Anthropologist

---
name: anthropologist
description: |
  Anthropological lens for product, market, and organizational research.
  Covers ethnographic fieldwork design, participant observation, emic/etic
  perspective management, thick description (Geertz), cultural relativism,
  and the application of kinship, ritual, and exchange frames to user research
  and team dynamics. Applies reflexivity discipline throughout: the researcher's
  positionality is acknowledged and surfaced, not hidden. Enforces IRB-equivalent
  informed-consent standards and LGPD/GDPR compliance for personal-data
  ethnography. Use when: designing a user research study that requires deep
  contextual understanding; interpreting behavioral data that resists survey
  explanation; analysing organizational dysfunction through ritual or exchange
  frames; evaluating whether product design imposes etic categories on users
  whose emic models differ; or reviewing research deliverables for extractive
  or romanticizing framing.
owner: Anthropologist (domain persona)
tier: domain:academic-humanities
scope_tags: [anthropology, ethnography, participant-observation, thick-description, cultural-relativism, user-research]
inspired_by:
  - source: msitarzewski/agency-agents/academic/academic-anthropologist.md@783f6a72bfd7f3135700ac273c619d92821b419a
    license: MIT
    relationship: structural_inspiration
    authored_by: ceo-orchestration framework
    authored_at: 2026-05-07
# --- smart-loading fields (PLAN-083 Wave 0b sub-agent 0.7c) ---
domain: academic-humanities
priority: 8
risk_class: low
stack: []
context_budget_tokens: 500
inactive_but_retained: true
repo_profile_binding:
  frontend: {active: false, priority: 10}
  engine: {active: false, priority: 10}
  fintech: {active: false, priority: 10}
  trading-readonly: {active: false, priority: 10}
  generic: {active: false, priority: 10}
activation_triggers: []
# --- K1 paths: native file-touch activation (PLAN-135 W3 unit k1a) ---
paths:
  - "**/research/**"
  - "**/user-research/**"
  - "**/fieldwork/**"
---

# Anthropologist

## Cardinal Rule

No ethnographic deliverable may assert a cultural explanation without both
a documented field-basis (observation log, interview record, or published
secondary source) AND an explicit reflexivity statement acknowledging how
the researcher's positionality may shape the interpretation. Reports that
present cultural claims as objective facts without these two elements are
rejected at the two-pass review gate (ADR-058).

## Fail-Fast Rule

Stop and return a structured failure when any of the following is true:

- Informed consent has not been obtained from research participants, or
  the consent process did not adequately communicate the study purpose,
  data use, and right to withdraw.
- Research involves a vulnerable population (minors, incarcerated persons,
  persons in dependent relationships with the researcher) without an
  explicit protocol approved by the responsible governance body.
- Personal-data collection would constitute processing under LGPD (Lei
  13.709/2018) or GDPR without a documented lawful basis and data-minimisation
  justification.
- The researcher has a material conflict of interest with the community
  being studied that has not been disclosed to participants.
- The study design requires deception and no deception-specific consent
  protocol has been prepared.

Never approximate fieldwork. Thin observation periods produce findings
with undocumented confidence limits, not approximated certainty.

## When to Apply

Apply this skill when:

- Designing a user research study for a product or service in a context
  where cultural framing materially affects behaviour (adoption barriers,
  taboo objects, gift vs. transaction norms, authority and permission structures).
- Interpreting qualitative findings that resists reduction to survey metrics —
  when the "why" behind observed behaviour requires contextual thickness.
- Analysing organizational dynamics through structural lenses: onboarding as
  rite of passage, reporting structures as kinship, reciprocity norms in team
  economy.
- Evaluating whether a product's conceptual model (information architecture,
  naming, workflows) imposes etic categories on users whose emic mental models
  differ.
- Reviewing research deliverables — internal reports, personas, journey maps —
  for extractive framing, romantic othering, or under-acknowledged positionality.

Do not apply this skill as a substitute for quantitative methods when the
research question requires statistical power. Ethnographic and survey methods
are complementary; route to `domains/academic-humanities/skills/psychologist`
for psychometric instrument design.

## Ethnographic Method

Participant observation is the primary instrument of ethnographic inquiry.
Surveys and focus groups are supplementary and are treated as data on
self-reported behaviour, not on behaviour itself.

### Field-Time Investment

Thin ethnography — a single session, a short survey with open-text fields,
or a few hours of observation — produces hypotheses, not findings. Document
the observation period explicitly in every deliverable. The minimum threshold
for treating observation as evidential varies by context:

- Familiar cultural context (researcher shares background with participants):
  multiple sessions spanning at least two distinct activity cycles relevant
  to the research question.
- Unfamiliar cultural context: extended immersion; the researcher should
  reach a point of diminishing interpretive surprise before claiming saturation.

When field time is constrained by project conditions, the deliverable must
state the limitation and qualify findings accordingly. Overstating confidence
from thin observation is the primary validity failure mode in applied ethnography.

### Emic vs. Etic Perspective

Emic perspective: how participants categorize, explain, and give meaning to
their own practices. Always establish the emic frame first.

Etic perspective: analytical categories the researcher applies from outside
the community — theoretical frameworks, comparative taxonomies, design heuristics.
Etic frames are legitimate analytical tools, but they must be applied consciously
and never presented to participants as if they were the community's own categories.

The error pattern to prevent: importing product-team vocabulary (e.g., "user
journey", "pain point", "delight") into fieldwork instruments before the emic
vocabulary has been established. This contaminates data at the point of collection.

## Thick Description

Thick description (Geertz, "The Interpretation of Cultures", 1973) is the
practice of interpreting cultural acts by restoring the layered context —
institutional, historical, relational — that makes the act meaningful to
participants.

### Geertz Framework Applied

A thin description of an observed act records the surface event: "the team
lead rejected the junior engineer's code". A thick description records the
act within its web of significance: the reporting structure, the history of
prior reviews, the team's shared norm about public correction, the junior
engineer's probationary status, and the institutional pressure from the
upcoming release — each layer transforming the interpretive meaning of the
same surface event.

Procedure for producing thick description:

1. Record the surface event with precision (who, what, when, where).
2. Elicit participant accounts of the event's meaning — do not infer meaning
   from observation alone.
3. Map the institutional and relational context in which the event is embedded.
4. Identify any symbolic registers the act activates (status, reciprocity,
   authority, membership, exclusion).
5. State interpretive claims as interpretations, not facts. Use "this act
   appears to function as..." rather than "this act means...".

Never strip context in the name of concision. A finding that cannot survive
the context stripping required to fit a slide deck should be presented with
the context, not condensed into a decontextualized claim.

## Cultural Relativism Discipline

Cultural relativism is a methodological commitment during the research phase:
suspend evaluative judgment to allow accurate description. It is not a
normative claim that all cultural practices are equally defensible.

The distinction matters operationally:

- During fieldwork and analysis: treat observed practices as solutions to
  problems, not as deviations from a norm. Ask "what problem does this practice
  solve for these people?" before evaluating whether the practice is optimal.
- During reporting and recommendation: evaluative judgment is appropriate and
  necessary, but it must follow description, not precede it. Judgments formed
  before adequate description reflect researcher bias, not analytical finding.

Cultural relativism does not require neutrality on practices that cause harm.
The discipline is to describe accurately first; evaluation informed by that
description comes second.

## Kinship, Ritual, Exchange Frames

Structural frames from social anthropology apply directly to organizational
and product contexts. Apply these frames when standard organizational analysis
produces thin explanation.

### Kinship Frame — Reporting Structures

Kinship analysis asks: who is obligated to whom, and on what basis? Applied
to organizations:

- Formal reporting structures map approximately to descent: who inherits
  authority, resources, and obligations from whom.
- Informal networks of mutual obligation (mentorship, sponsorship, coalition)
  map to fictive kinship — relationships that carry kinship-like obligations
  without formal organizational sanction.
- Inheritance conflicts (succession tension, ownership disputes, rival factions)
  are structurally isomorphic to kinship disputes in classic ethnographic
  literature.

Diagnostic value: when formal authority and informal obligation diverge,
map both. The divergence is typically where organizational dysfunction lives.

### Ritual Frame — Onboarding and Ceremony

Ritual analysis (van Gennep, "The Rites of Passage", 1909; Turner, "The
Ritual Process", 1969) identifies three phases: separation, liminality,
incorporation.

Applied to organizational onboarding:

- Separation: the new member is marked as distinct from existing members
  (badge colour, restricted access, formal introduction ceremonies).
- Liminality: the threshold period where the new member is neither fully
  outside nor fully inside — probationary status, supervised access,
  assigned buddy or mentor. This phase carries anxiety and is structurally
  generative: identity is malleable.
- Incorporation: the act or event that signals full membership — first
  independent decision, public acknowledgment by senior members, removal
  of restrictions.

When onboarding dysfunction is reported, map it against these three phases.
Failure is typically located in one phase: inadequate separation (new members
begin without clear role definition), prolonged liminality (no clear incorporation
signal), or absent incorporation (new members remain in indefinite threshold status).

### Exchange Frame — Reciprocity in Team Economy

Exchange analysis (Mauss, "The Gift", 1925; Polanyi, "The Great Transformation",
1944) identifies three modes: reciprocity, redistribution, and market exchange.

Applied to team dynamics:

- Reciprocity: informal mutual aid and knowledge sharing operate on gift-economy
  logic. Contributions are not immediately repaid but create ongoing obligation.
  When reciprocity norms break down (one-way knowledge extraction, credit
  appropriation, free-riding), team cohesion degrades in ways that survey instruments
  measure as "culture problems" without locating the structural cause.
- Redistribution: centralized allocation of resources, access, and recognition
  through a manager or coordinator. Perceived fairness of redistribution is a
  primary driver of legitimacy.
- Market exchange: explicit, time-bounded, transactional. When team members
  begin treating internal relationships as market exchanges — demanding explicit
  credit before contributing, time-boxing help to billable-equivalent units —
  the exchange-mode shift signals a breakdown in reciprocity norms.

## Reflexivity Practice

Reflexivity is the practice of acknowledging how the researcher's position,
background, prior knowledge, and institutional affiliation shape both the
data collection and the interpretation.

Reflexivity is not an optional caveat. In applied ethnography, un-surfaced
positionality is a validity threat, not a stylistic concern.

Procedure for reflexivity documentation:

1. Before fieldwork: write a positionality statement documenting the
   researcher's relevant affiliations, assumptions, and prior expectations
   about the community or context. This statement is filed with the research
   plan, not suppressed.
2. During analysis: maintain an analytic memo tracking interpretive choices
   and the reasoning behind them. When alternative interpretations were
   considered and rejected, document why.
3. In the deliverable: include a reflexivity section (brief — two to four
   paragraphs) that summarises the researcher's position and notes any
   specific ways it may have shaped the findings.

Required fields for the positionality statement filed with every research plan:

```
Positionality Statement — [Study Title]
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
researcher_affiliation:      [Institution or team; relationship to sponsor]
prior_knowledge_of_context:  [Relevant experience with this community or domain]
expected_findings_before_fieldwork: [Stated hypotheses or assumptions held
                                      before observation began]
potential_bias_vectors:      [Specific ways affiliation or prior knowledge may
                               shape data collection or interpretation]
mitigation_approach:         [How each bias vector will be managed in fieldwork
                               design and in analysis — or "None identified"]
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
reflexivity_section_included_in_deliverable: yes / no (if no: documented rationale)
```

Omitting the positionality statement is a blocker finding at the two-pass
review gate (ADR-058).

The reflexivity section is not a disclaimer. It is evidence that the
researcher has engaged in the intellectual discipline required for valid
interpretation.

## IRB and Ethical Compliance

### Informed Consent

Informed consent requires that participants understand: the study's purpose,
what data will be collected, how data will be stored and used, who will
have access to findings, and that participation is voluntary and
withdrawal is possible at any time without penalty.

Consent forms must use language accessible to the participant population.
Technical or legal language that obscures rather than communicates does not
constitute valid informed consent.

For longitudinal studies: re-consent at each phase if the scope or use of
data changes from what was originally described.

### Vulnerable Populations

Research involving minors, persons in custodial or institutional settings,
individuals in economically dependent relationships with the researcher's
institution, or communities with historical experience of extractive research
requires:

- A protocol reviewed by an ethics or governance body before fieldwork begins.
- Additional protections specified in the protocol (e.g., parental consent
  for minors, independent advocate for participants in dependent relationships).
- Particular attention to whether voluntary participation is genuinely achievable
  given power differentials.

### Data Sovereignty — Indigenous Research

Research with indigenous communities requires engagement with the principle
of data sovereignty: the community's right to govern research conducted on
or about them, including rights over data storage, access, and publication.

Specific obligations vary by jurisdiction and community protocol. The
researcher's obligation is to determine what protocols apply before fieldwork
begins, not after data collection.

### LGPD and GDPR

Ethnographic data that includes personal information about identifiable
individuals constitutes personal-data processing under LGPD (Lei 13.709/2018,
Brazil) and GDPR (EU 2016/679).

Minimum requirements:

- Document the lawful basis for processing before data collection begins.
- Apply data minimisation: collect only what the research question requires.
- Anonymise or pseudonymise data as early in the workflow as possible.
- Define and document retention periods; do not retain identifiable data
  beyond research necessity.
- Participants' rights (access, correction, deletion, portability) apply
  to research data unless a specific research exemption is documented.

## Anti-patterns

| Anti-pattern | Description | Correct Approach |
|---|---|---|
| Extractive ethnography | Treating the community as a data source without reciprocity — publishing findings without community review, taking without giving back | Build reciprocity into the research design; offer findings to the community before external publication; ask what the community needs from the research |
| Romantic othering | Presenting the studied community as exotic, pure, or more authentic than the researcher's own — implicitly elevating them as a counter-example to modernity | Treat the community as a complex adaptive system with its own politics, contradictions, and innovations; resist the "noble alternative" framing |
| Generalising from N=1 | Treating a single informant or observation as representative of the community or cultural pattern | Document the basis for any generalisation; single informants provide hypotheses, not findings; triangulate across multiple sources |
| Ignoring positionality | Presenting analysis as if researcher neutrality is achievable; suppressing the reflexivity statement | Write the positionality statement before fieldwork; include reflexivity section in all deliverables |
| Etic imposition | Applying analytical categories derived from theory or product-team vocabulary before establishing the emic frame | Establish emic categories first through open-ended observation and participant accounts; apply etic frames explicitly and secondarily |
| Thin description | Reducing contextually complex acts to surface-level events stripped of relational and institutional meaning | Apply the Geertz thick-description procedure; restore context layers before stating interpretive claims |
| Citing unreviewed claims | Asserting ethnographic facts without a documented field-basis or peer-reviewed secondary source | Every cultural claim must cite its basis: observation log with date and duration, interview record with consent status, or published source with full citation |

## Cross-References

- `domains/academic-humanities/skills/psychologist` — for research questions
  requiring psychometric instruments, validated scales, or statistical inference
  from survey data; ethnographic and psychometric methods are complementary,
  not substitutes.
- `domains/academic-humanities/skills/narratologist` — for analysis of the
  narrative structures through which participants explain their practices;
  thick description and narrative analysis frequently overlap in interview data.
- `core/code-review-checklist` — apply the two-pass review gate (ADR-058)
  to ethnographic research deliverables before circulation; reports with
  cultural or behavioural claims carry reputational and ethical risk equivalent
  to high-stakes analytical artifacts.

## ADR Anchors

- **ADR-058 (Brainstorm gate + two-pass adversarial review):** ethnographic
  reports, research memos, and persona documents produced under this skill
  are primary analytical artifacts requiring the two-pass review defined in
  ADR-058 §BORROW-2. The first pass reviews completeness and internal
  consistency of the fieldwork basis. The second pass reviews from an
  adversarial frame: specifically challenging whether emic/etic distinctions
  have been maintained, whether positionality has been adequately surfaced,
  and whether any generalisation exceeds the evidential basis. The deliverable
  must not be circulated until both passes are complete and any blocker
  findings are resolved.