Fischer, Michael D., 1994, <cite>Applications 
in computing for social anthropologists </cite>, London: Routledge 
(ASA research methods in social anthropology), pp 233 biblio, index, 
ISBN 0 415 01818 8 hb (&#163; 37.50) ISBN 0 415 01819 6 pb (&#163; 
13.99).
<p>
This is a challenging attempt to write an impossible book.  I have 
found it instructive to read and to work out why I find it so much 
of it so misguided.  To explain why this is so leads to some broad 
reflections about the relation of computers and other technology to 
anthropology.  I hasten to add that the problems I shall outline are 
broad ones and no fault lies at the feet of Fischer himself.  The 
book is written with endearing touches of humour although a reader 
without much computing knowledge would be daunted by the terminology 
used in some sections.  This betrays an uncertainty about the intended 
reader, a point to which I return below.  Fischer's stated principles 
are such that we can only agree: 
<blockquote>
Our most important goal in using computers as a tool of research must 
be to do better anthropology and not simply more.  If you are satisfied 
with the state of ethnographic research, there is little purpose for 
introducing the additional cost and time for learning.  The best way 
to introduce computing into our research is to first replicate what 
we have done before, but greater benefits will come when computers 
are used to do things we could not do before, not only for the amount 
of time these would have involved but because these could not easily 
have been conceptualized prior to the opportunities the computer as 
a tool can facilitate.  64/5
</blockquote>
It is likely that the earier 
chapters will be of the greatest interest to most readers.  After 
giving some background Fischer outlines basic ideas about the sorts 
of ways that computers can be used by social anthropologists: to manage 
and help analyze field data in all its manifold forms. Hence he covers 
processing fieldnotes, the use of graphics and video before continuing 
to tackle the issue of kinship data which is taken as an example of 
the way that building a model that a computer can undertsand both 
obliges one to be clear and rigorous (qualities increasingly rarae 
in anthropology) as well as providing a means of checking the analysis 
by comparing the model with the 'reality observed'.  I should note 
that the inverted commas of the last phrase hold no matter what stance 
one takes to the social construction of reality (which itself is a 
subject suitable for computer assisted research).  The final chapter 
looks at the way that 'expert-systems' can povide models of social 
processes and systems such as the way that marriage choices are made 
(to take Fischer's example).
<br>
Michael Fischer was a professional programmer before becoming an anthropologist.
 Such changes are not uncommon in a discipline that celebrates heterodoxy.
 Leach trained as an engineer, Fortes was a psychologist.  Unlike 
these exalted predecessors Fischer, in this book, if not in his other 
publications risks the charge of evangelism.  Are computers the answer 
to many (any?) anthropological problems?  The problems that they certainly 
can answer are those problems that are common to all academics and 
researchers.  It is reasonable to charge anyone attempting to write 
seriously entirely in longhand of being foolhardy if not downright 
unprofessional to neglect word-processors.  Similarly, to manage bibliographies 
on file cards is foolhardy when bibliographic management programmes 
both do it better and allow both searching among the items of a bibliography 
and the (relatively) painless generation of consistently formatted 
bibliographies.  Unfortunately, Fischer, for all the best reasons, 
attempts to consider only specifically anthropological computer applications.
 He therefore scarcely mentions bibliographic management, for all 
the constant niggle it poses (in the absence of computers) for routine 
anthropological work.  
<br>
Still more curious is the omission of any mention of dealing with 
phonetic charactors and 'non-standard' alphabets.  I suspect that 
this may be because the problems have been solved.  But for all that 
there are now standard and easily accessible solutions, people still 
need to be told that for users of MS Windows and Macintoshes at least 
it is easy to use IPA, Arabic or other charactor sets.  Once installed 
in the system the fonts are available in any application be it word 
processor database or drawing programme.  For anthropologists this 
is a small revolution, but one that should be celebrated rather than 
ignored.  It is probably of interest to more 'mainstream' anthropologists 
(however that is understood) than some of the topics discussed by 
Fischer.
<br>
A final ommision is of discussion of the Data Protection Act and other 
similar legislation elsewhere, although it is alluded to on p 62.
 The application of Data Protection Act to anthropological data is 
one of the great un-discussed minefields that may beset British Social 
Anthropology.  A research methods primer such as this may have been 
the place to touch on the issues.  
<br>
My greatest concern lies in Fischer's belief that it would be a good 
thing for anthropologists to know how to do computing programming, 
indeed that in order to use computers efficiently we should be, in 
part, programmers.  For example on page 57 he quotes Read and Behrens 
with approval &quot;Writing software and not just being a consumer 
of software is feasible and necessary if the full potential of the 
microcomputer for anthropological research is to be realized.&quot;
 Later on (p. 147) he endorses the same sentiments citing Gilbert 
(1971).  However, when discussing the details of handling genealogical 
data and the problems of making computers draw genealogical diagrams 
he often talks of anthropologists and the 'programming partners'.
 Even this position in which anthropologists are seen to collaborate 
closely with programmers will be off-putting to many technophobic 
anthropologists.  Sadly, I fear that as long as attitudes such as 
Fischer's prevail computing will remain marginal to most anthropologists 
at least in the UK where professional innumeracy and technophobia 
appears to be the norm.  Be that as it may, Fischer, in these passages 
reveals an attitude to computer use that I disagree with.  'Programmers 
program, anthropologists anthropologize' sums up my position.  The 
use of computers, just like the use of cameras requires us to use 
a technology, and to gain some competence in it.  The anthropological 
use of photography does not require that we must develop and print 
our photographs although some background knowledge about the processes 
is very helpful if not essential<sup><a href="http://lucy.ukc.ac.uk/TOC.html#1">1</a></sup>.
 Returning to computers I would encourage anthropologists to use them 
to their limits: customise remorselessly, turn the instructions on 
their head, learn the use of scripting and macro programs by all means 
but draw the line at programming (in its (increasingly old fashioned) 
meaning of the use of specialised and highly formalised languages 
to create applications from scratch).  Quite simply it is time wasted.
 If you really cannot find an existing application to do what you 
want it is better to do more searching (send electronic mail to discussion 
lists, ask a wide variety of people) or even as a last resort find 
a tame computer programmer rather than try and learn to programme 
oneself.  Fischer is misled by his background.  Since he trained first 
in computer science it is easy for him to solve a problem by recourse 
to programming.  For the most of us, the time is better spent doing 
anthropology.  Lest this be taken as endorsing a technophobic position 
let me reiterate my enthusiasm for portable word processors with auto-delete 
facilities (such as pencils) and other innovative technologies that 
can help us do more research better, and types of research that we 
could barely conceive but scarcely realise.  The micro-analysis of 
conversation is the clearest example of the latter.  Without a form 
of voice recording conversational analysis is simply impossible. 
Malinowski had to record texts by having them dictated to him slowly 
for immediate transcription. This considerably affected the material 
he was able to record and to analyse.  Once upon a time people sketched 
ideas in wax before transferring them to a more permanent medium (recall 
the view that Herodotus is among the first anthropologists).  Technologies, 
as they become available, can open new possibilities in research - 
photography, sound and now video recording are clear examples.  Computers, 
oddly, are not so easily accommodated in this sort of technological 
determinism.  The results of research can be better presented - the 
standard of presentation of recent doctorates has improved whatever 
one may think about their intellectual merit.  Examiners reflect this 
by being less tolerant of mistakes in spelling and bibliography. 
But has research itself - the questions asked and the sorts of answers 
admitted - have these been changed by the use of computers?  Personally, 
I would venture a hesitant yes, but it is far from clear cut.  The 
case is best put in the context of simulations which are discussed 
in Fischer's final chapter.  Computer simulations allow us to consider 
the complex interactions between for example, demography and marriage 
preferences and the kinship structures that result.  For all that 
the ethnographic record presents us with a 'natural laboratory' simulation 
permits the systematic alteration of variables and helps understand 
some of the patterns seen on the ground.  Sociological and historical 
questions may then be attempted to explain the rest of the pattern.
 Other than that we enter to vague area between quality and quantity.
 Computers can enable us to deal consistently and systematically with 
a wider scope than before.  Quite simply we can analyse more cases.
 Most of the analysis that Fischer discusses can, as he admits, be 
performed by hand.  But performing the calculations and sorting on 
paper (using what Fischer calls CBIT - Cellulose Based Information 
Technology p. 71) imposes practical limits of size and complexity 
of data.  The use of computers changes those limits and allows new 
scales of analysis that permit new questions - one can be demonstrably 
systematic in consideration of a wider range of material.  That is, 
I believe, an unquestionably good thing.  Furthermore as Fischer points 
out (137) 'A clear conceptual model of the material is necessary for 
any analysis traditionally or computer based. The first step in computer-assisted 
analysis is a clear development of the structural scheme we apply 
to a body of data.'
<p>This book is comparable to the collection edited by Boone and Wood 
(1992).  The latter book contains essays that touch on computers in 
a variety of ways ranging from the social anthropological study of 
the introduction of computers in an office, via kinship to the use 
of expert systems.  Now, although there is a strong case to be made 
for anthropological studies of offices and other such institutions 
there is nothing intrinsically different about the introduction of 
computers.  Any social historian can cite plenty of cases of social 
change (at the small scale at the very least) following the introduction 
of new technology.  Unlike Fischer the contributors go into detail 
about the use of existing applications some of which already seem 
'old hat'.  To avoid just that problem Fischer restricts himself to 
discussions of anthropological types of problem, and the types of 
solution that are possible. Hardware and the software for it changes 
too fast for a printed book to remain current.  As a solution one 
can connect via networks to electronic discussion lists and bulletin 
boards such as are maintained at the University of Kent, Canterbury.
    At the end of the book (p 212) there is mention of this and Fischer 
says that reviews of current technology are kept on this.  Instructions 
for connection are given.  In mid-April 1994, shortly after the book 
was published, I followed these instruction and successfully connected 
(using FTP) to the Kent anthropology server.  Unfortunately the directory 
&quot;reviews&quot; mentioned in the book was not there.  Connecting 
to the same server using a different protocol (Gopher) revealed the 
directory in question, but it contained no reviews.  By September 
1995 the main server had changed to using the WWW protocol and there 
was a lot more content, listings of programmes that could be obtained 
from Kent.  There were not, however, the reviews such as Boone and 
Wood, or the more recent Miles and Weitzman (1995).  The danger is 
that by writing somehting that will not go out of date int he way 
that these latter references surely will, he has failed to giev enough 
guidance to interested readers.  Readers who are happy using newsgroups 
and WWW will be able to locate the information, but already only the 
converted will hear the message.  The challenge for a computer enthusiast 
lies in setting up a service or making something work (more or less).
 Maintaining a service once it has been established, and ensuring 
that there is <strong>content</strong> within the structure is a more 
routine challenge of a different type to those that Michael Fischer 
finds attractive.  As this example shows <strong>both</strong> must 
be addressed for a satisfactory result to be achieved.  
<p>
Boone, Margaret S., and John J. Wood, (eds.) 1992. <cite>Computer 
applications for social anthropologists </cite>, Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
<br>
Miles, M. B., &amp; Weitzman, E. A. 1995. <cite>Computer Programs 
for Qualitative Data Analysis </cite>  London: Sage.
<p>
<br>
David Zeitlyn
<BR>
now a lectuer in Social Anthropology, UKC</BODY>

</HTML>