Messy Data, Ordered Questions

Abstract

A lively debate was witnessed in 2011 about the role of deductive and interpretive approaches in the production of anthropological knowledge, especially as it relates to archaeology. Scholarly output in archaeology thisyear reflects this concern. First, there is a trend toward furthering our archaeological imagination-finding new ways of asking questions that link the most empirical of research projects with innovative social theory. Second, there is an embracement of the messiness of archaeological data and the conclusions we can reach from it. By looking at the messiness of archaeological data and the limits of knowledge, archaeology asserts itself as an open frontier for anthropological inquiry. [anthropological archaeology, historical archaeology, environment, identity, power]

Anthropological Archaeology in 2013: The Search for Truth(s)

“…Here, I present some of the major themes, methods, and debates in current anthropological archaeology reflected in the literature over the past year, which can be characterized by theoretical and methodological diversity. There is a clear continuation of certain themes noted in previous reviews, such as mobility, economy, plant and animal domestication, social complexity, human–environment interaction, and identity and power (Hauser ; Kahn ). The postmodernist turn has unleashed a body of theory exploring a range of themes that are reviewed here, including landscape perception, personhood and the self, postsecular views of religion, and postcolonial critiques.…”

“…The postmodernist turn has unleashed a body of theory exploring a range of themes that are reviewed here, including landscape perception, personhood and the self, postsecular views of religion, and postcolonial critiques. We can see further developments in social theoretical ideas, such as debates concerning multiple ontologies, which have been percolating for a number of years, as noted in previous AA reviews, alongside the continued tug of war between empirical data and its “fit” with social theory (Hauser :184–185). While the postmodernist turn has diversified social theory in archaeology, it has not eliminated neoevolutionary thought.…”

Ethnography in Health Services Research: Oscillation Between Theory and Practice

“…This can put ethnography in conflict with primarily deductive or classical research designs—in which the interpretation of data is subject to the imposition of higher order categories. When data are messy, this imposition risks obscuring fresh insights ( Hauser, 2012 ). However, as we have tried to demonstrate here, it does not have to be this way: The results of ethnographic research often end up with very different understandings of what is happening in the field (i.e., the daily practice of service provision) in comparison to what is imagined in the initial stages of a project and according to other methods of inquiry.…”