtue of anthropology'sbroadnessby arguingthat it puts us
ahead in the currentdisciplinarygame, in contributingto a possible new orderingof

Journal of the Royal AnthropologicalInstitute (N.S.) 13, 147-165

? Royal Anthropological Institute 200oo7

This content downloaded from 200.123.187.130 on Thu, 27 Feb 2014 11:46:40 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
152 PAUL SILLITOE

knowledge as subject boundaries crumble under the impact of globalization (e.g.

Wallerstein2003). An over-obsessionwith disciplinaryboundaries can certainlybe
counter-productivewhere several disciplines have interests in similar issues. Mutual
interactioncan resultin fruitfulsynergy,as in politicalecology,wherestrictdisciplinary
boundaries are irrelevantwith environmentalists,anthropologists,and geographers
working closely together,or in recent studies of knowledge systems, where philoso-
phers,anthropologists,and sociologistshavestimulatedone another.But a realignment
of disciplinesand reorderingof knowledge,if occurring,can appearthreatening,for it
implies, as Green observes,that anthropology,whose 'boundariesare permeableand
weak',will find that 'it must struggle for survivalin an increasinglyinterdisciplinary
universe'(20o6: 119).I think that anthropologymay have more to offer and that we
should not write it, and the other social sciences,off just yet.
Whateverhappens,we shall still have to order or 'discipline'our understandingin
some way,and anthropology'sopenness to cross-disciplinarydiscoursewill allow it to
act as a conduit for the flow of ideas between differentdisciplines,howeverdefined.It
is widely acknowledgedthat differentdisciplinaryexpertsneed to 'talkto one another',
to counter narrow specialisms that support in-depth researchinto restricted fields
while losing sight of the wider picture.It is one of the reasonssome give for increasing
public concern and distrustof experts- as, for example,with in vitro interventionsin
human reproductionwhich, while brilliant genetics, threaten ethical dilemmas that
many think we lack the wisdom to handle,or the developmentof geneticallymodified
(mutant) crops which, though again brilliantscience, could menace the naturalenvi-
ronment in unknown ways (Stone 2002:611).Thereis a need to put such researchinto
a wider socio-culturalcontext and facilitatedebatewithout distortingit.
But just saying that anthropology'sinterdisciplinaryheritage gives it an applied
niche is not enough;we haveto evolvewaysof workingthat promoteit. In development
contexts,for instance,as Richardsnoted some time ago,the anthropologistenters'fields
which he is not able to tackle alone'.She goes on to ask, is 'the trainingof the anthro-
pologist to be widened still furtherin orderto give him some knowledgeof these other
fields?' (1944: 299). The answer I think is affirmative,for 'the only way in which
anthropologicalknowledge can be applied in "development"contexts is to couple it
with a knowledge of some other field such as agriculture,engineering,medicine or
economics' (Sillitoe2000: 8). This suggestionirritatessome. In the words of one of the
outside moderatorsfor a chair for which I unsuccessfullyapplied,'Isn't anthropology
enough?'In this contextI think not. Othershavepreviouslymadethe same point. In an
excoriatingassessment,Cochranenotes involvement'demandsand requiresthe indi-
vidual researchersto have competence in severalfields' and recommends'anthropo-
logical training and familiaritywith other disciplines that impinge on development
work',without which an anthropologistis 'reallynot very much more useful than a
knowledgeablemember of the community he studies' as in his opinion 'it is the very
attempt to apply anthropologicalknowledge alone which ... has been largelyrespon-
sible for failure to make progress' (1971: 11, 12, 14, 26). Among those who think similarly
areAckroyd,Grillo,and Tapper,who, reportingon a conferenceaddressingthe issue of
the employabilityof anthropologists,note that it is unclearwhetheranthropologyhas
'anythingin itself to offer non-anthropologistsother than a valuablehumanisticper-
spectiveand some specificknowledgeof certainaspectsof other societiesand cultures,
and whether it can ever successfullybe applied (or its proponents employed) without
being complementedby some technicalknowledgeand skills'(1980:6).

of theRoyalAnthropological
Journal Institute
(N.S.)13,147-165
? RoyalAnthropologicalInstitute2007

This content downloaded from 200.123.187.130 on Thu, 27 Feb 2014 11:46:40 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 PAUL SILLITOE 153

An anthropologicaleducation and vocational training may strike some as strange

bedfellows,but anthropologistsand experts as estrangedpartnersmake for an even
strangerimagined applied discipline.In order to act as interdisciplinarycatalysts,it is
necessaryto 'talkthe talk and walk the walk'of other disciplinesto some extent,so that
they will take us seriously(Ervin2000: 226).We can envisagethis as practisingpartici-
pant observationin other disciplines,that is, interactingwith other professionswhile
maintaininga degree of detachment.Someone trained in anthropologywith a back-
ground in medicine, law, architecture,forestry,economics, or whateveris in a strong
position to apply her/his anthropologicalknowledge, understood to encompass the
promotion of a holistic perspectivein the two interrelatedsenses of facilitatingsocio-
cultural contextualizationand furthering interdisciplinarycollaboration.Increasing
numbersof anthropologistsagreeand are meeting the challengeof interdisciplinarity,
particularlyin applied contexts,where many are conversantin a vocationaldiscipline
too. It is time to take stock of the achievementsof the current generation of such
interdisciplinaryanthropologists,to comparenotes and see what is common in their
contributions,and identifywhat it is about anthropologythat they find useful and how
they apply it.

How are anthropologists different:experts or not?

In a recentissue of AnthropologyToday,Marsasks,'Whyshould manyof the most gifted
of applied anthropologistsfind it more convenientto take jobs with titles that do not
even contain the word anthropology?Why is anthropologyseen as increasinglyirrel-
evant?'And furtherhe notes,'Appliedanthropologistsseem to pop up everywhere- but
rarelywith departmentsof anthropology.And you have to scratchbeneaththe surface
of their alienjob descriptionseven to discoverthey areanthropologistsat all' (2004: i).
At the 2004 Associationfor Social Anthropologists'conferencein Durham there was
considerablediscussion in a similarvein about why anthropologistsseem to become
invisible when they work with others. These observations are disconcertingas they
suggest that when we engage in applied work the more strongly purpose-defined
disciplinecomes to dominate.This may,however,reflectthe contradictoryimplication
of achievingtrue interdisciplinarity.One becomes unrecognizableto others,whatever
their discipline,who comprise circles of mutuallyciting colleagueswho talk the same
languageand areengrossedin the same issues.I am not a member of the Melanesianist
social anthropology,geography,or archaeologycircles, for example, or that of the
ethnobiologists or tropical agriculturalscientists, or those of the participatoryor
sustainabledevelopmentcommunity.An interdisciplinarianis effectivelyno longer a
full member of any discipline, be that anthropology or whatever.Furthermorethe
invisibilitymay reflectthe need to promote anthropology'susefulnessmore effectively
and update public ideas of its current interests,combating the old-fashioned exotic
image of supposedly working in closed 'traditional'communities. Finally, it may
suggest that anthropologists are better at critical after-event analysis than making
suggestionsto resolvecurrentproblems.
A hard-nosedwayto addressthese issues is to askwhat an organizationgets if it hires
an anthropologist.As Keenputs it: '[W]hy should not a community drawon an expert
in ... appropriatetechnology,economics, accounting,law, local governmentor what-
ever,ratherthan an anthropologist?'(1999: 51). Others have posed the same question:
'Whatis it about anthropologythat is unique?How does it provideunderstandingsthat
other disciplinescannot and what arethe advantagesof this to a client?'(Pink 2006:10).

of theRoyalAnthropological
Journal Institute
(N.S.)13,147-165
Institute
? RoyalAnthropological 200oo7

This content downloaded from 200.123.187.130 on Thu, 27 Feb 2014 11:46:40 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
154 PAUL SILLITOE

We all know what we can expect of an orthopaedicsurgeon, an architect,an employ-

ment lawyer,or an accountant.What does an anthropologistbring to a corporation,
local authority, development agency, or health trust that a graduate in sociology,
history, geography,cultural studies, or other cognate discipline does not bring (i.e.
those subjectsthat have similar problems to anthropology,not offering professional
training but a liberal arts education)?It is by asking such questions that we might
identifyapplicationsfor anthropology,which we can promote more widely.We cannot
pretendto be expertsof all things,for as Ervinobserves,while anthropologists'tendto
be jacks-of-all-tradesin their research and implementation skills, they cannot do
everything' (2000: 219). The expectation in development is that they should have
something valuableand unique to contributeto effortsto relievepoverty in line with
other specialists such as economists, agronomists, health workers, or engineers. It
relates to the formulation of a long-overdue professionalidentity for anthropology,
extendingbeyond the confines of academiato practitionerswrestlingwith'real world'
problems (Sillitoe 2oo3a).
The challenge,as Scuddercomments in his upbeat assessment,is 'to better identify
what we anthropologists believe are the key problems we have the expertise and
responsibilityto address'(1999:359).We have a wide rangeof experienceto call on, for
there are diverseways of doing researchin a broad discipline such as anthropology,
albeit some more practicallyrelevantthan others. We are uniquely placed to further
understandingof poverty;as Scuddernotes, it is'an issue that I believeanthropologists
know more about than other scholarsor practitioners'(1999:355). He also arguesthat
we can play a unique role in building public awarenessabout currentglobalproblems,
albeitwe need to be'more activein bringingthat expertiseto the attentionof the public
and policy makers'(1999:359). In-depth ethnographicresearchoffers unprecedented
understandingof everydaylife and its problems,as increasinglyevident,with sociolo-
gists, political scientists,and others showing an interest in this approach.Other ana-
lytical skills include social system analysis, seeing the unintended consequences of
proposed interventions,an understandingof the nature of distributivejustice and its
consequences,the methods and theory of various anthropologicalsub-fields such as
medical anthropology,psychologicalanthropology,or culturalecology.An anthropo-
logical training gives the analyticalmeans to understand the heterogeneityof local
actors and their interests,to see the multiple links in their social lives and appreciate
their everydaystrategies,to tap into local understandingsand comprehendresistance
to perceivedoutside interference.Areaswhere anthropologyhas particularcontribu-
tions to offer include studies of livelihood strategies,the political ecology of resource
management,local health issues and well-being, political violence, grass-rootsmove-
ments, social justice and human rights issues.
But in strivingto establisha clearerprofessionalpresencefor anthropologywe come
across another applied conundrum.The proposition that we can apply anthropology
implies that we have some expertknowledgeand skillsto offer that are differentfrom,
and complementaryto, those of others.Do we reallywant to be expertson these terms?
The aspirationto expertstatusposes problemsfor a disciplinethat seeksto promotethe
views of every person. This is apparentin the context of 'indigenous knowledge'in
development,and the wider participatorymovement (as properlyconceived and not
subvertedby puppet-masterexperts),which seeksto underminethe notion of'experts'
who interveneelsewhereto adviseon development.How can a disciplinethat purports
to inquire into the views and lives of ordinary people claim to have specialist

Journal Institute
of theRoyalAnthropological (N.S.)13,147-165
Institute2007
? RoyalAnthropological

This content downloaded from 200.123.187.130 on Thu, 27 Feb 2014 11:46:40 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 PAUL SILLITOE 155

knowledge, if that knowledge is simply what people consider to be everydayknowl-

edge?This is the reverseof expert knowledge,which itself underpins the hierarchical
applicationof expertisecharacterizingWesternsociety and technology.Anthropology
has long queried the status of those who profess to know more than ordinary folk,
making decisions on their behalf and taking aspects of their lives out of their hands
(Cochrane1971:65-79).This conundrumputs us in an awkwardposition when we talk
about applying anthropology.We regularlychallenge the claims of experts, even the
validityof the idea of 'expert'.So why arewe strivingto be experts,when being 'expert'
apparentlyunderminesthe tenets of our own discipline?

Applying anthropological methods

There are two ways in which one might broadlyinterpretthe idea of applyinganthro-
pology. It can entail using the knowledge that anthropologistshave gleaned through
their fieldworkand systematizedin variouswaysusing the theoriesof the moment, and
investigatingits applicability.Or it can involveapplyingthe methods of anthropology
(Barnard2001;Pole 2004; Schensul & LeCompte1999) to tackle contemporaryprob-
lems. When they talk about applying anthropology,many have in mind using its
methods,arguingthat these yield particularinsights,unobtainablein otherways,as the
discipline has a distinct way of seeing problems. These methods, centring on 'doing
ethnography'and featuringparticipantobservation6as a core strategy(distinct from
other sociological researchmethods), are not straightforwardto use in applied con-
texts.This way of workingis notoriouslydifficultto define (i.e. to tell others'how we do
it'); 'we just hang out with folks',an Americancolleagueput it. In my experiencethis
ill-defined and fluid way of working makes others (policy advisers,scientists,admin-
istrators)uneasy,even hostile (cf. Grillo 1985:23). It strikesthem as flaky and lacking
rigour,as they areoften unableto discernany dataof the sort they expect.As a scientist
partnerput it,'Youjust advocatefreefallwith no researchplan'.It is difficultto convince
them that having a rigid researchplan runs the risk of gross distortion before the
researcheven starts.
Anthropologicalmethods involve a subjectivecomponent, as the post-modern cri-
tique belabours,and this also worries scientists,bureaucrats,and others. They doubt
that they can put faith in the results. Subjectivityposes further problems in applied
contextsbecauseit implies that the researcher'sexperiencesand understandingsinflu-
ence his or her findings and recommendations,while allegedlyreflectingthe subjects'
knowledge and aspirations.We have to use methods that genuinely engage people in
the researchprocessand bewareof appearingto representthem when agenciesmay use
any informationto intervenein their lives (this appliesto any anthropologicalknowl-
edge - although more difficult to dig out in academic contexts, it is dangerous to
pretend that intellectualdiscourse somehow isolates it from the wider world; Grillo
1985:9). Suchparticipatorymethods havebecome increasinglyevident in development
contextsoverthe last two decades(Blackburn& Holland1998;Borda1998; Burkey1994;
Chambers,1997).It is a pity that anthropologyhas so far played a small part in their
advancementas they have been manipulatedby many who use them, threateningto
debasethem (Cooke & Kothari2001;Estrella200ooo; Mosse 2oo5;Wright& Nelson 1995).
Participatorymethods havefound favourbecauseone can describethem recipe-like,
and they can be undertakenquickly,and targetedon specificissues.But anthropologists
are uneasy about brief researchthat focuses on single issues. Gross distortions can
result, as we know, by overlooking crucial information not obvious to the outsider.

Journal of the Royal AnthropologicalInstitute (N.S.) 13, 147-165

? Royal Anthropological Institute 2007

This content downloaded from 200.123.187.130 on Thu, 27 Feb 2014 11:46:40 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
156 PAUL SILLITOE

There are other problems with 'participatorymethods',not alwaysaddressedin the

manuals,such as overlookingthe differinginterestsof varioussections of populations,
favouring rural elites, forcing agendas on communities, manipulating participation
and making false claims about it, and relying on alien exercises such as drawing
maps/diagramsor focus group discussionsthat may distort local views.
Anthropologicalmethods demand time (I am still wrestlingaftertwenty-fiveyears
to processand understandthe ethnographicdata I havecollectedin New Guinea).This
is not unique to anthropology,for researchin other disciplines may also demand
considerabletime. But appliedwork often, althoughnot always(e.g. Desta & Coppock
2004: 465), requiresanswerswithin short time-frames(Grillo1985:22). If we are going
to establishappliedanthropologyas routine,we haveto advancefasterwaysof working
than time-demanding participantobservation. But here is another applied conun-
drum: can anthropologywork in such ways, or will they fatallyundermine its ethno-
graphic methods? If long-term research is central to achieving the kind of
understandingthat anthropologycan claim belongs uniquelyto it, is the aspirationto
an applied anthropology a forlorn one? It implies that only those with long ethno-
graphic acquaintanceof a region and fluency in the languagecan undertakeapplied
work there, which considerablyrestricts opportunities for such work. Much 'indig-
enous knowledge'developmentresearchcurrentlyfocuses on these issues, looking to
evolveanthropologicalmethodsto meet the demandsof developmentwith partnership
research agendas. This differs from 'business as usual ethnography'in seeking to
advancemethods that yield anthropologicaldatain time-framesand formatsthat meet
developmentneeds (Ervin2000:188-97; Handwerker2001;Sillitoe,Dixon & Barr2005).
It is a challengeto adaptmethods and securea professionalpresence,while maintaining
anthropologicalintegrity.

Applying anthropological knowledge

The distinction between applying anthropologicalmethods and applying anthropo-
logicalknowledgeis heuristiconly.Applicationdoubtlessamounts to more than using
methods. We employ these to furtherunderstanding,and it is the knowledge gained
that we seek to use in some way - not necessarilywith referenceto marriagerules or
ancestorbeliefs, although these could conceivablyhave relevance,but more likely that
relatingto issues such as resourcemanagementor diseasediagnosis.There are several
ways to apply anthropologicalknowledge;all present furthercontradictionsto nego-
tiate. Grillo (1985)lists nine ways to apply anthropology,several overlapping,that I
incorporateinto the five categoriesdiscussedbelow.
One possible applicationis to facilitateexploitation of exogenous know-how and
technology. This is what much development supposedly aims to do, and while it is
difficultto disagreein the face of world poverty,such work can easilybecome ethno-
centric interference.In some regards,it is arroganteven to think that people need
assistance;many alreadytake what appealsto them: witness the global occurrenceof
mechanized tools, processed food, mass-produced clothing, pick-up trucks, high-
poweredweapons,and electronicgadgetry.Thereis a long traditionof seekingto apply
anthropology to development so conceived, from the proposed nineteenth-century
ethnological bureauxthrough much of the twentieth century (Sillitoe 2oo6b), which
largely sought to advise about the social implications of interventions.This applied
anthropologyfocused on institutionsand attemptedwith varyingdegreesof successto
influence administratorsand development policy-makers(Keen 1999:37). It informs

Journal of the Royal AnthropologicalInstitute (N.S.) 13, 147-165

? RoyalAnthropologicalInstitute2007

This content downloaded from 200.123.187.130 on Thu, 27 Feb 2014 11:46:40 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 PAUL SILLITOE 157

current-daysocial development, on which there is a considerableliterature(Conlin

1985;Nolan 2002;2003; ODA1993),as thereis also on precursorapproaches(Mair1969;
1984).While it is difficultto see how our knowledgecan contributedirectlyto technical
programmes undertaken to improve people's lives (as in engineering of irrigation
schemes, control of disease vectors, or improvement of communication systems to
facilitatemarketaccess),our contributionsmay serveto inform about local issues that
might impact on these (such as land tenure arrangementsinfluencing irrigation
channel management,marriagearrangementsimpacting on disease spread,or values
that may deter people from availingthemselvesof opportunitiesto make profits).
Such applied anthropology,as evident in 'indigenous knowledge'work, seeks to
inform other professionalsabout local communities, and vice versa,so that develop-
ment interventionsbetter match cultural context and promote participation(Rao &
Walton 2oo4). This may start out as fairly benign technically related assistance to
projectpersonnel (in which, in our experience,they often show considerableinterest).
The problem is that it can soon shade off into information that they find difficult to
appreciate.In Bengal,for example,farmerstalk about the soil menstruatingat certain
times of the year.This idea strikesmost agriculturalscientists as bizarre,being so far
from their understandingof soil processes,but it is one that influences farmers'land
management.7It demandsconsiderableskillto communicatesuch knowledgeso that it
receives a sympathetic reception. We have to avoid the label of peddlers in useless
informationor exotica.Linkageof local waysto outside interventionsis complex.It can
make others'jobs far harderby introducing unexpected issues (albeit ones that they
need to consider if they wish to advance sustainable change). It is all too easy to
perpetuateour awkwardbrigadereputation,promptingresentmentand alienatingour
audience (as has been evident during the discipline'sapplied history; Firth 1981:198;
Grillo1985:23; Wright1995).Evenmore problematic,such informationcan sometimes
provedamagingto local interests,such as that about the supplyof soil fertilizersto poor
farmers,which may prompt black markettrading.In decidingwhat to reveal,we soon
face political issues and difficultethical problems.

Local development solutions

If we arenot applyingknowledgeto solve problemslike other experts- to increasecrop
yields, combat disease, build dwellings, etc. - the implication is that we may use
knowledge of local understanding to do so. Thus we consider not what outsider
knowledgemay have to offer but what insiderknowledgemay recommendto advance
change with regardto outside influences.8Here we run into furtherproblems of the
sort that prompt some anthropologiststo eschewthe idea of applyinganthropologyin
any context.We face the uncomfortablepropositionthat appliedanthropologyis using
people's knowledgeto advancedevelopmentwhen we consider their cultures already
well developed in their own way. Indeed we face a double dilemma because if this
knowledgehas developmentpotential,then surelythey will see it. It is up to people to
decide what aspects of their heritage should either feature in any intervention or be
developedby and for themselves.This conflict has long vexed appliedanthropologists,
who 'find the "handsoff"versus"meddlingin the lives of others"dilemma difficultto
resolve'(Foster1969:136).
It is no longer tenable- if it ever was - for us to representthe lifewaysand beliefs
of others.Most populations are able to representthemselves.While it is arguablethat
an anthropologically trained outsider may see interrelations and meanings in a

Journal of the Royal AnthropologicalInstitute (N.S.) 13, 147-165

? RoyalAnthropologicalInstitute2oo7

This content downloaded from 200.123.187.130 on Thu, 27 Feb 2014 11:46:40 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
158 PAUL SILLITOE

socio-culturalsystemof which the actorsare unawareor unconscious,we need beware

of making this assertionfor it implies that s/he knows more than they do about their
behaviour,values,and wants. This poses particulardangersin applied contexts where
such intelligencemay inform action.This returnsus to methodologicalissues.We need
furtherto advancemethods that allow people to engagemeaningfullyin any interven-
tion and that facilitateself-representions;we need, not to speakfor them, but to work
with them to find the right words. Participatoryissues are centralhere, ensuringthat
people fully takepart in any decision-makingprocesses,facilitatinguse of their knowl-
edge as they judge fit (Burkey 1994; Chambers 1997;Cooke & Kothari 2001). Much work
is needed on participatorymethods, offering an opportunity for anthropology to
establisha professionalpresence(e.g. ensuringrepresentationof differentviews, man-
agingconflictwhen these clash,reducingoutsidermanipulation,etc.). It is strangethat
we haveso farplayeda relativelysmallpartin the advancementof these methodologies,
when they portend a seismic shift in the way we conduct research.Furthermore,we
know that communities continuallychange,come up with new ideas, and revisetheir
understandings,and there is a need to devise methods that can effectivelycope with
mutable knowledge.
The participatoryagendaposes anothercontradictionfor appliedanthropology.In
the short term it offers us unparalleledopportunitiesto involve ourselvesmore effec-
tively,but in the long term it promisesto make us redundant.We can see this currently
in social development.The adventof participatoryapproacheshas changedthe context
of this work significantlyby facilitatingthe inclusion of local communitiesand reduc-
ing the need for intermediaryassistance.It may resultin a diminution of opportunities
for social development specialists directly to apply anthropologicalknowledge, as
opposed to drawing on more general skills picked up in the course of an anthropo-
logical education that are useful to facilitatingparticipationand doing administrative
work (occupyingbureaucraticpositions advisingon policy issuesand managingdevel-
opment programmesand agendas).

Cross-cultural transmission
Another possibility, coming close perhaps to direct application of anthropological
knowledge, is to researchhow people's ideas and practicesin one place might have
relevance elsewhere.' This is to draw on anthropology'scross-culturalcomparative
approachin a new way. Development has scarcelystartedto use the anthropological
corpus in such possible applications.Some NGOs, such as PracticalAction,'1have
made moves in this directionand could benefit from anthropologicalinput. This, in a
sense,is a way of furtheringdiffusion,which is anotherwayto look at development.We
have to contend with cultural differencesthat may condition responses to practices
imported from elsewherein unpredictableways. This is a point that the 'indigenous
knowledge'initiativeis repeatedlymakingin stressingthe importanceof wider cultural
settings. There is also the problem of what right we have to present the ideas and
practices of one community to another. Without the participation of the original
knowledge-holdersthis could amount to the misuse of their culturalheritage- dis-
cussed below - and is a further reason to evolve researchmethods that include all
parties (even if the identification of local knowledge-holders can prove difficult
with the increasingheterogeneityand hybridity of knowledge in the current era of
'translocality').

Journalof theRoyalAnthropological
Institute(N.S.)13,147-165
? RoyalAnthropologicalInstitute2007

This content downloaded from 200.123.187.130 on Thu, 27 Feb 2014 11:46:40 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 PAUL SILLITOE 159

There are some challengingopportunitieshere. This approachto applyinganthro-

pology affordsa chanceto use the extensiveethnographicrecordthat is undeniablyour
legacy;we have the specialistskills to drawon it. Thereis much knowledge,some now
forgottenby originalholders,in librariesand museums.Againit is helpfulto specialize
in particularfields to further interdisciplinaryunderstanding and familiaritywith
relevantliterature.There are opportunities for methodological advances,such as the
development of interactivedatabases,which might be seen as a new generation of
Human Area Relations Files. Some agencies are alreadyestablishingsuch databases:
India'sCouncil of Scientificand IndustrialResearchis compiling a digital databaseof
'traditionalknowledge'encompassingboth ancient texts and currentpractices(Jayara-
man 1999).Therearepossibilitiesand threatshere as such technologymay empoweror
marginalizepeople, dependingon its use (Barr& Sillitoe 2000). Politicalconcerns are
behind the compilation of some databases,as, for instance, in the aforementioned
Indian case, which is meant to protect people's knowledgefrom commercialtheft by
establishing'priorart'.Anthropologistsshould be involvedin such projectsas they are
well placed with their cross-culturalsensitivitiesto further databaseuse in ways that
may facilitateethnographicallyinformed diffusion development.

Advancing commercial use of knowledge

Politicaland commercialinterestsmay reversethe aboveaims,by seekingwaysbetterto
facilitatecapitalistexploitationof knowledge.This approachhas a long history;knowl-
edge from elsewherehas informedWesternsciencefor centuries(Ellen2004:414-20). It
was why some colonial administrationspreviouslyemployedgovernmentanthropolo-
4-5). Currently,bio-prospectorsundertakeethnographicwork to
gists (Sillitoe 20oo6b:
find commerciallyusableknowledge,hoping to make a profitablefind, such as a plant
that might cure cancer (albeit this aspirationmay be outdated;Greene2004: 211).11
Anthropologists are uncomfortablewith inquiries seeking to profit from others'
culturalheritage.This leads into the increasinglycontentious legal field of intellectual
propertyrights,as people try to protect themselves,seeking equity in any use of their
knowledge(Dutfield1999;2003;Posey2000). Suchexploitationof knowledgehas made
communitiesin some partsof the worldwaryof, even hostile to, any researchinto their
lives;some groups in Amazonia today check researchersclosely or ban them entirely.
While there are internationaldiscussionsabout legal ways to protectpeople's interests
and stop bio-piracy, such as TRIPs (Trade-RelatedAspects of IntellectualProperty
Rights), each case has unique historical,cultural,and environmentalfeaturesthat no
amount of legislationcan encompass.Anthropologistsmay have a role here as advisers,
even advocatesaccordingto some, both to targetedcommunities and to outside agen-
cies and companies seeking commerciallyto exploit knowledge and resources(Ervin
2000: 121-40; Grillo 1985: 25; Hastrup & Elass 199o; Van Willigen 1986: 111-25). This
demands both familiaritywith local communities and credentials in international
commercial law and associated political policy, again extending on anthropological
socio-culturalcontextualizingexpertise.Precedentsinclude anthropologicalassistance
to those seekingto establishland rights (Layton1985;Williams1986).

Supporting alternative development

The unfaircommercialexploitationof others'knowledgeleads to the propositionthat
we should be criticizingany interventions,including development,as capitalistimpo-
sitions. The application of anthropology here becomes radical ethno-criticism, not

Journalof theRoyalAnthropological
Institute(N.S.) 13,147-165
? RoyalAnthropologicalInstitute2007

This content downloaded from 200.123.187.130 on Thu, 27 Feb 2014 11:46:40 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
160 PAUL SILLITOE

co-operatingwith agencies/companiesbut supportingpeople in expressingalternative

ideas likely to challenge capitalist assumptions (Escobar 1995;Gough 1968; Hobart 1993;
Huizer & Mannheim 1979; Stavenhagen 1971;Tax 1975). This may include recognizing
people's rights to self-determinationand representationthrough their own institu-
tions, as well as promotingdevelopmentthat respectstheir identities,supportingthem
in drawingon their knowledge (as outlined above). It implies furtheringthe manage-
ment of lands and resourcesundercustomaryarrangements,demandingthe resolution
of contentiousrightsconflicts,and insistingon people'sinformedconsent to interven-
tions in their regions (which expects increasedcorporateaccountability).It is partici-
pation with a vengeance.
We have two anthropologicalperspectives- the present pragmaticand the future
idealistic (Cochrane 1971:9; Grillo 1985:28-30) - albeit many anthropologists subscribe
to both in varying degrees.The idealistscriticizethose who co-operatewith develop-
ment agencies.They claimwe should seek to change,even overthrow,them, ratherthan
co-operate with participatoryapproaches and 'indigenous knowledge' which such
agenciesincorporatewhile continuingmuch as before.The pragmatistsarguethat poor
populations demand help now and wish somehow to assist. They may agree that we
should try to changethe termsof developmentbut believethatwe cannotwait for more
utopian times before mucking in. While the idea of developmentis offensiveto some,
implying that populations need to change to improve their lives, it is difficult to
disagreewith some of its aims and deny assistancewhen facedby the awfulpoverty,the
starvation,and the diseasethat many people endure.Such effortsat relievinghardship
can easily,however,become unwantedinterference,as mentioned,which disturbsmany
anthropologistsand prompts them to argue that attemptsto apply anthropologyare
wrongheaded.
Whatrole can anthropologistslegitimatelyseekin makingknown people'svisions of
their futures?They must seek to challengeauthoritiesand convincethem that there are
benefitsto be gainedby giving more opportunityto local communitiesto drawon their
knowledgeand values and determinetheir own destinies.It is arguablethat participa-
tory methods alone are insufficientgiven political forces and institutional structures
that often preventlocal populationsfrom representingthemselves.While some anthro-
pologists maywork at the communitylevel,tryingto makethe local voice heard,others
campaign at the internationallevel, seeking to lobby politicians and influence policy
makers.12 The application of anthropology becomes engagement with politics. It is
inappropriate,however,to ask,as did a reviewerof this article,how anthropologistscan
obtain power,on the groundsthat a fundamentalproblemin applyinganthropologyis
that the powerful determine what qualifies as knowledge. Instead of opting for a
political career,we seek to use the influence that accrues to positions of academic
authorityin metropolitansocieties to argue other points of view.
The line between advising/lobbyingand politickingon behalf of others is a fine one
and we need to consider carefullythe ethical implicationsof our actions if we believe
that it is ultimatelyup to people to representtheir own interestsand make their own
decisions (e.g. Indigenous Peoples'Organizations1999).They may not want any help
from outsiders,no matterhow well meant. Some NGOs see developmentas a disguise
for neo-liberalaims to continue unfair relations,even colonial exploitation,and con-
vincing these organizationsotherwise is a challenge.While well-intentioned, albeit
politically weak, academics may urge engagement in politically oriented action
research, this can easily become counter-productive (Scheper-Hughes 1995).

Journalof theRoyalAnthropological
Institute(N.S.)13,147-165
? RoyalAnthropologicalInstitute2007

This content downloaded from 200.123.187.130 on Thu, 27 Feb 2014 11:46:40 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 PAUL SILLITOE 161

Anthropologistshave long agonized over these issues, among them Herskovits(1936),

who feared that anthropologicalinvolvementmight further people's oppression and
advocated 'scientific' work only given the discipline's powerlessness (provoking a
ripostefrom Malinowski[1939],busy promoting'practicalanthropology';see also Firth
1944: 21). In the end, the problem with such alternativedevelopment proposals is
getting them heard.The realitiesof global politics make this unlikely,and, if they are
heard, they may be thought seditious if not terroristic.There is also the intriguing
possibilityof people promotingideasabout'development'that liberalsarguingfor their
right to do so may find disturbing- e.g. opting for dictatorialtheocracies,subjugation
of minorities, patron-client relations,domestic repressionof women, etc. This raises
the difficultquestion of whether or not there is a limit to culturalrelativity,and if so,
what it is and who has the authorityto define it.

Applying anthropology?
When we move beyond the academiccloistersand seek to applyanthropology,we face
many dilemmas.Thereare severalapplications,some of them distinctlydubious, all of
them problematic.Some anthropologistsrepudiatethe idea of applyinganthropology
at all giventhe problems.I think that they arewrong,in light of the urgentissuesfacing
humanity.But we need to agree what anthropologyis so that we can decide exactly
what we can do, what problemswe can applyour knowledgeand skills to solving, and
how. We are increasinglyobliged to engage with such 'doing' questions, with many
postgraduatesunable to find academic posts and politicians pressing universitiesto
prove their relevance.These pressuresmake it increasinglydifficultto engage in aca-
demic discussion without seeking practicalconnections, which is not to suggest that
intellectualdebateis unnecessary.
Academicresearchis often a prerequisitefor flourishingappliedwork.We all haveto
retain familiaritywith current intellectualdebates, and this points to the need for a
professionalstructurethat links academicswith those working outside academia.The
pure and applied distinction is unhelpful (Sillitoe 2006b: 10-11)and distorts anthro-
pology's dynamismas a discipline and a profession.Both draw on, and contributeto,
the same theory and methods. This is evident in currentappliedwork which furthers
anthropologicalunderstandingin the crucibleof the 'realworld',often in interdiscipli-
nary contexts.These are interestingtimes for the discipline,with a futurecontributing
to the 'disciplining'of understandingin this 'transdisciplinary'era. Here I would point
to contributions on sustainable livelihoods as well as around issues of risk and
vulnerability.
Do we see opening up unprecedentedopportunitiesfor appliedwork?Perhaps,if we
can agreehow we might effectivelyapplyanthropology- a propositionthat many have
difficulty with - including myself on occasion. We may encounter many challenges
deciding what the discipline can contribute practicallyto solving problems facing
humanity,but it is exciting to contemplatea more significantapplied role.

NOTES
I thank the Rural Development Sociology Group at WageningenUniversity for helpful criticism of a
seminarversion of this articleand colleaguesat the 2005 9th InternationalCongressof Ethnobiologyat the
Universityof Kent,where I presentedsome of these ideas (in the session 'Ethnobiologyand the Scienceof
Humankind',convened by Roy Ellen).
'I am not suggestingthat 'indigenous knowledge'is the only way forwardsin applying anthropology;
today the disciplinepresentsitself as havingsomethingto contributein severalfields,includinginternational

Journalof theRoyalAnthropological
Institute(N.S.) 13,147-165
@RoyalAnthropologicalInstitute2007

This content downloaded from 200.123.187.130 on Thu, 27 Feb 2014 11:46:40 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
162 PAUL SILLITOE

development(notablyon participationand social development),to multinationalcorporations(advisingon

personneland productissues),and to governments(on socialpolicy,healthand education- such as bilingual
programmesfor schools, etc.).
2 See comments in Anthropology Today2o: 4, 21:3-5(2005) andAnthropology News46: 9 (September2005),
and the'InFocus'website at http://www.aaanet.org/press/an/infocus/prisp/other-news.htm.
3 http://www.asa.org, appanthlist@theasa.org.
4 Although such discussion is not new (see Firth 1944;Worsley1970).
5 It is arguablethat this solitary approach cuts the other way concerning interdisciplinary
credentials
because, compared with many other disciplines, where team-work and joint publications are common
practice, most anthropologists still conduct researchand write individually.We have to learn to work
efficientlyas members of the teams characteristicof much appliedwork.
6 In addition to participantobservation,anthropologistsare also competent interviewers,listening more
and askingfewerleading questions;they are also skilled at analysingthe resultingqualitativedata.
S124-6),a companionarticleto this one, for furtherdiscussionof casematerialon soil
7 See Sillitoe (200oo6a:
and fisheriesin Bangladeshthat furtherillustratesthese points.
8 See Sillitoe (20o6a: S127-9)for a discussion of African pastoralismand biodiversityconservationthat
illustratesthis approach.
9See Sillitoe (200o6a:S130-2) for a discussion of how the farmingpracticesof tropicalforest cultivatorsin
the Pacific,South America,and Africamight have mutual relevance.
1o http://www.practicalaction.org.
" See Sillitoe (200oo6a:
S133-5)for case examples,including the hoodia plant of the Kalahari,slices of which
the Khomanipeople have traditionallyeaten to staveoff hunger,and which, recently'discovered',a pharma-
ceutical company intends to develop into a drug to treat obesity (Wynberg2004).
12 See Sillitoe
(2oo6a:s136-7) for some case examplesof indigenousactivismat internationaldevelopment
summits - also Sillitoe & Bicker(2004).

REFERENCES
ACKROYD,A., R. GRILLO& N. TAPPER1980. Training and employment of social anthropologists. Royal
Anthropological InstituteNews 41, 5-7.
ANTWEILER, C. 1998.Localknowledgeand local knowing:an anthropologicalanlaysisof contested'cultural
products'in the context of development.Anthropos93, 469-94.
ASAD,T. (ed.) 1973.Anthropologyand the colonialencounter.London:IthacaPress.
BARNARD, H.R. 2001.Researchmethodsin anthropology.(Thirdedition.) WalnutCreek,Calif.:AltaMiraPress.
BARR,J.J.F.& P. SILLITOE 2000. Databases,indigenous knowledge and interdisciplinaryresearch.In Indig-
enous knowledgedevelopmentin Bangladesh:presentandfuture (ed.) P. Sillitoe,179-95.London:Interme-
diate TechnologyPublications.
BLACKBURN,J. & J. HOLLAND(eds) 1998. Who changes? Institutionalizing participation in development.
London:IntermediateTechnologyPublications.
BORDA,O.F. (ed.) 1998. People's participation: challenges ahead. London: Intermediate Technology
Publications.
BURKEY,S. 1994.Peoplefirst:a guide to self-reliantparticipatoryruraldevelopment.London:Zed Books.
BURUMA,I. & A. MARGALIT2004. Occidentalism: a short history of anti-Westernism. London: Atlantic.
CHAMBERS, R. 1997. Whose reality counts? Putting the first last. London: Intermediate Technology
Publications.
COCHRANE,G. 1971. Development anthropology. New York: Oxford University Press.
CONLIN, S. 1985.Anthropologicaladvice in a governmentcontext. In Social anthropologyand development
policy (eds) R. Grillo & A. Rew,73-87.London:Tavistock.
COOKE, B. & U. KOTHARI (eds) 2ool. Participation:the new tyranny?London:Zed Books.
DESTA,S. & D.L. COPPOCK 2004. Pastoralismunder pressure:trackingsystem changein southernEthiopia.
Human Ecology32, 465-86.
DEWALT,B.R. 1994. Using indigenous knowledge to improve agriculture and natural resource management.
Human Organization 53, 123-31.
andspiritualvaluesof biodi-
rights,resourcesand responses.In Cultural
DUTFIELD,G. 1999.Introduction:
versity(ed.)D.A.Posey,505-15.
London:Intermediate Publications.
Technology
- 2003. Legalized theft? Traditional knowledge and the patent system. Paper delivered at the British
of ScienceFestivalof Sciencemeeting,Universityof Salford,11
Associationfor the Advancement
September.

of theRoyalAnthropological
Journal Institute
(N.S.)13,147-165
@RoyalAnthropological
Institute
2007

This content downloaded from 200.123.187.130 on Thu, 27 Feb 2014 11:46:40 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 PAUL SILLITOE 163

ELLEN,R.F.2004. From ethno-science to science, or 'What the indigenous knowledge debate tells us about
how scientistsdefine their project'.Journalof Cognitionand Culture4, 409-50.
ERVIN,A.M. 2000. Applied anthropology:tools and perspectivesfor contemporarypractice.Boston: Allyn
& Bacon.
ESCOBAR, A. 1995.Encounteringdevelopment:the making and unmakingof the Third World.Princeton:
University Press.
ESTRELLA, M. 2000. Learningfrom change:issuesand experiencesin participatorymonitoringand evaluation.
London:IntermediateTechnologyPublications.
EVANS-PRITCHARD, E.E.1946.Applied anthropology.Africa16, 92-8.
FIRTH,R. 1944.The future of social anthropology.Man 44, 19-22.
S1981. Engagementand detachment:reflectionson applying anthropologyto social affairs.Human
Organization 40, 193-201.
FOSTER, G. 1969.Appliedanthropology.Boston: Little,Brown.
GOUGH, K. 1968.New proposalsfor anthropologists.CurrentAnthropology9, 403-7.
GREEN, M. 2006. Internationaldevelopment,social analysis,and anthropology?Applying anthropologyin
and to development.In Applicationsof anthropology: professionalanthropologyin the twenty-firstcentury
(ed.) S. Pink, 110-29.Oxford:Berghahn.
GREENE, S. 2004. Indigenouspeople incorporated?Cultureas politics,cultureas propertyin pharmaceutical
bioprospecting.CurrentAnthropology45, 211-37.
GRILLO, R. 1985.Applied anthropology in the 1980s:retrospectand prospect. In Social anthropologyand
developmentpolicy (eds) R. Grillo & A. Rew,1-36.London:Tavistock.
W.P. 2001. Quick ethnography. Walnut Creek, Calif.: AltaMira Press.
HANDWERKER,
A.D. 2006. Anthropologistsin the NationalArchives.Journalof the RoyalAnthropological
HARVEY, Institute
(N.S.) 12, 451-5.
1990.Anthropologicaladvocacy:a contradictionin terms. CurrentAnthropology31,
K. & P. ELASS
HASTRUP,
301-11.
HENLEY,P. 2006. Anthropologists in television: a disappearingworld? In Applicationsof anthropology:
professionalanthropologyin the twenty-firstcentury(ed.) S. Pink, 170-89.Oxford:Berghahn.
HERSKOVITS, J.M.1936.Applied anthropologyand Americananthropologists.Science83, 215-22.
HOBART, M. (ed.) 1993. An anthropologicalcritique of development:the growth of ignorance.London:
Routledge.
HOGBIN, H.I. 1957. Anthropologyas public service and Malinowski'scontributionto it. In Man and culture:
an evaluationof the workof BronislawMalinowski(ed.) R. Firth,245-64.London:Routlege& KeganPaul.
HUIZER,G. & B. MANNHEIM(eds) 1979. The politics of anthropology. The Hague: Mouton.
INDIGENOUSPEOPLES' ORGANIZATIONS 1999. Appendix 1: Declarations of the indigenous peoples' organisa-
tions. In Culturaland spiritual values of biodiversity(ed.) D.A. Posey, 555-601.London: Intermediate
TechnologyPublications(for the UN EnvironmentProgramme).
INGOLD, T. 2000. Forewordto Social anthropology:a concise introductionfor students,A. Barnard,14-17.
Taunton: Studymates.
JAYARAMAN, K.S. 1999. ... and India protectsits past online. Nature401, 413-14.
KEEN,I. 1999. The scientific attitude in applied anthropology. In Applied anthropology in Australasia (eds) S.
Toussaint & J. Taylor, 27-59. Nedlands: University of Western Australia Press.
B.M. 1999.Fromprimitiveto postcolonialin Melanesiaand anthropology.Ann Arbor:Universityof
KNAUFT,
Michigan Press.
LAYTON.R.H. 1985.Anthropologyand the AustralianAboriginalLandRightsAct in NorthernAustralia.In
Socialanthropologyand developmentpolicy (eds) R. Grillo & A. Rew, 148-67.London:Tavistock.
MAIR,L. 1969. Anthropologyand social change.(LSE Monographs on Social Anthropology 38.) London:
Athlone.
- 1984.Anthropologyand development.London:Macmillan.
MALINOWSKI, B. 1939.The present state of studies in culture contact: some comments on an American
approach. Africa 12, 27-47.
MARS, G. 2004. Why we must apply anthropology. Anthropology Today 2o: 1, 1-2.
MOORE,H. (ed.) 1996. Thefuture of anthropological
knowledge.London:Routledge.
D. 2005. Cultivatingdevelopment:an ethnographyof aid policy and practice.London:Pluto.
MOSSE,
NOLAN,R. 2002. Developmentanthropology:encountersin the realworld.Boulder,Colo.: Westview.
- 2003.Anthropologyin practice:buildinga careeroutsidethe academy.Boulder,Colo.: LynneRienner
Publishers.

of theRoyalAnthropological
Journal Institute
(N.S.)13,147-165
@RoyalAnthropological
Institute
2007

This content downloaded from 200.123.187.130 on Thu, 27 Feb 2014 11:46:40 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
164 PAUL SILLITOE

ODA1993.Socialdevelopment handbook: a guideto socialissuesin ODAprojects andprogrammes. London:

OverseasDevelopment Administration.
PINA-CABRAL, J.de 2005.Thefutureof socialanthropology. SocialAnthropology 13,119-28.
PINK,S. 2006. Introduction:applicationsof anthropology. In Applicationsof anthropology: professional
anthropologyin thetwenty-first
century(ed.)S. Pink,3-26.Oxford:Berghahn.
POLE,C. (ed.)2004.Fieldwork.4 vols.London:Sage.
POSEY,D.A.2000.Ethnobiology andethnoecology in the contextof nationallawsandinternational agree-
mentsaffectingindigenousandlocalknowledge, traditional resources
andintellectual propertyrights.In
Indigenousenvironmentalknowledge andits transformations (eds)R. Ellen,P.Parkes&A. Bicker,35-54.
Amsterdam: HarwoodAcademic.
PRAKASH,G. (ed.)1995. Aftercolonialism:imperialhistoriesandpostcolonialdisplacements. Princeton:
Uni-
versityPress.
PRICE,D. 2000.Anthropologistsas spies.TheNation,20 Nov.(available on-line:http://www.thenation.com/
doc/2oo000n2o/price).
PURCELL, T.W.1998.Indigenousknowledge andappliedanthropology: questionsof definitionanddirection.
Human Organization57, 258-72.
RAo,V.&M. WALTON andpublicaction.Stanford:
(eds)2004.Culture Press.
University
REDCLIFT,M.R.1985.Policyresearchandanthropological compromise: shouldthe pipercallthe tune?In
anddevelopment
Socialanthropology policy(eds)R. Grillo&A. Rew,198-202.London:Tavistock.
REW,A. 1985. Theorganizational
connection:multi-disciplinarity practiceandanthropologicaltheory.In
Socialanthropologyanddevelopmentpolicy(eds)R. Grillo&A. Rew,185-97.London:Tavistock.
RICHARDS,A.I.1944.Practical
anthropologyin the lifetimeof the International
AfricanInstitute.
Africa14,
289-301.
SAID,E. 1978. Orientalism.New York:Pantheon.
SCHENSUL,J.J.&M.D.LECOMPTE (eds)1999.Ethnographer's toolkit.7 vols.WalnutCreek,Calif.:AltaMira
Press.
SCHEPER-HUGHES,N. 1995. Theprimacyof the ethical:propositions for a militantanthropology.
Current
Anthropology 36, 409-20.
can we havean impact?
T. 1999.The emergingglobalcrisisand developmentanthropology:
SCUDDER,
Human Organization58, 351-64.
C.&A.AHMED
SHORE, (eds)1995.Thefutureofanthropology: tothecontemporary
itsrelevance world.London:
AthlonePress.
P. 1998. The developmentof indigenousknowledge:a new appliedanthropology.CurrentAnthro-
SILLITOE,
pology39,223-52.
- 2000.Socialchangein Melanesia:development andhistory.Cambridge: Press.
University
S2003a. Timeto be professional?Anthropology Today19:1,1-2.
- 2004.Interdisciplinary
experiences:workingwithindigenousknowledgein development. Interdis-
ScienceReviews29, 6-23.
ciplinary
- 2006a.Ethnobiology andappliedanthropology: rapprochement of the academicwiththepractical.
JournaloftheRoyalAnthropologicalInstitute(N.S.)SpecialIssue:Ethnobiologyandthescienceof human-
kind (ed. R. Ellen), 119-42.
- HistoryandAnthropology
2oo6b.Thesearchforrelevance:
a briefhistoryof appliedanthropology. 17,
1-19.
S & A. Bicker2004. Introduction:hunting for theory, gatheringideology. In Developmentand local
toissuesin naturalresources
newapproaches
knowledge: conservation
management, (eds)A.
andagriculture
Bicker,P. Sillitoe & J. Pottier,1-18.London:Routledge.
, P.J.DIXON& J.J.F.BARR2005. Indigenousknowledgeinquiries:a methodologiesmanualfor develop-
ment.London:Intermediate Publications.
Technology
SPIVAK, G.C. 1990. Thepostcolonial
critic:interviews, dialogues(ed. S. Harasym).New York:
strategies,
Routledge.
STAVENHAGEN, appliedsocialsciences.HumanOrganization
R.1971.Decolonizing 30, 333-44.
STOCKING, G.W.2001.Delimitinganthropology: historicalreflectionson the boundariesof a boundless
discipline.In Delimiting G.W.Stocking,303-29.Madison:
anthropology, of WisconsinPress.
University
STONE, G.D.2002. Bothsidesnow:fallaciesin the genetic-modification for developing
wars,implications
countries,andanthropological Current
perspectives. Anthropology 43,611-30.
STRATHERN, M. 2005. Experiments in interdisciplinarity. Social Anthropology 13, 75-90.
TAX, S. 1975. Action anthropology. Current Anthropology 16, 514-17.

Institute(N.S.) 13,147-165
Journalof theRoyalAnthropological
? RoyalAnthropologicalInstitute2007

This content downloaded from 200.123.187.130 on Thu, 27 Feb 2014 11:46:40 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 PAUL SILLITOE 165

an introduction.South Hadley,Mass.:Bergin & Garvey.

VAN WILLIGEN, J. 1986.Appliedanthropology:
WALLERSTEIN, E. 2003. Anthropology,sociology and other dubious disciplines. CurrentAnthropology44,
453-66.
WILLIAMS,N.M. 1986. The Yolnguand their land: a systemof land tenureand the fight for its recognition.
Stanford:UniversityPress.
WORSLEY,P. 1970. The end of anthropology?Transactionsof the 6th WorldCongressof Sociology3, 121-9.
WRIGHT, S. 1995. Anthropology: still the 'uncomfortable discipline'?In The future of anthropology:its
relevanceto the contemporaryworld (eds) C. Shore & A. Ahmed, 65-93.London:Athlone Press.
- 2006. Machetes into a jungle? A history of anthropology in policy and practice, 1981-2000.In
Applicationsof anthropology:professionalanthropologyin the twenty-firstcentury (ed.) S. Pink, 27-54.
Oxford:Berghahn.
I& S. Nelson (eds) 1995.Powerand participatorydevelopment:theoryand practice.London:Interme-
diate TechnologyPublications.
WYNBERG,R. 2004. Rhetoric,realismand benefit sharing:use of traditionalknowledgeof Hoodia species in
the developmentof an appetitesuppressant.Journalof WorldIntellectualProperty7, 851-76.

Quand les anthropologues s'appliquent: heurs et malheursde

I'anthropologieappliquee
Resum*

Autrefoisconsider&e, au mieux, comme sujettea caution, l'anthropologieappliqueefait de plus en plus

d' mules. Sa resurgencereflbtela large expansionde la discipline,et la recherchedes applicationss'6tend
a des domainestres divers.L'auteurreflechitici Aquelquesquestionscontrovers6esqu'ila rencontreesalors
a
qu'il cherchait releverce defi, notamment dans le contexte des < savoirsindigenes >>dans les etudes de
developpement,questionsauxquellesil faut s'interesserpour progresserdans ces travaux.Une breverevue
historique suggere que l'absence de prise en compte de ces questions pourrait bien avoir entrav6les
tentatives ant6rieuresd'6tablissementd'une anthropologie appliquee. Les problematiquesen question
concernentla definitiondu sujetque l'on cherchea appliquer,les implicationsde l'interdisciplinaritepour
les sciences sociales et la question du statut de l'expert. D'autres considerationssur l'applicabilit' des
m'thodes ethnographiquesconcernent par exemple les difficult's de la rechercheparticipative.L'auteur
met en lumikrecinq mani res d'envisagerl'anthropologieappliquie : faciliterl'exploitationpar les autres
du savoir-faireexogene, utiliser la connaissancedes comprehensionslocales pour renforcerle develop-
pement, transf6rerl'apprentissageet les pratiquesd'une culturea une autre,rechercherles moyens d'aider
l'utilisation commerciale des savoirs,et enfin, formuler une ethnocritique radicaledu developpement.
Aucune de ces approchesn'estfacile,et elles promettentdes lendemainsinteressantspour l'anthropologie.

Paul Sillitoe is Professorof Anthropology,Universityof Durham. His interestsinclude human ecology and
ethno-science, development and social change, livelihood and technology,with a particularinterest in the
Pacific.His currentresearchinterestsfocus on naturalresourcesmanagement,technology,and development.
He has conducted extensive fieldwork in Papua New Guinea and is currently involved in projects in
South Asia.

AnthropologyDepartment,43 Old Elvet,DurhamDH13HN, UK.paul.sillitoe@dur.ac.uk

Journal of the Royal AnthropologicalInstitute (N.S.) 13, 147-165

@ Royal Anthropological Institute 2007

This content downloaded from 200.123.187.130 on Thu, 27 Feb 2014 11:46:40 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions