INTERDISCIPLINARITY IN ANTHROPOLOGY
Mapping Networks To and From Anthropology:
Four Disciplines in Eight Departments
by
Mary Camozzi
Alicia Ebbitt
Arwen Kimmell
Ben Michael
(table of contents links - click to travel through document)
Further References on Trans-, Cross-, and Interdisciplinarity
Anthropology and History & Philosophy of Science
Associations with overlapping membership
Joint PhD, Masters or BA programs
Journals and book series which combine the two disciplines
Important recent conferences or seminars which combine the disciplines
Major books which have a major contemporary influence on the two
Key individuals who seem to play a role in connecting the twoMeasuring the size of the inter, trans, and cross-disciplinary movement
Chronology of Significant publications, personalities, associational activities, and departments
HPS in a cultural anthropology textbook
The following reports are intended to reveal linkages between anthropology and four related disciplines: linguistics, women’s/gender studies, history and philosophy of science, and education. Studying such linkages is a useful enterprise, given recent academic interest in the implications of trans-, cross-, and interdisciplinarity (i.e. Bauer 1990, Lattuca 2002). Within anthropology, this line of questioning has been turned inward to examine the effects (and future) of the four-field organizational scheme (Segal 2005).
In attempting to trace connections between anthropology and other disciplines, certain difficulties have presented themselves. Since connections can be both significant and informal, any search for formal linkages such as joint degree programs or conferences will only tell half the story. Less formal linkages may be detectable in the third section, which lists journals with overlapping interest and contributions.
A few qualifications should be made concerning methodology. Data on the research interests of individual faculty at the sampled institutions below is incomplete due to variability in the availability of online information and the frequent difference between a person’s current interests and this online information. Several individuals were found that pursued interests closely related to one of the disciplines under investigation without directly specifying that discipline under “research interests”. To avoid incorrectly interpreting such research interests, these individuals were not included in lists of interdisciplinary faculty. Notwithstanding these limitations, the data below define a minimum level of interdisciplinary connection among these groups.
Further References on Trans-, Cross-, and Interdisciplinarity.
Bauer, Henry H.
1990 Barriers Against Interdisciplinarity: Implications for Studies of Science, Technology, and Society (STS). Science, Technology, & Human Values 15(1):105-119.
Lattuca, Lisa R.
2002 Learning Interdisciplinarity: Sociocultural Perspectives on Academic Work. The Journal of Higher Education 73(6):711-739.
Lyon, Arabella
1992 Interdisciplinarity: Giving Up Territory. College English 54(6):681-693.
Segal, Daniel Alan and Sylvia Yanagisako
2005 Unwrapping the Sacred Bundle: Reflections on the Disciplining of Anthropology. Duke University Press.
Wilk, Richard
2000 Essay on Being Transdisciplinary
Anthropology and History & Philosophy of Science
Mary Camozzi
Introduction
The following is the first component of a tripartite discussion on anthropology and history and philosophy of science (hence HPS). It is a “snapshot” of the current state of connections between the two disciplines, taken from a sample of North American institutions, a survey of important publications and individuals. Further discussion of temporal changes in these connections and the underlying reasons for them will take place in Parts II and III.
According to the University of Pennsylvania History & Sociology of Science website, “there are now sixty-six institutions for graduate study and research in this field [History and/or Philosophy of Science] in the United States. Roughly one hundred and twenty in other countries while hundreds of other U.S. college and university programs offer history of science and medicine courses.”
The following associations possess members from both anthropology and HPS departments.
History of Science Society
Philosophy of Science Association
Society for Social Studies of Science (4S)
Academy of the Social Sciences
- Joint PhD, Masters or BA programs
No formal degree programs linking anthropology and HPS were found. However, the nature of the latter discipline often results in interdepartmental course loads and research subjects for students. In this way, prominent HPS programs allow students to work on and within the social sciences. Such programs include:
Harvard University
University of Pennsylvania
University of Pittsburgh
The following journals have had contributions from both anthropology and HPS. Most anthropological contributions to HPS journals (and vice versa) has occurred in the last 15 years.
African Studies
American Anthropologist
American Ethnologist
The British Journal for the History of Science
Current Anthropology
Isis (the journal of the History of Science Society)
Science Communication (formerly Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization)
Science, Technology, and Human Values (the journal of the 4S)
- Important recent conferences or seminars which combine the disciplines
Society for Social Studies of Science (4S), annually.
Adams, William
1998 The Philosophical Roots of Anthropology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre
2004 Science of Science and Reflexivity. Translated by Richard Nice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Gordon, Scott
1991 The History and Philosophy of Social Science. New York: Routledge
Kuhn, Thomas S.
1970 The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Pickering, Andrew, ed.
1992 Science as Practice and Culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Below are some individuals who have played key roles in linking anthropology and HPS:
Carl G. Hempel, contemporary philosopher. In addition to championing the legitimacy of scientific explanation, he recognizes the same logical processes in social and natural science.
Karin D. Knorr Cetina, University of Chicago, Professor of Anthropology, Sociology, and of the Social Sciences in the College.
Henrika Kuklick
George Levine, Rutgers University, Director of the Center for the Critical Analysis of Contemporary Culture
Norman Lillegard
Ernst Mayer (1904-2005) is considered a founding figure for the History of Science and, while not an anthropologist addressed the use of evolutionary theory in anthropology.
John Stuart Mill, philosopher, an early proponent of a science of human behavior.
Paul Rabinow, anthropologist, has developed the field of the ‘anthropology of reason’, which situations definitions of rationality in cultural context.
Internet for History and Philosophy of Science
Combined membership directory for the History of Science Society and the Philosophy of Science Association
Books on Philosophy of Science from the University of Chicago Press
Philosophy of Social Science from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
A combined membership directory for the History of Science Society and the Philosophy of Science Association can be searched by research interest. Cultural Anthropology and Physical Anthropology are the two available search terms for Anthropology, and produce 16 and 9 results, respectively. Given that this directory contains a total membership of 3463 people, the percentage of members listing these research interest terms is extremely low (.0046% and .0025%). As suggested above, formal measures of connections between these two disciplines are poor representations of reality.
Major Universities:
Indiana University Bloomington
History and Philosophy of Science Department offers: Certificate, Minor, MA, PhD
Total faculty (Full, Adjunct, Associate, and Emeritus): 30
Faculty with degrees in Anthropology: 0
Faculty with degrees in Sociology, Psychology, Economics: 4
Faculty with research interests in Anthropology: 0
Faculty with research interests in Sociology, Psychology, Economics: 4
Also links to: History, Philosophy, Cognitive Science, School of Education, American Studies, Mathematics, Medicine, Physics, Chemistry, Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender and Reproduction, Jacobs School of Music, Near Eastern Languages and Cultures, Computer Science, Criminal Justice, Women’s Studies, American Studies, Comparative Literature
Anthropology offers: Minor, BA, MA, PhD
Core Faculty: 35
Adjunct Faculty: 25 (1 from Gender Studies)
Emeritus Faculty: 5
Anthropologists interested in Gender Studies: 6
University of California Berkeley
Group in Logic and the Methodology of Science offers : PhD
Total faculty: 28
Faculty with degrees in Anthropology: 0
Faculty with degrees in Sociology, Psychology, Economics: 1
Faculty with research interests in Anthropology: 0
Faculty with research interests in Sociology, Psychology, Economics: 1
Also links to: Philosophy, History, Mathematics, Greek Studies, Electrical Engineering, Computer Science, Linguistics
This group is intended for graduate students interested in analyzing scientific structure and method through mathematical and logical means. This work is described as being best suited to studies of Mathematics, Philosophy, and Computer Science, as well as Philosophy of Language and Philosophy of Science insofar as formal methodology can be used in the latter two. Linguistic anthropology and Berkeley.
Anthropology offers: Minor, BA, MA, PhD
Core Faculty: 28
Affiliated Faculty/Researchers: 18
Emeritus Faculty: 15
Visiting Faculty/Scholars and Post-Docs: 18
Anthropologists interested in History and/or Philosophy of Science: 9
History and Sociology of Science offers : BA (in Science, Technology, and Society or in Health & Societies), MA, PhD
Core Faculty: 6
Adjunct Faculty: 0
Assistant Faculty: 5
Emeritus Faculty: 0
Faculty with degrees in Anthropology: 1
Faculty with degrees in Sociology, Psychology, Economics: 2
Faculty with research interests in Anthropology: 2
Faculty with research interests in Sociology, Psychology, Economics: 2
Also links to: History, Philosophy, Linguistics, Medicine, School of Engineering and Applied Science, Computer Science, Biology, Beckman Center for the History of Chemistry, Health and Societies Program
Anthropology offers: Minor, BA, MA, PhD
Core Faculty: 20
Lecturers/Research Fellows: 3
Adjunct Faculty: 20 (0 from History and/or Philosophy of Science)
Emeritus Faculty: 9
Anthropologists interested in History and/or Philosophy of Science: 2
Liberal Arts College: Davidson College
Anthropology offers: Minor, BA
Core Faculty: 5
Adjunct Faculty: 0
Emeritus Faculty: 0
Anthropologists interested in History and/or Philosophy of Science: 0
This institution offers no program in HPS.
Minor Institutions:
Sociology, Anthropology & Social Work offers: BA in Anthropology
Core Faculty: 7
Adjunct Faculty: 4
Emeritus Faculty: 2
Anthropologists interested in History and/or Philosophy of Science: 0
This institution offers no program in HPS. Its Anthropology department is subsumed under the Department of Sociology, Anthropology, and Social Work, with graduate degrees offered for Sociology only.
Anthropology offers: BA, MA, PhD
Core Faculty: 18
Adjunct Faculty: 0
Emeritus Faculty: 4
Anthropologists interested in History and/or Philosophy of Science: 0
This institution offers no program in HPS.
Anthropology: major, minor, MA, PhD
Core Faculty: 13
Adjunct Faculty: 5
Emeritus Faculty: 2
Anthropologists interested in History and/or Philosophy of Science: 1
This institution offers no program in HPS.
Liberal Arts College: Juniata College
Department of Sociology, Anthropology, Social Work, and Criminal Justice offers: BA in Anthropology
Core Faculty: 6 (only 1 anthropologist)
Adjunct Faculty: 0
Emeritus Faculty: 0
Anthropologists interested in History and/or Philosophy of Science: 0
This institution offers no program in HPS.
This section is intended to outline the chronology of publications, associational meetings, and other events that have shaped the relations between anthropology and history and philosophy of science (HPS). It should be emphasized that this chronology is not meant to track the separate histories of each discipline, but rather the people and things that have affected relations between them. Following this detailed chronology will be a brief discussion of the contributions of HPS to the teaching of anthropology, as demonstrated in editions of Haviland’s widely used Cultural Anthropology text. Both the chronology and discussion below are meant to track significant events over time; an in-depth analysis of why these events are significant will follow in Part III.
Chronology of Significant publications, personalities, associational activities, and departments.
1874 A System of Logic, Ratiocinative and Inductive: Being a Connected View of the Principles of Evidence and the Methods of Scientific Investigation, John Stuart Mill. A philosophic argument for social sciences modeled on natural sciences, based on the premise of equal validity of “inexact” and “exact” sciences.
1946 The Idea of History, R. G. Collingwood, philosopher of history. Philosophy of science studies cause- effect relationships while anthropology is concerned with intention-action pairs; an irreconcilable distinction.
1957 “Cultural Anthropology and Linguistics”, George Goodenough, anthropologist. A cognitive anthropologist shares Winch’s 1958 statement on rules of behavior, listed below.
1958 The Idea of a Social Science and Its Relation to Philosophy, Peter Winch, philosopher. Human adherence to rules (and not causes) precludes a science of human behavior.
1975 The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays, Clifford Geertz. Symbolic anthropology emphasizes interpretation from a culturally specific perspective.
1978 For Science in the Social Sciences, David Papineau. An attempt to reconcile human agency and predictive modeling.
1979 Laboratory Life: The Social Construction of Scientific Facts, Bruno Latour and Steve Woolgar. Ethnographic methods used to study a group of scientists: the origin of the term “anthropology of science”.
1980 Essays on Actions and Events, Donald Davidson. Reaffirms the presence of causal laws in reasoned action, but rejects Mill’s broad generalizations about causality.
1987 Callon and Latour propose the ‘actant-network’ model to describe the translation and propagation of scientific knowledge, a model with many similarities to the conceptualization of actors in social science.
1989 Life Among the Scientists: An Anthropological Study of an Australian Scientific Community, Max Charlesworth et al. Describes how science is “done” and issues a challenge to HPS’ depiction of scientific endeavor.
1992 Beamtimes and Lifetimes: The World of High Energy Physicists, Sharon Traweek. An anthropological study of the culture of particle physicists.
1999 Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge, Karin Knorr Cetina.
2000 Doing Science + Culture, Roddey Reid and Sharon Traweek, eds. Explores the intersections of culture theory and the practice of science today.
HPS in a cultural anthropology textbook.
The other studies in this series have taken the tack of comparing widely-used editions of textbooks from each discipline over time, with the expectation that this will reflect how connected the two disciplines are at the undergraduate level. Ideally, the level of interconnection demonstrated in the chronology would be present in introductory textbooks a short time later. This approach provides a way of tracking the solidification and formalization of interdisciplinary connections.
However, the nature of History and/or Philosophy of Science makes such a comparison difficult. As described in Part I, History of Science and Philosophy of Science are often organized as separate departments and fields of inquiry, and these departments are also generally directed toward graduate-level study. The historical and theoretical reasons for this organization are significant, and will be discussed in Part III. For the purposes of this study, though, this means there is a dearth of HPS undergraduate textbooks.
In Haviland’s Cultural Anthropology text, which has gone through ten editions since 1975, the contributions of HPS are present in a brief discussion of the nature of science, anthropology’s position as a science, and the reliability of anthropological data. This passage reflects not only a growing engagement with HPS but also related debates held within anthropology itself on relativism, reflexivity, and quantitative versus qualitative methodologies.
Editions studied.
We have selected editions of Cultural Anthropology approximately represent each decade from the 1970s, with an additional edition from the 1990s for higher temporal resolution. The texts used are as follows:
- 2nd edition, 1978
- 5th edition, 1987
- 7th edition, 1993
- 9th edition, 1999
- 10th edition, 2002
Within this sample, the passage ‘Anthropology and Science” first appears in the 5th edition. Haviland makes the argument that anthropology, like all disciplines that rely on the scientific method of hypothesis testing, is indeed a science. In the subsection “Difficulties of the Scientific Method” he qualifies this by explaining the difficulty of generating hypotheses that are not culture-bound. Using the example of early interpretations of Maya cities as nonresidential ritual centers, he explains how cultural bias can lead to false hypotheses and the unwillingness to falsify them. He concludes his brief foray into epistemology with the suggestion that anthropologists (including archaeologists) in the field can address this problem by “immersing themselves in the data to the fullest extent possible” (2001:26). Immersion in a multitude of minute facts then allows anthropologists to detect “patterns inherent in the data” upon which to focus testable hypotheses.
This remains the basic sequence of ideas in this section for all the later editions. The 7th edition turns the former subsection ”Difficulties of the Scientific Method” into a large-type separate section, and quotes Stephen Jay Gould in the discussion of culture-bound hypotheses, “the greatest impedi[m]ent to scientific innovation is usually a conceptual lock, not a factual lock” (Gould 1989: 226). While this seems to indicate an intention to compare anthropology favorably with the natural sciences, the 9th edition goes on to counterbalance this with a discussion on “Anthropology and the Humanities”. Participant observation in the work of Rappaport, Fox, and others is identified as a uniquely anthropological qualitative method that contributes to insight in the field and a heightened sense of involvement in the welfare of other peoples.
The self-conscious vindication of anthropology as a social science and the reflexive treatment of cultural bias within anthropology play out like a microscopic drama in the few pages in Haviland’s text. While HPS has dealt with these contentious aspects of the social sciences since Mill’s vindication of “inexact” sciences, the “proximate cause” of Haviland’s discussion most likely lies within anthropology itself. The contributions of HPS to anthropological thought, while significant, are a less direct influence on undergraduate texts than internal shifts in anthropological theory. This is certainly related to HPS’ late emergence as a discrete field of inquiry. However, the central ideas of HPS have shaped anthropology’s self-definition both before and after the late formalization of HPS departments. This intricate web of influences is the final subject of this discussion.
As seen in Part II, Haviland’s popular textbook Cultural Anthropology identifies anthropology as a scientific endeavor working within the limiting parameters of social science. In particular, he describes the difficulties posed by the lack of replicability and cultural biases in hypothesis generating and testing. Ultimately, these are the two aspects of anthropology to which history and philosophy of science take exception.
They do not, however, prevent HPS from integrating the work of economists, psychologists, and particularly sociologists. It can be argued that economics and psychology more frequently employ the kind of controlled experiments and non-participant observation familiar to the natural sciences. The close relationship between HPS and sociology, however, is less likely to be due to comparable methodologies. Instead, it most likely stems from Bruno Latour’s seminal sociological study of a group of scientists in Laboratory Life: The Social Construction of Scientific Facts. As shown in the chronology of publications linking HPS and the social sciences, similar studies are being done by contemporary sociologists like Michel Callon and Karin Knorr Cetina. Together, such studies comprise the field of sociology of scientific knowledge, or SSK.
How is this field different from its contemporary counterpart in anthropology, the anthropology of science? They are, essentially, the same. They employ similar methods, study similar groups of people, and arrive at similar conclusions about the role of society and culture in the production of knowledge. It would therefore seem that the greater visibility of sociology within HPS is a product of early and important studies of science by sociologists, and probably a lingering distinction made between the proper subjects of sociology and anthropology. The attitude that anthropology is not the proper field for conducting studies of the scientific elite may be reflected in the tongue and cheek language of Charlesworth et al.’s Life Among the Scientists (1989). In the introduction one is told that “anthropologists investigate the micro-cultures of small groups of native peoples like the Nuer and the Dinka in Africa, or the Warlpiri and the Aranda in Central Australia; sociologists study the small but rich life-words of American white-collar workers, or French bakers, or Polish peasants, or poor Mexican families” (1989:4). The authors cite Laura Nader’s (1972) injunction to “study up” as a remedy to this dichotomy, and further blur the line between these two ‘types’ of cultures by using a descriptive style reminiscent of early anthropological tracts on exotic peoples.
The distinction, then, between sociology of knowledge and anthropology of science is largely a false one. Historians and sociologists of science have noted a general lack of interest in the history of scientific ideas among practicing natural scientists (Medawar, qtd. in Charlesworth et al. 1989:119-121), and have attributed this disinterest to two ideas prevalent among practitioners. The first is that, while the process of arriving at scientific knowledge typically has a subjective component, this does not affect the validity of the results. The second idea, less loudly voiced but nonetheless prevalent, is that a preoccupation with the history of science indicates a lack of productive drive or generative capabilities. In other words, those who can’t do, do history.
Even if the anthropology of science were to be placed on a more equal footing with the sociology of science, its reception by practicing scientists would still be tinted by these beliefs. The flow of ideas and perspectives on science is primarily one from HPS to anthropology. The best way to increase interest in both anthropological and sociological treatments of science may also be the most indirect and difficult for anthropologists to do. In a word, practicing scientists’ attitudes toward HPS must be changed “from the inside”. Historically, general interest in problems of epistemology and methodology was much greater prior to the Second World War (Charlesworth et al 1989:120), and was a major preoccupation of prominent individuals like Heisenberg, Planck, Schröedinger, and Einstein. In the second half of the twentieth century, however, the rapid pace of and sudden theoretical shifts in most areas of scientific research led to greater emphasis on basic research at the expense of attention to overarching epistemological concerns.
It is exactly these rapid changes and theoretical shifts that necessitate the contributions of anthropology. Archaeology is especially well equipped to address problems of change over time and across large distances. At the same time, more work is needed in the field of incorporating HPS concepts into studies of (and not by) anthropology. The Kuhnian concept of paradigm shift has been inadequately applied to recent major theoretical shifts in anthropology. One area especially ripe for HPS analysis is the historic rise of the New Archaeology (Wylie 2002:58) and subsequent challenges to it by post-processualism and postmodernism. What is now needed are critical two-way exchanges between anthropologists and natural scientists themselves, and not anthropological studies of scientific groups that the latter can only too easily dismiss. The vital importance of the anthropology of science must be recognized by the actual practitioners of science (although HPS researchers are often also practitioners in this sense). Otherwise, the epistemological implications of society and culture will be reduced to a philosophical problem rather than the vital component in the practice of science that they once were.
Adams, William
1998 The Philosophical Roots of Anthropology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre
2004 Science of Science and Reflexivity. Translated by Richard Nice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Callon, Michel
1987 Society in the making: the study of technology as a tool for sociological analysis. In The social construction of technological systems, W.E.Bijker, T.P.Hughes, and T.J.Pinch, eds., pp. 83-103. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Charlesworth, Max, et al.
1989 Life Among the Scientists: An Anthropological Study of an Australian Scientific Community. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.
Collingwood, R. G,
1946 The Idea of History. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Davidson, Donald
1980 Essays on Actions and Events. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Geertz, Clifford
1975 The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays. London: Hutchinson.
Goodenough, Ward W.
1957 Cultural Anthropology and Linguistics. In Georgetown University Monograph Series on Language and Linguistics 9:167-173.
Gordon, Scott
1991 The History and Philosophy of Social Science. New York: Routledge
Gould, Stephen Jay
- Wonderful Life. New York: Norton.
Haviland, William A.
1978 Cultural Anthropology. 2nd ed. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Kincaid, Harold
1996 Philosophical Foundations of the Social Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Knorr Cetina, Karin D.
1999 Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Kuhn, Thomas S.
1970 The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Latour, Bruno
1987 Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society. Cambridge, Mass. and London: Harvard University Press.
Latour, Bruno and Steve Woolgar
1979 Laboratory Life: The Social Construction of Scientific Facts. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
Little, Daniel
1990 Varieties of Social Explanation: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Social Science. Boulder: Westview Press.
Mill, John Stuart
1874 A System of Logic, Ratiocinative and Inductive: Being a Connected View of the Principles of Evidence and the Methods of Scientific Investigation. New York: Harper & Brothers.
Nader, Laura
1972 Up the anthropologist – perspectives gained from studying up. Reinventing Anthropology. D. Hymes, ed. New York: Random House.
Papineau, David
1978 For Science in the Social Sciences. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Pickering, Andrew, ed.
1992 Science as Practice and Culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Rabinow, Paul
1997 Essays in the Anthropology of Reason. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Reid, Roddey and Sharon Traweek, eds.
2000 Doing Science + Culture. New York: Routledge.
Rosenberger, Alexander
1995 Philosophy of Social Science. 2nd ed. Boulder: Westview Press.
Salmon, Merrilee H. et al.
1999 Introduction to the Philosophy of Science. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company.
Traweek, Sharon
1992 Beamtimes and Lifetimes: The World of High Energy Physicists. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Winch, Peter
1958 The Idea of a Social Science and Its Relation to Philosophy. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Wylie, Alison
2002 Thinking from Things: Essays in the Philosophy of Archaeology. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Use this table of contents to navigate to different sections of the site
|
Biographies of Anthropologists |
Anthropology Department
Indiana University Bloomington
701 E. Kirkwood Ave. SB 242
Bloomington, IN 47405
812-855-3901
This site is generously sponsored by the IU Department of Anthropology and IU Campus Instructional Consulting and was designed by Cierra Olivia Thomas-Williams.