Menu

Below you will find a broad overview of research conducted for the site as a reference for actionable insights by defining the problem space and identifying user’s motivations, needs, and pain points.

User Analysis – Anthropologists

Turning our attention to the target user group of anthropology researchers, we review the findings of “The Face of Anthropology One Decade Later,” a 2019 replication of the AAA/CoPAPIA 2009 Anthropology MA Career survey. The 2019 survey was conducted by graduate students of the applied anthropology program at the University of North Texas and sponsored by the National Association for the Practice of Anthropology in order to “understand how career paths, reflections on education, and views on professional organizations of anthropology master’s graduates had changed over the past decade” (Hawvermale et al., practicinganthropology.org).

Membership in professional anthropology organizations amongst respondents was consistent in the 10 years between the two surveys, but only one-third of those who were members said that the organizations fully met their needs (39). Networking at conferences was mentioned most often amongst respondents as the biggest benefit of professional organizations, but networking opportunities outside of conferences were viewed as sorely lacking. While the biggest complaint about professional organizations was that participants felt their interests didn’t line up well with the interests of the organizations, and that meetings and membership were tailored to an academic audience (45).

Around 70% of respondents strongly or somewhat agreed that membership costs are a major factor as well in their decision to join an organization – and this likely also implicates the cost of travel, attendance, and other expenses related to professional conferences for those working for employers that do not cover any expenses (37% of respondents, but there was a 28% non-response that, together, amount to a near parity with the response regarding membership cost). The most common national anthropology organizations amongst respondents were the American Anthropological Association with a membership cost based on annual income that starts at $49 per year and is as much as $356 per year, the Society for American Archaeology with a membership cost of $170 per year/$85 per year for students, and the Society for Applied Anthropology with a membership cost of $110 per year/$55 per year for students.

Fifty-Seven percent of respondents somewhat or strongly agreed to the prompt, “I do not get enough value from my AAA membership” (42), and given the established importance of networking at conferences, “several indicated that they only paid for membership during years they intended to present” (45). However, the number of “N/A” and “Don’t Know” responses from participants about their attitudes towards AAA benefits and services suggests that the organization needs to do a better job at promoting the benefits of their membership as well (41). Sixty-Two percent of respondents somewhat or strongly agreed to the prompt regarding the American Anthropological Association that “As a practitioner, I would like to see more services included in my membership” (42). The researchers asked an open-ended question in order to gain more insight into what services would persuade them to join a national anthropology organization. Forty-Five percent of respondents requested more networking opportunities, 21% requested more continuing education opportunities to keep up with current trends and knowledge in the field, while an additional 16% requested “Professional development opportunities, trainings and workshops, certification opportunities, career advancement” (44).

The research concludes, “despite the general feelings of discontent among applied anthropologists with current anthropological professional organizations, respondents tended to agree that networking was one of the greatest benefits that would lead participants to join a professional organization. This was followed by continuing education and professional development opportunities. This indicates that these areas may be important for organizations to focus on and expand in the future” (45).

This analysis demonstrates that must-have services and features that meet the user needs of researchers and anthropologists in particular include:

  • An easy to use and freely available networking platform that meets their needs and expectations for a professional online presence as anthropologists
  • An ability to self-organize groups as fully-formed social gathering places around research areas and topics of anthropology
  • Continuing education and career advancement opportunities
  • Additional tools to enable the collaboration of research

Applied anthropologists have to also contend with the current prevailing business perspective that views the exclusive purpose of ethnography as the production of straightforward, actionable insights that can inform near-term decision-making processes. Practitioners in applied settings are often obligated as a matter of professional relevance and survival to meet the expectations of business, working hard to deliver research findings that have been molded and forged to extract only what is deemed immediately useful. Thus, while the ethnographic toolkit has grown in popularity and use, its practices have been increasingly perceived as a straightforward and self-evident process that can easily be illustrated and learned using idealized notions derived from popular consumption of narrowed research findings that are often presented on request.

In their 2006 EPIC paper, “The Real Problem: Rhetorics of Knowing in Corporate Ethnographic Research,” Nafus and Anderson point out that by presenting pictures and quotes of ‘real’ people “as both data and performance of knowledge… a subtext of the presentation then became, take pictures because they show the real, which does not require interpretation or analysis. In this unanticipated way… we down play much of the ‘real’ work that goes into producing an ethnographic representation… as if it were butterfly collecting or train spotting” (Nafus and Anderson 2006:249). The misappropriation of ethnographic practices in this way undermines the purpose of the field and ultimately anthropology’s ability to live up to the true potential of its value-contribution outside of academia. Melissa Cefkin suggests that if anthropology’s analytical and interpretive paths are not vigorously advocated for, practitioners may be inadvertently presenting themselves as mere “technicians, problem solvers for addressing immediate issues, rather than holders of vital social and cultural knowledge worthy of broader strategic consideration” (Cefkin 2010:55). In this way, research processes designed as digital social events can be transformative for the users, the practice, and collective knowledge of anthropology itself.

  • This analysis demonstrates the need for the foregrounding of processes of interpretation and analysis.
  • The protection of research participants while presenting raw ethnographic notes is also of prime importance and needs to not only be a topic of consideration, but a priority.

User Analysis – Anthropology Organizations

While technological advancements have made sophisticated platforms possible, anthropology remains a niche field largely made up of humble non-profit organizations. Most anthropology organizations lack the resources to build and maintain the complex technology platforms that today’s digital environment demands. Organizations with some amount of resources often rely on proprietary SaaS platforms owned by large corporations to provide services beyond a basic website. While these offer out-of-the-box solutions and customer support, they come with significant costs and limited customization options. Smaller organizations turn to open-source platforms to launch basic websites, but these still require experienced designers, developers, and dedicated IT staff to remain functional and up-to-date, which is often beyond the reach of those organizations.

It’s also important to recognize that many anthropologists and anthropology organizations rely on social media platforms that have innovated business models based on surveillance capitalism, where personal data becomes the product, and engagement is driven by algorithms at the cost of user well-being.

Anthropologists and Non-profit organizations often face a difficult choice:

  • Make large investments in technology and hire full-time IT staff, or
  • Depend on for-profit platforms, subject to their development priorities (or lack thereof),
  • Struggle with basic, poorly configured, or outdated instances of open-source platforms managed by part-time or inexperienced staff and volunteers.
  • Rely on large social media platforms that collect and sell their data and don’t offer any means to advance the field of anthropology beyond their networking capabilities.

This analysis demonstrates that a successful platform will fulfill the following needs of anthropology organizations:

  • Maintains the standards and professional online presence that they expect as anthropology organizations
  • Allows them to promote membership and programs for their own organizations
  • Reduces their technology requirements and overhead costs
  • Exponentially increases and improves the services they can offer to their members

Works Cited

Cefkin, Melissa. 2010. “Practice at the Crossroads: When Practice Meets Theory, A Rumination.” Proceedings of the 6th Ethnographic Praxis in Industry Conference 2010:46-58.

Hawvermale, Erica M, Shannon Cronin, Kayla Davis, Janice Byth, Brynn Torres, Gi Giamarqo, Sarah Stutts, Leyla Koyuncuoglu, and Ky Burke. 2021. “The Face of Anthropology One Decade Later: Anthropology Master’s Reflections on Education, Careers, and Professional Organizations Then and Now. 2019 American Anthropology Master’s Career Survey.” Arlington, VA: American Anthropological Association. https://practicinganthropology.org/practice/the-2019-american-anthropology-masters-career-survey/ (accessed May 9, 2021).

Nafus, Dawn, and Ken Anderson. 2006. “The Real Problem: Rhetorics of Knowing in Corporate Ethnographic Research.” Proceedings of the 2nd Ethnographic Praxis in Industry Conference 2006:244-258.