Anthropology is a fundamental genre of study of peoples in their natural or societal environment. Those who choose to study and observe people can take two approaches to in recording ethnographies; a subject orientated perspective or an outsiders perspective. Due to the individuals moulding as an anthropologist and as a person by society, ethnographies can be clouded by researchers views on subjects as active agents through upbringing, sex and experience. These views can impact in their approach and information collection and ultimately the final product of their research, a published paper.
Cross-cultural ethnographies are the most common type of anthropological study of individuals in particular populations. One such method of …show more content…
A more clinical and analytical study based in facts collected by the anthropologist and official sources such as non-governmental organisations, charities and governments can provide quality data surrounding an issue and delve into the severity of the issue. Whilst the outsider perspective works well on an academic level it does not get to the heart of the issue by interacting with the people so they become more than just a statistic but the anthropologist gains a personal grasp on depth of an issue or culture. Steinfatt’s 2003 article ‘Measuring the Number of Trafficked Women and Children in Cambodia: A Direct Observation Field Study. Part III ‘ is a prime example of a researcher using an outsiders perspective and not creating a subject orientated ethnography. Instead he has a created a purely statistical analysis and break down of sex work. Steinfatt cites “Human Rights Vigilance of Cambodia, 1995”, Sophea, 1998 and UNICEF 1995 and 1996 as his sources for his statisitics and at the beginning of his study acknowledges the extent of sex trafficing is unknown. His provides good empirical evidence that an non-subject focused study is good to build a …show more content…
A researcher whilst they can immerse themselves in a culture or contemporary issue but cannot be born into it and truly understand what it is like to be bought up with the ideals and judgments. The same goes for a societal issue any anthropologists’ studies such as child work or sex work. The researcher can physically participate should they choose to however they cannot understand the circumstance that has driven these individuals into these industries. A researcher is there by choice and has the means to come and go as they please if they choose to involve themselves in the field via participation. However in the field of sex work and child work it is harder for a researcher to gain a deep understanding, circumstance has not forced them into these situations, nor has it taken the physical and emotional toll it has on the participants. The anthropologist will always be the viewer who can gain a measure of understanding through interviews, statistics and research but will never truly understand these global contemporary issues because they were not forced to live through them like the subject has been. Elsbeth Robson’s (2004) work on child care work in Zimbabwe discusses the story of Rindai. Rindai at 15 begun to care for his mother who had HIV/AIDS as there was no one else available help due to no income since his father was deceased and
Cross-cultural ethnographies are the most common type of anthropological study of individuals in particular populations. One such method of …show more content…
A more clinical and analytical study based in facts collected by the anthropologist and official sources such as non-governmental organisations, charities and governments can provide quality data surrounding an issue and delve into the severity of the issue. Whilst the outsider perspective works well on an academic level it does not get to the heart of the issue by interacting with the people so they become more than just a statistic but the anthropologist gains a personal grasp on depth of an issue or culture. Steinfatt’s 2003 article ‘Measuring the Number of Trafficked Women and Children in Cambodia: A Direct Observation Field Study. Part III ‘ is a prime example of a researcher using an outsiders perspective and not creating a subject orientated ethnography. Instead he has a created a purely statistical analysis and break down of sex work. Steinfatt cites “Human Rights Vigilance of Cambodia, 1995”, Sophea, 1998 and UNICEF 1995 and 1996 as his sources for his statisitics and at the beginning of his study acknowledges the extent of sex trafficing is unknown. His provides good empirical evidence that an non-subject focused study is good to build a …show more content…
A researcher whilst they can immerse themselves in a culture or contemporary issue but cannot be born into it and truly understand what it is like to be bought up with the ideals and judgments. The same goes for a societal issue any anthropologists’ studies such as child work or sex work. The researcher can physically participate should they choose to however they cannot understand the circumstance that has driven these individuals into these industries. A researcher is there by choice and has the means to come and go as they please if they choose to involve themselves in the field via participation. However in the field of sex work and child work it is harder for a researcher to gain a deep understanding, circumstance has not forced them into these situations, nor has it taken the physical and emotional toll it has on the participants. The anthropologist will always be the viewer who can gain a measure of understanding through interviews, statistics and research but will never truly understand these global contemporary issues because they were not forced to live through them like the subject has been. Elsbeth Robson’s (2004) work on child care work in Zimbabwe discusses the story of Rindai. Rindai at 15 begun to care for his mother who had HIV/AIDS as there was no one else available help due to no income since his father was deceased and