How do anthropologists deal with this issue?

Question

That their presence in observing a culture might make their subjects act differently than they would if the anthropologist were not there. It seems like this would be a persistent question that anthropologists would be asked, so I'm curious as to how they answer it.

Does anyone have a professional methodological reference that I can look up?

I need it for my personal research.

Answer 1

What you are talking about is the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle. Specifically, it applies to physics, but the application has spread to the other sciences. The root of the principle is that you cannot observe a given instance or phenomenon without changing or otherwise affecting the data gained from said observation. In the least instances, it is the viewpoint of the observer that skews the data.

Anthropology, in particular, suffers from this principle. It is often through the observation of several generations that any accurate data from another culture is established, and often, by the time that happens, the culture has changed because of the presence of observation.

Like others here have said, often, the younger generation differs greatly from the older in their cooperation with outsiders. The nature of that difference varies from culture to culture. Usually, there is a good deal of extrapolation necessary to put together any somewhat accurate account, and even then, in anthropology in particular, the bias of the observer can skew the observations greatly.

I'm seem to remember several studies done on different African tribes that, when revisited a generation or so later, proved to be very different from the original suppositions.

Sorry I can't provide you with sources. European and American history is my bag. I enjoy sociology and anthropology, but am behind in my education on those subjects. Looks like I'm due for a library trip!

Answer 2

As with any research involving human beings, care must be taken to ensure the study is conducted ethically and not harm or exploit the people being observed. Which leads into a whole separate topic of informed consent.

For more on the topic of ethics see:
http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/ethstmnt.htm

Back to the original question, it is a common problem that the act of observation can change that which is observed.

One method used to reduce that effect is called participant observation, wherein the scientist does everything possible to integrate with and live like the native population. The object is to "be one with the group" so as to minimize the effect of their presence.

The problem with this approach is that it may compromise the objectivity of the observer to witness the behavior from within the group, not to mention the difficulty in being accepted to the group in the first place.

For more information on this technique see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participant_observation

Recommended reading:
http://www.qualquant.net/FM/

Answer 3

They are aware of this
However, they seek "redundancy" of data, the point where the observations seem to happen over and over again. That makes the data more believeable.
The also seek "cosistency" and "completeness" to make sure they observe all of the available subjects and that the information from the same source is consistent over time.
Look up "etic perspective" and "emic perspective" as well as "qualitative research methodology" for the social sciences. These googleable terms should help.
Good luck

Answer 4

Have You read the works of Margret Mead? If memory serves Me correctly She studied the young women of the tribe rather that the matrons. This gave a different overall view of the tribal inter action and relationship between the genders.