Anthropology in Action

This issue includes articles that provide examples of anthropological research applied to, or with resonance for policy and practice issues. In the first, ‘“Love Goes through the Stomach”: A Japanese–Korean Recipe for Post-conflict Reconciliation’, Stephanie Hobbis Ketterer takes the well-established anthropological topic of commensality and looks at the role it may play in conflict resolution. In the second, Mark Powell and co-authors from a range of disciplines describe a small case study that used ethnographic methodology in the short term to explore the working experiences of accident and emergency staff in a U.K. hospital.

Mimicking research and practice that demonstrates the importance of seemingly mundane acts for resolving protracted conflicts, this article enquires into the potential contributions of food-related practices to post-conflict reconciliation. Based on fieldwork with a Japanese–South Korean reconciliation initiative (Koinonia), the argument is made that food-related practices can create the spatio-temporal conditions necessary to mitigate successfully situations that may otherwise be characterised by misunderstandings, animosity and an unwillingness to move beyond dividing lines. It is demonstrated that food-related practices have the capacity to influence reconciliation positively throughout the three stages that are perceived as vital for building lasting relationships between conflicting parties: encouragement of participation in reconciliation events (stage 1), encouragement of positive interaction during reconciliation events (stage 2) and sustainability of reconciliation events after participants re-enter daily life and the likely negative perceptions of the Other therein (stage 3).

In this article we consider the impact of shock in hospital emergency departments where people seek urgent medical care and access hospital services. We define shock as an unexpected event or set of circumstances, for although emergency departments plan for uncertainty, shock moments are when protocols and procedures fail to meet operational demands. We reveal how, depending on the professional experience and personality of staff, shocks are experienced and defined in a variety of ways. On some occasions shocks result in critical departmental failure, while at other times they generate new working practices. Shocks can empower individuals through celebrating teamwork and a sense of belonging, to take personal responsibility at a range of 'shop-floor' scales. These emotional and embodied engagements contribute to the operational resilience of the department.

The rise of the knowledge society has led to an increase in the amount of research that is produced and an increased demand from decision makers for summaries of this research. As a result, research syntheses have become increasingly important in applied research, especially within the health sciences. However, this methodology has not been adopted with the same enthusiasm in the field of anthropology. In this article, we describe the main principles of this approach and the history of its development and discuss whether qualitative research synthesis can be seen as compatible with (the goal of) anthropological methodology. Finally, we argue for a greater adoption of research synthesis within applied anthropology and call for a greater engagement from anthropologists in the further development of this methodology.

This article provides an account of service-user involvement in applied health research in the U.K., where such involvement is understood as research 'with' or 'by' service users. I reflect on some of the driving forces behind service-user involvement in health research and discuss the ways in which this kind of involvement has become systematised in a research context that values comparison and evaluation. I argue that the potential to conflate participatory research with service-user involvement may lead to participatory approaches – so often practiced by anthropologists – becoming described as forms of service-user involvement. Despite the systematisation of service-user involvement to meet the requirements of applied health research, service-user involvement is not viewed as providing research evidence. If participatory approaches become redefined as user involvement then there is a risk that evidence produced by disciplines such as anthropology are no longer viewed as 'evidence', and become unable to influence decisions about healthcare practice and policy. Sensitising anthropologists to this possibility may be a first step in identifying ways to ensure that results from participatory research retain a position as evidence.

This past May a major international conference called Women Deliver took place in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Women Deliver is a relatively new but significant force in the international reproductive health arena. Since its first conference in 2007 in London with 1,500 attending, it has rapidly grown in size and reputation. The second conference took place in Washington DC in 2010 with 3,000 attendees. Women Deliver Kuala Lumpur was the biggest conference of the decade devoted to women’s and girl’s health and well-being; it brought together 4,500 people from hundreds of organisations in 149 countries around the world, including heads of state, ministers of health and women’s issues, major UN agency representatives, non-governmental organisations, scientists and scholars, major donors (including Melinda Gates and Chelsea Clinton), mainstream media, youth, filmmakers and even royalty.

The ASA’s Network of Applied Anthropologists (Apply) held a panel session at the ASA’s decennial conference in Edinburgh, June 2014. Entitled ‘Facing Outwards: Anthropology Beyond Academia’, the panel welcomed papers that addressed anthropological work and co-work outside conventional academic anthropology. The session was convened by Mary Adams (Kings College London) and Rachael Gooberman-Hill (University of Bristol), and three presenters provided an engaged audience with examples of their work. The presentations fuelled discussion about relationships in research and practice and the translation of anthropological ideas for non-anthropological audiences.

Although initial contributions of Women's Studies to the field of Development Studies were to question existing concepts and assumptions and to offer new models and inclusive approaches, it appears that contemporary scholarship has shifted entirely (and even unapologetically) into political advocacy with little further in the way of social science or fresh critique and modelling. In Development Studies, Applied Anthropology and possibly in other subfields where gender concerns are presented in 'single-variable' or 'interest-group' perspectives, it may now be time to return to earlier goals through a depoliticisation of 'Feminist' and 'Women's' Studies, appropriately integrating 'Gender Studies' and concerns into subfields in ways that promote holistic advance of those fields. The essay uses two recent books with alternative examinations of feminism in developing societies – one on the area of 'development' and one on relations of two 'developed' countries, the U.S. and Russia – as springboards for a discussion of what has gone wrong and what can be changed in the sub-field of gender and Development Studies.

Organisational Anthropology: Doing Ethnography in and among Complex Organisations. Christina Garsten and Anette Nyqvist, eds., London: Pluto Press, 2013, 272pp. ISBN 9780745332475, £16.00

Commemorating Hell: The Public Memory of Mittelbau-Dora. Gretchen Schafft and Gerhard Zeidler, Chicago: University of Illinois Press, (2011), ISBN: 978-0-252-07788, xiv + 167pp. excl. Notes, Bibliography, Index, Pb. U.S.$25.00.

The current list of books for review includes some of the most exciting new books in applied anthropology to be published this year. Please take a close look and if there is anything that you particularly want to review, let us know!