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 We use a mix of qualitative and quantitative analyses to examine 1354 survey responses from members of the American Anthropological Association about their practice and teaching of cultural anthropology research methods. Latent profile analysis and an examination of responses to open‐ended survey questions reveal distinctive methodological clustering among anthropologists. However, two historical approaches to ethnography remain prominent:deep hanging outand amixed methods toolkit, with the former remaining central to the practice and teaching of all forms of contemporary cultural anthropology. Further, many anthropologists are committed to advancing research methods that account for power imbalances in fieldwork, such as through community‐based and participatory approaches. And a substantial number also teach a wider array of methods and techniques that open new career pathways for anthropologists. Overall, our study reveals a core set of ethnographic practices—loosely, participant‐observation, informal interviews, and the experiential immersion of the ethnographer—while also highlighting the great breadth of cultural anthropological research practice and pedagogy. The findings presented here can help inform how current and future anthropological practitioners and educators position themselves to meet the ever‐changing demands of community members, funders, clients, collaborators, and students. 

Abstract American anthropology is engaged in significant self‐reckonings that call for big changes to how anthropology is practiced. These include (1) recognizing and taking seriously the demands to decolonize the ways research is done, (2) addressing precarious employment in academic anthropology, and (3) creating a discipline better positioned to respond to urgent societal needs. A central role for ethnographic methods training is a thread that runs through each of these three reckonings. This article, written by a team of cultural, biocultural, and linguistic anthropologists, outlines key connections between ethnographic methods training and the challenges facing anthropology. We draw on insights from a large‐scale survey of American Anthropological Association members to examine current ethnographic methods capabilities and training practices. Study findings are presented and explored to answer three guiding questions: To what extent do our current anthropological practices in ethnographic methods training serve to advance or undermine current calls for disciplinary change? To what extent do instructors themselves identify disconnects between their own practices and the need for innovation? And, finally, what can be done, and at what scale, to leverage ethnographic methods training to meet calls for disciplinary change? 

Abstract ObjectivesWith our diverse training, theoretical and empirical toolkits, and rich data, evolutionary and biological anthropologists (EBAs) have much to contribute to research and policy decisions about climate change and other pressing social issues. However, we remain largely absent from these critical, ongoing efforts. Here, we draw on the literature and our own experiences to make recommendations for how EBAs can engage broader audiences, including the communities with whom we collaborate, a more diverse population of students, researchers in other disciplines and the development sector, policymakers, and the general public. These recommendations include: (1) playing to our strength in longitudinal, place‐based research, (2) collaborating more broadly, (3) engaging in greater public communication of science, (4) aligning our work with open‐science practices to the extent possible, and (5) increasing diversity of our field and teams through intentional action, outreach, training, and mentorship. ConclusionsWe EBAs need to put ourselves out there: research and engagement are complementary, not opposed to each other. With the resources and workable examples we provide here, we hope to spur more EBAs to action. 

Writing winning proposals for funding research is an essential skill for doctoral students in the social sciences. Still, most anthropology programs lack formal instruction on this, relying instead on informal mentorship. To advance this, we evaluated the Value Proposition framework in teaching anthropology Ph.D. students to write proposals. Our findings from the feedback from students and faculty in the NSF-funded Cultural Anthropology Methods Program (CAMP) offer insights for using this framework to bridge the proposal-writing gap in the training of cultural anthropologists. 

There has been a recent explosion of articles on minimum sample sizes needed for analyzing qualitative data. The purpose of this integrated review is to examine this literature for 10 types of qualitative data analysis (5 types of saturation and 5 common methods). Building on established reviews and expanding to new methods, our findings extract the following sample size guidelines: theme saturation (9 interviews; 4 focus groups), meaning saturation (24 interviews; 8 focus groups), theoretical saturation (20–30+ interviews), metatheme saturation (20–40 interviews per site), and saturation in salience (10 exhaustive free lists); two methods where power analysis determines sample size: classical content analysis (statistical power analysis) and qualitative content analysis (information power); and three methods with little or no sample size guidance: reflexive thematic analysis, schema analysis, and ethnography (current guidance indicates 50–81 data documents or 20–30 interviews may be adequate). Our review highlights areas in which the extant literature does not provide sufficient sample size guidance—not because it is epistemologically flawed, but because it is not yet comprehensive and nuanced enough. To address this, we conclude by proposing ways researchers can navigate and contribute to the complex literature on sample size estimates.