Search for: All records

ABSTRACT Biological anthropologists have long engaged in qualitative data analysis (QDA), though such work is not always foregrounded. In this article, we discuss the role of rigorous and systematic QDA in biological anthropology and consider how it can be understood and advanced. We first establish what kinds of qualitative data and analysis are used in biological anthropology. We then review the ways QDA has been used in six subfields of biological anthropology: primatology, human biology, paleoanthropology, dental and skeletal biology, bioarchaeology, and anthropological genetics. We follow that with an overview of how to use QDA methods: three simple QDA methods (i.e., word‐based analysis, theme analysis, and coding) and three QDA approaches for model‐building and model‐testing (i.e., content analysis, semantic network analysis, and grounded theory). With this foundation in place, we discuss how QDA can support transformative research in biological anthropology—emphasizing the valuable role of QDA in inductive and community‐based research. We discuss how QDA supports transformative research using mixed‐methods research designs, participatory action research, and abolition and Black feminist research. Finally, we consider how to close a QDA project, reflecting on the logistics, ethics, and limitations of qualitative data sharing, including how researchers can use the CARE Principles (Collective Benefit, Authority to Control, Responsibility, and Ethics) to support Indigenous data sovereignty. 

Abstract Informed by decades of literature, water interventions increasingly deploy “gender‐sensitive” or even “gender transformative” approaches that seek to redress the disproportionate harms women face from water insecurity. These efforts recognize the role of gendered social norms and unequal power relations but often focus narrowly on the differences and dynamics between cisgender (cis) men and women. This approach renders less visible the ways that living with water insecurity can differentially affect all individuals through the dynamics of gender, sexuality, and linked intersecting identities. Here, we first share a conceptual toolkit that explains gender as fluid, negotiated, and diverse beyond the cis‐binary. Using this as a starting point, we then review what is known and can be theorized from current literature, identifying limited observations from water‐insecure communities to identify examples of contexts where gendered mechanisms (such as social norms) differentiate experiences of water insecurity, such as elevating risks of social stigma, physical harm, or psychological distress. We then apply this approach to consider expanded ways to include transgender, non‐binary, and gender and sexual diversity to deepen, nuance and expand key thematics and approaches for water insecurity research. Reconceptualizing gender in these ways widens theoretical possibilities, changes how we collect data, and imagines new possibilities for effective and just water interventions. This article is categorized under:Human Water > Value of WaterEngineering Water > Water, Health, and SanitationHuman Water > Water as Imagined and RepresentedHuman Water > Methods