On Theories of Fieldwork and the Scientific Character of Social Anthropology

  • I. C. Jarvie
Chapter
Part of the Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science book series (BSPS, volume 93)

Abstract

Theories of fieldwork explain why anthropologists do fieldwork. They are theories of method, since fieldwork is a method of doing anthropology (other methods include the arm-chair, the library, by proxy, the questionnaire, informants, and so on).2 There are parallel theories to explain why natural scientists employ the empirical method, i.e. observation and experiment. All schools of anthropology emphasize that fieldwork stands at the center of the subject. Malinowski and Radcliffe-Brown, who thought anthropology was a science, placed the same emphasis on fieldwork as does Evans-Pritchard, who denies that it is a science. My concern is to pin down exactly what benefit anthropology and anthropologists derive from fieldwork.

Keywords

Coral Garden Scientific Character Social Anthropology Present Category Inductive Generalisation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    Agassi, J., “Methodological Individualism”, British Journal of Sociology, vol. xi, pp. 244–270.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    Bartley, W. W., “Achilles, the Tortoise and Explanations in Science and History”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 13, 1962–3, pp. 15–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    Bartley, W. W., “Rationality versus the Theory of Rationality”, in, The Critical Approach to Science and Philosophy, Essays in Honor of Karl, Glencoe: The Free Press, 1964.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    Bartley, W. W., The Retreat to Commitment, New York: Alfred A. Knopf 1962.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    Beattie, J., Other Cultures, London: Cohen & West, 1964.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    Brown, R., Explanation in Social Science, Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    Carmichael, J., The Death of Jesus, New York: Macmillan, 1962.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    Evans-Pritchard, E. E., “The Comparative Method in Social Anthropology”, in The Position of Women in Primitive Societies and Other Essays, Glencoe: Free Press, 1965.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    Evans-Pritchard, E. E., The Nuer, London: Oxford University Press, 1940.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    Evans-Pritchard, E. E., Social Anthropology, London: Cohen & West, 1951.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    Evans-Pritchard, E. E., Witchcraft, Oracles and Magic Among the Azande, London: Oxford University Press, 1937.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    Finley, M. I., The World of Odysseus, New York: Viking Press, 1954.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    Firth, R. W., We the Tikopia, Boston: Beacon, 1963.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    Frazer, J. G., The Scope of Social Anthropology, London: Macmillan, 1908.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    Frazer, J. G., The Golden Bough, New York: Macmillan, 1922.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    Gellner, E. A., “Time and Theory in Social Anthropology”, Mind, Vol. 67, 1958, pp. 182–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. [17]
    Gellner, E. A., “Concepts and Society,” Transactions of the 5th World Conference of Sociology, Louvain: International Sociological Association (Naulewaerts), pp. 161–189. [125], pp. 54–104.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    Gellner, E. A., Review of Evans-Pritchard, The Position of Women in Primitive Societies and Other Essays, London: Faber & Faber, 1965, in The Oxford Magazine. Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    Gluckman, M., Politics, Law and Ritual in Tribal Society, Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1965.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    Goody, J. & Watt, I., “The Consequences of Literacy,” Comparative Studies in Society and History, Vol. 5, 1962–3, pp. 304–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. [21]
    Hempel, C. G. & Oppenheim, P., “The Logic of Explanation” in H. Feigl and M. Brodbeck (eds.) Reading in the Philosophy of Science, New York: Appleton Century Crofts 1953, pp. 319ff.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    Jarvie, I. C., The Revolution in Anthropology, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1964.Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    Leach, E. R., “Concerning Trobriand Clans and the Kinship Category Tabu”, Cambridge Papers in Social Anthropology, No. 1, The Developmental Cycle in Domestic Groups, ed. J. Goody, pp. 120–45, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1958.Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    Leach, E. R., Pul Eliya, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1961.Google Scholar
  25. [25]
    Leach, E. R., Rethinking Anthropology, New York: Humanities Press, 1962.Google Scholar
  26. [26]
    Leach, E. R., “The Structural Implications of Matrilateral Cross-Cousin Marriage” in [25], pp. 54–104.Google Scholar
  27. [27]
    Lienhardt, G., “On the Concept of Objectivity in Social Anthropology” Journal of The Royal Anthropological Institute, Vol. 94, 1963, pp. 1–10.Google Scholar
  28. [28]
    Lienhardt, G., Social Anthropology, London: Oxford University Press, 1964.Google Scholar
  29. [29]
    Malinowski, B., Argonauts of the Western Pacific, London: Routledge, 1922.Google Scholar
  30. [30]
    Malinowski, B., The Sexual Life of Savages in North-Western Melanesia, London: Routledge, 1949.Google Scholar
  31. [31]
    Malinowski, B., Coral Gardens and their Magic, London: Allen & Unwin, 1935.Google Scholar
  32. [32]
    Nadel, S. F., Foundations of Social Anthropology, London: Cohen & West, 1951.Google Scholar
  33. [33]
    Newton, I., Opticks, 4th edition of 1730, New York: Dover Books, 1952.Google Scholar
  34. [34]
    Popper, K. R., The Poverty of Historicism, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1957.Google Scholar
  35. [35]
    Popper, K. R., The Logic of Scientific Discovery, New York: Basic Books, 1959.Google Scholar
  36. [36]
    Radcliffe-Brown, A. R., Structure and Function in Primitive Society, London: Cohen & West, 1952.Google Scholar
  37. [37]
    Radcliffe-Brown, A. R., A Natural Science of Society, Glencoe: The Free Press, 1957.Google Scholar
  38. [38]
    Schapera, I., “Some Comments on the Comparative Method in Social Anthropology”, American Anthiopologist, Vol. 55, pp. 353–61.Google Scholar
  39. [39]
    Schapera, I., Government and Politics in Tribal Society, London: Watts & Co., 1955.Google Scholar
  40. [40]
    Schapera, L, “The Sin of Cain”, Journal of The Royal Anthropological Institute, Vol. 85, 1955, pp. 33–43.Google Scholar
  41. [41]
    Steiner, F., Taboo, London: Cohen & West, 1956.Google Scholar
  42. [42]
    Uberoi, J.P.S., Politics of the Kula Ring, Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1962.Google Scholar
  43. [43]
    Winch, P., “Understanding a Primitive Society”, American Philosophical Quarterly, Vol. 1, 1964, pp. 307–324.Google Scholar
  44. [44]
    Worsley, P., “The Kinship System of the Tallensi: A Revaluation”, Journal of The Royal Anthropological Institute, Vol. 86, 1956, pp. 37–75.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht, Holland 1986

Authors and Affiliations

  • I. C. Jarvie
    • 1
  1. 1.York UniversityTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations