Alhassanain(p) Network for Heritage and Islamic Thought

Part IV: Being a professional

14 Making a Living

Here we discuss various aspects of professional life after training. Most important is the process of finding a job. The job market for anthropologists is based for the most part on demand for persons with skills in social science research methodology. The market is not very much aware of anthropologistsas such, there being a limited market for anthropology graduates as anthropology graduates. And, while there are many opportunities for professional work, very few are designed strictly for anthropologists. This circumstance is not limited to anthropology; it is typical of many of the social sciences and humanities. Still, it is possible to be meaningfully employed doing things that are consistent with your training in anthropology.

The anthropologist seeking work must be ready to deal with employers who are unfamiliar with the true capabilities of well-trained, contemporary anthropologists, or even employers who hold grossly inaccurate stereotypes of the anthropologist's capabilities. The most adaptive response to these conditions includes a commitment on the part of the anthropologist to educating the employer, and a strategy of self-presentation that is based on experience and capabilities rather than diploma and transcript. This does not represent a problem because these days, except for a very few occupations, it works this way for most everyone.

LOOKING FOR WORK

Success in the job hunt requires special preparation and tactics. The key to success is continual self-assessment in terms of your employment goals, and the continual investment of a substantial amount of creative energy. One might start the process by reading one of the useful guides to the creative job search. The best of these areWhat Color Is Your Parachute ?A Practical Manual for Job Hunters and Career Changers , by Richard N. Bolles ( 1991);Who's Hiring Who :How to Find That Job Fast , by Richard Lathrop ( 1989); andStalking Employment in the Nation's Capital: A Guide for Anthropologists ( Koons, Hackett, and Mason 1989).

The Bolles and Lathrop volumes taken together provide an excellent general approach to the job search. While neither author makes specific reference to the problems of anthropologists, their advice on finding employment is excellent. Bolles stresses an overall approach based on detailed self-assessment, including the specification of individual career goals and research into the characteristics of the potential employing organizations. This is complemented by the idea that the job hunter must assume control of his or her occupational destiny. The Lathrop volume provides good advice on individual career goal assessment, resume writing, letter writing, and employment interviews. The "stalking" volume was prepared by members of the Washington Association of Professional Anthropologists, and provides advice on strategy and information on numerous employment settings and roles. While this volume is designed for persons looking for work in the Washington scene, it provides useful ideas for the job search anywhere by expanding our conception of appropriate anthropology careers.

The first step toward meaningful work is a complex of difficult decisions concerning what you are to do and where you want to do it. These decisions should not be made haphazardly or by default.Who's Hiring Who provides useful career analysis guidelines that serve the job hunter well at this phase. Lathrop's scheme leads you through a number of steps that result in an assessment of your abilities as these relate to job functions. The process results in specification of an ideal job from a number of different standpoints, including location, work relationships, job flexibility, work environment, pay goals, and fields of work that have a high potential for you.

No matter what technique for assessment you use, you should document what you learn about yourself, the job hunt, and employers. Therefore, early in the process of job hunting, start a job hunt field notebook in which you record your observations about the process in much the same way as you would in a fieldwork situation. You might find it useful to list in your notes some possible jobs that represent meaningful careers to you. This is really just an extension of your study of the domain of application.

Career ideas may be obtained by regular reading of classified ads in local or out-of-town newspapers and professional newsletters. You might simply clip ads and paste them in your notebook so as to record as much information as possible about work opportunities. Other sources of information about jobs include theAnthropology Newsletter of American Anthropological Association, which usually lists a small number of nonacademic jobs. The Society for Applied Anthropology and the National Association for the Practice of Anthropology jointly sponsor an electronic communication network for its members, which includes job information. One might also consult newsletters and other publications in the domain of application, such as urban affairs, education, planning, health care delivery, and evaluation. College placement bureaus can also be useful sources, although these organizations vary in quality. Look also at the bulletin boards of academic departments who are training the competition. Do not overlook state and local government employment offices. The federal government has a rather complex system of disseminating employment information. What are some other sources? Share them with your network.Very early in the process you should begin thoroughly to document existing jobs within actual organizations for which you would like to work. This should happen months or even years before the actual search. You can begin to eliminate organizations that are less attractive to you and concentrate your efforts on the best prospects. This screening will allow you to begin to research each organization with sufficient comprehensiveness to allow you to identify specific jobs and their requirements and needs.Relatively few employers have a clear conception of what anthropologists can do. This relates to three basic conditions that you will face on the job market:

1. You will be competing with persons who are not trained in anthropology, such as social workers, sociologists, urban planners, and so on.

2. You will be hired on the basis of what you can do, not who you are. This requires that you be able to communicate to people what you can do.

3. You will have to work to overcome stereotypes potential employers will have toward anthropologists. This will require that you focus on your skills in your self-presentation. In your training you will need to focus continually on the acquisition of skills. You must be able to do things.

You must acquire a range of skills that are appropriate to the goals the potential employing organizations possess. This is why training and the job hunt coincide. Decisions about the training you will seek are decisions about seeking employment.

You must identify all your skills. In this case, "all" means skills you acquired both within and outside anthropology. Skills should be stated in terms offunctions rather than experiences, although you should also be able to provide evidence of where you used these skills. These skills should be listed in your job-hunting field notebook. The Richard Bolles volume referred to above provides a number of exercises that can lead to better self-assessment in this area. Bolles provides a set of activities that will produce a good self-assessment. In the 1991 edition there is an appendix entitled "The Quick Job-Hunting (and Career-Changing) Map," which will serve you well if you do the suggested activities.

ANTHROPOLOGISTS AND THE JOB MARKET

The job market for anthropologists is difficult to characterize. First of all, we anthropologists must be aware of a large number of different job markets, and that these markets exist at a number of different organizational levels. That is, we must be aware of jobs at the local, state, national, and international levels.

We can also think in terms of various sectors of the economy, such as education, health care, business, planning, government, and so on. In addition, we might also think in terms of the public job market and the hidden job market.Many persons writing about job-hunting strategies stress the importance of a focused approach to the job market. It is argued that without focus you will expend your energies ineffectively. Focus is necessary if one is going to be in the position to carry out the research required for the successful job hunt. The requirement to know the market, which is generally important, is absolutely crucial in anthropology, since so few employers are aware of the potentials and nature of anthropology. It will be necessary to "sell" anthropology by showing the usefulness of the skills you have learned. It is your responsibility to do this-attempts by the relevant associations and departments to tout the potential of anthropology simply will not be of sufficient scale to have any meaningful effect upon you and your efforts.You must do it. Do not be resigned and fatalistic, remember you are in a better position because of your acquired anthropological perspective in problem solving. They need you--they just don't know it yet.The truly creative job-hunting anthropologist should select potential employing organizations and do sufficient research so as to identify the organization's problems. Then you can show them how you can help them, and convince them to hire you. You must know enough about the organization to be able to identify their problems and to associate your skills with solutions to their problems. Moreover, as Bolles asserts, you must identify "the person who has the power to hire you for the job that you want" ( 1991:152).The matching of skills with problems occurs at the individual level. It is necessary to make direct contact with the person who needs you. If you are isolated from the person by a personnel department, you will not have the opportunity to tell your story where it counts. This means that even when you are applying for a civil service position, you must contact the person directly prior to the decision to hire. Remember, you will not be hired on the basis of your being the best anthropologist; they must see you as a problem solver whose skills relate to the organization's need to be more efficient, more sensitive, more effective, more responsive, or more profitable.To review, the effective job search is based on:

1. Early synthesis of job-hunting strategies and anthropology training.

2. Continual research into potential work roles, potential employers, and needed skills.

3. Continual self-assessment of values and skills.

4. Research into specific potential employers and their needs and problems.

5. Self-presentation as a skilled problem solver.

Another aspect of the job search is the research market. Obtaining research support through grants and contracts is both a highly marketable skill and the most important means of job development. If you can earn your keep from outside monies, many organizations will hire you. Further, it is possible, as some anthropologists have done, to create your own research firm based on grants and contracts, which would then "hire" you. Another employment situation to consider is that of the consultant.

BEING A CONSULTANT

Before launching into this role it would be useful to read a volume like Herman Holtz'sHow to Succeed as an Independent Consultant (1983). Also useful is Nancy Yaw Davis "Cultural Dynamics: A Case History of a Research and Consulting Business" (1987), which is a personal narrative of her experiences establishing a consulting firm as an anthropologist. There are many reasons why consultants are hired. One might suggest that the client's need for information the consultant can provide is a less frequent motivation than one would imagine. In any case, let us consider the reasons for the establishment of the client--consultant relationship. The reasons relate to the special skills of the consultant, the special needs of the client organization, and the limitations of the client organization. Although consultant-like roles can develop internal to an organization, we are going to regard consultancy as essentially an outsider's role. The consultant may have a substantially reduced stake in the organization. In some cases the fact that the consultant is an outsider is essential to his or her contribution. In other words, he or she may be hired as an outsider, and less as an expert. In addition to these factors, consultants may be hired on the basis of requirements of law.

Reasons for Using Consultants

1. The consultant's knowledge of a specific region or aspect of culture may not be available within the organization.

2. The consultant's special research skills may not be available within the organization. These skills may be derived from the generalized pool of social science techniques (e.g., questionnaires and survey techniques) as well as techniques specific to anthropology (e.g., excavation, ethnosemantic techniques, and participant-observation).

3. The consultant's special problem-solving skills are not available within the organization. This may relate to the goal of improving the organizational functioning of the client's group.

4. The consultant may possess skills which, although available in the client organization, are required to meet temporary shortfalls in manpower.

5. The consultant may be "certified" to have the skills necessary to meet certain legal requirements that the client must satisfy.

6. The consultant's status as a credible outsider may allow him or her to provide a noninvolved, and therefore objective, evaluation of the client group's functioning.

7. The consultant's status as a credible outsider may be used by the client to reduce the social cost of certain organizational or policy changes. That is, the interventions for change may be designed by the client for application by the consultant.

The consultant's teaching skills, coupled with her knowledge, may allow her to contribute to the development of the client organization's knowledge and skill levels.

The consultant may provide the client a mechanism for increasing organizational prestige, or may serve as a "headliner" attraction for a conference or other meeting.

Consulting Process

Useful sources on the consulting process include Edgar ScheinProcess Consultation: Its Role in Organizational Development (1969) and Peter BlockFlawless consulting (1981). The consulting process is very effectively addressed from the anthropologist's perspective by Maureen J. Giovannini and Lynne M. H. Rosansky inAnthropology and Management Consulting: Forging a New Alliance (1990).

The consultant and the client must develop mutual understandings and expectations concerning the desired outcome of the consultant process. The problem definition stage may result in a formal written statement, perhaps in the form of a contract, or the understanding may be more informal. The most important area of negotiation and specification is client needs. There may be major discrepancies between the client's perceptions of needs and the anthropologist's ultimate assessment of the situation. Needs assessment is a complex process that should ultimately focus on the total situation. This process can be particularly difficult when the client is a service-providing agency whose links to the target population may be poorly developed. The anthropologist may soon discover in such cases that the needs perceived by the client are different from and perhaps contradictory to the needs discovered in the community at large. As is consistent with the holism of anthropology, the anthropologist may identify a significantly larger range of needs within the total community served by the agency. A key question is whether or not the needs are attributed to the community or the agency.

The negotiation concerning needs also has to consider the needs of the anthropologist as a professional. A number of issues must be considered. It is important for the client to have a clear understanding of the resources needed for the work to be completed. The anthropologist's need for information access has to be clearly explained and understood by the client. During planning the anthropologist may discover that effective consulting is not possible in a setting, and may "walk away" from it ( Giovannini and Rosansky 1990: 11-12). Giovannini and Rosansky cite "lack of organizational readiness," "lack of fit between consultant capability and client needs," "inability to accept client's goals or policies," and "lack of client commitment" as reasons for not proceeding ( 1990:12).

The client must understand the professional ethics of the anthropologist. Presenting a copy of the ethics statement of the Society for Applied Anthropology or the National Association for the Practice of Anthropology may be called for. One of the products of the negotiation process will usually be an improved understanding of the nature of anthropology as an applied discipline. Although the potential "consumers" of applied anthropology services represent a rather substantial group, it would seem reasonable to say that applied anthropology does not have a large informed constituency among policy makers, community leaders, and other potential consumers. It is important that the anthropologist clearly discusses the nature of anthropology as a research discipline so the client is made into an informed consumer.

It is surprising how immutable is the image of the anthropologist as a researcher of the exotic, remote, or preindustrial. For example, an M.A. graduate of the University of Kentucky's applied anthropology was hired by the Kentucky State Police as a program coordinator in the planning department. As soon as his co-workers found out that he was an anthropologist, they started to bring in cigar boxes full of arrowheads for him to identify. These conceptions are not difficult to deal with once an encounter has developed, but these views tend to limit the number of encounters that might lead to consulting relationships. Many potential consumers may never see the need for hiring the bush-jacketed, pithhelmeted comic stereotype of the anthropologist.

While one of the results of the negotiation process should be an improvement of the client's understanding of anthropology, the criterion for engaging a problem or complex of problems should not be whether or not it is an anthropological problem. We might strongly assert here that there are no such things as anthropological problems--there are only client problems or community problems. This is not to say that anything is fair game or that there are no criteria for engaging a problem. But we cannot practically limit ourselves to the common understanding of what anthropology is. As applied anthropologists we cannot afford compulsively maintained boundaries. Attempts to define rigidly what is or is not anthropology are unproductive. Further, in certain contexts it can be irresponsible. Our focus of concern as applied anthropologists is not our discipline, but reality, a reality that we perceive through what we have learned anthropologists ( van Willigen 1976:90).

It is assumed that the anthropologist, like any other consultant, will not necessarily engage in a formal research project in every consultancy situation. In many situations it is simply not necessary to engage in research at all. It is possible to "just know it." In fact, the importance of old-fashioned scholarly expertise is consistently underemphasized in much of the material written about applied anthropology. Much of this material stresses the nature of the applied role, ethical problems and concerns, and special research contexts and strategies. But when one reviews the history of the field it is apparent that applied anthropologists with sustained involvement as consultants are often recruited as area experts rather than social scientists. This reality is rarely recognized in applied training programs. It is important to note that the so-called new applied anthropology is not based on area knowledge but on knowledge of research techniques, either as part of social science or specific to anthropology (such as participatory fieldwork). Clearly, consultancy serves a large number of purposes. As purposes vary so do the consumers of the consultants' products. Consultants may produce materials that are directly used by the client. Although this would seem to be the most typical scenario, consultants very frequently produce material for third parties. Such is the case when the consultant is hired to provide legally required documentation or evaluation of aspects of a specific program. Such consultation may be specified in the conditions of funding support.

Client organizations may use consultants to produce an impact on third parties. The consultant may be hired to "tell the client's story" or to improve or enhance the client's image in the community. Presumably the client needs the special expertise of the anthropologist in these cases, but frequently it would seem that clients hire consultants for cosmetic reasons, thereby increasing the credibility of the message. This statement is not intended to represent a cynical criticism of certain types of consultancy situations; clients have many legitimate needs that can best be met by consultants.

When one engages in consultancy one very quickly discovers the political implications of information. Information can be used as the substance from which power is formed. Clients may use the anthropologist as a means of solidifying, protecting, or enhancing their political position. Because of the centrality of the anthropologist in the information acquisition process, he or she can be buffeted by various political forces. As a corollary, the anthropologist can use his or her position of centrality to increase control and access to information. This may be done through selective control of the release of information. Information management has very important ethical implications.

Consultants rarely have a well-developed political constituency. Yet such a constituency may be very important for an anthropologist working in a community setting. An applied anthropologist working on an evaluation of a social service agency may find that if he or she wants to maximize his impact on the agency, it may be necessary to build an auxiliary clientele in the service population of the agency. This will have two potential effects. First, it will help provide the anthropologist with useful information about the community being served, and second, it will serve to buffer the anthropologist's position politically.

COMMUNICATION WITH CLIENTS

The process of communication is of course very important and often associated with difficulty. The source of difficulty is the contrast in language and concepts of the anthropologist and his or her client. This source of difficulty is inevitably present to varying degrees. When the anthropologist engages a client's problem, he or she must to some extent conceptualize the problem in anthropological terms. This allows the anthropologist to deal with the problem, but it also creates the need for translation of the results into terms that are significant to the client. A translation process must always occur for effective communication, because anthropologists, like any other scientists, communicate using their own special code.

It should be apparent that client--anthropologist communication can be difficult. Not only must knowledge be transferred, but there must be a certain number of conceptual shifts. That is, the knowledge conveyed will probably have to be reconceptualized by the client. To the extent that it is possible, the anthropologist should attempt to avoid much of the reconceptualization by communicating in the client's cognitive framework. The standard wisdom is, "Don't use jargon." Clearly, the purging of complex terminology from technical reports is an important first step, but it is not sufficient to insure effective communication. It is also important to control the complexity of the message in order to maintain a higher level of comprehensibility. The consulting anthropologist must use facts parsimoniously and decisively, limiting communication to essentials so as not to confound the message.

The style of communication can vary with the length of time spent in the consultancy, and the urgency and concern communicated by the client concerning the issues. When one thinks of the communication process, one often thinks of a technical report submitted at the conclusion of the consultancy period. It is very clear that the one-shot, written, end-of-term report can be limited in its effectiveness. Assuming that the anthropologist and client have sufficient time to develop rapport, communication of useful knowledge should start early and proceed continually. This may allow the client to participate in the discovery process, perhaps to better understand and assimilate the results. This process can result in increasingly effective use of the anthropologist's skills, and therefore, a potential for improving the efficiency of meeting client needs. Such interaction can obviate the need for the "big report," because all the relevant data may have been communicated less formally. In such cases the report may merely serve as historic documentation or a means of meeting a contractual obligation.

DOING RESEARCH FOR THE GOVERNMENT

The major source of funding for both grants and contracts is the federal government. The U.S. government's commitment to research support started long ago. As early as 1803 the government provided funds for the Lewis and Clark expedition. The first research project funded by congressional action was in 1842, when Samuel F. B. Morse was awarded $20,000 to test the commercial feasibility of the electromagnetic telegraph. Since these beginnings, expansion has been dramatic, with most growth in federal research spending occurring after World War II. Prior to the war most research was done in-house. Funding is made available for various types of research activities. These include basic research, applied research, and development programs that have a research component. These distinctions are important to our discussion in that each is a discrete category with an appropriate funding mechanism unto itself ( Scurlock 1975:ix).

Opportunities for the academic and nonacademic applied anthropologist occur in all these categories. Each funding program is subject to compliance with certain statutes, regulations, and administrative policies. It is beyond the scope of this chapter to account for the complexities of the procedures. We will, however, consider in general terms some of the important issues in federal research funding. The need to know procedures and policies is greatest for the small-scale consulting firm. Academic applied anthropologists at larger universities usually have access to an office of sponsored research and a support staff. Anthropologists hired by larger-scale consulting firms also have the benefit of such specialists. In order to be consistently successful, it is often necessary to have the support of specialists who continually search for research opportunities, provide preliminary support, assist in proposal preparation, and negotiate contracts properly. It must be made clear that all these processes are highly competitive, and that success is based upon competence in both the research and the funding process.

An anthropologist may do federally sponsored research in a number of ways. First, an anthropologist may be engaged on a direct-hire or consultant basis to do in-house research for a federal agency. One might also be hired as a staff member of an organization that has agreed to carry out a project on the basis of a grant or contract. In this section, however, we will deal with the opportunities afforded by applying for contracts rather than the direct-hire means.

Basically, five types of entities vie for the federal applied research dollar. These are universities, profit-making firms, not-for-profit research organizations, individual consultants, and the government agencies themselves ( Trend 1977:212). Each of these organizations has specific characteristics that influence their competitiveness. In some ways the academic department is in the worst position to compete because of inherent lack of flexibility in scheduling and staffing. Further, departments are usually staffed by persons of a single discipline, which can cause conceptual and methodological narrowness. The problems associated with this bias have led to the establishment of alternative kinds of organizations on university campuses to help applicants compete for grants and contracts. It has been noted that the profit-making consulting firm has certain advantages in the competition for grants and contracts. Their staffing is much more flexible and diverse than academic departments. Further, "they are willing to work on problems that have been partially defined beforehand by a government agency, and work closely with the client to narrow or change the focus of the research. Senior staff members are skilled in translating policy questions into research questions" ( Trend 1977:212). The not-for-profit organizations are perhaps somewhat less flexible; further, they probably are poorly capitalized for the most part and therefore can afford less "internal seed-money."

Some sense of the relative importance of these organizations can be obtained by looking at the expenditures of federal agencies "buying" social science. For instance, during the fiscal year 1970, the Department of Health, Education and Welfare "bought" 45 percent of their program evaluation projects from profitmaking firms; 29 percent came from not-for-profit organizations, while universities accounted for 21 percent ( Trend 1977:212). The remaining projects were done by individuals and government agencies. Applied social science research has received more than twice as much federal funds as has basic research, every year for the last twenty ( Trend 1977:212). Trend notes that "contrary to popular wisdom, there has been no 'sudden shift' from basic social science research underwritten by grants, toward applied policy-oriented research that is funded by contracts" ( 1977:212).

Contracts and Grants

Here we are concerned with the source of the basic ideas that when expanded and elaborated can serve as the basis for an applied research proposal. We are less concerned with the so-called unsolicited proposal, which is more typical in the basic research areas, although it is clear that this too can result in significant opportunities for the applied anthropologist. Here our concern is with research done in response to specifications provided by entities other than an individual researcher. Design criteria may vary extensively in terms of level of specificity. It should also be recognized that the researcher may arrange to have a research contract procurement procedure set up so as to allow bidding on a research idea generated by the researcher. In these cases it usually involves the researcher submitting an unsolicited proposal and the agency responding by putting out a request for proposals in response to the idea. In subsequent deliberations the original submitter of the idea is in a good position competitively.

Research support can be obtained through either grants or contracts. Both are subject to their own special kind of procedures and regulation. Although at times it is difficult to distinguish between grants and contracts, it is possible to point out certain differences. Contracts provide a means of paying for an activity that meets a specific need identified by an agency. In most cases the agency has clearly determined the actual format of the desired service, including expected outcomes, schedule, and cost. The agency selects the contractor on the basis of proximity to the research site, budget bids, professional qualifications, and previous performance. Contracts are more strictly managed than grants. Grants tend to be more frequently used where researcher-initiated experiment and development is involved. Grantees are not subject to such rigorous reporting requirements. Although the term grant connotes some type of gift, it is subject to many of the same controls as a contract. For the purposes of fostering untrammeled scientific inquiry, the conception of the grant as a gift is a useful fiction; however, one must remember that for legal and administrative reasons, it is best to think of it as what it is, a kind of contract. The consistent principle in case law is that
the acceptance of a grant establishes a contractual relationship between grantor and grantee (Scurlock 1975:4).

There are a number of important concepts concerning grant budgeting that will be noted in passing here. Fundamental to the budgeting process is the notion of "allowable costs," which includes those expenses that "are related to the conduct of the research" ( Scurlock 1975:4). Allowable costs are of two types, direct and indirect. Direct costs are expended solely on the activities of the research project, whereas indirect costs are for the support and maintenance of research personnel and equipment. Indirect costs are rarely budgeted directly. Usually a research group calculates the portion of their total enterprise that is involved in the supported research. Facts relating to these costs are presented in negotiations with the relevant federal agencies. These negotiations result in an indirect cost rate that would apply in all grants to the research group. The rate is often expressed as a percentage of salaries and wages. There often is a lower rate for projects carried out at a remote site. The indirect cost rate, often labeled "overhead," varies from agency to agency. Further, the various types of research groups, that is, universities, consulting firms, and so on, charge different rates. I have heard of ranges from about 25 percent of salaries and rates to over 100 percent. Large-scale consulting firms tend to have the highest overhead rate. A corollary to indirect costs is the concept of cost sharing. This is based on the recognition that research grants significantly benefit the group receiving the money. In some cases this means that the group receiving the grant will contribute to the cost of the research. This seems to be quite common for university grants.

Government procurement is dominated by certain themes. The most important is the goal of receiving "acceptable goods or services at the lowest practical price in order to avoid waste in the use of public monies" ( Scurlock 1975:11). In addition, procedures are established so as to avoid favoritism and corruption. Originally, the preferred method of procurement was based on formal advertising and the submission of a firm bid by the potential contractor. As time passed and the scale of government expenditures increased, this single procedure proved inadequate and was supplemented by the so-called negotiated contract. This system allows the federal government to use a wider range of criteria than just price, and more closely resembles the procedures used in the private sector.

Agencies may formulate a problem in a number of ways. The idea for the research may be developed within the agency and then put out for competition. Sometimes an unsolicited proposal can serve as the basis for a governmentsponsored competitive solicitation or negotiated contract. The decisions concerning form are usually up to the agency. Normally the agency will use the competitive bidding process, in which it is possible to specify the required research procedure, involve sufficient qualified bidders for adequate competition, and have enough time for adequate bidding. Two-step formal advertising is used in cases where the problem to be researched may have a range of possible solutions, thus making it somewhat more difficult for the agency to specify procedures and outcomes. At times, an agency may use this procedure to support research that will result in a research plan, which in turn would be put out to bids for final implementation. In a manner similar to standard practice, a researcher may submit a so-called technical proposal. This proposal does not have a cost component. The agency may consult with the researcher in order to improve the proposal. All persons who submit a qualified technical proposal will then be issued an invitation for bid. If only one bid is submitted, it may be contracted, in which case it would be a so-called sole source contract.

In certain cases the research goals and procedures may be very difficult to specify, as is typical in basic research projects. In addition, the range of necessary proposal evaluation criteria may be more complex than price and design. As Scurlock notes, "the skills, interest and availability of research personnel and the resources at their disposal are all factors to be considered in selecting the research contractor" ( 1975:14). There may still be competition, but it goes beyond the narrow range of criteria characteristic of the more formal procedures. The negotiated contracts process starts in very much the same way as the more formal types.

The most important source of information on contracts and other federal research opportunities is theCommerce Business Daily (CBD) . This daily publication of the U.S. Department of Commerce lists government procurement invitations, contract awards, subcontracting leads, sales of surplus property, and foreign business opportunities. InCBD , one will find notices concerning ongoing negotiations as well as notifications of new opportunities. In addition toCBD , some agencies have their own publications for announcing contract opportunities. An example is theNIH Guide for Grants and Contracts .

Qualified individuals may ask for and receive the so-called request for proposals (RFP). The important component of the RFP is the scope of work, which is rather like a proposal in reverse. The work scope specifies what needs to be done. Evaluation criteria may also be stated. Proposals submitted in this way are subject to substantial modification in the review and funding process. The proposal review is usually carried out by a specialized review board consisting of scientists from the specific area of inquiry. Contact between the researcher and the agency is maintained through a contracting officer, who solicits answers to questions raised in the analysis process. The negotiation process produces a final research design that is hoped to be the most efficient and appropriate and least costly. After a defined period of time the negotiations are closed, review is complete, and the contract is awarded.

One way of facilitating the obtaining of research funds is to create one's own not-for-profit research organization. Information on establishing such an organization may be obtained by writing to the Internal Revenue Service for publication 557, entitledTax-Exempt Status for Your Organization . This booklet outlines the procedure for being exempt from the income tax. Incorporation may also be recommended so as to limit liability. The federal tax code allows such organizations to be established if the research is in the public interest. The definition of public interest seems quite broad. Research is considered to be in the public interest if the results are made available to the public "on a nondiscriminating basis" ( U.S. Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service 1988). Research carried out for federal, state, and local government can also justify exemption. Various other activities are included. There are anthropologists who have established such organizations.

TIES TO THE ACADEMIC WORLD

The nonacademically employed anthropologist usually will not have other anthropologists as work associates. This situation is different for anthropologists. This raises some questions about how the anthropologist can maintain theoretical and methodological currency as well as obtain the emotional sustenance so necessary for work satisfaction. As noted earlier, nonacademically employed anthropologists may have some of their needs met by joining national generalpurpose organizations, such as the American Anthropological Association, or the national and international specialized groups, such as the Society for Applied Anthropology, National Association for the Practice of Anthropology, Society for Medical Anthropology, and the Council on Anthropology and Education. Another alternative is joining the many regional general-purpose organizations, such as the Southern Anthropological Society, Central States Anthropological Society, Northeastern Anthropological Association, Alaska Anthropological Association, or the Anthropological Society of Washington. Other relevant organizations include the American Ethnological Society, American Folklore Society, American Society for Ethnohistory, Association for Political and Legal Anthropology, Association for Social Anthropology in Oceania, and the Society for Cross-Cultural Research.

Most of the organizations listed above have memberships that are virtually all academic. Being of and for academics, their programs and organizational structures are clearly addressed to the needs of this constituency. The most important need of academics is addressed by providing a medium for publishing research output. The competition for publication slots is substantial, and it would appear that the academic anthropologist will continue to dominate the pages of journals such as theAmerican Anthropologist, American Ethnologist , andHuman Organization . Annual of these associations will probably continue to be dominated by academics in spite of many positive accommodations to the needs of nonacademic applied anthropologists.

The Society for Applied Anthropology has been committed to the advancement of applied anthropology for a longer time than the older American Anthropological Association. Both of these associations have an important complementary role to play at the national level. The Society for Applied Anthropology was founded in 1941 ( Foster 1969). According to Spicer, "the [ SfAA] was not enthusiastically welcomed into the world of anthropology. The newborn was regarded as something of a monstrosity and as a consequence it began its first growth in the limbo of illegitimacy" ( 1976:335).

Spicer divides the history of the SfAA into four phases. These coincide more or less with the 1940s, the 1950s, the 1960s, and the 1970s. During the first phase there was a great deal of debate concerning the nature of applied anthropology. This seemed to relate to the general quest for legitimacy for applied anthropologists. Often expressed in the pages of the journal of the society was the notion that there was an inadequate body of anthropological theory and knowledge. Publication policy stressed the case study based on direct observation. A large segment of both the members of the society and the authors of the journal articles were not anthropologists.

During the 1950s the SfAA made its "most important contribution to anthropology as a whole" ( Spicer 1976:336). The society was the first anthropology organization to deal actively with the issue of professional ethics. This resulted in the issuance of an ethical code ( Mead, Chapple and Brown 1949:20-21). The society developed a succession of schemes before other organizations dealt with this serious issue. During this period, Spicer notes, there was a somewhat greater identification with academic careers. This was the trend during the next two decades.

Today the SfAA is a mature and successful association with a robust annual meeting and publication program. Although the society has been dominated by academics, it is making a number of accommodations to its nonacademic members. Currently its executive, nominations, and elections committees are elected from both academic and nonacademic slates. In addition, its annual meeting includes "skills sessions" on topics such as social impact assessment.

The leadership of the SfAA is strongly committed to maintaining lower student membership fees. Student membership includes a quarterly journal,Human Organization , the career-oriented publication,Practicing Anthropology , and a newsletter. For more information, write to the Society for Applied Anthropology, P.O. Box 24083, Oklahoma City, OK 73124.

In 1984, the National Association for the Practice of Anthropology was formed as a unit within the American Anthropological Association. This association is made up of members of the American Anthropological Association who opt for participation in this unit. NAPA has provided the ideas and energy that have made the AAA annual meetings more useful for practicing anthropologists. NAPA Bulletins, the organization's monograph series, provide an alternative publishing format for practitioners. Recent numbers have dealt with a variety of useful topics, including ethnicity ( Keefe 1989), government employment ( Hanson et al. 1988), and various aspects of consulting ( Davis, McConochie, and Stevenson 1987; Giovannini and Rosansky 1990). NAPA publishes a directory, sponsors a student award, and runs a mentoring program for young professionals. To belong to NAPA you must first join the American Anthropological Association. NAPA student membership fees are charged in addition to the American Anthropological Association costs. For details, write to the American Anthropological Association, 1703 New Hampshire Avenue NW, Washington, D.C. 20009. Probably the best organizations for "keeping in touch" are the local practitioner organizations, often referred to as LPOs. These vary considerably in size and the complexity of their programs. The LPOs offering the most comprehensive programs are the Washington Association of Professional Anthropologists (WAPA) and the High Plains Society for Applied Anthropology (HPSFAA). WAPA has a largely local membership and is concerned with the practical needs of nonacademically employed anthropologists. WAPA fosters such activities job-hunting skills workshops, "theoretical up-date sessions," a job network to assist members, and a newsletter publication. HPSFAA includes members from Arizona to Montana. Their program is geared to the low density of the distribution of anthropologists in the Rocky Mountain West. They offer a journal and a lively annual meeting.

The active list of LPOs changes from time to time. Linda A. Bennett wrote a descriptive account of these worthwhile organizations that was published by NAPA ( 1988). She listed active organizations in Memphis, New York City, southern California, Phoenix, Detroit, Tampa, New Jersey, the San Francisco Bay Area, Tallahassee, and Ann Arbor, in addition to the Washington, D.C. and High Plains groups. It is very important to support and make use of these organizations.