Analysis in Anthropology

In Anthropology, it is absolutely necessary to analyze results in order to be able to interpret to big “so what?” of a phenomenon.  Anthropologists should use both quantitative and qualitative measures to analyze results and understand trends, especially because culture does not occur within a vacuum, and contextual information is necessary to responsibly analyze data.  In the past two modules, we seen several different examples of analyzing results.  In Dr. Friederic’s module, we saw anthropologists analyzing archaeological results found in studies of migrant artifacts.  Additionally, anthropologists from the Colibri Center for Human Rights look at both qualitative data for deceased migrants, as well as quantitative data.  In Dr. Clark’s module, groups visited cemeteries in Winston-Salem and sampled headstones and grave markers in order to interpret trends in each cemetery.  Group members analyzed their findings in order to make sense of them, and also put their findings into a broader historical and qualitative context when they analyzed them.

Dr. Friederic’s module provided us with a variety of examples of anthropological phenomena concerning migrant death, including an ethno-archaeological study of border-crossing artifacts, an ethno-archaeological analysis of migrant death in the Sonoran Desert, and a study of Dia de los Muertos altars for missing and dead migrants.  Although these studies utilized numbers and statistics to analyze these trends, qualitative analysis was equally valued, and worked in conjunction with statistics.  For example, in the study of migrant material goods/ artifacts used and found along border crossing routes, the anthropologists studied trends in markets for goods, such as water bottles, t-shirts, etc.  Numbers of these items produced, as well as locations of production and distribution offer significant insight into their popularity, but this information must be paired with observations of and interviews with migrants who explain the importance of these objects (in the case of the water bottle, black water bottles are culturally seen as more camouflaged, and therefore the bottle of choice, regardless of their susceptibility to heat).  In this case, we are able to understand a cultural trend through a combination of analysis of qualitative ethnographic findings, and quantitative archaeological and statistical understandings.

In Dr. Clark’s module, groups conducted ethno-archaeological analysis of cemeteries in Winston-Salem.  My group studied Forsyth Memorial Park, and we took a sample of 11 headstones and markers that we then used to analyze trends in that specific cemetery.  Our tools of analysis included statistics (using percentages of certain trends, such as gender, ethnicity, age of death, etc.) as well as using qualitative data, such as quality of headstone material, symbols on grave markers, etc.  In addition to the data that we gathered from our site visit to Forsyth Memorial Park, we also consulted historical evidence of the cemetery and the current corporation that manages it, Service Corporation International, to put our data into context.  This qualitative historical analysis allowed us to make claims about our data with relative confidence when initially we may not have been able to.

Because anthropology is so inextricably linked to culture, it is imperative that anthropological analysis reflects this, and accounts for irregularities in trends and behavior due to human creativity.  A combination of qualitative and quantitative analysis, in conjunction with historical framework, can legitimize analysis and account for the incredible complexity that culture presents.

Importance of Background Research and Methodology to Anthropology

When engaging in anthropology, it is incredibly important to conduct significant background research on your specific topic.  It is necessary to engage with the historical conversation about your anthropological subject in order to provide you with a basic understanding so you can carry out your own research.  In order to develop a strong research question, you must first know what has already been examined.  Once background research has been done, you must consider the methodology you will use to carry out your anthropological study.  Methods shape results, and good methods can help create reliable, comprehensive studies.  In both Dr. Bender’s module on language death and Dr. Good’s module on virtual death, we have seen a variety of methods used, as well as in-depth background research for each study.

In Dr. Bender’s module concerning language death, we mainly focused on quotidian reframing of death discourse among elderly women in Japan.   The author of this study, Yoshiko Matsumoto, discusses previous examinations of this topic, including a sociolinguistic study that has very different findings than her own study.  She even draws on prior understandings of reframing that she has come to know through similar work among other populations.  She references methodological background sources, particularly for concepts such as reframing, and she looks at earlier examinations of the subject of death among elderly Japanese women in order to shape her research question about what exactly Quotidian reframing is among elderly Japanese women’s discourse on death, and what purpose it serves for their culture.  Matsumoto’s use of methods are critical to her study.  She utilizes fieldwork, including semi-structured interviews, participant observation and transcript analysis of discourse.  These methods are specific to her linguistic analysis of quotidian reframing, but she must also draw upon cultural fieldwork methods in order to facilitate linguistic anthropological analysis.

Dr. Goode’s module focused on virtual death, particularly memorialization of death on social networking sites.  We examined an article titled, “There Isn’t Wi-Fi in Heaven” by Marwick and Ellison, which examined memorial pages on Facebook specifically.  The authors did extensive background research, and understood the intricacies of how Facebook pages are memorialized, and essentially what happens when a Facebook user dies.  Although their background research was comprehensive, especially because this is a relatively recent phenomenon, their methods were definitely lacking.  The authors arbitrarily chose Facebook memorial pages to examine, based on their accessibility, which skewed the representativeness of the study.  Additionally, in accordance with the nature of SNS, the authors were unable to determine or confront the individuals behind the Facebook pages, therefore limiting the interpretation of their results.

In both of these modules, the methods used were very different, particularly because the studies engaged in different anthropological subfields.  This illustrates the necessity for methods to match the specific subfield you are working in, as well as the context of your individual research project.  For my individual research project, I am working within the cultural subfield, and therefore will be drawing upon aspects of cultural fieldwork, including semi-structured interviews, participant observation, and surveys.  I chose these methods because they will best serve me in my task of understanding differences in mortuary rituals within funeral homes in Winston-Salem across socio-economic and racial lines. Beyond my project, my understanding of anthropological methods will aid in future research products that I will conduct, as well as my intended career as a teacher.  As an educator, work is not limited to the classroom, but is uniquely tied to familial and community circumstances.  My knowledge of anthropological methods, particularly in the cultural and linguistic subfields, such as participant observation and semi-structured interviews, will help me devise plans to engage with the local community in order to solve problems that I experience in the classroom, or simply get a better understanding of where these issues originate.