14 Anthropology Newsletter/April 1994

Call for Nominations—-W'W HowellsPrize

The Awards Committee seeks nomi-nations of outstanding books in biolog-ical anthropology for the W W HowellsPrize. The book or books should beauthored, not edited, and should ideallyconvey the objectives and research ofbiological anthropology to a broaderaudience of anthropologists or otherindividuals interested in the social andnatural sciences. The book or booksshould be published after 1989. Tonominate a book please submit a shortletter with complete bibliographicinformation and a brief explanation ofwhy you believe the book deservesrecognition. Please include any reviewsor accompanying information that willhelp in making the decision. Send yournominations to Alan Swedlund, Deptof Anth, U Massachusetts, Amherst,MA 01003. The first recipients of thisaward were Robert Seyfarth andDorothy Chaney for How Monkeys Seethe World, published in 1990.

Attention Primatologists

The first meeting of the "PrimateBiology and Behavior Interest Group"will be held at the upcoming annualmeetings of the AAPA in Denver, CO,on Thursday, March 31, at 6:45 pm(check the AAPA Program for roomlocation). The purpose of the meetingis to see if there is interest in formingan organization to provide more visibil-ity and opportunities for primatologistswithin the AAPA. The human biolo-gists, dental anthropologists and pale-oanthropologists have their own orga-nization and it would be of benefit toprimatologists to form their own inter-est group. Please try and attend thismeeting. All suggestions on the struc-ture of this interest group and what itcan do to provide for more opportuni-ties for primatologists with AAPA willbe enthusiastically entertained. LindaWolfe, Robert Sussman and Pat Wrightare the cosponsors of this first timemeeting.

Hot Topics—Physsies Speak Out

This new feature is'dedicated to hav-ing the opinions of biological anthro-pologists featured on controversial orhot topics. If you have an opinion onanything currently controversial, or ifyou have a topic/question that youwould like posed to biological anthro-pologists, please send it on e-mail todmartin@hamp.hampshire.edu or mailit to Debra Martin, Natural Science,Hampshire C, Amherst, MA 01002.Ideally, a range of opinions will beoffered on the topic under discussion.

This question was posed by a BASmember: What separates or distin-guishes biological anthropology fromcognate disciplines such as anatomy,genetics and behavioral ecology? Isthere a difference between ananatomist or geneticist (on the onehand), and an anatomically trained orgenetically trained physical anthropol-ogist (on the other)? If not, then why bea biological anthropologist?

Sarah Williams-Blangero (DeptGenetics, Southwest Foundation forBiomedical Research) responds:

As an anthropologist who hasworked in a department of genetics forthe past 6V2 years, I have found myselffacing this question repeatedly in avariety of situations, although it ismore frequently expressed in terms of"What is the difference between ananthropological geneticist and a 'real'geneticist?" My colleagues and I at theFoundation have discussed this a greatdeal. The question has affected almostevery aspect of our research as its valuein terms of anthropological vs "real"genetics is constantly reassessed.

Of course, anthropological geneticsis as "real" as any other type of genet-ics, but the term anthropologist doesgenerate a lot of confusion outside ofanthropology departments. For exam-ple, shortly after I became a postdoc-toral fellow in the population geneticslaboratory at SFBR I was involved in ameeting concerning paternity testing innonhuman primates. At the end of thediscussion I'was congratulated by abiologist from another institution onmastering so much genetics in such ashort period of time (ie, the past twomonths of my fellowship). That train-ing as a biological anthropologistwould include training in genetics wasnot readily apparent to this individual.The confusion over exactly what it isthat a biological anthropologist does, oris trained to do, has led many to identi-fy themselves in terms of their currentresearch rather than as anthropologists.

The Department of Genetics at theSouthwest Foundation was formed in1981, and anthropologists have workedin the department since its inception.These individuals include four biologi-cal anthropologists who completedpostdoctoral training at SFBR andmoved on to other academic institu-tions, and the six biological anthropol-ogists currently active in the depart-ment. An additional two members ofthe department received their degreesin human genetics but had dissertationswith an anthropological focus. Fortypercent of the department's presentdoctoral level staff received theirdegrees from departments of anthropol-ogy. However, only two of these indi-viduals now identify themselves asbeing biological anthropologists whilethe remainder use the designationgeneticist.

The question of what differencesexist between genetically trained bio-logical anthropologists and geneticistsis difficult to answer. Genetics, likeanthropology, is a very broad disci-pline. Population genetics has longbeen a central focus for anthropologicalgeneticists, and many of the lastdecade's theoretical advances in thefield have been made by anthropolo-gists. Strong quantitative skills and adisciplinary emphasis on variation(both phenotypic and genetic) haveserved anthropologists well in this par-ticular arena. Genetic epidemiology isanother branch of quantitative geneticsthat has traditionally had a very stronganthropological influence. Approxi-

mately 5% of the membership of theInternational Genetic EpiderniologicalSociety is comprised of biologicalanthropologists.

The strength of biological anthropol-ogy in biochemical and moleculargenetics has been its focus on nonhu-man primates, small human popula-tions and issues of evolutionary signifi-cance. Additionally, training in biologi-cal anthropology provides a strongbackground in population biology andevolutionary principles essential for theinterpretation of biochemical andmolecular data. Biological anthropolo-gists who specialize in this area ofgenetics have generally remainedclosely tied to the traditional disci-plinary interests of anthropology, usingmolecular and biochemical techniquesas tools to answer questions of anthro-pological relevance. I can think of onlyone anthropologist who has transferredcompletely into mainstream humanmolecular genetics.

The clear advantages of training inbiological anthropology are theemphases on population level phenom-ena, evolutionary principles, biocultur-ai interactions and quantitative varia-tion. The breadth of training gained inbiological anthropology provides agreat deal of flexibility in subsequentresearch programs. At present, I amactively involved in research programson genetic management of captive ani-mal colonies, the genetic determinantsof cancer, high-altitude adaptation andthe genetic components of susceptibili-ty to infectious disease, and continue toconduct fieldwork in the Himalayas. Icould not have pursued this fascinatingand enjoyable mix of research fociwithout my training in biologicalanthropology.

Biological anthropologists, includinganthropological geneticists, are beingemployed outside of anthropologydepartments with increasing frequency.I think it is a matter of some urgencyfor us to address the question of whatcan be done to make the biologicalanthropologist label an advantagerather than a disadvantage in these set-tings. What can we do to educate thescientific community about the diversi-ty of training programs within biologi-cal anthropology, so that our col-leagues are not surprised when wedemonstrate competence in genetics,anatomy, endocrinology or whateverour particular expertise? Clearly, pre-senting papers at meetings other thanthose of the American Association ofPhysical Anthropologists and the AAA,and publishing in nonanthropologicaljournals are primary means for dissem-inating research by biological anthro-pologists to broader audiences. Addi-tionally, we need to actively encouragenonanthropologists to participate in ourmeetings and to contribute to our jour-nals.

To conclude, I would like to suggestthe formation of an informal networkof biological anthropologists employedoutside anthropology departments. Ifyou are interested please send yourname, affiliation, address, researchinterests, phone and fax numbers, ande-mail address to me at the Dept ofGenetics, SW Fdn Biomed Res, POBox 28147, San Antonio, TX 78228. Iwill compile a list and supply all con-tributors to the list with a copy.

Jonathan Marks (Dept Anthropolo-gy, Yale) responds:

I think a genetically trained anthro-pologist is (or should be) more awareof the historical antecedents and broad-er sociocultural implications of geneticwork than geneticists are. Whereanthropologists tend to revel in theirhistory—and in the mistakes of theirprecursors—most geneticists don'tknow or care what happened in theirfield before 1978. That's a good way toensure making the same conceptualerrors each generation.

Additionally, I think that with theimplosion of biology into molecularbiology, a genetically trained anthro-pologist is left to fill the vacuum ofbeing an "organismal biologist" morethan a geneticist. One of the commonresearch paths in molecular evolutionnow is to become the expert in onesegment of DNA, sequence it in manydifferent taxa, throw it into a computerand publish the resulting phylogenetictrees. This is problematic because first,it reduces science to mindlessness(there are probably chimpanzees whocan sequence DNA and generate treesfrom PAUP or MacCIade); and second,it trivializes knowing the taxa and theevolutionary processes under consider-ation. It leaves out the critical aspect ofthis work, or of any scientific work:integrating the knowledge gained fromthis dataset into the overall biology ofthe species, and making some sense ofthe evolutionary patterns. That's been amajor problem in molecular anthropol-ogy of the primates,

Unfortunately, there's been a per-ception—I think possibly, as a reactionto the Ramapithecus controversy of adecade ago—that molecular evolutionis easier, and more mindless, than thetraditional modes of studying evolu-tion. That was certainly apparent in thepromotion of DNA hybridization awhile back. But it's only true for peo-ple who haven't thought criticallyabout molecular evolution, in its tech-nical and conceptual aspects. \,

For example, there are many reasonswhy a single DNA sequence takenfrom a few taxa would not be phyloge-netically meaningful, and might evengive entirely the wrong phylogeny,, Yetthere was a widely publicized paperjust a couple years ago providing a"resolution" to a vexing phylogeneticproblem with 0.7 kilobases of mater-nally inherited DNA, no analysis ofpolymorphism and not even the rightout-group. This is either really mind-less work, or the authors were usingthe word "resolution" in a new andhitherto unknown sense.

And this ridiculously overstated con-clusion is perpetuated by mindless cita-tions. That's a major reason why a fewreally mindful molecular anthropolo-gists are having to clean up a seriouslypolluted literature. What moleculargenetics is showing is that any ignora-mus can collect the data; what anthro-pology is showing is what it takes tomake sense of it.

In the News

Ellen J Ingmanson (Dickinson C)along with Takayoshi Kano (Kyoto U,Japan) have recently had a major fea-ture article in the magazine Interna-tional Wildlife. The article is entitled"Waging Peace," and it takes a closelook at the Bonobos of Zaire's centralrain forest and suggests that coopera-tion, not conflict, orders the society.

••'••i'ijiW-St.'.lKNH;-, , , . , . v , , • • . , , - • , . , , , , . , , - . . , , . , . , , < : .

Anthropology Newsletter/April 1994 15

Written for a lay audience, the articledocuments compelling evidence thatthe Bonobo have evolved complexsocial mechanisms for cooperativebehavior that is essentially the hallmarkof their social organization. As a finalnote, the authors write that "In most ofZaire, Bonobos are in serious trouble.Rain-forest logging is relentlesslydestroying habitat, and hunting by localpeople, who can earn more selling oneinfant Bonobo than they can in a yearof farming, is a threat. At the sametime, civil strife has both suspendedplans to create reserves and sent peopleflocking to the forest to escape urbanriots. As a result, probably fewer than10,000 Bonobos remains, half the num-ber of 20 years ago."

In Focus: Erik Trinkaus

[In this space, biological anthropolo-gists answer six questions on what theyperceive to be the important issues fac-ing our subdiscipline. If you would liketo see a particular biological anthropol-ogist interviewed, pass the name on tothe editor.]

Areas of research and interest:

I am currently affiliated with theDepartment of Anthropology at theUniversity of New Mexico and theLaboratoire d'Anthropologie, Univer-site de Bordeaux I. Even though I havespent most of my career working on thefossil remains of Neandertals and earlymodern humans, I would characterizemyself more generally as a paleoan-thropologist. In this, I am using theterm "paleoanthropology" to includeall of the aspects of prehistoric anthro-pology that allow us to understand theevolutionary events and processes lead-ing to the emergence of modernhumanity. This includes primarily Pale-olithic archaeology and human paleon-tology, but it must integrate Pleistocenepaleoecology as well as the anthropo-logical and biological spheres of themodern world that allow us to makesense of Pleistocene human evolution.In this, I have emphasized the biologi-cal aspects of human evolution, sincethe human fossil record has alwaysseemed to me to be a rich source ofinsight into changing behavioral pat-terns during the Pleistocene. My focuson the Neandertals and their temporaland geographical neighbors resultedprimarily from the matching of thisinterest in human behavior to the rela-tively abundant fossil remains andassociated archaeological record pre-sent for the later Pleistocene of Europeand the Near East. This has been com-bined with interest in those areas ofanthropology and biology, especiallyhuman skeletal biology and functionalmorphology, which allow us to makesense of the Pleistocene record. Thenow-popular issues of "modern humanorigins" only emerged as we came toknow more bout these late archaic andearly modern humans.

Where were you trained and was it partof the four-field approach? In teaching,do you train students as you were?

My undergraduate years were spentat the University of Wisconsin—Madi-son, majoring in Art History and devel-oping an interest in Andean archaeolo-gy through Stark and Thompson. It wasonly after I went to graduate school atthe University of Pennsylvania, with its

emphasis on a four-field approach, thatI was exposed in depth to the breadthof anthropology, including biologicalanthropology through (especially) AlanMann. It was Mann's then emphasis onand enthusiasm for deriving behav-ioral ly interesting information fromhuman fossils that convinced me toswitch to biological anthropology. Yetby then, my undergraduate interest inarchaeology and the cultural anthropol-ogy which dominated the four-fieldprogram at Penn had fully instilled inme an appreciation for the need to inte-grate a fully cultural, as well as biolog-ical, approach into any interpretation ofhuman origins. Indeed. I have alwaysattributed the all-too-frequent scientifi-cally embarrassing comments made byprominent evolutionary biologistswhen discussing human evolution totheir failure to appreciate the culturalnature of the human lineage.

Since leaving Penn, I have taught inthe anthropology departments of Har-vard and New Mexico. Both of thesedepartments have upper-divisionundergraduate and graduate programsthat are administratively and largelyintellectually divided into subfields,three at Harvard and five at New Mexi-co. Despite this, I have impressed uponmy paleoanthropology and skeletalbiology students the need to be veryfamiliar with at least the archaeologicalrecord of the time period of interest. AtHarvard, I taught Paleolithic archaeolo-gy in the years between Movius andIsaac, and at New Mexico I integratethe archaeological record into my pale-oanthropology courses, have co-taughtpaleoanthropology with Straus, andactively serve on the committees ofarchaeology graduate students (asarchaeology faculty do for my stu-dents). Yet, the training of graduatestudents is caught in the bind of mak-ing them, in a reasonable number ofyears, sufficiently broad as anthropolo-gists while sufficiently skilled as bio-logical anthropologists to make themcompetitive. There is no simple solu-tion.

What are the greatest challenges todayfor biological anthropologists? Whatare the issues you feel most stronglyabout?

Even though there are issues thatface all of biological anthropology, Iwill concentrate on a couple of relatedones that are especially relevant tohuman paleontology. Perhaps the great-est challenge in human paleontology isto develop new ways, and/or refineexisting ones, to assess the biologicaland behavioral significance of theobserved changes in human morpholo-gy over the past several million years.There are currently interminabledebates regarding both phylogeneticissues (eg, the fate of the Neandertalsand the origins of modern humans, howmany species are represented withinHomo habilis, the phylogeny of theAustralopithecines) and functional/behavioral ones (eg, Australopithecuslocomotion, the antiquity of humanlanguage, the degree of behaviorchange with modern human origins, thepattern and significance of hominidencephalization, the evolution ofhuman life history parameters). Someof this disagreement is a result of thecontrasting paradigms with which thefossil record is approached. More,however, is due to our incomplete

&U ¥

119 mtfswm

Erik Trinkaus with stress-reducing friend.

knowledge of the biological underpin-nings of the skeletal anatomy beingobserved. Yet, many human paleontol-ogists are content to discuss, analyzeand compare features simply on thebasis of their observability (whether inqualitative or quantitative terms) withlittle concern for the biological basis ofwhat is being recorded. This is true forboth phylogenetic and functional anal-yses, though more so for the former.

Part of the solution to this problemhas been—and continues to be—inincreased technological sophistication,since improving the imaging and mea-suring techniques plus quantitative ana-lytical techniques for dealing with theresultant data have greatly increasedour ability to assess detailed patterns ofanatomical variation beyond traditionalosteometrics. Yet, not all shapes areequally relevant or pertinent to thequestions at hand. Moreover, increasedemphasis on purely technological solu-tions, however "scientifically rigorous"they may appear ("scientific rigor"being defined mostly by nonanthropo-logical evolutionary biologists), has itsown pitfalls, with technological acces-sibility of information becoming asimportant as the biological (and hencebehavioral and/or phylogenetic signifi-cance of those data). The challengethen becomes one of trying to integratethese technological approaches, withmany of their clear advantages, toanthropological questions, ones thatattempt to integrate aspects of humanbiology, culture and paleoecologythrough the Pleistocene. The fact thatthose anthropological questions tend tobe rather intractable in no way detractsfrom their ultimate relevance. It shouldonly make the challenge of findingways to approach them more attractive.

What are the ethical issues confrontingbiological anthropologists in yourarea ?

Although seldom addressed directly,given its political non-correctness inanthropology, for the past threedecades, human "racial" variation andthe origins of modern human biologicaldiversity is constantly emerging as anissue. It has come forward in the recentpaleontological discussions of the ori-gins of modem humans, and it has beennarrowly skirted in more general dis-cussion of "multiculturalism," "diversi-

ty" and racial equality in both anthro-pology and the general public. Much ofthe current "diversity" discussion isreplete with statements of biologicalequality of modern human "racial"groups. Yet, at the same time, there is arecognition of the differences, at leastin superficial appearances, body formand the frequencies of some genetictraits, between geographical groups ofmodern humans. If we are to promoteappropriate understanding of this bio-logical diversity—-emphasizing theunderlying mental, physiological andfunctional anatomical similarity of allmodern humans—we must at the sametime document and explain, btith in themodern world and through human evo-lutionary history, the extent and emer-gence of the observable within andbetween group variation. To deny thatvariation is to deny credibility to ourstatements of modern human quality inmore fundamental aspects. To dismissthat variation as trivial is to negate thevalid adaptive and/or stochastic expla-nations which the field has generatedover the past century. This is thereforea scientific issue, but it is one deeplyembedded in our social context andcurrent perceptions of political correct-ness. Once again, it is up to the biologi-cal anthropologists, who have thegreatest expertise in studying humanvariation, to make appropriate state-ments and not to leave it up to theanthropologically ignorant evolution-ary biologists and politicians.

In what ways have you seen biologicalanthropology change over the years?

On the basis of my observations ofpaleoanthropology, publications in themajor journals and participation at theAAPA meetings, biological anthropol-ogy has gradually shifted from a fieldof mostly observation and synthesis toone more of analysis. Even thoughthere is lip-service paid to the hypo-thetico-deductive method, it remainsprimarily an inductive field. Yet, theinterest is less and less in simply col-lecting and ordering information (thephilatelic approach, which still holds tosome extent in human paleontologygiven the perceived special nature ofeach human fossil or site-sample there-of) and increasingly focused on assess-ing alternative interpretations usingdiverse sources of data. This has been

' • • . ; • • t . ; - . . - : • • • • • « * * « =

16 Anthropology Newsletter/April 1994

clearest in the analysis of human skele-tal remains, but applies as well in farmore complicated ways to the analysisof human biology in extant popula-tions.

There has also been a shift awayfrom strictly anthropological, oranthropocentric, approaches in thestudy of nonhuman primates (livingand fossil) and the earliest phases ofhominid evolution; for example, therehas been a marked decrease in thenumber of articles addressing the cul-tural nature of Australopithecus orwhat of the traits unique to us was spe-cial to the earliest hominids. This ishealthy, since it allows us to seehominid and nonhuman primate evolu-tion as the opportunistic process that itwas, as opposed to a neo-orthogeneticone leading inevitably to us. Yet, thisnonanthropological approach hasspilled over into studies of modernhuman societies, through various mani-

festations of sociobiology; this has ledto some trivial insights into modernhuman behavior but mostly has led (inits more extreme forms) to a confusionbetween biology and culture and a con-sequent intellectual regression. As withthe field of anthropology as a whole,biological anthropology appears to beexperiencing a trend in which intellec-tual diversity is becoming more impor-tant that the task of understandinghumanity.

What do you do for fun?

As much as possible I unwind bygetting outdoors, taking in some of thesouthwestern sunshine. In recent yearsthis has been pleasurably dominated byour American Saddlebred gelding, whoneeds to be exercised several times aweek. The task of dealing with a kind,gentle, friendly, but 1200 pound hard-wired prey animal is invigorating, pre-occupying and a lot of fun.

,-Ji :'L :•;>! ».iAH>\' I iM

Ethics of Interpretation

While I was visiting schools in SanFrancisco last week with a mixed teamcomposed of ethnographic researchers,staff from a national project, founda-tion representatives and local adminis-trators, issues of ethics and politics ofinterpretation were strikingly clear tome as we each interpreted the educa-tional experiences of those children andteachers quite differently and for differ-ent reasons.

It seems to me that the ethics ofinterpretation is one of the most criticalareas of ethical concerns which face usas educational anthropologists. Whatwe are about in ethnographic researchin educational settings is interpretationof participants' interpretations of theirlearning experiences and social interac-tions. Further, we add our own inter-pretations of participants' experiencesas participant observers when we livein the field—whether on a daily basisor as we simply drop into schoolingcultures when it fits our other academicschedules.

Interpretation requires three skills:observation and listening through par-ticipant observation and interviewing,data analysis and data synthesis. Inter-pretation of the lived experiences dur-ing fieldwork is based on those thingswhich the educational anthropologisteither selects to see and hear or is capa-ble of seeing and hearing (and thosecan be quite different). It is not anuncommon view among educationalanthropologists that in any social groupthere are multiple individual interpreta-tions of reality—some limit this tosocial reality, while others include allaspects of reality. It is also not uncom-mon to hear claims among educationalanthropologists that in social groupsthere are shared interpretations ofevents, interactions and behaviors.Anthropologists and philosophers dif-fer among themselves about the degreeto which those realities are individuallyor socially constructed.

While there are many questionsabout interpretation that are worthy ofconsideration, the primary ethical

til

What is happening here? What type of cognitive and affective changes are takingplace? Whose interpretation should be considered?

question is whether some individuals'interpretations are better than others.Also, are interpretations from differentlevels of persons—students, parents,teachers, building administrators,building staff, central office adminis-trators—better than others? Asresearchers who are considered the"research instrument" in what we do, itis essential that we reflect daily on ourcontacts with participants at a site todetermine whether we are trying andsucceeding in accessing all interpreta-tions of all participants in multiplecontexts equally. If we are not, thenwe must follow that acknowledgmentabout our implementation of fieldmethods with an exploration of thecause of unequal representation ofinterpretations. It may be the result ofa purposeful process—or it may beunconscious.

It is critical to reflect daily in thefield on the degree to which we deter-mine that our own interpretation is bet-ter than any of those we have heard. Isthe researcher interpretation the moldwith which we shape the interpreta-tions of those we claim to be our"experts" about their own culture?

Another related question is whethersome activities or events are moreworthy of interpretation than others. Ifwe decide that all events and activitiesdo not have equal merit, how do wedecide on our focus? To what degreedoes participant selection of events offocus inform our selection of the mostappropriate phenomena for inquiry andunderstanding?

The answers to these and other ethi-cal questions of interpretation areimportant to consider prior to enteringthe field as well as daily while in thefield. Many of the ethical decisionsabout interpretation are political andmany are simply the result of normalpersonal attraction because ofresearcher personality.

In Denzin and Lincoln's new Hand-book of Qualitative Research, MauricePunch, in a chapter on "Politics andEthics in Qualitative Research," arguesfor a just "get out and do it" perspec-tive for conducting fieldwork. Theargument isn't for ignoring ethical andpolitical issues, as Punch emphasizesissues for reflection such as consent,deception, privacy, confidentiality,trust and betrayal in the chapter. WhilePunch does not address the ethics ofinterpretation, the final advice in thechapter doesn't place enough emphasison the importance of consideration ofethical issues in general: "I echoHughes's and Becker's summons to'simply go out and do it.' But I wouldadd that before you go you should stopand reflect on the political and ethicaldimensions of what you are about toexperience. Just do it by all means, butthink a bit first."

I would extend that advice by sug-gesting that fieldworkers reflect a greatdeal rather than a bit, and not onlyfirst, but throughout the entire ethno-graphic investigation, about ethicalissues in general and the multiple ethi-cal issues about interpretation in par-ticular. We make ethical decisionsabout interpretation of educationalexperiences when we decide to imposeour own political agendas in socialcontexts we study. We also make ethi-cal decisions about interpretation whenwe decide to ignore some other politi-cal agendas of participants we study.

Whose interpretation is determined tobe important from among multipleinterpretations of reality among agroup of people is certainly affected byindividual and group political agendas.What is deemed worthy of interpreta-tion is similarly impacted.

Finally, I would suggest that themost important process in understand-ing diverse interpretations withinsocial groups is the discovery of whydifferent persons construct the inter-pretations that they do. How much ofan individual's or groups' history andunderstanding of context is essentialfor a reasonable interpretation of oth-ers' interpretations? What are theethics of ignoring the current and his-torical contexts of individuals' inter-pretations when conducting education-al anthropology? Do deliberate orunintended misinterpretations havevalue? How ethical is it to ignoredetails and individuals' perspectivesthat could cast doubt on your owninterpretations of culture in schooling?Must we include all interpretations toenable others to judge the value of ourcontributions to understanding throughour interpretations and generation ofgrounded theory?

Consideration of questions of ethicsof interpretation should guide ourevery decision in fieldwork in schoolson a daily basis as well as during theprocess of synthesis of analyzed datafor final field reports.

Ethnographic and QualitativeResearch in Education Conference

Remember to put June 3-5, 1994, onyour calendar for the 6th Annual Con-ference on Ethnographic and Qualita-tive Research in Education at the Uni-versity of Massachusetts at Amherst.Presentations at the conference willfocus on findings of ethnographic -andqualitative studies in education as wellas methodological issues. For furtherinformation about attending the con-ference, contact Conference Coordina-tor Walkie Charles, School of Educa-tion, U Mass-Amherst, Amherst, MA01003.

CAE Dissertation Award

CAE has instituted an award to rec-ognize outstanding dissertations com-pleted by CAE members. Dissertationscompleted in 1990 or later will be con-sidered for the 1994 competition. Toapply, submit an abstract of not morethan 20 pages (double-spaced) byApril 15, 1994, to Ron Mertz, CAENominations Chair, 11829 ClaychesterDr, Des Peres, MO 63131; (w)314/231-3720, ext 437; (h) 314/822-2514.

George and Louise Spindler Award

Nominations for the 1994 SpindlerAward are being accepted. The awardrecognizes scholars and practitionerswho have made outstanding contribu-tions to the field of anthropology andeducation. Previous recipients haveincluded Elizabeth Eddy, Harry Wol-cott, David Fetterman, Fred Erickson,Shirley Brice Heath and Courtney Caz-den. Send names of nominees by April15, 1994, to Ron Mertz, CAE Nomina-tions Chair, 11829 Claychester Dr, DesPeres, MO 63131; (w) 314/231-3720,ext 43'7;(h) 314/822-2514.