Anthropology in Action

I should start my first introduction as editor with a note of thanks to the outgoing editor, Jonathan Skinner, and publishers Berghahn for the work they have done to establish Anthropology In Action as a highly regarded journal. It started life as the newsletter of the Anthropology In Action network, and when an electronic discussion list took on some of the news and networking functions, evolved into a more conventional journal format, with the support of Berghahn as publishers. The focus throughout has been on anthropology that addresses itself to issues of policy and practice. It has aimed to involve anthropologists working both inside and outside academic departments of anthropology, and those in other fields who are interested in the contributions that anthropological theory and methods can bring. Today, I think it is reasonable to say that the journal combines excellent academic quality with accessibility to a broad readership. I hope that as editor, and with the support of an able editorial board, I can do justice to these aims and achievements. We intend to continue the distinctive role set for the journal as one that is about anthropology in action, to stimulate debate and reflection, and to develop anthropological contributions to public discourse.

This issue of Anthropology in Action examines the relationship between conventional anthropological methods and those used by anthropologists working in applied health research. Three of the articles were originally presented at a workshop at the 2006 conference of the European Association of Social Anthropologists, while a fourth (Poehlman) addresses related themes and sits well alongside those from the workshop.

This article explores the embodied nature of training in social anthropology and reveals how, while working in multidisciplinary teams and drawing on research methods and approaches more commonly associated with other disciplines, one might still be 'outed' in one's interpretation and analysis. I draw on the experience of working on a project exploring methodological issues and challenges to conducting research with terminally ill cancer patients to reveal the importance of situating ourselves as researchers firmly within the prejudices of our own societies. While personal experience of losing a parent to cancer should have alerted me to other ways of seeing cancer, I was nevertheless obliged to confront sociocultural constructions of cancer and recognise them as my own. Through understanding the power of 'imagined experience', I gained further insight into how intersubjectivity and reflexivity are crucial to the research process.

In this article we report on collaborative, ethnographic research investigating the first regional tobacco control office in the U.K. and some of the dilemmas it poses. The ideal of collaboration is fully realisable in this setting, where the participants are both eager and qualified to contribute meaningfully to the project. However, the fulfilment of such an ideal poses its own problems. For example, the educational level and professional expertise of some participants allows them to fully engage with the theoretical framework to the extent that they could, if allowed, rewrite manuscripts. Other issues are more subtle, such as how to establish appropriate boundaries between the researcher and the tobacco control office staff. We suggest that the collaborative research model presupposes differentials of power, education and culture between researchers and participants that do not necessarily apply in the case of research in such settings. Where these differentials are lacking, the field is open for dominant participants to assume `undue influence' over the research project. To prevent this, we have reinstated boundaries between object and subject that were originally dissolved as part of the collaborative model. As a result, our project is maintaining a delicate balance between the conflicting aims of objectivity and collaboration.

This article reports on an investigation into the extent to which individual involvement in community participatory research activities on HIV/AIDS created agreement or consensus among participants from four Malawian communities about the causes, risks, and behaviours associated with AIDS transmission in their communities. In this research, cultural consensus analysis was used in an exploratory manner to measure the level of agreement among participants prior to and immediately following participation in community participatory workshops. The results demonstrate variability by community and gender in the levels of consensus, or agreement, achieved through the workshops. These findings suggest that consensus is not an automatic outcome of participation in small group interventions and in some cases can result in less agreement on community issues around HIV. Moreover, we lack a clear understanding of how consensus contributes to desired or positive change. Also discussed is the potential utility of cultural consensus analysis as a tool in evaluating the effectiveness of community participatory interventions.

In this paper I explore the link between research into contemporary alternative medical practices (CAM) and activism. It is based on my recent research (2004-2007) which dealt with the interrelatedness and coexistence of biomedical and non-biomedical systems in the city of Zagreb. The process of adoption and introduction of CAM to Western European countries started some twenty years ago and in Zagreb the process was evident after the fall of communism. My research started with patients and their attitudes towards illness, health, well-being and suffering, factors that determined their choice of therapies and healers. However, hearing stories of people's experiences of CAM propelled me into the role of therapist as listener and, through attending to the silence surrounding the use of CAM in a relatively hostile society, the role of anthropologist as activist. Through the process of understanding and interpreting sensitive cultural practices, I explore whether anthropologists are uniquely placed to actively protect the rights of people to whom they owe their science.

Guide to Imagework: Imagination-based Research Methods (ASA Research Methods in Social Anthropology Series). By Iain R. Edgar. London and New York: Routledge, 2004, paperback, xii + 161 pages, £18.99. ISBN: 0 415 23538 3.

Birth on the Threshold: Childbirth and Modernity in South India. By C. Van Hollen. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2003, 310 pages, £14.95. ISBN 0-520-22359-4.

Why Did They Kill? Cambodia in the Shadow of Genocide. By Alexander Laban Hinton. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2004, paperback, 382 pages, £12.95. ISBN: 0-520-24179-7.

Life and Words: Violence and the Descent into the Ordinary. By Veena Das. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2007, paperback, 296 pages, £12.95. ISBN: 978-0-520-24745-1.

Anthropology Beyond Culture. By R. G. Fox and B. J. King (eds), Oxford and New York: Berg (Wenner-Gren International Symposium Series), 2002, 306 pp. incl. refs, £17.99. ISBN: 1 8593 524X / 1 85973 529 0.

Would you like to get some practice in writing for publication?

Would you like a free copy of that interesting new book you really should read? Would writing a review help you to make sure you read it?

Anthropology in Action is always happy to hear from potential reviewers at all stages in their academic careers. Reviews are normally short—about 500 words—but a more in-depth review can also be planned if you wish. We currently have a number of books awaiting review. If you are interested in reviewing any of the books on the list below, please feel free to get in touch. Alternatively, if there is a particular book you would like us to request please contact Michaela Benson (M.Benson@bristol.ac.uk or michaelacbenson@googlemail.com).