Auto-Ethnography: Paradigms, Problems, and Prospects

Author(s): David M. Hayano

Source: Human Organization, Vol. 38, No. 1 (Spring 1979), pp. 99-104
Published by: Society for Applied Anthropology
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/44125560
Accessed: 03-04-2019 19:38 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Society for Applied Anthropology is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to Human Organization

This content downloaded from 40.84.137.103 on Wed, 03 Apr 2019 19:38:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 1970 Alcoholism: A High-priority Health Problem: A Report While auto-ethnography is not a specific research tech-
of the Indian Health Service Task Force on Alcoholism II.
nique, method, or theory, it colors all three as they are em-
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
ployed in fieldwork. In many ways, the problems of auto-
1973 Alcoholism: A High-priority Health Problem. Report of
the Indian Health Service Task Force on Alcoholism. Section ethnography are the problems of ethnography compound-
III. DHEW Publication No. (HSM) 73-12002. Washington, ed by the researcher's involvement and intimacy with his
D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. subjects. In either case, critical issues of observation,
1976a The Forward Plan for FY 1978-1982, Alcohol, Drug epistemology, and 4 'objective' ' scientific research pro-
Abuse and Mental Health Administration, with Appendix cedures are raised.
(pp. 85-94). Entitled Decision Paper on the Proposal to
Transfer American Indian Projects Funded by the National Fieldwork in a non-Western society has long been con-
Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism to the Indian sidered to be of paramount importance for future scholars
Health Service. Washington, D.C.: Alcohol, Drug Abuse andand
teachers in both British and American schools of an-
Mental Health Administration, 2nd printing, rev. ed.,thropology.
Oc- Such experience was thought of as a profes-
tober. Mimeographed.
sional rite of passage. But there is recent evidence of a turn
1976b Forward Plan FY 1978-1982, Indian Health Service,
with Appendix B, Joint NIAAA-IHS Letter to Indian toward auto-ethnography among both new and veteran re-
Alcoholism Projects, from Emery A. Johnson and Ernest P.searchers. There are several major reasons for this develop-
Noble, May 10. Washington, D.C.: Public Health Service, ment.

Health Services Administration, October. Mimeographed. First, it is obvious that fieldwork can no longer be con-
1976c An Overview of Seven NI AAA Alcoholism Treatment
ducted under the wing of friendly colonial authorities. The
Programs for Fiscal Year 1976. Program Analysis and
Evaluation Branch, NIAAA. Mimeographed. disappearance or incorporation of former tribal peoples in-
1977a Summary of Meeting of Consultants from National In- to peasant and urban social systems has made it almost im-
dian Organizations with Indian Health Service Personnel, possible to study small, isolated tribal groups as if they ex-
IHS Headquarters, Rockville, MD, June 15-16, 1977; with isted apart from other peoples or from world economic and
Appendix, Draft Alcoholism Transfer Plan, June 15, 1977, by
political forces.
Donald A. Swetter, IHS Alcoholism Programs.
1977b Proposed Alcoholism Transfer Plan - NI AAA/ IHS. Second, minority and foreign anthropologists are being
Washington, D.C.: Public Health Service, Health Services trained in greater numbers than ever before, and many of
Administration, July 21. Mimeographed. them have clear priorities for doing ethnography in their
1977c Progress Report. The Indian Health Care Improvement home territories (Fahim 1977). Within anthropology and
Act - P.L. 94-437, presented at the Annual Meeting of the
sociology there has long been a propensity for minority
National Congress of American Indians, Dallas, Texas,
September 15. scholars to study their own group, either by choice or social
Westermeyer, J. restriction (Bracey et al. 1973). The recent upsurge in pop-
1976 Clinical Guidelines for the Cross-Cultural Treatment of ularity of Third World courses and Ethnic Studies depart-
Chemical Dependency. American Journal of Drug and ments has also generated the need for minority social scien-
Alcohol Abuse 3(2):315-22.
tists to examine first their own peoples and communities.
Third, specializations such as urban anthropology, ap-
plied or action anthropology, and various other inter-
disciplinary studies have led many graduate students to do
A uto-Ethnography : at least some predoctoral fieldwork in their own backyards,
Paradigms, Problems , and Prospects particularly since shrinking research funds and increased
competition have reduced much of the support for anthro-
by David M. Hayano pological fieldwork abroad.
As evidence for this trend toward auto-ethnography,
David M. Hayano is Associate Professor of Anthropology at
most edited readers in cultural anthropology today include
California State University, Northridge. The author would like
to thank Karen Ito Chan for her comments on an earlier version at least one article on anthropological fieldwork in some
of this paper. segment of American society (Jacobs 1970; Feldman and
Thielbar 1972; Jorgensen and Truzzi 1974; Spradley and
This paper is concerned with the following: (1) how an- Rynkiewich 1975; Nash and Spradley 1976; Arenš and
thropologists conduct and write ethnographies of their Montague 1976; Spradley and McCurdy 1977). Also, the
"own people"; (2) the problems of methodology and recent spate of "how to do ethnography" books includes
theory associated with this approach; and (3) whether an- many examples and research exercises for the student in
thropology can profit from these exercises. I refer to this everyday, familiar settings (Spradley and McCurdy 1972;
entire scope of issues as auto-ethnography.1 This definition Crane and Angrosino 1974; Hunter and Foley 1976).
of auto-ethnography encompasses a wide range of studies, I first heard the term auto-ethnography used in Sir Ray-
as it includes the works of other social scientists who have mond Firth's structuralism seminar in 1966 at the London
done intensive participant-observation research in natural School of Economics. In his lecture he had made passing
field settings. references to Jomo Kenyatta's study (1938) of his native

VOL. 3 8, NO. 1 SPRING 1979 99

This content downloaded from 40.84.137.103 on Wed, 03 Apr 2019 19:38:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Kikuyu people. As the story was told, when Kenyatta first The second major type of auto-ethnography is that writ-
presented his field material in Malinowski' s seminar, he ten by researchers who have acquired an intimate famil-
touched off a heated shouting match with another Kikuyu iarity with certain subcultural, recreational, or occupa-
speaker. That speaker was a white African, L. S. B. tional groups. Several sociologists who have done intensive
Leakey. It is further reported that "since the argument participant-observation research fall into this category.
lapsed into Kikuyu, the exact nature of the discrepancies Scott's (1968) knowledge of race track personnel and bet-
between Leakey and Kenyatta were never clarified" (Wax tors came from his family's connections in the business.
1976:332). Their argument pointedly raised the question of Polsky' s (1969) favorite recreation was pool shooting, and
judging the validity of anthropological data by assessing the as a skilled insider, he was occasionally a hustler or a finan-
characteristics, interests, and origin of the person who did cial backer of other pool hustlers. Some auto-ethno-
the field work. graphers worked at various jobs before or even during their
My own teaching and my fieldwork in New Guinea and careers as professional social scientists, and later analyzed
with subcultures in the United States have continued totheir experiences. Studies such as Davis (1959) on Chicago
raise questions for me about the nature of data collection
cab drivers, Becker (1963:79-1 14) on jazz musicians, Pilcher
and observer interpretation. Perhaps now it may be possi-
(1972) on the Portland longshoremen, and Spradley and
ble to examine the auto-ethnographic work which has been
Mann (1975) on cocktail waitresses fit this category of
scholars who have acquired multiple group membership
completed and to isolate its central characteristics, foibles,
and merits. Do the data collected and analyzed by an in-derived from their own personal interests and backgrounds.
digenous insider of a particular group differ significantly
A subcategory of this second type of auto-ethnography
occurs when individuals become formally and informally
from those of an outsider? If so, how? This paper is offered
socialized, after indoctrination, into a specific group or
as a preliminary attempt to sort out some of the most im-
portant features and consequences of studying one's own
role-type with some specialized knowledge or way of life.
people. The attainment of insider membership may be a long-term
permanent change, as in the case of Agehananda Bharati
Auto-Ethnography: Styles and Types. It is no easy (born Leopold Fischer) who went to India and became a
task to define precisely how an anthropologist identifies Hindu monk as well as an Indian scholar and anthro-
himself/ herself and the groups to which he/she belongs. pologist (1970). It may also be a case of one who has joined
One cannot judge solely on the basis of physical appearance and studied a small organization or society after under-
or residence to determine whether one is or is not doing going special entrance rituals (e.g., Sullivan et al. 1958).
auto-ethnography. Hsu (1948:ix), for example, "looked Excluded as examples of auto-ethnography are the writ-
like" his subjects in a small rural town in Hunnan, China, ings of many anthropologists who have conducted partici-
but was always treated as an outsider. Similarly, Srinivas pant- observation research among a distinctly different
(1966), who is a Brahmin Indian, was different in caste group than their own. For example, no matter how exhaus-
membership from many of the people of the Indian villages tive Malinowski's knowledge of Trobriand island society
he studied. In the Pacific Islands, a native anthropologist was, he could never be considered a native by either his or
visiting other islands is often classified as a strangertheir standards. This sense of "living in" a group is com-
(Crocombe 1976). The criteria for auto-ethnography, then,pletely different from the native, internal meaning of mem-
must include some prior knowledge of the people, their bership (Martin 1974). Cases of "going native," such as the
culture and language, as well as the ability to be accepted tocelebrated example of Frank Cushing and the Zuñi, are also
some degree, or to "pass" as a native member. This in- not applicable, for although he adopted their clothing and
sider/outsider (or auto-ethnography /ethnography) dimen- language, he, apparently, never ceased to be an anthropolo-
sion is best seen as a continuum rather than a rigid gist. The degree to which his story has been distorted and
dichotomy (Lewis 1973:599). romanticized seems to be a part of anthropology's fable
The most common type of auto-ethnography is that writ- (Gronewald 1972).
ten by people whose "master status" (Hughes 1945) is ob- Thus, auto-ethnographies can be and are written by
vious and important to their self-identity. This list includes scholars with many diverse interests and backgrounds.
ethnographers who have studied their own cultural, social, There is no one necessary characteristic, such as birthplace
ethnic, racial, religious, residential, or sex membership or appearance, which defines both types.2 The shared sim-
group, or a combination of one or more of these categories. ilarities among auto-ethnographies are that, in each case,
An example is Roy's (1975) study of Bengali women; the the researchers possess the qualities of often permanent
author is both a Bengali and a woman. Other selected self-identification with a group and full internal member-
works of this type include Yang (1945), Busia (1951), ship, as recognized both by themselves and the people of
Uchendu (1965), Srinivas (1966), Hostetler (1968), Ortiz whom they are a part.
(1969), Owusu (1970), Cavan (1972), and others cited
throughout this paper. A Common Paradigm? If the term paradigm is used in

100 HUMAN ORGANIZATION

This content downloaded from 40.84.137.103 on Wed, 03 Apr 2019 19:38:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Kuhn' s (1970) most general sense, as the prevailing ac- search for entirely new theories, concepts, and methods
cepted definition of problems and a shared formula by derived from other possible epistemologies; (2) emic or sub-
which data are explained, then it can be said that the final jectively oriented data analysis, incorporating techniques
products of auto-ethnography have not produced or fol- and theories adapted from other disciplines; and (3) ap-
lowed one common paradigm or one distinctive theoretical plied, action, or radical anthropology emphasizing the
framework. Among writers, there is a diversity of training practical uses of anthropology in support of one's own peo-
and, consequently, many styles of reporting and analyzing ple and, therefore, of oneself.
information.
The interests of many auto-ethnographers fit the models Problems of Method and Analysis. Some auto-eth-
of ethnoscience, cognitive anthropology, ethnometh- nographers give little or no indication in their published
odology, symbolic interactionism, or phenomenology. If writings that there are any special differences, problems, or
the native-as-ethnographer has the ability to intuit cultural- advantages to studying a group of people as a native insider
ly significant questions and answers, then clearly these (e.g., Busia 1951; Hostetler 1968; Ortiz 1969). They simply
models are appropriate. But these subjectively oriented go about ethnography as usual in their role as "objective"
"creative sociologies" (Morris 1977) and traditional reporters and analyze their data according to their own
ethnographic concerns have not always been compatible. special interests and theoretical inclinations.
Why have some auto-ethnographers not fully exploited For auto-ethnographers, intensive participant observa-
their native vantage points? Several reasons for this omis- tion is often the most important field method, perhaps to
sion are suggested by the researchers themselves. Yang the neglect of other research tools such as questionnaires,
(1972:72) prefers to be called a scientist rather than a structured interviews, psychological tests, field ex-
"sentimentalist." Srinivas (1966:155) feels that it is of ut-
periments, or formal ethnoscientific procedures.
most importance for the field worker to be objective, to In undertaking fieldwork, the choice of a field location is
hold his emotions and feelings in abeyance. Thus, for someoften determined by the researcher's identity and group
auto-ethnographers, to follow the canons of objective re- membership. Some anthropologists of foreign or ethnic
search procedures, detachment and uninvolvement is more origin state that, in their experiences in American universi-
useful than to be guided by intense personal familiarity. ties, they are expected to study their own peoples rather
The written style of many recent auto-ethnographies isthan do fieldwork elsewhere. Jones comments that:
holistic and descriptive rather than problem-oriented. To
borrow Blumer 's (1956) phrase, auto-ethnographers have the role that the student should not work in his culture
seems to be reversed when it comes to the foreign student,
usually attempted to describe the "full picture" and
the "native" who is studying for a Ph.D. in the United
breadth of their people. The intimacy of their portrayals
States. It is an undeniable fact that most African students
has resulted in a type of descriptive ethnography which in American universities are Africanists who have con-
was common in anthropology several decades ago, and
ducted field work in their own society and are specialists
most recent auto-ethnographies fall into conventional an- in their own people. The philosophy concerning the field
thropological paradigms, most notably holistic-descriptive training of foreign students, therefore, is opposite to that
ethnography, structural-functionalism, symbolic anthro- which pertains to training American students (1970:252).
pology, or a branch of psychological anthropology.
By accepting these conventional paradigms, the quality One African student, Chilungu (1976:458), was even told
of theory in auto-ethnography, as well as ethnography, has by his advisors that he should not even attempt to be an an-
been questioned by a number of minority anthropologists thropologist because anthropology was for outsiders!
and sociologists (Willis 1969; Jones 1970; Lewis 1973; But once fieldwork is begun, the auto-ethnographer has
Ladner 1973). several obvious practical advantages; Yang (1972:72) and
There are, however, a number of major stumbling blocks Owusu (1970:8) single out the prior knowledge of the native
to paradigmatic change in any science, and these relate language, a major obstacle for many outside ethno-
directly to the social organization and politics of academic graphers. Others point to the feelings of empathy and emo-
scholarship and information dissemination. Hsu's (1973) tions which insiders share from knowing their subjects on a
indictment that native ethnographers are usually cited in deep, subtle level. These are emotions which outsiders can-
scholarly journals because of their data reporting, rather not feel in the same way, or for the same things (Uchendu
than their theory, is a case in point. Several studies in the 1965:9; Yang 1972:72; Roy 1975:xvi; Hau'ofa 1975).
sociology of knowledge and the communication of scien- Subjectivism and personal involvement, then, need not
tific information support Hsu's charge (Friedrichs 1970; necessarily be methodological "problems," but can be
Crane 1972). assets to deepen ethnographic understanding.
Despite these difficulties, three directions that some In some field locations, it is simply easier, socially and
auto-ethnographers are either striving for or have marked politically, to do fieldwork among a group in which one is
as future possible paradigm shifts are as follows: (1) the or was a member. Lutfiyya (1966), with only three months'

VOL. 3 8, NO. 1 SPRING 1979 101

This content downloaded from 40.84.137.103 on Wed, 03 Apr 2019 19:38:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
formal fieldwork,was able to write an ethnography of a
Jordanian village where he grew up and lived for 20 years.
Even then, there were questions about his identity and role;
many villagers thought he was a spy. Pilcher's (1972) study
of Portland longshoremen clearly points out that an out-
sider would have an extremely difficult time asking ques-
tions and communicating with members of this working-
class occupational group. His own involvement with long-
shoremen, through his family and work, facilitated his ac-
ceptance into the group in his new role as anthropologist.
Many insiders-turned-anthropologists find that their native
communities adopt new roles to fit them when they return
home for fieldwork. Selosoemardjan (1962:xxv), for exam-
ple, was labeled a 4 'civil servant" by Indonesian villagers
who knew him before his training at Cornell. For all auto-
ethnographers, familiarity tends to mitigate at least two
common field problems: the potentially devastating effects
of environmental change and culture shock.
Many auto-ethnographers comment on the need to make
a clear role distinction between scientist-ethnographer and
native group member in order to maintain a sense of emo-
tional and social detachment and value neutrality (Punyo-
dyana 1969:77; Hsu 1970:xiii; Cutileiro 1971 :vii-viii). On
his fieldwork in a Portugese village, Cutileiro remarks: "In
order to be able to survive and describe the life of some of
my fellow-countrymen I had, as it were, to impersonate an
Oxford anthropologist" (1971 :vii. Emphasis mine).
To further the goals of role detachment and uninvolve-
ment, some auto-ethnographers attempt to be a "marginal
native" (Freilich 1970), even in their natal communities.
But most auto-ethnographers agree that this self-imposed
social and psychological distance in fieldwork can only be
so effective. Srinivas (1966:154) feels that, regardless of
one's role, no information can be collected by entirely "ob-
jective" means. The choice of a problem, method, and
theory is always affected by one's position in a particular
society and by personal and situational factors such as sex,
age, degree of rapport, the location of fieldwork, and the
restraints of the sponsoring institution (also see Sjoberg
and Nett 1968:96-128).
The most fundamental dilemma raised by most auto-
ethnographers concerns research bias and the objec- (Barnes 1963:127; Crocombe 1976).
tive/subjective polarity in collecting, interpreting, and
reporting information (Uchendu 1965; Srinivas 1966:155;
Milner and Milner 1972:21; Yang 1972:72; Spradley and
Mann 1975:12). Opinion diverges as to how much the in-
sider's viewpoint should be presented and how accurate it
actually is. Chilungu (1976) resents the accusation that in-
siders are automatically biased in their interpretation of
data in comparison to outside ethnographers. Jones
(1970:258) is a stronger advocate of subjectivity and in-
volvement, and takes the position that the ethnographer
should present data on behalf of and beneficial to his own
membership group. In either case, the lack and distinc-
102 HUMAN ORGANIZATION
This content downloaded from 40.84.137.103 on Wed, 03 Apr 2019 19:38:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
tiveness of the insider's perspective in anthropology is
noticeable. Uchendu (1965:9) remarks that:
The "native" point of view presented by a sympathetic-
foreign ethnologist who "knows" his native is not the
view presented by the native. Both views are legitimate,
but the native's point of view is yet to enrich our
discipline.
An extension of this issue, which auto-ethnographers have
not thoroughly examined, is that cultural "realities" and
interpretations of events among individuals in the same
group are often highly variable, changing, or contradic-
tory. Thus, an insider's position is not necessarily an un-
challengeable "true" picture; it represents one possible
perspective.
The pitfalls of subjectivity and involvement do not go
without comment. Auto-ethnographers themselves fre-
quently mention observations which can easily be over-
looked, including the many taken-for-granted assumptions
about social behavior and the blindness to common, every-
day activities; these are the hazards of intimate familiarity
(Uchendu 1965:9-10; Yang 1972:70; Pilcher 1972:5; Lewis
1973:587). Too much information about a people is also a
problem. Auto-ethnographers, as well as outside
ethnographers, sometimes face troublesome decisions
which must be made about publishing data that is political-
ly sensitive or that describes illegal, confidential, or ritual
practices (Becker 1964; Cassell 1977).
While the intimate familiarity of auto-ethnography has
its problems, little has been said of the comparable, op-
posite stance of "overobjectivity," that is, attempting to
describe a people from a totally detached stranger perspec-
tive or as a Martian (Davis 1973). An example of this is
Miner's (1956) well-known description of Nacirema magical
practices and body taboos. It is amusing, since most readers
know who he is referring to, yet the final product does not
seem to be totally "real." But how many other classic
ethnographies may read in the same ludicrous manner by
literate, former informants? There is evidence that even
seasoned outside ethnographers, such as Malinowski and
Mead, have misunderstood, misinterpreted, or inaccurately
described important features of native life and culture
Some of the methodological problems of auto-ethno-
graphy are the identical problems of outsider ethnography.
Auto-ethnographers, however, must seriously evaluate
their special advantages or disadvantages, whatever these
might be. With these issues unresolved, it is only with cau-
tion that the potential uses of auto-ethnography within
cultural anthropology can be discussed.
Prospects and Possibilities. To build a strong
substantive and theoretical base in ethnography, despite th
drawbacks and uncertainties of auto-ethnography
enumerated above, it is suggested that the perspective of
ethnographie reflexivity can be an important contribution.
Anthropologists who have unique cultural or subcultural
experiences and specialized knowledge can share these
views with others, and not matter-of-factly submerge them
under conventional anthropological paradigms. Years of
effort may be saved by native ethnographers who have
already acquired internal group membership. The resultant
multidimensional view of reality and the "perspectivist
knowledge' ' gained (Lewis 1973:586) surely would enlarge
anthropology's conceptual and epistemological founda-
tions.
In short, the foremost prospects and possibilities of auto-
ethnography in anthropology at this time lie in the follow-
ing: (1) the substantive and heuristic values of its diverse
concepts and theories; (2) the ethical and moral issues it
perpetually confronts with respect to the use of human sub-
jects as sources of data; (3) the voices from within- the in-
ternal political affirmation of cultural diversity and
autonomy for sometimes neglected populations and
peoples; and (4) its potential advisory capabilities in pro-
grams of change or development.
The difficulty of weighing the prospects of auto-
ethnography is that it does not represent a clear-cut direc-
tion in anthropology; perhaps it never will. Presently, it is a
mixture of diverse researchers investigating different prob-
lems. But always underlying this omnibus spectrum is the
inescapable, recurrent problem of the human presence in
data collection.
NOTES
1 I do not mean the term in Heider 's (1975:3)
tives ofsense of Anthropologist.
an Egyptian "autoch- Human Organization
thonous" or ' 'automatic/ '
2 I deliberately omit, but can see the importance of, life histories Feldman, Saul D., and Gerald W. Thielbar, eds.
and autobiographies "as told to" ethnographers who may use lit-
tle or no interpretation in presenting informants' verbatim ac-
counts. I also acknowledge but disregard studies of the type writ- Freilich, Morris, ed.
ten by Wallace (1965, 1972) which analyze one's own life through
the procedures of ethnography. These studies are not only auto-
ethnographic, they are self-ethnographic, but it is not immediately Friedrichs, Robert W.
shown how they are applicable to other cultural members.
REFERENCES CITED
eds. San Francisco: Chandler.
Arenš, W., and S. P. Montague, eds.
1976 The American Dimension: Cultural
Hau'ofa, Epeli Myths and Social
Realities. New York: Alfred.
Barnes, John A.
1963 Some Ethical Problems in Modern Field Work. British
Journal of Sociology 14:118-34.
Becker, Howard S.
1963 Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance. New
York: Free Press.
1964 Problems in the Publication of Field Studies. In Reflec-
tions on Community Studies, Arthur Vidich, Joseph
Bensman, and Maurice R. Stein, eds. New York: Wiley.
Bharati, Agehananda
1970 The Ochre Robe. New York: Doubleday.
This content downloaded from 40.84.137.103 on Wed, 03 Apr 2019 19:38:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Blumer, Herbert
1956 Sociological Analysis and the 'Variable.' American
Sociological Review 21:683-90.
Bracey, John, August Meier, and Eliot Rudwick
1973 The Black Sociologists: The First Half Century. In The
Death of White Sociology, Joyce A. Ladner, ed. New York:
Random House.
Busia, K. A.
195 1 The Position of the Chief in the Modern Political System
of Ashanti. London: Oxford University Press.
Cassell, Joan
1977 The Relationship of Observer to Observed in Peer Group
Research. Human Organization 36:412-16.
Cavan, Sheri
1972 Hippies of the Haight. St. Louis, Missouri: New Critics
Press.
Chilungu, Simeon W.
1976 Issues in the Ethics of Research Method: An Interpreta-
tion of the Anglo-American Perspective. Current Anthro-
pology 17:457-81.
Crane, Diana
1972 Invisible Colleges. Diffusion of Knowledge in Scientific
Communities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Crane, Julia G., and Michael V. Angrosino
1974 Field Projects in Anthropology: A Student Handbook.
Morristown, New Jersey: General Learning Press.
Crocombe, Ronald
1976 Anthropology, Anthropologists, and Pacific Islanders.
Oceania XLVIL66-73.
Cutileiro, Jose
1971 A Portugese Rural Society. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Davis, Fred
1959 The Cabdriver and his Fare: Facets of a Fleeting
Relationship. American Journal of Sociology 65:158-65.
1973 The Martian and the Convert: Ontological Polarities in
Social Research. Urban Life and Culture 2:333-43.
Fahim, Hussein M.
1977 Foreign and Indigenous Anthropology: The Perspec-
36:80-86.
1972 Life Styles: Diversity in American Society. Boston: Lit-
tle, Brown.
1970 Marginal Natives. Anthropologists at Work. New York:
Harper and Row.
1970 A Sociology of Sociology. New York: Free Press.
Gronewald, S.
1972 Did Frank Hamilton Cushing Go Native? In Crossing
Cultural Boundaries, Solon T. Kimball and James B. Watson,
1975 Anthropology and Pacific Islanders. Oceania XLV:283-
89.
Heider, Karl G.
1975 What Do People Do? Dani Auto-Ethnography. Journal
of Anthropological Research 31:3-17.
Hostetler, John A.
1968 Amish Society. Revised ed. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
Press.
Hsu, Francis L. K.
1948 Under the Ancestor's Shadow. New York: Columbia
University Press.
1970 Americans and Chinese. New York: Doubleday.
VOL. 3 8, NO. 1 SPRING 1979 103
 1973 Prejudice and Its Intellectual Effects in American An- Polsky, Ned
thropology. American Anthropologist 75:1-19. 1969 Hustlers, Beats, and Others. New York: Anchor.
Hughes, Everett C. Punyodyana, Boonsanong
1945 Dilemmas and Contradictions of Status. American Jour- 1969 Social Structure, Social System, and Two Levels of
nal of Sociology 50:353-59. Analysis: A Thai View. In Loosely Structured Social Systems:
Hunter, David E., and M. B. Foley Thailand in Comparative Perspective, Cultural Report Series
1976 Doing Anthropology. New York: Harper and Row. No. 17, Hans-Dieter E vers, ed. New Haven, Connecticut:
Jacobs, Glenn, ed. Southeast Asia Studies, Yale University.
1970 The Participant Observer. New York: Braziller. Roy, Manisha
Jones, Delmos J. 1975 Bengali Women. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
1970 Towards a Native Anthropology. Human Organization
29:251-59. Scott, Marvin
Jorgensen, Joseph G., and M. Truzzi, eds. 1968 The Racing Game. Chicago: Aldine.
Selosoemardjan
1974 Anthropology and American Life. Englewood Cliffs,
New Jersey: Prentice Hall. 1962 Social Changes in Jogjarkarta. Ithaca, New York: Cor-
Kenyatta, Jomo nell University Press.
1938 Facing Mount Kenya. London: Seeker and Warburg. Sjoberg, Gideon, and Roger Nett
Kuhn, Thomas 1968 A Methodology for Social Research. New York: Harper
and Row.
1970 The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Second ed.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Spradley, James P., and Brenda Mann
Ladner, Joyce A., ed. 1975 The Cocktail Waitress. New York: Wiley.
1973 The Death of White Sociology. New York: Random Spradley, James P., and David W. McCurdy, eds.
House. 1972 The Cultural Experience: Ethnography in Complex Soci-
Lewis, Diane K. ety. Chicago: Science Research Associates.
1973 Anthropology and Colonialism. Current Anthropology1977 Conformity and Conflict. Readings in Cultural Anthro-
14:581-602. pology. Boston: Little, Brown.
Lutfiyya, Abdulla M. Spradley, James P., and Michael A. Rynkiewich, eds.
1966 Batin: A Jordanian Village. The Hague: Mouton. 1975 The Nacirema. Boston: Little, Brown.
Mann, Brenda Srinivas, M. N.
1976 The Ethics of Fieldwork in an Urban Bar. In Ethics 1966 Social Change in Modern India. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
and Anthropology: Dilemmas in Fieldwork, Michael A.
Sullivan, M. A., S. A. Queen, and R. C. Patrick
Rynkiewich and James P. Spradley, eds. New York: Wiley.
Martin, M. 1958 Participant Observation as Employed in the Study of a
1974 Understanding and Participant Observation in Cultural Military Training Program. American Sociological Review
23:660-67.
and Social Anthropology. In Verstehen: Subjective Under-
standing in the Social Sciences, M. Truzzi, ed. Reading,
Uchendu, Victor
Massachusetts: Addison- Wesley. 1965 The Igbo of Southeast Nigeria. New York: Holt, Rine-
Milner, Christina, and Richard Milner hart and Winston.
1972 Black Players. New York: Bantam.
Wallace, Anthony F. C.
Miner, Horace
1965 Driving to Work. In Context and Meaning in Cultural
1956 Body Ritual among the Nacirema. American Anthropo-
Anthropology, Melford Spiro, ed. New York: Free Press.
logist 58:503-07.
1972 A Day at the Office. In Crossing Cultural Boundaries,
Morris, Monica B.
Solon T. Kimball and James B. Watson, eds. San Francisco:
1977 An Excursion into Creative Sociology. New York: Chandler.
Columbia University Press.
Wax, Murray L.
Nash, Jeffrey E., and James P. Spradley, eds.
1976 Introduction to the Plenary Address (of the 35th Annual
1976 Sociology: A Descriptive Approach. Chicago: Rand
Meeting of the Society for Applied Anthropology, Saint
McNally.
Louis, Missouri). Human Organization 35:331-33.
Ortiz, Alfonso
Willis, William S.
1969 The Tewa World. Space, Time, Being, and Becoming in a
1969 Skeletons in the Anthropological Closet. In Reinventing
Pueblo Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Anthropology, Dell Hymes, ed. New York: Random House.
Owusu, Maxwell
1970 Uses and Abuses of Political Power. A Case Study of Yang, M. C.
Continuity and Change in the Politics of Ghana. Chicago: 1945 A Chinese Village. New York: Columbia University
University of Chicago Press. Press.
Pilcher, William W. 1972 How A Chinese Village was Written. In Crossing
1972 The Portland Longshoremen. New York: Holt, Rinehart Cultural Boundaries, Solon T. Kimball and James B. Watson,
and Winston. eds. San Francisco: Chandler.

104 HUMAN ORGANIZATION

This content downloaded from 40.84.137.103 on Wed, 03 Apr 2019 19:38:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms