[Interpretationandmethods] cultural anthropology

[Peregrine Schwartz-Shea]

All,

I know there has been a lot of discussion about the meaning of 
ethnography on the list.  I've been looking at funding possibilities and 
came across the stuff below on the NSF web site.  I've highlighted the 
portions that seem to me to point to a much more "disciplined" view of 
ethnographic field research (though such terms are not used)  than I had 
expected. Has ethnography in its "original home" become more 
positivist?  Or at least if one wants to get NSF funding?

What do you think is meant by the term "generalization" below?  Does 
this advice rule out "grounded theory?"

Peri Schwartz-Shea


SBE Doctoral Dissertation Research Improvement Grants

Cultural Anthropology 
<http://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=5388&org=BCS&from=home>
Division of Behavioral and Cognitive Sciences
Deborah Winslow 
<http://www.nsf.gov/staff/staff_bio.jsp?lan=dwinslow&org=SBE>, Program 
Director

Dissertation Panel Advice to Students

The panel reviews 50-150 proposals each meeting, and usually ranks less 
than 20% in the "must fund" category. While the proposals span the 
breadth of diversity in cultural anthropology, the top-ranked proposals 
share some strengths which more proposals could display. On the most 
general level, the panel notes that projects that advance our 
theoretical understanding are more scientifically meritorious than 
descriptive projects which add a case study of some (albeit fascinating 
and topical) situation. Outstanding proposals specify how the knowledge 
to be created advances our theoretical understanding of the study 
situation, so that people interested in similar situations in different 
contexts will learn from the project's outcome. The key is to be 
explicit in showing how the general theory explains the local situation, 
and in showing how the new knowledge from the local situation will 
advance the theory.

Use a clear and concise writing style. Reviewers will include 
anthropologists from a variety of specialty areas in cultural 
anthropology. It is possible that no specialist from your particular 
area of research will be on the panel. Defining key terms and keeping 
your proposal free of jargon will ensure that all reviewers will be able 
to understand your proposal and evaluate it fairly.

One of the areas in which the proposal will be evaluated is "Research 
Competence of the Student." You can provide information to reviewers in 
the body of the proposal as well as in your biographical sketch. Be sure 
to include relevant language skills and proficiency, training or 
experience with the data collection or analysis techniques proposed, and 
any other information which can help reviewers evaluate how well 
prepared you are to conduct the research.

At the end of the proposal, include only references cited (in 
alphabetical order by author's last name) rather than a complete or 
general bibliography for your problem area.

Examples of interview schedules, questionnaires or task protocols, etc. 
may be included up to two pages of in appendices ... Letters testifying 
to local institutional sponsorship need not be appended but definitely 
should be cited in the proposal.

The following are suggested page limits for the Project Description. 
These are not hard-and-fast rules, but indicate reviewers' interests:

    * Statement of the research problem, specific aims, expectations,
      propositions or hypotheses 1 p
    * Review of the literature and significance 2 p
    * Preliminary studies by the student, if any 1 p
    * Research Plan, 5 p, Including:
    * Research Design
    * Research Site or source of data (References and citations are as
      important in your methods as in your theory section)
    * Data analysis plans
    * Research Schedule 1 page

The research plan should begin with a statement of the research problem, 
phrased as a question that your research will answer. It should go on to 
give an overview of the research design, relating it to the theory. This 
should be followed by a brief description of the research site. Data 
collection and analysis methods follow. Key concepts such as "class", 
"identity", "resilience", etc. should be unpacked and operationalized so 
that reviewers know exactly what you are talking about. Theories, 
setting and methods should be tightly linked: Readers should learn what 
the researcher is going to do and how the specific activities to be 
engaged in relate to both theory and setting. Note that a mere listing 
of a method is not enough to tell a reader what the researcher plans and 
why. The term "participant observation", for example, is extraordinarily 
general and should be unpacked into its specific components, each 
related to the information outcome that is then related to the research 
design and theory.

Site, case, and informant selection form part of your sampling strategy, 
and should be explicitly justified by discussing how your new data will 
generalize to a relevant population or theory. "Snowball sampling," 
which has various limitations, is not appropriate for some projects and 
if proposed should be explicitly justified with respect to alternatives. 
Each method, whether it generates qualitative or quantitative data, 
should be justified in terms of the research aims. The key issue is to 
impress reviewers that the new knowledge from your project will be 
relevant to significant populations and theories.

Proposals also should include an analysis plan, although readers 
recognize that plans change in the process of fieldwork. Describe how 
you will use your data to answer your research questions and test your 
hypotheses. Describe the specific steps you will take to find themes, 
identify patterns, make comparisons, etc. A mere listing of software 
programs will not demonstrate to reviewers that you have seriously 
considered the research process in designing your proposal. It should be 
possible for a reviewer to look back to your specific aims and 
understand why each kind of data is being collected, and why a 
particular analytic technique is planned.

Reviewers are well aware that there are no perfect strategies for 
conducting research, but will be looking for evidence that you 
understand the strengths and weaknesses of the approach selected. In a 
competitive review process where only a subset of excellent proposals 
can be funded, reviewers need to be told how the new knowledge to be 
gained from your particular study will yield generalizations that 
advance our theoretical understanding of the problem.


-- 
Peregrine Schwartz-Shea
Associate Professor

University of Utah
Political Science Department
260 South Central Campus Drive Rm 252
Salt Lake City, UT  84112-9152

(801) 581-6300 phone mail
psshea at poli-sci.utah.edu

-------------- next part --------------
Skipped content of type multipart/related