Nathan Kline Institute for Psychiatric Research, 140 Old Orangeburg Rd. Orangeburg, NY 10962, USA; Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, 722 W. 168th St., New York, NY 10032, USA.
Soc Sci Med. 2013 Dec;99:201-4. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.10.025. Epub 2013 Nov 2.
This commentary revisits dilemmas of relevance that applied anthropology in the U.S. has long grappled with, no matter the rigor and depth of inquiry. Direct action, collaborative research and active public engagement offer proven alternatives for upping the participatory quotient, but they remain the exception. A third, more common, middle ground may be also discerned, sometimes involving the sort of "dirty work" that seems to lie outside of one's professional remit. Commitment to such work, it turns out, is not simply a matter of character or disciplinary ethics, but of the terms and conditions of anthropological employment. Even without the "second shift" of going public with one's findings, critically positioned research can keep problematic issues that might otherwise slip into the convenient silences of social and economic policy.
本评论重新审视了美国应用人类学长期以来一直面临的相关困境，无论研究的严谨性和深度如何。直接行动、合作研究和积极的公众参与为提高参与度提供了经过验证的替代方案，但它们仍然是例外。还可以发现第三种更为常见的中间立场，有时涉及似乎超出专业职权范围的“肮脏工作”。事实证明，对这种工作的承诺不仅仅是性格或学科道德的问题，而是人类学就业的条件和环境的问题。即使没有将研究结果公之于众的“第二份工作”，处于关键位置的研究也可以使那些可能滑入社会和经济政策的便利沉默中的有问题的问题浮出水面。
