Anthropology Degree Designation in Ontario Universities​

Introduction

     Anthropology as a source for the exploration of humanity established its roots in the early colonial practices of rapidly expanding European empires. An examination of the origins of anthropological thought is vital to conduct in order to understand its initial function and subsequent influence on modern society. Colonial anthropology arose as a result of the growing need for communication between the colonizer and the colonized, often leading to connotations of privilege, authority, and superiority (Lewis 1973:582). Though these notions are now understood for their unethical connotations and the modes in which anthropology is conducted has shifted towards a more ethical and progressive framework, the colonial past of anthropology must still be acknowledged for its impact on modern educational institutions. The aim of this project is to demonstrate that the colonial roots of anthropology as well as ongoing debates regarding its designation as an art or a science have translated into large scale implementations in pedagogical institutions that impact the availability of career opportunities for respective graduates. A discussion of existing debates on the designation of anthropology as an art or science will be conducted to uncover how it has affected undergraduate programs at twenty universities across Ontario. In addition, an overview of the methods used to collect data from thirteen universities and over 15,000 graduates from the universities in question will uncover the social and economic implications of program designation that will continue to affect future graduates.

Is Anthropology an Art or a Science?

     Anthropology as a discipline is a broad category encompassing numerous forms of study that converge to create a holistic understanding of humanity. Subdisciplines include cultural anthropology, biological anthropology, archaeology, and linguistic anthropology, all of which have very different methods of analysis and interpretation. To argue, therefore, that anthropology is either an art or a science is a difficult endeavour as Carrithers (1990) has demonstrated through examining the opinions of various scholars. Clifford and Geertz note that scientific knowledge is by definition impersonal, and that since knowledge derived from anthropological methods relies on examining and interpreting lived experiences, anthropology cannot be a science (Carrithers 1990:263). Carrithers, on the other hand, suggests that scholars must be attentive to methods of analysis and types of evidence more intensely than the knowledge that is derived by analysis (Carrithers 1990:264).

     The 1980s saw an increase in academics rejecting the concept of anthropology belonging to empirical science, noting its epistemological orientation and its incompatibility with science (O‘Meara 1989:354). One anthropologist asserted that data collected from the field always results in subjective interpretations, not objective ones as would be indicative of an empirical science (O’Meara 1989:355). A unified argument among scholars who argue that anthropology is not a science contends that the study of social phenomena cannot be categorized the same way as the study of physical phenomena as a result of the subjective nature of people’s thoughts, actions, and emotions that are private and not directly observable, making it logically impossible to study (O’Meara 1989:355). Additionally, scholars refer to the concepts of symbolism and agency in an attempt to demonstrate that scientific explanations would be inappropriate when studying social phenomena (O’Meara 1989:355). The range and depth of meanings ascribed to particular arbitrary social phenomena by specific actors would be better understood through subjective means of analysis (O’Meara 1989:355). However, the notion of ‘subjective’ and ‘objective’ are relative terms according to O’Meara (1989:356). The rigid tenants of science, as described by scholars opposing the idea of science in anthropology, revolves around objectivity as requiring directly observable facts in physical phenomena. This understanding of objectivity is limited in that not everything in science is directly observable, but it can be inferred from other directly observable phenomena, such as the existence of gravity or subatomic particles (O’Meara 1989:356). In much the same way, anthropologists can infer people’s thoughts, actions, or feelings through the public social phenomena that can be directly studied (O’Meara 1989:356).

     The purpose of this essay is not to argue whether anthropology is an art or a science, but to demonstrate that elements of each exist within anthropology that can be practiced and learned much like any other subject in the arts or sciences. The practical applications of each side of anthropology may not provide a complete understanding of either the humanities or the sciences on its own within an undergraduate degree, but neither can any other subject. A major in chemistry, for instance, has many elements that are necessary to learn in order to gain valuable experience in the empirical sciences such as math, physics, and biology. The same goes for a historian who must understand multiple elements of the past including politics, economy, and the visual arts. The debate on whether anthropology is an art or a science therefore has significant implications for undergraduate students as it has shaped the structure of anthropology programs throughout Ontario. Having the option of an arts or a science degree would be beneficial to both students and anthropological practice as it would allow further specialization in empirical means of deriving data. Focusing on biological anthropology while doing an arts degree, for instance, results in conflicting information as students are forced to take electives which are relevant to humanities as opposed to taking additional courses that would contribute to their understanding of the scientific processes of interpretation. As is the case with McMaster University, students in an arts program may not have access to courses in the sciences beyond first year introductions as restrictions disallow students from pursuing upper year courses and minors in the sciences, although these restrictions do not exist from a sciences perspective. To clarify, a student in a biology BSc program can minor in anthropology, but an anthropology student in a BA program cannot minor in biology.

     The perspective that anthropology does fit the category of a ‘science’ is relatively new as technology allows anthropologists to study the remains of the dead as well as material culture through empirical means to derive data about social phenomena in the past. Prior to the 1980s, the accepted understanding of anthropology as an art prevailed as a result of its colonial roots in imperial practices, armchair anthropology, and antiquarianism (Lewis 1973:582; O’Meara 1989:355). As a result, the majority of universities that offer anthropology programs in Ontario are geared towards an arts degree designation.  

Methods

     A series of twenty Ontario universities that were outlined in the Ontario University Application Center (OUAC) website were used to conduct a survey of their degree programs for anthropology. It was determined that thirteen of the Universities had an anthropology program, however only five had multiple degree designation choices. The results of the degree designation of these thirteen universities can be viewed interactive table below, which reveals that no Ontario university offers solely a Bachelor of Science (BSc) program for anthropology. Instead, all Universities offer a Bachelor of Arts (BA), with a select few which offer both a BA and a BSc.

     In order to evaluate the career opportunities open for anthropology alumni, the career paths of 15,585 individuals who graduated from an anthropology program were evaluated. Each of these individuals independently posted their degree information on their LinkedIn profiles which are publicly available through a keyword search on LinkedIn. All thirteen universities with an anthropology program were searched on LinkedIn, and those who graduated from an anthropology program were found through a second filtered search on the respective university page. As lists of job types were long and varied, they were categorized into three distinct groups, namely “Education and Social Service”, “Business”, and “Science and Research”. Additionally, the quantity of students that remained in Ontario was calculated in comparison to the quantity of graduates listed on the LinkedIn site to determine that 71.8% found jobs in Ontario.

Discussion and Future Implications

     University degree designations imply that colonial perspectives of anthropology as being an art still prevail, though some major universities are beginning to adapt. All universities with an anthropology program have an arts option, but very few have a sciences option, suggesting that perhaps anthropology is still viewed more as an art than a science. However, the implication on university students attempting to enter the workforce after their undergraduate degree is apparent. The vast majority enter into careers related to business, while a select few continue on to careers in research or the sciences. For the purposes of accurate representation of career choice in alumni, the category of Education and Social Service was included as 22% of alumni categorized their careers within this industry. The focus, however, is on the Business and Science categories which displayed results of 63% and 15% choice, respectively.

     The Business category reflects corporate positions that would be attainable by an Arts degree graduate such as project management, human resources, sales, and marketing. These are all careers that do not necessarily require further education and may be appealing to graduating students as a result. The Sciences category was a combination of research and healthcare services which may be limited as a result of broad categories in the LinkedIn search database. The results are therefore inconclusive as many variables could not be accounted for. The study would require further research to account for economic drifts in Ontario that would also have an impact on career choice of recent graduates.

Conclusions

     The colonial roots of anthropology have therefore helped shape educational institutions across Ontario in the variability of undergraduate degree programs. Students are most often exposed to arts programs which may host varying quantities of courses related to each subdiscipline, but will nevertheless be compelled to enter the professional world with a diploma that gears them towards business related fields. Though results are inconclusive as a result of the scale of this study, they do demonstrate a bias in career choice geared away from the empirical sciences. The potential for change is evident as scholars such as Carrithers and O’Meara contribute to demonstrating that anthropology can be as empirical as the physical sciences regardless of its humanistic perspective. Avenues for future research must be considered to provide students entering an anthropology degree with a wider range of opportunities in the sciences as well as the humanities and allowing them the choice to pursue their preferred subfields as opposed to being confined to university standards that are rooted in our colonial past.