The Pursuit of Social Knowledge: Methodology and thePractice of Anthropology

Timothy J. Finan and John van Willigen

The nature of anthropological inquiry has changed over the last 20years. The expanding presence of anthropologists in nonacademicprofessions has increased the range of services and skills expected ofthem (van Willigen 1982). Furthermore, as the typical anthropological unitof inquiry has shifted from relatively isolated populations to local commu-nities within more complex social systems, theoretical questions have be-gun to focus as much on forms of external integration as on internal socialdynamics. As basic tasks and understandings change, there arises a de-mand for innovative, flexible methods of research.

In their practice, anthropologists are routinely asked to contribute topolicy analysis, project design and evaluation, and other specific prob-lem-solving efforts in both rural and urban communities (E. Chambers1985; van Willigen 1986). What is the primary anthropological contribu-tion? Essentially, it is social knowledge: an encompassing understandingabout a local community, its regular and discernible behavior patterns, itscultural logic, and the nature of its integration into wider systems. Anthro-pologists, in other words, are indefatigable knowledge specialists, stu-dents of human society whose holistic and comprehensive perspectiveignores disciplinary bounds. Unrestrained by narrow subject matter de-terminations, anthropologists can document labor allocation patterns foreconomists, trace cross-cultural learning patterns for educators, identifycultivation practices for agronomists, and classify local remedies forhealth practitioners. In short, anthropologists are trained to know peoplewithin their particular social contexts. As anthropologists, we attempt toenter the world of our research subjects, to fathom their systems of mean-ing, and to accurately translate their categories of knowledge into cate-gories we understand and use in other contexts, such as development,health care, and education.

The core anthropological research method has been participant ob-servation (Jorgensen 1989; Salmen 1987; Spradley 1980) and the key in-formant interview (Casagrande 1960). It is important to the successful useof these core techniques that the researcher be integrated into the localcommunity. As part of the target group, the anthropologist has some ac-cess to the "insider" point of view. The access provided by these tech-niques is an important dimension of the usefulness of anthropological re-search methods. There are limits, however. For example, participant ob-

2 SOUNDINGS

servation functions most effectively when applied to a small, homogene-ous group whose meaning system is shared by all members and further,since success is predicated upon group acceptance of the researcher,the process is often very time-intensive. Key informant interviewing, for allthe depth of knowledge it provides, cannot always claim that the data arerepresentative and account for intracultural variation.

Two empirical realities make it necessary for practicing anthropolo-gists involved in the application and practice of their discipline to diversifytheir methodological tool kit. The first reality is the time constraint imposedon current anthropological research. Although the primary task of the an-thropologist continues to be the collection and organization of knowledge,18 months of fieldwork are not feasible in most cases and perhaps noteven recommended in some. This necessitates time-effective researchtechniques. The second factor is the intensification of social complexity.Anthropologists increasingly have come to realize that the "native point ofview" is not uniformly (or even harmoniously) shared and may differ sub-stantially from one respondent to another (Pelto and Pelto 1975). Both in-tragroup disagreement and local rivalries can be frequent, but social het-erogeneity is not easily accommodated by participant observation. Rarelydoes the applied anthropological researcher have the task of providing auniformist characterization of a culture. More frequently his or her task isto understand differences. In fact, in all of the cases in this book the de-termination of difference was crucial to the project.

The most reliable research technique for addressing internal variationis the survey (Casey and Kumar 1988), based upon a random sample andusing uniform interview schedules or questionnaires (Babbie 1973-, Dill-man 1978). Formal survey techniques in anthropology have enjoyed in-creasing attention from applied researchers. Where societies or issues arecomplex, the question for the anthropologist is not only the quality of socialknowledge but also its representativeness for the group as a whole. Withthe formal survey, if the principles of sampling are adhered to and statis-tical techniques are carefully applied, results can be offered as repre-sentative with an estimated level of confidence (for most socioeconomicphenomena).

The application of the formal survey in many anthropological contextsrequires circumspection. Under severe constraints, the researcher mustallocate scarce time and other resources between breadth-of-coveragefactors and depth-of-coverage factors. The former category, in practicalterms, includes the sample size, the sampling procedure, the logisticaldemands of interviewing, and the preparation of a standardized question-naire; the depth factors, on the other hand, include the contextualizationand testing of the questionnaire, the training of interviewers, and the lengthof interviews. In a less than optimal situation, the researcher must recon-cile these trade-offs and develop a realistic survey strategy that ad-dresses project goals.

NAPA BULLETIN 10 3

A second difficulty with the formal survey arises because of the limi-tations for developing sampling frames in the kinds of communities withinwhich anthropologists usually work. When no formal lists of households orlocal censuses exist for the target group, it is difficult to estimate the pop-ulation for sampling purposes. This technical problem can be partiallyovercome with more time and local knowledge. Another dimension withregard to the communities anthropologists often study is that under ran-dom sampling, in which every household has an equal chance of selec-tion. If this principle is adhered to, the sample will often include the illiter-ate, the suspicious, and the misinformed as well as the articulate and will-ing participant. Questions that demand reflection, opinions, and attitudesare very difficult to standardize for quantitative analysis, because the qual-ity of response is so varied. Thus, the resulting information derived from asurvey tends to be limited to close-ended questions that most respon-dents are able and willing to answer. While the survey may in fact identifysuch variation as the percentage of female farmers, land size, the inci-dence of disease among the impoverished, and the eating habits ofschool children, it often does not reveal why these particular patterns exist.

A third difficulty with surveys is their expense. Robert Chambersspeaks of "survey slavery" and argues that the survey of which we speakhere is the most abused social science research technique. Chambersstates, "The costs and inefficiencies of rural surveys are often high: humancosts for the researchers; opportunity costs for research capacity thatmight have been better used; and inefficiencies in misleading 'findings'"(1983:51-52). Perhaps the most significant problem is the time that ittakes for the research data to be analyzed. Time reduces the chance thatthe research will be used (Rylko-Bauer, van Willigen, and McElroy 1989).Opportunities for action pass before the data are analyzed because in theworld of practicing anthropologists, the quest for social knowledge is oftena part of a larger, applied process and, in this sense, is purposeful (or, asRobert Chambers [1985] calls it, "collaborative"). More knowledge is nec-essary so that something else can occur. The dam builder needs infor-mation on population relocation before construction begins; the publichealth service needs socioeconomic information to improve its deliverysystem; the educator needs cross-cultural information to prepare the cur-riculum; the policy-maker needs impact estimates before programs areset; and all this within the context of bureaucratic structures, budgets, andschedules. Since the activity of obtaining knowledge is but part of a widerprocess, anthropologists face constraints, usually of the double order—time and money. Unable to pursue knowledge for its own sake and atone's own rate, anthropologists have thus had to adopt and adapt re-search techniques that fit within schedules and come in at budget.

The methodological implications of these trade-offs are clear. Whenmore time is allocated to breadth factors, a more valid estimate of existingvariation is obtained, but a lower level of communication is achieved (and

4 SOUNDINGS

the quality of social knowledge suffers). In this case, the appropriately de-signed questionnaire provides a level of knowledge that most participantscan answer safely with a minimum of measurement error. The consequentlack of depth, however, may prove unsatisfactory to the anthropologistand to the project. On the other hand, when available time resources areallocated to in-depth factors, the true variation in the population may beunderestimated or, worse, ignored. The challenge of methodological in-novation in practicing anthropology is to complement the concern for var-iation in complex society with the need for quality in gaining social knowl-edge within the context of available resources. The task, then, is how toadapt tried methods and devise new ones that allow anthropologists toeffectively study variation under time and resource constraints, withoutsacrificing the deep insights that anthropology has traditionally garnered.

The Challenge to Do Good Research Quickly

The purpose of this volume is to document and share the researchexperiences of anthropologists who have struggled with this methodolog-ical challenge. In each chapter, the underlying issue is whether we an-thropologists can contribute to better policy analysis, to more sensitiveproject design, to more effective problem solving by obtaining socialknowledge about a cultural community of people. Although we might alldesire it, there is no solution offered, no basic truth revealed, but rather aconcrete and substantial record of effort that identifies directions currentlybeing explored. We hope these accounts are useful to you and that youwill learn from this record as you extract the methodological strategies andderive insights that will further your practice of anthropology.

The included cases make use of rapid appraisal or focus group tech-niques. The cases that demonstrate the focus group technique exemplifya simple extension of the key informant idea. The difference is that the an-thropologist interviews a set of key informants at once, thus increasing thepotential that the data are representative. It is more than simply addingnumbers for it seeks to increase the representativeness of the data by ex-posing the statement of the individual to the response of the group. Theresult is a potentially richer response with limitations in representativenessreduced. The interview process resembles the key informant interview ina number of ways. The selection of those to be interviewed is usually pur-posive and may be based on the anticipated knowledge of those selected.The interview process is relatively unstructured, focused on the categoriesof meaning that the interviewees bring to the session. The focus groupprocess, more than anything, is a quest for meaning. It was originally for-mulated by sociologist Robert Merton to allow analysis to go beyond theresearcher's speculations about why certain frequencies and correlationsappeared in surveys (Merton 1989). Because the focus group process isvery widely used, there is a rich technical literature that can serve as aguide for using the approach.

NAPA BULLETIN 10 5

The rapid appraisal is a generic category for a research methodologythat involves short periods of fieldwork, usually less than one month (R.Chambers 1985; Conway, McCracken, and Pretty 1987; Hildebrand 1981)and exemplifies a truncation of the formal survey process combined withsome of the useful aspects of key informant interviewing. The fieldworkcomponent of rapid appraisal relies on two information gathering tech-niques. The first is directed observation, where the researcher records vi-sual (or other sensual) data according to categories established by theresearch team. On a rapid rural appraisal, for example, the farming sys-tems specialist might detect common land use patterns, identify intercrop-ping combinations, or record the sexual division of tasks; a health spe-cialist might identify staple diets, household hygiene, and the existingpublic sanitation infrastructure; an educational anthropologist might doc-ument the relevant social categories that students use to classify them-selves. This dimension does not appear in the focus group technique butcould be easily added. The second aspect of the rapid appraisal is theinformal, open-ended survey—conducted either individually or in groups(Rhoades 1985). The informal survey does not apply a formal question-naire instrument, although the interviewing sessions tend to follow a pre-viously prepared topic outline, a feature it often shares with focus groupresearch. In most cases, the sampling strategies in informal surveys andfocus groups are neither random nor statistically representative, but pur-posive in that certain, pre-established characteristics are sought—smallfarmer, single parent household, labor union member, or whatever othercategory is relevant to the research problem. In the course of the inter-views, culturally meaningful and important categories are meant toemerge, so that an appropriate idiom of dialogue is developed. With theirparticular skills and sensitivities, anthropologists are well prepared to con-duct these interviews.

Rapid appraisal is often carried out by a team comprising research-ers from different disciplines. Each team member gathers informationwithin the respective area of specialization, and afterward the team shareswhat each has learned as part of a consensus-building process. This formof knowledge acquisition is cumulative and processual, and rapid ap-praisal procedures often indicate the gaps where understanding is lessdeveloped and follow-up interviewing is needed.

The chapters in this volume demonstrate how flexible and wide-spread time-effective techniques are in anthropological research. Thereader will find here ample evidence of this flexibility as Schwartz com-bines rapid rural appraisal and unobtrusive data gathering techniques, asHenderson adapts rapid appraisal to specific gender issues, and as Hesscombines focus groups with survey methods. They have been indepen-dently developed in the many specialization areas of practicing anthro-pology, from agricultural development to nutritional anthropology to cross-cultural education. Additional flexibility can be seen in the work of re-

6 SOUNDINGS

searchers who have also modified these techniques to fit specific projectobjectives. For example, McCracken, Pretty, and Conway (1988) dem-onstrate the utility of distinguishing between what they call topical, explor-atory, monitoring, and participatory rapid appraisals.

This volume, especially in the Molnar survey of RAP practitioners andBryant and Bailey's discussion of focus groups, also identifies the poten-tial hazards of these techniques. For example, carelessly applied, therapid appraisal can fail to create an adequate communication bond withthe local community and, indeed, leave behind an impression of informa-tion stripmining. The whirlwind tour also instills deep dissatisfaction in acompetent researcher, for the sense of intrusion is strong and the qualityof data often tenuous. During short village visits, it is not always easy tointerpret whose perspective has been presented. The rapid appraisal canonly capture broad sweeps of variation in a given region. Focus groupsmay be influenced by the presence of a few domineering individuals and,although the focus group technique increases the spread of the study ef-ficiently, there are still residual problems with representation. To solvethese problems, complementary methods may be necessary and the re-searcher must always be aware of the real trade-offs.

Quality Control in Time-Constrained Research

As the experiences related in this volume will verify, anthropologistsare in the process of developing methodologies that address the issue ofquality control. We would like to suggest three research strategies thatseek to achieve both breadth and depth in time-constrained research.

Interactive Methods

Knowledge builds rapidly on knowledge, and it is possible to com-bine qualitative and quantitative research techniques in a processual, in-teractive way (Brewer and Hunter 1989; Webb et al. 1966). Focus groupsand rapid appraisal procedures are especially effective for obtaining ac-cess to the local sociocultural idiom, including relevant categories, per-ceived problems, and general patterns of variation. In effect, both can beused to prepare the researcher for a more formal survey. They help identifyinteresting questions, sampling strategies, logistical needs, and appro-priate questionnaire design, and also introduce the researcher to the localcommunity and initiate rapport-building. In an agricultural developmentproject, for example, the rapid rural appraisal elicits important informationon differences in landholdings, technologies, management strategies, di-vision of labor, markets, and other general behavior patterns that can bedetermined through purposive observation and informal interviews. In at-tempts to promote breastfeeding, mother's concerns which may inhibitbreastfeeding can be identified through focus groups and addressed incommunity education programs.

NAPA BULLETIN 10 7

Both intensity of communication and level of acquired social knowl-edge can be relatively low after the use of these techniques. Certain ques-tions have been answered, but many more have been raised—most ofwhich relate to the representativeness of the obtained results. The formalsurvey, when it is the recommended technique, provides the means of de-scribing the variation in a systematic way. In our agricultural developmentexample, a survey of a representative sample can provide a typology offarmers based on landholding size, on female management, on technicalchoice, or on integration in the market (or on a multitude of other cate-gories, if called for). The survey can document important problems notidentified in either rapid appraisals or focus groups, such as actual in-come status of women, actual education status of small farmers, and soon. Unfortunately, the formal survey cannot specify why these regular pat-terns exist.

With survey results in hand, the researcher can return to the samepopulation to seek out a deeper level of social knowledge through moreintensive interviewing. This stage, however, is totally dependent on the in-formation obtained from the previous efforts. As in most social science re-search, certain assumptions underlie this strategy; for example, that onefemale smallholder is generally representative of all female smallholdersfor certain kinds of social knowledge (e.g., access to credit). The inter-active process directs the researcher toward a representative of a cate-gory, the characteristics of which have already been established in anal-ysis of the survey data. The sample is thus purposive, chosen on the basisof these descriptors and a willingness to participate. At this point, the in-teraction and the iteration have provided both breadth and depth.

How long does interactive research take? The process varies accord-ing to the logistics of fieldwork in a particular project, the availability ofcounterpart assistance, and the effectiveness of time spent away from thefield in questionnaire preparation, data entry and analysis, and in reportwriting. The interactive research is meant to reduce the amount of time inthe field, while deriving the most communication and knowledge benefitfrom this time investment. Thus, much importance is attributed to the pre-and post-fieldwork phases, which by building on a growing knowledgebase, can vastly increase the effectiveness of field time.

Stepwise Research

Frequently, the total time of a research project is less restrictive, butextended fieldwork is not possible. Under these kinds of time constraints,stepwise research allows the anthropologist to design a research agendain several related components to be carried out in a logical sequence. Thespecific sequence is dictated by the kind the social knowledge that issought and may be thought of as either horizontal or vertical. An exampleof a horizontal sequence can be found in multi-year agricultural develop-ment, where important issues may revolve arourrd the seasonality of ag-

8 SOUNDINGS

ricultural activities. Thus, a rapid rural appraisal of rainy season croppingpatterns will be followed by a dry season appraisal, so that a more com-prehensive description of agricultural strategies is achieved. Or the step-wise strategy may develop vertically, usually by increasing social knowl-edge through a series of research components that seek more specificand detailed information. For example, the initial study of irrigated crop-ping patterns may unveil a critical gap in the understanding of traditionalwater distribution systems, which may lead in turn to a more detailed studyof land tenure in irrigated areas.

As in the interactive strategy, different research techniques may beindicated for the different steps in the research plan. Finan's multi-yearresearch project in Cape Verde has followed the stepwise approach, and,at each stage, different techniques have been applied—from rapid ruralappraisals, to formal surveys (e.g., Finan and Belknap 1985) to crop budg-eting procedures (Langworthy and Finan 1987) to detailed studies of irri-gation communities.

The principal advantage of stepwise research lies in the sequencingof effort. Being able to stop the process periodically and reflect upon in-terim fieldwork results and consult colleagues on specific issues will in-crease the quality of social knowledge. Perhaps even more than extendedparticipant observation, the stepwise process invites the opportunity toshift focus and to gain a more objective perspective on the research prob-lem. A further advantage is that many projects, especially those orientedtoward development objectives, can embrace stepwise research strate-gies more readily than extended fieldwork techniques.

The principal disadvantage of the stepwise research methodology isthe discontinuity of communication with the research population. The per-sonal links that researchers create with their respondents are the criticallines of the communication of social knowledge. In some contexts, dis-continuous communication can be interpreted as a lack of commitment onthe part of the researcher, in which case, the fundamental level of trust isthreatened. The ability to maintain a strong bond of communicationthrough several contacts is a critical research skill.

Participatory Research

A final strategy of improving the quality of resource-constrained re-search is to create the situation in which the research subjects becomepartners in the research process (McCracken 1988). The essence of par-ticipatory research is that the local community, which maintains its fundsof social knowledge, is more willing to share these funds with outsiders ifit also shares the basic research objective. In this case, the outside re-searcher presents the community with a problem and a set of possibletechniques. If this problem is accepted by the community, the local indi-viduals become research partners, sharing in both the planning and theexecution of the research. Thus, instead of extracting information from the

NAPA BULLETIN 10 9

local community, the researcher trains willing community participants(themselves the sources of knowledge) to organize and translate theirknowledge into usable research categories.

This participatory strategy has been widely promoted, but it is verydifficult to implement in social science research. Research projects withvery specific and practical objectives, such as the need for backgroundinformation to locate a road or dam, tend to incorporate local participationmore readily. Also, the more literate the population, the greater the poten-tial for participation (see Hess, this volume) in the research. In general,however, the techniques for innovative participatory research are not yetdeveloped, despite the potential of this strategy to greatly enhance thequality of social knowledge.

Conclusion

We offer the preceding comments on methodology in anthropologyas context for the chapters that follow. Here, the reader will find evidenceof current anthropological practice at its most dynamic and flexible, indic-ative of the capacity of anthropologists to take their knowledge and prob-lem-solving ability to virtually any arena. This volume documents the greatresponsiveness of anthropologists and their ability to adapt their methodnot only to the constraints of resources but to the idiosyncracies of the spe-cific problem. The reader discovers that methodological suppleness ineducational classrooms, in health clinics, and in a variety of rural devel-opment contexts. True to the introductory caveats, the volume promisesno recipes for success in research and project development, but it shouldprovide inspiration and direction for practicing anthropologists with a widearray of interests.

References Cited

Babbie, Earle R.1973 Survey Research Methods. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Brewer, John, and Albert Hunter1989 Multimethod Research: A Synthesis of Styles. Sage Library of Social Research 175,

Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Cdsagrande, Joseph B.

1960 In the Company of Man: Twenty Portraits by Anthropologists. New York: Harper.Casey, Dennis J., and Krishna Kumar

1988 The Collection, Analysis, and Use of Monitoring and Evaluation Data. A World BankPublication. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University.

Chambers, Erve1985 Applied Anthropology: A Practical Guide. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.

Chambers, Robert1983 Rural Development: Putting the Last First. London: Longman.1985 Shortcut Methods of Gathering Social Information for Rural Development Projects.

In Putting People First: Sociological Variables in Rural Development. Michael Cernea,ed. Pp. 300-415. New York: Oxford University Press.

Conway, G. R., J. A. McCracken, and J. N. Pretty1987 Training Notes for Agrosystem Analysis and Rapid Rural Appraisal. London: Inter-

national Institute for Environment and Development.

10 SOUNDINGS

Dillman, Don A.1978 Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method. New York: John Wiley.

Finan, Timothy J., and John Belknap1985 Characteristics of Santiago Agriculture. Food Crops Research Report. Praia, Cape

Verde: USAID.Hildebrand, Peter E.

1981 Combining Disciplines in Rapid Appraisal: The Sondeo Approach. AgriculturalAdministration 8:423-432.

Jorgensen, Danny L.1989 Participant Observation, A Methodology for Human Studies. Newbury Park, CA:

Sage.Langworthy, Mark, and Timothy J. Finan

1987 Crop Budgets for Selected Irrigated Crops on Santiago and on Santo Antao Is-lands. Food Crops Research Report. Praia, Cape Verde: USAID.

McCracken, Jennifer A.1988 Participatory Rapid Rural Appraisal in Guarajat: A Trial Model for the Aga Khan

Rural Support Programme (India). London: International Institute for Environment andDevelopment

McCracken, Jennifer A., J. N. Pretty, and G. R. Conway1988 An Introduction to Rapid Rural Appraisal for Agricultural Development. London: In-

ternational Institute for Environment and Development.Merton, Robert K.

1989 Focussed Interview. New York: MacMillan.Pelto, Pertti J., and Gretel H. Pelto

1975 Intra-cultural Diversity: Some Theoretical Issues. American Ethnologist 2:1-18.Rhoades, Robert E.

1985 Informal Survey Methods for Farming Systems Research. Human Organization44(3)215-218.

Rylko-Bauer, Barbara, John van Willigen, and Ann McElroy1989 Strategies for Increasing the Use of Anthropological Research in the Policy Pro-

cess: A Cross-Disciplinary Review of the Literature. In Making Our Research Useful:Case Studies in the Utilization of Anthropological Knowledge. John van Willigen, Bar-bara Rylko-Bauer, and Ann McElroy, eds. Pp. 1-25. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Salmen, Lawrence1987 Listen to the People: Participant-Observer Evaluation of Development Projects.

New York: Oxford University Press.Spradley, James P.

1980 Participant Observation. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston,van Willigen, John

1982 The Great Transformation: Applied Training and Disciplinary Change. PracticingAnthropology 4(3 and 4).

1986 Applied Anthropology: An Introduction. South Hadley, MA: Bergin and Garvey.Webb, Eugene J , D. T Campbell, R. D Schwartz, and L. Sechrest

1966 Unobtrusive Measures: Nonreactive Research in the Social Sciences Chicago:Rand McNally