An "ideal" relationship between the anthropologist and the key informants should not be as we would expect to see in the Western culture. I think more of a mutual understanding between the two parties is more important instead. Friendship, in my opinion, is when two people or groups can give and take from one another without one party becoming judgmental over the other one. In this case, the anthropologist may end up becoming a sort of "judge" of the key informants and make decisions about their culture based on limited research. The mutual understanding between the anthropologist and the key informants ensures that the peoples' rights and are being protected and not put at risk. The anthropologist would not be viewed as a "spy" or invader and is more likely to be trusted by the members of the society.
An anthropologist faces the problem of not being accepted or could end up not becoming integrated within the new culture enough. With Greg Simon, his feelings and experiences in Indonesia made him feel isolated and very frustrated, which could result in a lack of progress concerning his research. Simon had a negative experience with the Indonesian culture, which could be a problem with any anthropologist. Also, another problem which could arise with an over-friendly relationship between the anthropologist and key informants include the chance of the anthropologist choosing the opinions of a select few within a culture. This will exlude the valuable opinions and chance of more concrete research of the wider public of the culture. This more limited view would skew the results of research within the culture, causing problems and inaccuracy in the research later on. Friendships could really affect an anthropologist's research, so it may be better if there was more of a mutual understanding, built on trust and just for the sake of research, instead a Western culture type friendship.
The anthropologist will run into problems with key informants; it is inevitable. Although it is not always the anthropologist's fault, the anthropologist needs to find ways to avoid those problems as much as possible. Sometimes the key informant is not always being cooperative, he/she wants to push an individual opinion further, or isn't completely truthful with the anthropologist for whatever reason. To minimize these types of problems, the anthropologist must assure the key informant(s)' opinions are important, but should rely on more concrete evidence concerning the entire culture instead. The anthropologist could always work with other researchers in the field, if he/she feels the informants weren't being truthful, to collaborate and cross-reference whatever research was gained. This will allow different key informants to be utilized, as well as act as a sort of double check system for the anthropologist to stay on track.
An anthropologist faces the problem of not being accepted or could end up not becoming integrated within the new culture enough. With Greg Simon, his feelings and experiences in Indonesia made him feel isolated and very frustrated, which could result in a lack of progress concerning his research. Simon had a negative experience with the Indonesian culture, which could be a problem with any anthropologist. Also, another problem which could arise with an over-friendly relationship between the anthropologist and key informants include the chance of the anthropologist choosing the opinions of a select few within a culture. This will exlude the valuable opinions and chance of more concrete research of the wider public of the culture. This more limited view would skew the results of research within the culture, causing problems and inaccuracy in the research later on. Friendships could really affect an anthropologist's research, so it may be better if there was more of a mutual understanding, built on trust and just for the sake of research, instead a Western culture type friendship.
The anthropologist will run into problems with key informants; it is inevitable. Although it is not always the anthropologist's fault, the anthropologist needs to find ways to avoid those problems as much as possible. Sometimes the key informant is not always being cooperative, he/she wants to push an individual opinion further, or isn't completely truthful with the anthropologist for whatever reason. To minimize these types of problems, the anthropologist must assure the key informant(s)' opinions are important, but should rely on more concrete evidence concerning the entire culture instead. The anthropologist could always work with other researchers in the field, if he/she feels the informants weren't being truthful, to collaborate and cross-reference whatever research was gained. This will allow different key informants to be utilized, as well as act as a sort of double check system for the anthropologist to stay on track.
I agree with you. It is inevitable to run into problems with key informants. In order to control that to some extent, we must use other sources as long as it coincides with the research being done.
ReplyDelete