Short-term Anthropology: Thoughts from a Fieldwork Among Plumbers, Digitalisation, Cultural Assumptions and Marketing Strategies

Mette Marie Vad Karsten

Abstract


Long-term fieldwork and the methodology that goes with it have long set the golden standard for anthropological practice. Quick deadlines, relevance for economic growth, and bigger commercial market shares rarely equal solid anthropology. However, conditions like these are more often than not daily reality for many anthropologists working in the private and public sectors. Through an ethnographic case report this article emphasises the ability to scale up and down anthropological research methodologies and analytic tools used when performing “short-term anthropology.” It will be argued that short project deadlines within days or weeks, specific objectives, and commercial settings do not exclude anthropological practices. On the contrary, such conditions and the requirements involved encourage methodological adjustments and specificity.


Keywords


Digitalisation; craftsmen; scale; methodology; applied anthropology

Full Text:

PDF

References


Akrich, Madeleine. 1992. The De-Scription of Technical Objects. In: Shaping Technology/Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change. Wiebe Bijker & John Law (red.), pp. 205-225.

Bijker, Wiebe E. and John Law. 1992. General Introduction. In: Shaping Technology/Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change, pp. 1-14. Cambridge/London: MIT Press.

DeWalt, Kathleen M. & Billie R. DeWalt. 2002. Doing Participant Observation: Becoming a Participant. In: Participant Observation: A Guide for Fieldworkers, pp. 35-67. Walnut Creek/Lanham: Altamira Press.

Fyhn, Håkon og Roger Andre Søraa. 2017. Craftmanship in the Machine: Sustainability through new roles in building craft at the technologized building site. In: Nordic Journal of Science and Technology Studies, 5(2): 71-84.

Gupta, Akhil and James Ferguson. 1997. Discipline and practice: "The field" s site, method, and location in anthropology.” In: Anthropological Locations: Boundaries and Grounds of a Field Science. A. Gupta and J. Ferguson (eds.), pp. 1-46. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Gusterson, Hugh. 1997.Studying Up Revisited. In: PoLAR: Political and Legal Anthropology Review, 20 (1): 114-119. https://doi.org/10.1525/pol.1997.20.1.114

Lassiter, Luke Eric. 2005. Collaborative Ethnography and Public Anthropology. In: Current Anthropology, 46 (1): 83-106. https://doi.org/10.1086/425658

Marcus, George. 1995. Ethnography in/of the World System: The Emergence of Multi-Sited Ethnography. In: Annual Review of Anthropology, 24:95-117. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.an.24.100195.000523

Marcus, George. 2007. How short can fieldwork be? In: Social Anthropology/Anthropologie Sociale, 15 (3): 353-367. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0964-0282.2007.00025_1.x

Oliveira, Pedro. 2012. Ethnography and Co-Creation in a Portuguese Consultancy: Wine Branding Research as an Example. In: Journal of Business Anthropology, 1(2): 197-217. https://doi.org/10.22439/jba.v1i2.3943

Rabinow, Paul. 2011. Collaborations, Concepts, and Assemblages. In: The Accomplishment. Assembling the Contemporary, pp. 113-126. Chicago: University Chicago Press.

Wulff, Helena. 2002. Yo-Yo Fieldwork: Mobility and Time in a Multi-Local Study of Dance in Ireland. In: Anthropological Journal on European Cultures, Shifting Grounds: Experiments in Doing Ethnography, 11: 117-136.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.22439/jba.v8i1.5718



Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

ISSN: 2245-4217

Hosted by CBS Library