|
|
|
|
|
What is Public Anthropology? Regina
Woodrom Luna Does it involve the public as a partner in our research from start to finish? Does it simply mean that the results of our research should be made more accessible to the public and be in a form with which they can readily identify? Is it simply a modern term for an applied anthropology that looks to solve a public problem? Is it a combination of the above? In order to look at the question of defining public anthropology and to open discussion on the subject, I would like to introduce you to my own experience in a past research project which helped me to look outside the box of traditional anthropology.
While doing field research, under the direction of Dr. Luis Calderon at the Center for Coastal Studies located at Puerto San Carlos along the coast of Magdalena Bay in Baja California Sur, Mexico, I was able to participate in what may arguably be considered public anthropology. The Center is a research facility of the School for Field Studies dedicated to local environmental problem solving. The research problem in question, the decline of the local sea turtle population, was not introduced by the researchers, but was a question put to them by the local community and investigated in partnership with them.
At the request of the local community of Puerto San Carlos, the Center looked into the decline of the local sea turtle population. The local community was very interested in this question as even though sea turtle is currently protected by Mexican law and thus illegal to harass or harm in any way, sea turtle is a large part of their traditional diet. The community believed that there was a large shark in the Bay that was consuming the sea turtle population or that there was some introduced pollutant or other change in the water quality of the bay that was affecting the sea turtle's food supply or habitat and was the cause of the decline in population. As a group, the Center focused on three areas of the problem: socio/economic factors, environmental factors and sea turtle mortality factors. In looking at the socio/economic factors, the Center performed various personal interviews and on site survey questionnaires regarding the local communities demand for sea turtle products. The questions concerned information such as: how many of the turtles did they normally eat; did they use other portions of the turtle and for what purposes; did policies and laws against sea turtle harvest have any effect on this use; how did the black market on which the products were sold operate; etc. We did the same with the local fishing cooperatives, asking how many turtles did they "accidentally" catch, how many were released, etc. The Center conducted participant observation on board several fishing vessels in order to document catches and the cooperatives provided catch estimates for unobserved events. In addition, the Center interviewed the local enforcement official and obtained his data on sea turtle takings, his estimate of fishing impacts on the turtle population and the problems he experienced with enforcement of the ban on sea turtle taking.
In regard to the environmental factors, we set up entanglement nets and performed hourly kayak expeditions around the Bay in an attempt to rule out the possibility of a large predator in the Bay and to estimate the current sea turtle population. The Center performed water quality and substrait tests, and looked at the local cannery and power plant (the only industries in the area) regarding discharges, and researchers connected with the Center conducted observations and soil testing of the amounts and composition of those discharges. In addition, the Center conducted content analysis on the stomachs of accidentally caught turtles that the fishermen provided to determine diet composition. Researchers also conducted transect analysis of sea grass beds, estimates of algae and invertebrate biomass, substrate and detritus analysis, among other tests to determine if there was adequate food supply for the estimated turtle population.
The third issue of sea turtle mortality was explored in an attempt to determine not only causes of death, but also sex, age, and size at death. The Center, working with the local community, performed beach surveys looking for stranded or deceased turtles, shifted through the local garbage dump and back yard bar-b-que pits looking for remains, and did house to house surveys looking for shells used as ornamentation, toys, flower pots, water containers, etc. From the sea turtle remains, we attempted to determine a cause of death, to estimate age, measure size, and to determine the sex of the animal.
The results of the three areas of research showed that the hypothesis brought forth by the community, namely that there was a large predator in the bay, inadequate food supply; or low water quality that was causing the decline, was not supported by the current socio-economic, environmental and biological conditions. The question that remained considered human causes for the decline as well as possible solutions and the Center continues to look at that question today. This research was successfully conducted due to the cooperation and participation of the community. As the research question was not one brought to the community by the researchers but was introduced by the community itself, the community was invested in, and felt ownership in, the research and the results. The results of the work, in addition to being written up in the form of a formal paper, were presented to the extended local community in the form of an oral presentation. The researchers passed out invitations and posted them throughout the village; they also gave them to various local and state officials and invited anyone who was interested to attend. Most importantly, the oral presentations were given in a manner that paid great attention to the target audience. The vocabulary used was appropriate to the community - scientific terminology was limited. The presentations were engaging and educational as they contained a great many visuals to further assist in comprehension. In particular, we were careful to keep the community's initial questions in mind as we did the presentation. Although the results of our research concluded that the community was gradually consuming the turtle population, we knew that to state that finding would not result in the recovery of the sea turtle population, but would serve to alienate the community from the Center. Instead, we confined our presentation to those findings that related to the community's hypothesis: food was readily available, there appeared to be no natural sea turtle predators, and the natural habitat was suitable for the turtle estimated population. This left the community to understand for themselves that the major factor impacting the sea turtle population was the human factor.
This presentation turned out to be an invaluable part of the research experience. By getting all the stakeholders together in one room and presenting the facts and findings to them simultaneously in a forum where they could hear each other's questions and the researchers' answers to them, we were able to bridge a gap between the policy makers and the community. They began to understand each other's perspectives on the issue and to work together to solve the problem. In addition, we as researchers were able to understand the areas in which our findings were weak or in need of further explanation in order to be useful. Personally, I feel it was public anthropology at its best, looking at a question brought forth by the community, in partnership with the community, and presented to the community in a form that allowed them to answer a real world question and possibly solve a real world environmental problem. The experience I gained in working on this project has affected my own life as well. I now have a strong belief in and a commitment to ecological research that works in complete partnership with the local community to sustainably develop natural resources rather than disenfranchising the local community from them. For it is the local community that has the most stake in the resource, the most to lose when it is damaged, and the most to gain when it is developed in a sustainable manner. As the world becomes a much more global environment and each of us begins to understand how connected the natural world is, how an ecological event in one area is likely to have an unforeseen effect in another, I believe that public anthropology will become more and more important. Ultimately it is we, the human race, who will decide what is consumed or destroyed in total and what is used and developed in a sustainable manner. Through public anthropology's ability to get into the culture of a community and to convey the information learned in a manner that that culture will accept, sustainable development can suddenly become a very real possibility.
Regina Luna is a graduate student in the Anthropology Department at the University of Hawaii, Manoa |
.jpg){kind=small}
