Study smarter with Fiveable
Get study guides, practice questions, and cheatsheets for all your subjects. Join 500,000+ students with a 96% pass rate.
Understanding anthropological research methods isn't just about memorizing a list of techniques—it's about grasping how researchers uncover the deep connections between language, culture, and human behavior. On the AP exam, you're being tested on your ability to explain why certain methods reveal certain kinds of cultural knowledge. Can participant observation capture something a survey cannot? Why might discourse analysis expose power dynamics that interviews miss? These are the conceptual distinctions that separate strong responses from surface-level answers.
The methods you'll encounter here demonstrate core principles like emic vs. etic perspectives, qualitative vs. quantitative data collection, and the relationship between language and social structure. Each technique offers a different lens for understanding how culture shapes identity, communication, and community. Don't just memorize what each method is—know what kind of cultural insight each method produces and when researchers would choose one approach over another.
These methods prioritize deep engagement over broad sampling. Researchers embed themselves in communities to understand culture from the inside out, capturing nuances that surveys and statistics simply cannot access.
Compare: Participant observation vs. ethnographic fieldwork—both involve immersion, but ethnographic fieldwork is the comprehensive framework while participant observation is a specific technique within it. If an FRQ asks about methodology, ethnographic fieldwork is your umbrella term; participant observation is what you'd cite as a concrete practice.
These approaches treat language itself as the primary data source. They analyze not just what people say, but how linguistic choices reflect and reinforce cultural structures, power relations, and identity.
Compare: Linguistic analysis vs. discourse analysis—linguistic analysis focuses on structural features of language (grammar, phonology, semantics), while discourse analysis examines language in use to reveal social meanings and power relations. Both connect language to culture, but discourse analysis is more concerned with ideology and social construction.
These methods rely on direct questioning to access participants' perspectives, beliefs, and experiences. The key distinction lies in how much structure the researcher imposes on the conversation.
Compare: Structured vs. unstructured interviews—structured interviews sacrifice depth for comparability (useful when testing specific hypotheses), while unstructured interviews sacrifice consistency for richness (ideal for exploratory research). Know when each approach serves the research question better.
These approaches prioritize breadth and comparison over depth. They allow researchers to identify patterns across populations and cultures, testing whether findings from one community apply more broadly.
Compare: Comparative method vs. cross-cultural analysis—these terms overlap significantly, but comparative method often refers to specific paired comparisons between societies, while cross-cultural analysis implies broader systematic study across many cultures. Both seek patterns, but at different scales.
| Concept | Best Examples |
|---|---|
| Immersive/qualitative approaches | Participant observation, ethnographic fieldwork, life histories |
| Language as data | Linguistic analysis, discourse analysis |
| Direct elicitation | Structured interviews, unstructured interviews |
| Social structure mapping | Genealogical methods, kinship analysis |
| Quantitative data collection | Surveys, questionnaires |
| Comparative approaches | Comparative method, cross-cultural analysis |
| Emic perspective | Participant observation, unstructured interviews, life histories |
| Power/ideology analysis | Discourse analysis |
Which two methods both involve direct community engagement but differ in scope and duration? What distinguishes them?
A researcher wants to understand how political speeches reinforce gender norms. Which method would be most appropriate, and why wouldn't simple linguistic analysis suffice?
Compare and contrast structured and unstructured interviews. Under what research conditions would each be preferable?
If an FRQ asks you to explain how cultural practices are transmitted across generations, which two methods would provide the strongest evidence? What kind of data would each produce?
A researcher has completed ethnographic fieldwork in one community and wants to test whether their findings apply more broadly. Which methods would help them do this, and what trade-offs would they face in moving from qualitative to quantitative approaches?