Editing Cultural anthropology (section)

===Participant observation===
{{main|Participant observation}}
Participant observation is one of the principal research methods of cultural anthropology. It relies on the assumption that the best way to understand a group of people is to interact with them closely over a long period of time.<ref name=":4">{{Cite book|title=Social and Cultural Anthropology: A Very Short Introduction|last1=Monaghan|first1=John|last2=Just|first2=Peter|publisher=Oxford University Press|year=2000|isbn=978-0-19-285346-2|location=New York}}</ref> The method originated in the [[field work|field research]] of social anthropologists, especially Bronislaw Malinowski in Britain, the students of [[Franz Boas]] in the United States, and in the later urban research of the [[Chicago school (sociology)|Chicago School of Sociology]]. Historically, the group of people being studied was a small, non-Western society. However, today it may be a specific corporation, a church group, a sports team, or a small town.<ref name=":4" /> There are no restrictions as to what the subject of participant observation can be, as long as the group of people is studied intimately by the observing anthropologist over a long period of time. This allows the anthropologist to develop trusting relationships with the subjects of study and receive an inside perspective on the culture, which helps him or her to give a richer description when writing about the culture later. Observable details (like daily time allotment) and more hidden details (like [[taboo]] behavior) are more easily observed and interpreted over a longer period of time, and researchers can discover discrepancies between what participants say—and often believe—should happen (the [[formal system]]) and what actually does happen, or between different aspects of the formal system; in contrast, a one-time survey of people's answers to a set of questions might be quite consistent, but is less likely to show conflicts between different aspects of the social system or between conscious representations and behavior.<ref name="DeWalt">DeWalt, K. M., DeWalt, B. R., & Wayland, C. B. (1998). "Participant observation." In H. R. Bernard (Ed.), ''Handbook of methods in cultural anthropology.'' pp. 259–99. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.</ref>

Interactions between an [[Ethnography|ethnographer]] and a cultural informant must go both ways.<ref>{{Cite book|title=Doing Cultural Anthropology: Projects for Ethnographic Data Collection|last=Tierney|first=Gerry|publisher=Waveland Press|year=2007|editor-last=Angrosino|editor-first=Michael|location=Prospect Heights, IL|chapter=Becoming a Participant Observer}}</ref> Just as an ethnographer may be naive or curious about a culture, the members of that culture may be curious about the ethnographer. To establish connections that will eventually lead to a better understanding of the cultural context of a situation, an anthropologist must be open to becoming part of the group, and willing to develop meaningful relationships with its members.<ref name=":4" /> One way to do this is to find a small area of common experience between an anthropologist and their subjects, and then to expand from this common ground into the larger area of difference.<ref>{{Cite book|title=The Self in Social Inquiry|last=Swick Perry|first=Helen|publisher=Sage Publications|others=Kenwyn Smith|year=1988|editor-last=Berg|editor-first=David|location=Newbury Park, CA|chapter=Using Participant Observation to Construct a Life History}}</ref> Once a single connection has been established, it becomes easier to integrate into the community, and it is more likely that accurate and complete information is being shared with the anthropologist.

Before participant observation can begin, an anthropologist must choose both a location and a focus of study.<ref name=":4" /> This focus may change once the anthropologist is actively observing the chosen group of people, but having an idea of what one wants to study before beginning fieldwork allows an anthropologist to spend time researching background information on their topic. It can also be helpful to know what previous research has been conducted in one's chosen location or on similar topics, and if the participant observation takes place in a location where the spoken language is not one the anthropologist is familiar with, they will usually also learn that language. This allows the anthropologist to become better established in the community. The lack of need for a translator makes communication more direct, and allows the anthropologist to give a richer, more contextualized representation of what they witness. In addition, participant observation often requires permits from governments and research institutions in the area of study, and always needs some form of funding.<ref name=":4" />

The majority of participant observation is based on conversation. This can take the form of casual, friendly dialogue, or can also be a series of more structured interviews. A combination of the two is often used, sometimes along with photography, mapping, artifact collection, and various other methods.<ref name=":4" /> In some cases, ethnographers also turn to structured observation, in which an anthropologist's observations are directed by a specific set of questions they are trying to answer.<ref name=":5">{{Cite book|title=Doing Cultural Anthropology: Projects for Ethnographic Data Collection|last=Price|first=Laurie J.|publisher=Waveland Press|year=2007|editor-last=Angrosino|editor-first=Michael|location=Prospect Heights, IL|chapter=Carrying Out a Structured Observation}}</ref> In the case of structured observation, an observer might be required to record the order of a series of events, or describe a certain part of the surrounding environment.<ref name=":5" /> While the anthropologist still makes an effort to become integrated into the group they are studying, and still participates in the events as they observe, structured observation is more directed and specific than participant observation in general. This helps to standardize the method of study when ethnographic data is being compared across several groups or is needed to fulfill a specific purpose, such as research for a governmental policy decision.

One common criticism of participant observation is its lack of objectivity.<ref name=":4" /> Because each anthropologist has their own background and set of experiences, each individual is likely to interpret the same culture in a different way. Who the ethnographer is has a lot to do with what they will eventually write about a culture, because each researcher is influenced by their own perspective.<ref>{{Cite book|title=Culture and Truth|last=Rosaldo|first=Renato|publisher=Beacon Press|year=1989|location=Boston, MA}}</ref> This is considered a problem especially when anthropologists write in the ethnographic present, a present tense which makes a culture seem stuck in time, and ignores the fact that it may have interacted with other cultures or gradually evolved since the anthropologist made observations.<ref name=":4" /> To avoid this, past ethnographers have advocated for strict training, or for anthropologists working in teams. However, these approaches have not generally been successful, and modern ethnographers often choose to include their personal experiences and possible biases in their writing instead.<ref name=":4" />

Participant observation has also raised ethical questions, since an anthropologist is in control of what they report about a culture. In terms of representation, an anthropologist has greater power than their subjects of study, and this has drawn criticism of participant observation in general.<ref name=":4" /> Additionally, anthropologists have struggled with the effect their presence has on a culture. Simply by being present, a researcher causes changes in a culture, and anthropologists continue to question whether or not it is appropriate to influence the cultures they study, or possible to avoid having influence.<ref name=":4" />