Making Connections: The Role of Theory and Methods in Three Contexts
Kristen Washburn
Through the Sociology/Anthropology major, I have learned that theory and methods are seamlessly related since theory frames thought for methods, and content obtained through methods shapes theory. Field experiences have taught me how theory, methods, and area studies give depth to every contextual analysis. In this paper, I outline three field experiences, along with texts and courses from the major which have enriched my understanding of the ways in which theory is connected to methods.
I began at Saint Olaf as a Biology student and planned to study medicine. My first semester was filled with math and science class that I convinced myself I enjoyed. During my sophomore year, I took an accelerated Chemistry course and created an independent study on health care. These two events pushed me towards a Sociology/Anthropology major and away from the physical sciences.
I was introduced to the major my first year when I took for Indigenous Peoples because of the general education credits it offered. The issues of autonomy, state regulation, culture and language maintenance, and forced assimilation were intriguing, but my focus on science unfortunately limited my interest in the class. Nevertheless, the class did inspire me to accept a medical internship in the Andes of Peru at a clinic where most patients were Quechua peoples during summer of 2004.
My first “field experience,” as I call it now, began without preparation. I went to Peru without any knowledge; I had not even read a guide book. The topical course on Indigenous Peoples framed my observations of the Quechua peoples and heightened my awareness of issues such as centralization of health care, unequal treatment and quality of health care, different forms of healing, the role of racism in patient-physician interactions, structures of power, and pervasive poverty. Class and text analysis of indigenous peoples gave me a small set of terms in which I could describe and discuss my observations and experiences. Now, I realize that I used theory to frame my questions and analysis of these experiences and perceptions acquired through by methods. Eventually, I came to learn about the theories and disciplines in which these themes could be explored.
Excited to learn more about international health care, I sought a subsequent field experience through an independent study called Central American Health Care. My friend and I decided to investigate heath care systems in Costa Rica, El Salvador, and Guatemala during January of 2005. Still being a student of physical science, my methods were rigid and structured for an artificial setting with a strict schedule and fixed research questions. Our investigation focused heavily on obtaining information and making observations, rather than interpreting interviews and analyzing examinations. Through reflection, I see that our priorities were anthropologically inclined, but our methods were inconsistent with the discipline because we lacked theoretical training to structure our modes of investigation to the subject. The area course, Forging a Latin American Culture, helped me to begin understanding how historical interactions shape contemporary issues and institutions. These ideas structured and influenced dialogue about the problems of the health care system.
In the meantime between the second field experience and the third, I declared my major and through classes learned about gender in cross-cultural perspectives, modern Southeast Asia, sociological and anthropological theory, and qualitative and quantitative methods. Each course taught me new way to critically analyze the social and cultural world, and often enabled me to better understand the first two field experiences. The most influential classes taught me how to make connections between theory and methods.
Through sociological theory I became acquainted with theories that enabled me to better understand and analyze my observations and perceptions from previous investigation. I found the theory of political economy particularly applicable to health care in Peru and Guatemala where I noticed that the cost of health care treatments and pharmaceuticals largely controlled an individual’s health care choices and treatment options. The theory of political economy also accounted for disparities between the price of commodities and what people could afford. Theory helped me to describe the relationship between market principles and an individual’s health behavior.
Anthropological theory developed and refined my ability to analyze social phenomenon. The Theory Toolbox particularly challenged my lens of interpretation by giving me the tools to think critically about what social reality and reason through shades of gray. The terms and definitions forced me to re-structure my modes of analysis and ask myself questions that critically examine my reflexive thoughts. Concepts of “author/ity,” subject, culture, reading, media, history, space and time, -isms, differences, and agency have become fundamental elements of how I begin to interpret, investigate and make sense of a situation, event, or phenomenon. As for specific theories that have molded my analysis of previous investigations, medical anthropology has had a tremendous impact on how I reason through observations and analysis of medicine and health care. Through theory, I have been given a framework to thoroughly analyze and investigate phenomenon.
Courses on theory bolstered my perception and understanding of human behavior and ability to read meaning into the context being investigated. In addition, learning more theories validated and explained my observations in my first two investigations, and opened my eyes to bodies of knowledge and discussions that facilitated an even greater understanding and layered analysis.
Furthermore, reading theories raised subsequent questions that I wished I had asked during interviews in my previous two field experiences. Once I began to recognize symbols, systems, structures, and patterns I wondered about their purpose, formation, and context. For example, through the theory of symbolic interactionism I became aware of the differences in how people act and interact depending on the situation. Since I have wondered how this understanding of interaction would have changed my previous interviews and data collected. If I had known what I know now, would I have conducted interviews, pose and phrased questions, presented myself, interacted with the subject, and made the same connections. Through theory courses, I made links between theory and methods, as theoretical ideas inspire methodological modifications and analysis of methods explain theory.
Method courses provided me with tangible strategies to investigate theory in context. Quantitative research methods opened my eyes to complex statistical analysis, and the art of asking the questions to generate meaningful answers and rich dialogue. Based on my previous experiences I have now gained the ability to craft questionnaires, surveys, and interviews to glean more information and create an atmosphere of comfort and understanding. This was largely influenced by analyzing The Intimate Economies of Bangkok and studying the ways in which this ethnographer gathered information through a multi-sited approach to research.
The third field experience was located in Chiang Mai, Thailand while on the Saint Olaf program Term in Asia during fall of 2006 for ten weeks. This research experience overcame the theoretical obstacles of my previous field study, but was plagued by methodological constraints during investigation. Between the second and third field experiences, I had learned much about sociological and anthropological theory and methods from core major courses, and Thailand through Modern Southeast Asia and Gender and Cross-Cultural Perspectives. Thus, the lens with which I could note and investigate subjects and phenomenon had greater depth.
As I started my field experience, major obstacles of language, time, and transportation constrained my opportunities for participant observation, interviews, and primary sources. Language obstacles were expected, and I acquired “survival” Thai through a Thai language course. From this course, I was able to recognize basic conversations about illness and medications. Since I did not have the capacity to conduct interviews in Thai, I relied heavily on my host sister to translate. Other times, I would speak with English speaking Thai people, but vocabulary also became an issue in these situations.
When I moved in with my host family, my research methods had to adapt to my family out of respect for them; and I learned from my host sister that being a part of a family in Thailand means adjusting yourself to the family. This constrained my plans for participant observation in health care contexts or anywhere outside of the family. But I adapted by focusing on my family as a case study and context for participant observation. I also used symbolic interactionism to judge what topics were and weren’t available for discussion and overall how to interact with this family.
I also gathered information from English printed newspapers and books on Thailand. By employing theoretical knowledge of medical anthropology, political economy, and structures and systems of power, I was able to use content from interviews and printed media to compensate for what I was not personally observed. Theory was embedded in these resources. By using the tools of theory, I could expand my understanding of the social, political, and economic organization of Thailand. This theoretical framework was applied to my observations within my family.
These three field experiences and the courses within this major have given me the opportunity to engage and test theory and methods. Through my experiences inside and outside the classroom, I have come to understand the extent to which theoretical ideas and concepts are connected to methodological techniques. As a result of this major, I see how theory is provides a frame for methods, and how methods provide a ground for theory to stand on. The differences between my first two field experiences and last field experience illustrate the impact courses within the Sociology/Anthropology major have had on how I utilize theory and methods to links individuals to structures and systems. By comparing these three contexts of study, the impact of theoretical and methodological knowledge on my ability to analyze and interpret the context of medicine has been tremendous. Thus, through my third field experience, one can see how my understanding and utilization of theory and methods expanded as a result of theory, methods, and context courses within this major.
The Sociology/Anthropology courses, literature, and professors have forever stretched my mind to new ideas, and I have been forever changed by the ideas and ideologies of these disciplines and this major.
