Applied anthropologists long have grappled with the problem of determining their appropriate relationship with "target" communities. Recently, Johannsen (1992) has proposed the development of a post-modern applied anthropology that would neither impose solutions nor even define community problems in need of response, but rather would use its skills and resources to foster indigenous community initiatives and self-representations. This paper strongly supports Johannsen's goal of developing what is here termed a nonimperialist praxis, but questions whether this goal can be achieved by incorporating the framework of postmodernism. An alternative approach, community-centered praxis, that directly addresses the thorny issue of partisanship, is proposed and illustrated using the case of the Hartford Needle Exchange Project.
Management scholarship is built on a foundation imported from older disciplines, particularly economics, psychology, and sociology. Anthropology also once played an important role in the history of management thought, and currently includes many “practicing” anthropologists who work in the private sector. Yet anthropology now has a demonstrably marginal influence. Why is this so? What is the potential for greater collaboration with anthropology? Pursuing these questions, we draw on recent writings in applied, business, and practicing anthropology. On this basis, we identify eight properties of anthropology that affect the potential for collaboration. For each property, we consider the extent to which it presents obstacles for management scholars to work together with practicing anthropologists. We find that with patience and preparation, these impediments can largely be overcome, and we offer suggestions for greater collaboration.
Since the end of the Cold War, the study of European defence has been dominated by a ‘Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP)-centric’ approach, while largely neglecting the comparative analysis ...