How reliable is anthropological knowledge?

Question

I read sometime ago that at least some of Margaret Meade's research on New Guinea is unreliable because her informants simply were pulling her leg for the h**l of it.

I also read in a recent book on linguistics by Steven Pinker a letter he quoted anonymously from an anthropological graduate student saying said that many anthropological studies are unreliable because most anthropologists are gulled by their informants and are too naive to see that their informants are misleading them.

Also, how much contact with a foreign culture is necessary to really understand it? ( I am native to the USA and cannot say that after all my years of living in it, observing it, and studying it that I completely understand American culture myself.)

Answer 1

There's always a risk of fraud in research. The people being studied could lie and researchers could only select evidence that supports their theory.

Generally peer review and studies that replicate the original ones do the best in checking the facts.

With Meade, her original conclusions were questioned and more researchers looked at New Guinea. Arguably this shows the scientific method in action, checking facts and testing theories.

Answer 2

not all anthropological knowledge/research/information is based on ethnography.. what you are refering to is ethnography, it usually entails an anth'ist going and living within a culture, observing day-to-day life firsthand..

there are absolutely limitations to this.. imagine someone coming into your home, to your job, watching you and taking notes... you're going to act differently than you usually would.. ethnographers are aware of this..

the piece you read about Mead's research being false was likely the case where a male anth'ist went and tried to duplicate her research... its commonly believed he didnt achieve the same results because he was a MALE asking the young females about their personal/sexual habits...

the quote from an anonymous grad student, pfffft.. if it were someone very respected in the field, with decades of experience then I might listen, but its a student, and anonymous at that... lol

as for how much contact is necessary, I dont think its possible to ever fully UNDERSTAND a culture, especially if you are part of it...  the hardest culture to understand is your own... when observing another culture, certain observations really pop out, the kind of things that people do without thinking become very obvious to an outsider

hope that helps a little =)

Answer 3

Well, it is a social science burdened with cultural anthropology's ideological confusions and no overarching theoretical frame work.

Mead went with the supposition that cultures varied people, not that we are all in possession of an evolved heritage that shapes all men.

Answer 4

Anthropological observations and theories are constantly being revised based on new evidence.  I don't doubt that the cases you cite are true -- we can only imagine the temptation to make stuff up when someone's watching and recording everything.  Presumably we're less naive now, and even if we're not, indigenous cultures are disappearing so quickly that it's imperative that we study them before they are gone forever.

Answer 5

Anthropology is a mix of science & conjecture (developing a hypothesis based on too little evidence.)  Unfortunately the anthropology field is not an exact science, although they are quick to adopt scientific methods when it can be applied.  Peer reviews subject every hypothesis to scrutiny where the hypothesis is critically examined, but often limited evidence produces inconclusive evidence to make a decision & the hypothesis is allowed to stand until more evidence is found to support or refute it.

Anthropology is often likened to determining what a puzzle looks like when 3/4 of the pieces are missing & the pieces that are available have been mixed with 100 other puzzles.