Background: The ways in which the public understands nuclear waste affect nuclear waste policy and the actual disposal of nuclear waste. This paper traces the origins and the evolution of the public understanding of nuclear waste through an analysis of a sample of the historical record of the public discourse on the topic. Methods: This paper employs sociocultural anthropology methods innovatively: rather than emphasizing the data collection aspect of participant observation, it emphasizes interpretive discourse analysis, sampling the archives of the New York Times as a de facto ethnographic repository of the U.S. discourse on nuclear waste spanning the years 1945-1969.

This project set out to illuminate the discursive existence of nuclear waste in American culture. Given the significant temporal dimension of the phenomenon as well as the challenging size of the United States setting, the project adapted key methodological elements of the sociocultural anthropology tradition and produced proxies for ethnographic fieldnotes and key informant interviews through sampling the digital archives of the New York Times over a 64-year period that starts with the first recorded occurrence of the notion of nuclear waste and ends with the conclusion of the presidency of George W. Bush. Two paradigmatic waves of American public discourse on nuclear waste come to light when subjecting this empirical data to quantitative inventorying and interpretive analysis: between 1945 and 1969 nuclear waste was generally framed in light of the beneficial utilizations of nuclear reactions and with optimistic expectations for a scientific/technological solution; by contrast, between 1969 and 2009 nuclear waste was conceptualized as inherited harm that could not be undone and contestation that required political/legal management. Besides this key finding and the empirical timing of the two paradigms, the study’s value lies also with its detailed empirical documentation of nuclear waste in its sociocultural existence.

How can ethnographic theories that are qualitative and interpretive in nature also be scientific? This article puts forth an illustrative answer: It employs quantitative text mining methods to falsify prior findings reached largely through qualitative interpretations. The author's earlier research innovated on core anthropological methods to offer that U.S. public discourse on radioactive waste between 1945 and 2009 may be best understood in terms of two paradigmatic waves that differ from each other in conceptualization of nuclear waste as well as in how nuclear waste relates to the broader environment and to human health. This article distills those earlier qualitative findings into a list of refutable statements that are subsequently assessed through quantitative analysis of the textual corpus of the original proxy for the ethnographic repository through employing the R statistical programming language (Version 3.4.0). As this case of quantitative analysis lends confidence on the validity of the interpretive conclusions in question, this article suggests that quantitative falsification testing may be a fit way for ethnographic findings to fulfill their scientific ambitions.

No abstract

The Association for the Anthropology of Policy (ASAP) promotes the anthropological study of policy, including makings, workings, contexts, agents, and effects. ASAP seeks to advance the contributions of the anthropology of policy to theory and method in anthropology, as well as to research and action in public policy.Anthropologists of policy engage actors and institutions that frame the policy process, through fieldwork, ethnography, and other tools, and with an emphasis on transnational connections and comparative practices, to produce knowledge and address pressing social issues.This looks like a great and timely initiative. I've added ASAP to my big list of Anthropology Blogs. Reply