Ethnography of the Sociology/Anthropology Department at St. Olaf College
373 Ethnographic Research Methods
May 17, 2004
Matthew B. Van Vleet
Katrina E. Vigen
Abstract
This study critically examines the culture of the St. Olaf
sociology/anthropology department focusing on: how the department
embodies the mission statement of the college; why students select the
soc/anth major; group identity and group cohesion in the major; and
finally power relations within the department. Data was gathered
through one-on-one qualitative interviews with both
sociology/anthropology students and faculty. The research reveals
that the St. Olaf soc/anth department is a tight-knit community
composed of people holding similar outlooks and values, such as the
need to effect tangible and positive change on the world.
Statement of the Problem
Traditionally Anthropology “studied down” those in
inferior positions of power, mostly non-western cultures, often in
exotic, far-off locales. Colonialism made it possible for
European scientists to explore and examine everyone and everything
within their vast empires. With decolonization, the end of
segregation in the United States, and increased rights for minorities,
women, and others formerly marginalized, anthropology could no longer
continue its racist, classist, and colonial approach to
ethnography. Today anthropologists are trying to shake off this
dark legacy of accessories to oppression by expanding their breadth of
possible subjects and revamping their research methodologies. One
of the ways they are doing this is by replacing their old technique of
“studying down” with “studying up,” a technique that emphasizes
studying people with a higher degree of power and prestige.
Studying scientists with PhDs in a lab in Silicon Valley sharply
contrasts with the stereotypical image of a white male anthropologist
in a pith helmet sitting in the bush in Africa observing tribal
dances.
Armed with this new vision of ethics in
anthropology, we set out to conduct research among those with equal or
higher degrees of power than ourselves. After some deliberation,
we soon realized that the sub-population that would be least
intimidated by our research—and thus in more of an equal position of
power—were those who had already experienced doing their own
ethnographic research. Hence we opted to study our own
sociology/anthropology department here at St. Olaf College—through
personal interviews with both students and professors. Of primary
interest to us was the strong community feeling that we as members of
the department have experienced. We were interested to see if our
thoughts and feelings in regards to the department were congruent with
others’ experiences.
We also chose to examine the St. Olaf
sociology/anthropology department because we feel this data will add
insight to the dialogue within the department aimed at increasing its
effectiveness and strengthening its performance within the
college. It is our hope that the department will glean some
helpful insights and have a base of comparison for future years.
Methodology
Our research consisted of nineteen one-hour
interviews: fifteen with St. Olaf soc/anth juniors and seniors; and
four with soc/anth professors. Subjects were contacted via email
thanks to name identification of majors posted on the
Sociology/Anthropology website. In addition, upon completion of
an interview, subjects were asked to recommend other departmental
majors (of junior or senior status) that they judged would be
interested in participating in our research. Interviews commenced
with a short survey [attached] asking the gender, year in school,
travel experience, exposure to diversity, type of community they grew
up in (rural/suburban/urban) and personality
(extroverted/introverted). Next, subjects were asked fifteen
open-ended questions (if they were a professor) or sixteen open-ended
questions (if they were a student) that gauged their attitudes in
reference to diverse aspect of the St. Olaf soc/anth major.
Questions ranged from reasons why subjects chose the soc/anth major at
St. Olaf, to what subjects thought about the atmosphere in their
soc/anth classes, to the role soc/anth has played in shaping subjects’
future life goals and/or life plans [attached].
Interviewing of the nineteen participant subjects
took place between the dates of March 29th and April 30th and was
conducted in the Cage dining area, the main floor of Rølvaag
Library, and on the concrete patio outside the south doors to Buntrock
Commons. Confidentiality was assured by deciding not to employ
the use of first or last names.
Setting
The setting for our research lies in rural southern
Minnesota, approximately forty miles south of the Twin Cities, in a
town named Northfield, famous for its two colleges and Malt-o-Meal
cereal headquarters. On the outskirts of this town lies a college
perched atop a large hill that offers scenic vistas of the surrounding
countryside and quaint center of downtown Northfield nestled up against
a meandering river. This college is a unique institution, founded
by Norwegian immigrants in 1874 at a time when only seventeen Minnesota
communities had high schools, and higher education was anything but
practical. Students call it home, professors call it their
livelihood, but most people just call it by its name—St. Olaf College.
The setting of St. Olaf is one of cultivated
beauty. It is surrounded by natural lands of all sorts, including
prairie, oak forest, and marshland. Closer to the heart of
campus, large oak trees surround imposing limestone castle-like
buildings; some of which are hidden in lush ivy for a majority of the
year. Any time of year, St. Olaf radiates with nature. Yet,
there is more to the campus and academic departments than the physical
surroundings. A strong residence life program consisting of
enthusiastic “junior counselors” and “residence hall assistants”
fosters an infectious community spirit among students. This
spirit of community is echoed throughout campus in the behaviors of
students, staff, and administration. Yet this spirit is difficult
to describe without turning to the St. Olaf mission statement:
St. Olaf, a four-year college of the Evangelical
Lutheran Church in America, provides an education committed to the
liberal arts, rooted in the Christian gospel, and incorporating a
global perspective. In the conviction that life is more than a
livelihood, it focuses on what is ultimately worthwhile and fosters the
development of the whole person in mind, body, and spirit.
Now in its second century, St. Olaf College remains
dedicated to the high standards set by its Norwegian immigrant
founders. In the spirit of free inquiry and free expression, it offers
a distinctive environment that integrates teaching, scholarship,
creative activity, and opportunities for encounter with the Christian
Gospel and God's call to faith. The college intends that its graduates
combine academic excellence and theological literacy with a commitment
to lifelong learning.
St. Olaf College strives to be an inclusive
community, respecting those of differing backgrounds and beliefs.
Through its curriculum, campus life, and off -campus programs, it
stimulates students' critical thinking and heightens their moral
sensitivity; it encourages them to be seekers of truth, leading lives
of unselfish service to others; and it challenges them to be
responsible and knowledgeable citizens of the world
St. Olaf’s mission statement has been simplified
into what is now called the RICH statement. This statement
says: “In order to nurture and foster the spirit of the St. Olaf
community, I will strive to practice and encourage among my colleagues:
Respect for the dignity of others, despite differences in our beliefs;
Integrity in action and intent; Celebration of the gift of community by
becoming engage in it; Honesty in all aspects of life, in and out of
the classroom; and recognizing that community has no boundaries, I will
carry these values with me as I travel, work, study and serve.”
Students are asked to put a printed card with the statement on it in
their wallet or purse, carrying it wherever they go.
It is within this unique St. Olaf College “spirit”
that we regard the St. Olaf sociology/anthropology department, the
focus of the research in this paper. The department is relatively
small as departments go, with no more than approximately twenty majors
per graduating class, and a total of seven professors (two half-time,
and five full-time). In addition, the department is rather
new. Originally conceived as a strictly sociology major—which
tends to focus on domestic issues within Western culture and complex
societies—the department eventually added anthropology. The
department website is quick to point out that “as academic disciplines,
sociology and anthropology have different histories, special
theoretical traditions, and a different focus—anthropology more on
the societies and cultures outside Europe and the U.S., and
sociology more on modern, industrial societies and their
problems. But both disciplines share an interest in
understanding how societies work, the meaning of culture, the process
of social change, and the relationship between us as individuals
and the groups and societies of which we are a part”
(http://www.stolaf.edu/depts/sociology). By combining the two
disciplines, a unique opportunity was created in which students could
seriously pursue the critical study of human interaction within
societies and between cultures. Thus, the soc/anth department
aims to help students examine the world and draw insight from both
domestic and international frames of mind.
Embodying the St. Olaf RICH and Mission Statements
The sociology/anthropology department at St. Olaf
explores “the human condition” by examining how society and culture
influence individual’s lives. As a department at the college, it
has the obligation of fulfilling the school’s mission statement.
It is hoped that all departments and activities at St. Olaf would
strive to fulfill and live by both the college’s mission and RICH
statements. Our research suggests that the sociology/anthropology
department does an excellent job at incorporating these goals and
attitudes into both the curriculum as well as the everyday behaviors of
those involved in the community- in and out of the classroom.
The global perspective is crucial to the department and is one of the
means by which both disciplines can be brought together into one
major. By definition, the field of sociology looks at the social
structures of complex society, in order to discover how they shape the
individual’s social situation, while anthropology studies how culture
impacts all aspects of one’s society and life. While this divide
is present at St. Olaf, all classes also include the global perspective
of the college that lessens their differences. Historically,
sociology examined Western problems and complex societies, while
anthropology explored small-scale societies in far off exotic
locales. However, at St. Olaf every member of the department has
a global worldview. Here, sociology professors examine the social
structures in other countries, speak foreign languages, and conduct
research in non-western fields. Anthropology professors also don’t
restrict themselves to non-Western subjects and encourage the
exploration of sub-cultures within the United States through their
classes and course readings. The international perspective of the
department was widely recognized by the students and staff interviewed,
with comments such as:
“The faculty is well traveled.”
“Every professor speaks other languages.”
“Profs have exposure to diverse peoples, cultures and languages.”
“There is an awareness of international problems.”
“The department has helped me become more accepting of the world.”
“We think about other cultures.”
“It is more global, more classes are interested in an international perspective.”
“People are open to other cultures.”
“People in the department aren’t ‘cookie-cutter’ like the rest of St. Olaf.”
This perspective allows the students to explore other worlds, and
encourages them to branch out in their awareness of the people across
the earth—learning not only their diverse challenges but also the
commonalities among cultures, social structures, and social problems
everywhere.
One of the required readings for the Department’s Anthropological
Theory class during fall 2003 was a book entitled Exotic No More by
Jeremy MacClancy, in which anthropologists try to counter the
stereotypes and labels traditionally associated with the field of
anthropology. MacClancy swears by the potential of anthropology
to explain and empower marginalized people, to understand social issues
in order to contribute to the betterment of society, all while trying
to cast off its traditional association with colonialism, racism and
inequality. MacClancy hopes to make the study of anthropology
approachable to people from a range of ethnic and socio-economic
backgrounds as well as to give it a social significance by
demonstrating its potential as a tool for social justice. This
seems to reflect the view of the anthropologists in the department at
St. Olaf, as well as the goals and motives of students majoring in
Soc/Anth. Everyone interviewed stressed the importance of
social and economic justice, as well as how they wanted to ‘change the
world’:
“The professors are liberal progressives, focused on human rights and equality.”
“There is a desire to aid in the department, a desire for social change: people are not satisfied with the status quo.”
“Our department is similar to some others, but what makes it stand out is how socially engaged everyone is.”
“The major has reassured me that helping people is the way to go; I
have to interact with people, help them open doors, and change lives.”
“The department has made me want to work in social justice, since I am more aware of the problems and how to make a difference.”
These excerpts are not only great examples of how the major strives to
fulfill the goals in the mission statement of the college by “leading
lives of unselfish services to others” and living responsibly, but also
how the RICH statement is practiced in sociology/anthropology at St.
Olaf.
St. Olaf is a Christian school, and hence the soc/anth department finds
itself in an interesting position—for it does not promote any one
religion over another. In the department, the anthropological
theory of cultural relativism—which says that moral “truth” is relative
and cultures must therefore be studied with the suspension of moral
judgments—predominates. Following in this theory, Christianity is
not championed as the one true religion. This tension between
ideologies can be somewhat problematic, and some within the department
feel that it has led soc/anth to play a diminished role within the
college. A quick comparison with the secular Carleton College
points to the fact that the St. Olaf soc/anth department is
comparatively small. Though Carleton College’s student population
is roughly two-thirds the size of St. Olaf, the college’s soc/anth
department is nearly the same size as St. Olaf. Nonetheless, in
the larger picture, St. Olaf’s values are largely aligned and fulfilled
by the soc/anth department—namely, the ideals of equality, justice, and
the pursuit of knowledge.
Hardly any student in the department is looking for a “livelihood;”
rather, like the missions statement asserts, they tend to have a
vocation to help make society better, and are committed to “what is
ultimately worthwhile”. Students spoke of values and success in
different terms than the typical capitalist understanding—which strives
for economic capital in the form money. Comments included:
“People are not in the major for the money.”
“Money doesn’t matter to people in Soc/Anth.”
“Success is when I am happy.”
“The topics we look at examine social problems that put a human over an economic face.”
“No one is very marketable; nobody goes into the major for economic motives, but for social justice.”
“Majors are not for corporate high paying jobs- we have no money orientation.”
The majors seek justice and have learned from their professors and
other role models that accumulating economic capital is not the only
means of making a difference in the world or of achieving success,
prestige, or happiness. French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu
explains: “According to my empirical investigations, [the] fundamental
powers are economical capital (in its different forms) , culture
capital, social capital, and symbolic capital, which is the form the
various species of capital assume when they are perceived and
recognized as legitimate” (Bourdieu 17). Thus, soc/anth majors
are not interested in the sole acquisition of economic capital; rather,
they recognize the potential power in social, cultural, and symbolic
capital.
Bourdieu goes on to explain how symbolic power—derived from social and
cultural capital—can have a noticeable impact on the world: “Symbolic
power … is a power of ‘world-making.’ … [T]o change the world, one has
to change the ways of world making, that is, the vision of the world
and the practical operations by which groups are produced and
reproduced … symbolic power has to be based on the possession of
symbolic capital. The power to impose upon other minds a vision,
old or new, of social divisions depends on the social authority
acquired in previous struggles. Symbolic capital is a credit; it
is the power granted to those who have obtained sufficient recognition
to be in a position to impose recognition” (Bourdieu 22-23).
Thus, soc/anth students use the soc/anth department as a means to
acquire symbolic power—through cultural and social knowledge.
This symbolic power opens up the possibility for majors to accomplish
their goals by making a difference in the world.
This idea that knowledge leads to empowerment is
echoed in the writings of Michel Foucault. Power is often thought
of in negative terms—as a tool of oppression and corruption.
However, Foucault realized that power is necessary and can be harnessed
for the benefit of society: “What makes power effective, what makes one
obey it, is not simply that it is felt as a power that says no, but
that in fact it produces things, it produces pleasure, it creates
knowledge, produces discourse; it has to be seen as a productive
network which seems through the social body, and I far more than just a
negative instance whose function is to punish” (Foucault 137).
Our research shows that sociology/anthropology majors have been exposed
to these ideas and influenced by this perspective. Knowledge is
not simply acquired for the sake of knowledge; instead it should be
used to promote tangible action to effect changes on society.
Foucault says it best when he exclaims: “power exists only when it is
put into action” (219).
The ideas of Bourdieu and Foucault can be complemented by individual
agency, first pioneered by Max Weber. This theory says that if we
understand the structures that surround us, we can take action to
improve our situation and the situations of others by manipulating the
system (class notes). Drawing upon these ideas, Peter L. Berger
uses a metaphor in his book—“Invitation to Sociology”—to explain the
ability we have to effect change on our situations: “We see the puppets
dancing on their miniature stage, moving up and down as the strings
pull them around, following the prescribed course of their various
little parts. We learn to understand the logic of this theater
sand we find ourselves in its motions. We locate ourselves in
society and thus recognize our own position as we hang from its subtle
strings. For a moment we see ourselves as puppets indeed.
But then we grasp a decisive difference between the puppet theater and
our own drama. Unlike the puppets, we have the possibility of
stopping in our movements, looking up and perceiving the machinery by
which we have been moved. In this act lies the first stop towards
freedom” (Berger 176). Soc/anth majors know that by learning
about the structures that bind and oppress people, they can liberate
themselves and others.
Choosing the Sociology/Anthropology Major
At the onset of this research, we were particularly
curious about the reasons or motivations behind why students chose to
be sociology/anthropology majors. Was it childhood experiences?
Was it personality traits? Was it parental ideologies? In
reviewing the literature, we found a handful of different studies,
though none of them qualitative. A study by Karen Leppel, Mary
Williams, and Charles Waldauer entitled “The Impact of Parental
Occupation and Socioeconomic Status on Choice of College Major” argues
that parental occupation has a detectable influence on a student’s
choice of business versus non-business curriculum. Employing the
use of pre-collected data from the Center for Education Statistics
(NCES), the authors of the study conclude that “having a father in a
professional or executive occupation has a larger effect on female
students than does having a mother in a similar occupation. The
opposite holds for males. Women from families with high
socioeconomic status are less likely to major in business; the opposite
holds for males. Students who believe that being very well off
financially is very important are more likely to major in business than
are other students” (Leppel 373).
A second study authored by Donna Y. Ford,
“Perceptions of University Students Relative to Gender and College
Major,” analyzed student perceptions regarding what does or does not
constitute a family. At a significant level, Ford showed that
student education majors were willing to accept more liberal
definitions of what it meant to be a family; thus—making the case that
ideology could play a role in the selection of college major.
A third study authored by Jennifer S. Thompson, “The
Effect of Single-Sex Secondary Schooling on Women’s Choice of College
Major,” makes the case that gender composition in preparatory schooling
can influence major selection in college. Females from all-girls’
high schools were more likely than females from heterogeneous high
schools to major in “sex-integrated” fields compared to “highly female
fields” (Thompson 257). Thompson discusses the fact that feminist
attitudes, nurtured in an all-girls’ school, may be partly responsible
for the observed differences.
In conducting our research among junior and senior
St. Olaf sociology/anthropology students, we found no apparent
relationship between parental socioeconomic status and tendency to
select the soc/anth major. However, parents did play a key role
in students’ selection of the soc/anth major. Most soc/anth
students come from families with parents who provided ideologies and
environments conducive to understanding diverse cultures and working to
further such goals as social justice. Confirming the earlier
predictions made by Ford, most subjects had similar ideologies, and
perceived themselves to be left of center on the political
spectrum—agreeing that society should provide for the
disadvantaged. Finally, in regards to Thompson’s study of same
sex high schools, we found that most soc/anth majors were female,
possessed feminist viewpoints, and viewed the soc/anth department as an
inherently gender integrated department—thus supporting Thompson’s
argument that feminist attitudes can promote females to choose “gender
integrated majors.”
In general, we found that the quantitative research
studies mentioned provided only small and obscured views of the greater
picture. College major selection is inherently an individual
experience shaped by a complex set of criteria that defies quantitative
explanation. However, from a qualitative point of view, we were
able to find patterns and trends. Our data suggests that St. Olaf
sociology/anthropology majors tend to choose the major in response to:
parental ideological influence; life experiences with diversity or
cultural exposure; values and goals that place an importance on working
with people and helping them; individual experiences with the St. Olaf
sociology/anthropology department; and a subjective “feel of the
department.” The following quoted and paraphrased student
interviews reflect these wide ranging reasons for becoming soc/anth
majors:
[Student 1] “I came to St. Olaf for the
excellent music and study abroad programs. In the fall of my
sophomore year I traveled for the first time outside the United
States—on the St. Olaf “Term in Asia” program. The experience
opened my mind to the cultural aspects of the world such that when I
returned, I no longer wanted to be a music major”; rather, [I wanted to
be] a Sociology/Anthropology major.
[Student 2] Hmm…how did I become attracted to
the Soc/Anth department? Well, I really liked the professor that
taught my Introduction to Sociology course. I’m also concerned
with social justice, which probably came from my parents (my mom is a
pastor). I grew up in a very diverse area out, so that might’ve
shaped my interest in ‘sosh’ [sociology/anthropology]. My
elementary school was across from ‘the projects’ so there were lots of
African Americans and other children in my classes. …While
growing up, I also attended a 150 person summer camp with only 10 white
kids (talk about being a minority). … I also received a lot of
sociology credits by going on “Term in Asia,” so it made practical
sense for me to major in soc[iology].
[Student 3] In the beginning, I was
more attracted to the education department, but I enjoyed my “Social
Problems/Social Change” course and loved the people in the
department. Professors were very welcoming; almost like surrogate
parents. I felt like (and still do feel) that I can go to them
for whatever help I need.
[Student 4] I grew up in a tri-lingual family,
so I’ve always been fascinated with other cultures. This
fascination eventually turned into an appreciation and love for
anthropology, which I plan to continue studying in grad school.
I’ve studied at other schools, and the atmosphere here in the
sociology/anthropology department is very different than I’m used to
(for the better). I feel like professors really care about their
students and are willing to help them outside of the classroom.
This sense of “community” in the department really helped me decide to
join the St. Olaf Soc/Anth. major.
As the responses of these four students show,
choosing the sociology/anthropology major—and perhaps any college major
for that matter—is a complex process based on many factors.
Condensing such a list of factors can be daunting, but many of the
traits can be grouped together into patterned associations. Life
experiences with diversity or cultural exposure, the influence of
parental ideologies, individual experiences within the soc/anth
department—such as a first course in soc/anth, and “feel” of the
department can all be categorized under the broad category of “life
experience.” Such life experiences are applicable to Max Weber’s
theory of life chances—whereby the paths of our lives are directly
affected by our access to opportunities (i.e. the “economic or market
situation” we are born into by chance)
(http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0072817186/student_view0/chapter4/chapter_summary.html).
Let us take a moment to examine these life chances, their impact on
student subjects’ goals and values, and the subsequent tendency of St.
Olaf students to select the soc/anth major.
Effect of “Life Chances” upon Major Selection
A common theme in our data shows that most subjects
selected the soc/anth major due to common goals and values that place
an importance on working with people and helping to make a direct
difference in society. Such goals and values were not crafted
overnight, but rather through experiences created by “life
chances”—most notably: exposure to diversity, parental ideological
influences, experience with the soc/anth department, and subjective
“feel” of the department. In general, the more exposure to
diverse peoples and racial groups a subject had, the more likely they
were to embrace the values of the soc./anth department (values of equal
opportunity, anti-racism, and social justice, for example).
“I grew up in a middle class diverse
household. Until seventh grade I was [one of] the minority,
(though I didn’t mix with the other diverse peoples that continued to
move in). When coming to St. Olaf, I took a class called ‘Latin
American Culture’ and felt for the first time that I could identify
with others [from my ethnic group]. I feel such a connection to
the major, that I’m considering becoming a sociology professor one day.”
Likewise, parental ideology similar to the department’s tended to make students more likely to select the soc/anth major.
“My parents have always encouraged social
justice. My mom’s a pastor and dad’s a salesman, but they’re both
concerned with social issues. Growing up, we would talk politics
at the dinner table, and that has helped to shape my perspective on
life. I really want to help others, and I feel that most of my
fellow soc/anth majors feel the same way”
“My parents always told me that different lifestyles
are ok; they’re just not how we do it. One time when I was around
nine years old, my parents drove me through the ‘Red Light District’ in
Amsterdam. They explained to me that this is how these people
live their lives. It’s neither better nor worse than the way we
live our lives, simply different. I think I also was attracted to
sociology, because while growing up, my mom always liked to stare in
peoples windows, and observe them.”
In addition, many students selected the major based upon positive
interactions with professors, or because they liked the “feel” of the
department.
“I was initially only an English major. But I
chose to add the soc/anth major because I loved the concepts of
anthropology, and the ‘feel’ of the soc/anth department. It was
not at all like the English department [which is larger and less
personalized].”
In summary, our research suggests that life chances
in student’s lives have had an impact on their choice of the soc/anth
major. Student subjects did not choose the race or the
ideological views of their family, nor did they have complete control
over their experiences with the department. Nearly all said they
thoroughly enjoyed their first class in the department. Yet,
these attitudes may be partly due to the chance of getting a professor
that they got along with, the availability (or lack) of other majors,
thinking style, or having had the opportunity to devote sufficient time
to succeed in the class (as opposed to having to spend time working,
etc.). As in life, many of our decisions are influenced by forces
outside our control that push or pull us in a certain direction;
subjects’ decisions to major in soc/anth at St. Olaf appear no
different.
Exchange Theory approach to Soc/Anth major selection
Exchange theory, developed by respected theorists
such as Homans, Blau, and Emerson, suggests that people act in ways
that “maximize their benefits” and minimize their consequences (Ritzer
402). Thus, subjects who choose the soc/anth major can be viewed
as acting in this type of rational cost/benefit manner. Selecting
the sociology/anthropology major brings with it certain negative
consequences. For one, soc/anth does not necessarily lead to a
high-paying job or career out of college. Students who study
soc/anth do so largely because they like it the best or because it will
bring them non-economic rewards in the future, such as having the
ability to help their community in the future, thereby gaining social
status and respect. Values play a large part of determining the
net balance in a cost benefit analysis, and this certainly remains the
case in selecting the soc/anth major. One of the questions we
asked subjects in our research was: “What is success for you?”
Nearly everyone had similar answers. Success to them was doing
something that made them happy, and doing something that was
other-oriented rather than self-oriented. Subjects gave similar
responses when asked about the importance of money:
“I don’t deny that money is important, but it’s not the driving force for success in my life”
“Success to me is finding a vocation that allows me
to help people and the world. It’s what I believe will bring me
the most joy. I didn’t become a soc/anth major for the money”
“Money oriented people go into psychology,
economics, or medicine. If you’re a soc/anth major, chances are
that you’re not in it for the money”
Nearly all gave responses similar to these, indicating that while money
is necessary in life, it does not constitute the end all, be all.
In summary, exchange theory offers another lens with which to view the
choice of college major, adding depth to our discussion.
Group Identity / Group Cohesion
The idea of group cohesion is central to any small community.
Carron, et al., explain that this concept can be measured and
understood “through the perceptions of individuals within the group”
and that it “represents shared beliefs of the membership” (470).
The sociology/anthropology department at St. Olaf is a great example of
such a definition: a small and cohesive group with shared values and
meanings. As discussed above, the department has common goals
that reflect those of the mission and RICH statements, such as a global
perspective, unselfish service to others, respect for differences and
also the celebration of community- while providing a liberal arts
education. As students of the liberal arts and majors in
sociology/anthropology, majors in the department have shared meanings
and concepts, such as ‘culture’, ‘social deviance’, ‘anomie’,
‘Feminism’, “the other”, etc., that are just apart of everyday language
in the classes and during discussions outside of structured
courses. There are also shared meanings for the definition of
otherwise abstract terms or goals that are played out in the lives of
majors, such as “what does success mean to you” or “what values are
important to you?”. Having strong values and opinions about
life goals or actions seems to be common in the department, and the
responses for these questions were very unselfish, reflecting their
wider desire to help society, or the global community, by making a
difference in one way or another.
Hornsey, et al. point out that their research found that participants
who had a weak moral basis for their attitude conformed to the group
norm on private behaviors. In contrast, those who had strong
moral basis for their attitude showed non-conformity on private
behaviors and counter-conformity on public behaviors (319), and this
may explain the behavior of those in the department. This strong moral
basis felt by those interviewed for this study permits them to stand
firm in their motives and goals, despite the fact that their views are
not held by the majority of the larger American society. The
‘self-categorization theory’ might also play a role in the construction
of strong and similar values and goals in the department. It
hypothesizes that an intragroup process of conformity creates a
polarized or more extreme version of the members’ initial opinion of an
in-group norm (McGarty 1). This suggests that students and/or
professors might not have held such staunch views on injustice or
inequality originally, but once part of the culture of the department,
their ideas on such subjects became reinforced and thus made more
extreme.
The other possibility is that members of the small society of the
sociology/anthropology department are motivated by either informational
or normative influence within the small group of the major. In
‘informational influence’, a person relies on others to determine what
is correct, especially if the reference group is seen to be more
competent and informed, while in ‘normative influence’ people want to
‘fit in’ with the majority, so they pretend to agree to be accepted
socially (Hornsey 320). In this view, when individuals
entered the major, they might not have held such strong values about
social and economic justice and equality, but they either acquired them
from their role models in the department, such as favorite professors,
or felt pressure to express such views when surrounded by other majors,
and reflected this when interviewed in order to avoid social
censure. Either way, those in the Sociology/Anthropology
department at St. Olaf stress the common goal of saving people and the
planet, whether or not that is a genuine attitude or not, and whether
they will actually act on their spoken values when confronted with
actual decisions in the ‘real world’.
Central in many communities in a variety of cultures is sharing meals
and drink (commensality) with the fellow members of one’s group. Few
eat with strangers, and thus the consumption of food and beverage with
others is both a symbol of a group and also an action that reinforces
the feeling of community and cohesion between people. Jose E.
Limon wrote of the messages layered in food and the meanings of the
actions of those involved in its preparation and consumption,
explaining that food is a code, in his essay entitled Carne, carnales,
and the carnivalesque: Bakhtinian batos, disorder, and narrative
discourse. One key piece of information from Limon that is
applicable in the description of the sociology/anthropology department
is that according to him, “one does not speak ideologically of
friendship and community; one practices it in the symbolic action of
meat, body, and language” (480).
Our research shows that many people in the department enjoy food and
drink in the student lounge. Countless subjects mentioned buying
pop, enjoying free candy, enjoying coffee and tea, often watching
professors store or heat their lunches. Eating is a central part
of the laid back and “homey” atmosphere found in that space.
Other times, homemade cookies, chips, or apples can be found for those
who pass through, reinforcing the community feeling in the department
and making the room very appealing and welcoming to the hungry and
stressed college student in need of an energy boost. Both authors
have experienced many good and fun times eating, drinking, or
conversing with fellow majors or professors in the lounge, and this is
a trait that allows the department to stand out from the others at St.
Olaf, reflecting how particularly close, comfortable and equal members
of the group feel with each other. This demonstrates how we ‘practice’
community, and practice the ideas we learn from our professors and
speak of in our classes, such as acceptance and tolerance for all
people (one will not eat with those they disrespect) and equality and a
lack of hierarchies (feminist and Marxist theories).
Others interviewed spoke of how they eat meals in “the caf” with fellow
majors, and one of the authors witnessed a particularly relevant
occurrence just this week: a few majors sat down together at lunch when
they were randomly joined by the author, and when the four noticed a
major eating by himself, they moved to a larger table to accommodate
everyone and include him. Once at the larger table, they were
quickly spotted by another department member who added to the
group—making an impromptu party of six and a collectively improvised
lunch. This seemingly trivial event is noteworthy because it
properly reflects the close-knit community of the St. Olaf soc/anth
department. In addition, some majors even go out to the bars to
drink together, an act that further reinforces that the department is
cohesive, since ‘going to the bar’ involves making plans with one
another ahead of time. The possible equivalent among the
professors, for such student interaction, is the dinners and/or
brunches they occasionally share in their homes. However, as one
senior member of the department noted, such ‘get-togethers’ were more
common when all professors lived in Northfield. Now that a larger
percentage of the professors reside in the Twin Cities, such off-campus
‘get-togethers’ are more infrequent.
The sociology/anthropology department at St. Olaf is a caring and
supportive community for its members, and those interviewed spoke very
highly of it, as well as the crucial role it has played in their
overall experiences at St. Olaf. It is a small and personal group
where most people know everyone else, the atmosphere is friendly, the
classes are ‘laid back’ and the professors genuinely care. Very
strong words and encouraging sentences were used when describing the
department and the relationships within it, such as:
“This is the only community I belong to on campus.”
“It feels like home.”
“We are cohesive and the interactions between students and professors
are more on the lines of friendships, or could be described as motherly
and fatherly.”
“There is a lot of love and support.”
“Everyone is a family.”
“It’s homey.”
“I have a lot of good friends in the major.”
“It has made my St. Olaf experience better and more enjoyable.”
“I love the people and feel close to other majors.”
“Profs are more personal and students can share family concerns or discuss life choices openly with them.”
“The department is close-knit.”
On the other hand, the fact that a “Soc. Clique” might exist was
brought up, and one major described the group as being “like a cult”!
This highlights the idea of group identity, and the fact that some
majors might feel like ‘insiders’ to the community, while others see
themselves as ‘outsiders’ in the otherwise cohesive department.
It is thought that those who spend significant amounts of their time
outside class with other majors and hanging out in the soc/anth lounge
are parties to the ‘insiders clique’, and it should be added that these
people do feel most attached to the major and describe it using the
most positive language. The individual who used “cult” to
describe the group was also only one of two people who admitted during
the interviews to feeling more committed to their other major,
reinforcing her ‘outsider’ status.
Power Relations
A common theme that emerged from our data was the
feeling that the interpersonal interactions within the soc/anth
department—be they professor/professor, student/professor, or
student/student—make the department a unique place. In general,
such interactions make the soc/anth department a welcoming place
conductive to a safe and comfortable learning environment that upholds
the very ideas and ideals the department teaches. Particularly
interesting in the context of such interpersonal interactions is the
perception of power relations—both from the perspective of students and
the perspective of professors. Hence, the following section shall
be devoted to such a discussion.
Richard Emerson, a notable exchange theorist,
devoted a large part of his academic life to “power-dependence theory”
(Ritzer 418). Emerson defined power as the “level of potential
cost which one actor can induce another to accept, while dependence
involves the level of potential cost an actor will accept within a
relation” (418). Emerson went on to say that “where there is an
imbalance in the dependencies, the actor with less dependence has an
advantage in terms of power. Thus, power is a potential built
into the structure of the relationship between A and B” (418).
Nowhere is this inherent power structure clearer
than in the college classroom and academic department. Not only
do professors have years—often decades—more academic experience than
their pupils, which gives them inherent power, but they also have
access to a large power source in the act of grading. With their
access to near unilateral control of the grading process, professors
can be seen as the gatekeepers that students must get past to achieve
success in the future. Therefore, professors hold not only the
power of evaluating how well students do in their classes, but
also the extent to which students will be able to excel in the
future. Being college students, we can attest to the power of
professors. Students gripe and complain about the amount of work
professors assign them, but those who wish to succeed in the future
eventually stop complaining and start “doing as they are told.”
Such power difference can often lead to students feeling a certain
amount of hostility and animosity towards their professors, which can
impede the learning process.
The St. Olaf soc/anth department does not differ
from other academic departments in the level of work required; in fact,
many students say the department “expects more from students than other
departments;” “requires classes and assignments that are hardcore;” and
“dumps the workload on students.” But the department does differ
from “other” department at St. Olaf in the overwhelmingly positive
perceptions students hold regarding the power relations and generalized
“feeling” in the department. The following is only a sampling of
student attitudes in regards to Soc/Anth professors and the department
in general:
[Student 1] “One thing unique about the St. Olaf Soc/Anth department is
that I don’t feel the presence of a power relationship between profs
and students.”
[Student 2] “Profs are crazy, but love their students. Each one loves their own subject matter.”
[Student 3] “Professors are really approachable. Even if you
don’t know them, you can approach them. They gave me great advice about
grad schools, even though I don’t talk in class.”
[Student 4] “Professors are quirky, and dress funny, but they’re really
nice, concerned with the interests of students, and have the best
intentions”
[Student 5] “Professors help to nurture a relaxed feeling of open
interaction in the department. I feel free to say my opinions”
[Student 6] “Professors create a laid back attitude in and outside of
class. One wears crazy Mexican outfits, and has a cup of tea in
class. He speaks with long pauses, and doesn’t demand a rushed
pace. Another professor used humor in his classroom, saying: I
know this tough, you know this material is tough; I don’t want to be
doing this, you don’t want to doing this; but let’s do it. So
let’s do it.”
Widespread presence of such positive attitudes
towards soc/anth professors and the soc/anth department at St. Olaf
begs a multi-causal explanation. Yet, power relationships without
a doubt play some role. In our research, students tended to
notice that professors attempted to treat them in an egalitarian
fashion.
[Student 1] “On the first day of class, my professor asked the class to
call him by his first name. That was really weird and awkward,
but now I don’t give it a second thought.”
[Student 2] “Professors often sit down with students in the classroom
setting, rather than distancing themselves by standing behind a
lectern. That helps the conversation, discussion, and learning
among students by promoting open interaction and a relaxed feeling.”
Such interactions go against the
norm discussed by Emerson’s exchange theory. To understand why
professors acted in such a manner that encouraged downplaying power
relations, we interviewed four professors. One professor felt
confident in his position of power by the simple fact of sitting at the
front of the class, and didn’t feel the need to stand behind a
lectern. He felt it created a more comfortable atmosphere for the
students. Another professor felt that students learn better in a
relaxed environment, and hence behaved in such a manner as to maximize
such learning. Perhaps such behavior is a by-product of the inner
desires among soc/anth professors and staff to create an environment
reflective of the soc/anth ideology. Soc/anth ideology includes
among other things a strong belief in equality. Perhaps soc/anth
professors strive to treat students in a more equalizing manner so as
to encourage and further the student’s learning of the material (not
only do students hear the message of equality and fair treatment in
class, but they also “live it” in their day to day activities within
the department). This is only a suggestion, for we do not have
conclusive data on the matter. However, it seems entirely
possible.
The professor/student interaction is not the only
relationship deemphasizing power structure; student/student and
professor/professor interactions do as well. In our experience
with the soc/anth department, students also serve as moderators of the
power structure. When a student violates the unwritten terms of
classroom interaction—for example, by taking it upon themselves to be
overly critical of a professor or fellow students, acting like they are
the only ones who know the material, or dominating the
conversation—students employ methods to reel the group member back to
the egalitarian power structure that predominates in the
classroom. From the authors’ personal experience, such methods
include: ridicule/teasing of the person through humor, strong
disagreement with the offending student, and talking strongly behind
their backs. In any event, our research shows that students have
solid relationships with fellow classmates both inside the classroom
and outside. St. Olaf soc/anth majors are united by common
ideologies towards life and other people, and serve as a support system
when other (more conservative) ideologies prevail.
“I don’t know what I’d do without my soc/anth group of friends and
classmates. Most of my friends are conservatives and I’m much
more liberal, so it’s nice to know that there are other people who
share my views”
By working together under a common ideology, soc/anth students serve to
act out their ideologies by maintaining equality of power in the
classrooms and department setting.
Finally, our research shows that the
intra-departmental interactions between professors and other professors
serve to create a sense of community that attracts students.
“This is the most pleasant department I’ve worked in,” says one
professor. “I’ve been to everyone else’s house [in the
department].” “We’re very committed to the material,” says
another professor, “and united by our collective focus on
cross-cultural education.” From a student’s perspective, this
“us” over “me” mentality makes the department a pleasure within which
to work. Professors are not plagued by internal strife; hence
students have a set of wonderful role-models to emulate. In fact
the data attests to this point. Almost all students, when asked
who their role models were, listed at least one professor from the
department.
In summary, the typical power relations discussed by
Emerson’s exchange theory are notably absent within the department as
compared with a “typical” major. Professors aim to treat students
more as equals on the path of learning, rather than inferiors that must
be subordinated. This attitude is generally shared in the
student-to-student relationships and professor-to-professor
relationships. This helps to create a sense of satisfaction among
students majoring in the department, and helps to develop a strong
“community” feeling.
Conclusion
The data obtained through our ethnographic research
on the soc/anth department confirmed many of the authors’ own opinions
about the culture of the department. Almost everyone interviewed
highlighted common themes, such as the ‘close-knit’ feelings within the
major and the strong relationships among students and between students
and faculty.
Both faculty and student majors also share a strong
desire to help ameliorate the condition of oppressed and marginalized
people and strongly believe in the need for and values of social and
economic justice. Many hope that through the pursuit of
knowledge—specifically the study of the structures of society and the
cultures of the world—that they may be able to use this symbolic power
to change present inequalities and injustices.
The fact that the majority of students interviewed
shared extremely similar motives, goals, and opinions was slightly
alarming to the authors. The overwhelmingly positive responses to
our questions about the department were at times surprising, especially
because as members of the department ourselves we have personally
observed contradictory information. We hypothesize that our
status as members of the group under study, and the fact that this
research was for a class in the major, has skewed the data to an
unknown degree. It is possible that under these circumstance
students and staff were more reserved about their own opinions and
chose to repeat positive caricatures of the major, and ‘stick to the
party line’ so to speak. It should be remembered that the
soc/anth major is a relatively small major, populated by curious people
who both enjoy and are trained to eavesdrop on others and communicate
with all types of people. This makes it an ideal breeding ground
for gossip, despite strong efforts to ensure complete
confidentiality. Aware of this fact, many people might have
preferred to be positive and optimistic, rather than risk the
possibility of being ostracized by the group.
Future studies should take this hypothesis into
consideration. Having non-majors conduct the same research may
reveal somewhat different data—perhaps a greater degree of diversity—in
the responses. The possibility that the St. Olaf
sociology/anthropology department has fallen victim to the
‘group-think’ phenomenon is also a legitimate concern, however, we
personally believe the first hypothesis is more reasonable.
Works Cited:
Berger, P.L. (1963). Invitation to Sociology: A Humanistic Perspective. New York: Doubleday.
Bourdieu, P. (1989). Social Space and Symbolic Power. Sociological Theory, 7(1),
14-25
Carron, A.V., et al. (2003). Do Individual Perceptions of Groups Cohesion Reflect shared
Beliefs? An Empirical Analysis. Small Group research, 34(4), 468-496.
Foucault, M. &Fontana (1979). Truth and Power: an interview with Michel Foucault.
(F. Edholm, Trans.). Critique of Anthropology, 4(13-14), 131-137. (Original work
published 1977).
Foucault, M. (1983). The Subject and Power. In Dreyfus, H.L. & Rabinow, P. Michel
Foucault, Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics (2nd ed.). (pp. 209-226).
Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Hornsey, M.J., et al. (2003). On being loud and proud: Non-conformity and counter-
conformity to group norms. British Journal of Social Psychology, 42(3), 319-335.
Leppel, K., Williams, M.L. & Waldauer, C. (2001). The Impact of Parental Occupation
and Socioeconomic Status on Choice of College Major. Journal of Family and
Economic Issues, 22(4), 373-394.
Limon, J.E. (1989). “Carne, carnales,” and the Carnivalesque: Bakhtinian “batos,”
Disorder, and Narrative Discourses. American Ethnologist, 16(3), 471-486.
MacClancy, J. (Ed.). (2002). Exotic No More: Anthropology on the Front Lines.
Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
McGarty, C., et al. (1992). Group Polarization as Conformity to the Prototypical
Group Member. British Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 1-20.
Pearson, C. & Dellman-Jenkins, M. (1997). Parental Influence on a Student’s Selection
Of a College Major. College Student Journal, 31(3), 301-311.
Ritzer, G. & Goodman, D. (2004). Sociological Theory –
Sixth Edition. Boston: McGraw Hill.
(Chapter summary retrieved from World Wide Web May
20th, 2004:
http://highered.mcgrawhill.com/sites/0072817186/student_view0/chapter4/chapte
r_summary.html).
Thompson, J. (2003). The Effects of Single-Sex Secondary Schooling on
Women’s Choice of College Major. Sociological
Perspectives, 46(2), 257-278.
Appendix A
Verbal project information protocol
Thank you so much for agreeing to take part in my
project for a research methods course required for my major in
sociology/ anthropology taught by Professor Carolyn Anderson, who is
supervising my project. My project is aimed at examining the subculture
of the Soc/Anth Department at St. Olaf College. We are
particularly interested in understanding the experiences students have
as members of the Soc/Anth department at St. Olaf, and I will be
interviewing junior and senior students. I will be asking you a
number of questions, and the interview will take about an hour. I will
write a paper that will be available on the sociology/ anthropology
department web site, and I may present a summary of my findings at a
professional sociology or anthropology conference.
I will protect your identity and the confidentiality
of the information you give me. This means that I will not disclose
your participation in this project to anyone else or include
information in any papers, presentations, or discussions about my
project that would allow someone else to identify you.
I hope the results of my study will contribute to a
greater understanding of the reasons students select and stay with a
particular major; a greater understanding of how the Soc/Anth lounge
relates to the subculture of the Soc/Anth Department; and
administrative understanding for how to better serve the needs of
Soc/Anth students and professors.
Your participation is completely voluntary. You may decline to
respond to specific questions, or you can stop the interview at any
point. If you change your mind about allowing me to use your
information after the interview, please let me know by April 30, 2004.
Do you have any questions? Thanks again for agreeing
to be interviewed. I am anxious to hear your responses to my questions.
Appendix B
Contact Information
Interviewers
Names: Matthew Van Vleet, Katrina Vigen
Addresses: 1500 St Olaf Ave.
Telephone number: (507) 646-2050
E-mail addresses: vanvleet@stolaf.edu , vigenk@stolaf.edu
Project supervisor
Professor Carolyn R. Anderson
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
St. Olaf College
1520 St. Olaf Avenue
Northfield, MN 55057
Telephone number: (507) 646-3133
E-mail address: anderscr@stolaf.edu
Appendix C
Justification for Research / Value of this Research
While this research effort will not pose a significant threat to
participant subjects, it will undoubtedly cost interviewees a fair
amount of their time. However, this time investment will be
offset by the benefits this research will offer to the St Olaf college
community and Sociology/Anthropology department. These benefits
include, but are not limited to, a greater understanding of the reasons
students select and stay with a particular major, a greater
understanding of how the Soc/Anth lounge relates to the subculture of
the Soc/Anth department, and administrative understanding for how to
better serve the needs of Soc/Anth students and professors. In
addition, the interviewees will have a valuable chance to reflect upon
their experiences with the Soc/Anth department, in addition to being
provided with a positive vehicle to voice concerns—thus helping to
strengthen the department.
Appendix D
(To be read before the interview begins)
-You have the right to abstain from answering any of the following questions, if you so desire.
-If you feel uncomfortable at any point during questioning, you have the right to terminate this interview.
-Information will be used for analysis purposes only, and will be kept strictly confidential.
Questions for Students
1- Are you majoring in—or do you have a concentration
in —any department(s) other than
Sociology/Anthropology at St. Olaf?
Probe How
committed do you feel towards this/these major(s), compared
with the Soc/Anth?
2- What drew you to the Soc/Anth major?
3- Can you explain any aspects of the Soc/Anth major
that make it different from other majors at St Olaf?
4- Do you feel that the Soc/Anth major is perceived as being a male or female major?
5- What were your initial thoughts or opinions about the department?
Probe How have
those ideas changed with increased exposure to the
department?
6- Do you perceive a political orientation to the department?
7- What do you think Soc/Anth majors have in common?
Probe What do you think St Olaf Soc/Anth professors have in common?
8- How do you associate or socialize with fellow majors outside the department setting?
9- How would you describe the atmosphere in your Soc/Anth classes?
(i.e. how do students interact with each other and
with their professors and what kind of feelings does
this create?)
Probe Is there
a difference between the “core” major classes and the
“elective” classes?
10- How does this atmosphere—in your Soc/Anth
classes—compare to classes you have taken outside
the Soc/Anth major?
11- How do you use the Soc/Anth lounge?
Probe In your
opinion, how does this space help to promote interaction
between students and professors?
12- How well do you get along with the professors in the Department?
13- How do Soc/Anth professors compare with other professors you have had at St. Olaf?
14- What role has the department played in shaping
your experience at St. Olaf? (through classes,
people you’ve met, professor’s ideas, etc.)
15- What role has the department played in shaping your life goals and/or future plans?
16- Is there anything else you would like to share with us about the department?
(To be read before the interview begins)
-You have the right to abstain from answering any of the following questions, if you so desire.
-If you feel uncomfortable at any point during questioning, you have the right to terminate this interview.
-Information will be used for analysis purposes only, and will be kept strictly confidential.
Questions for Professors
1- What drew you to the Soc/Anth discipline?
2- Can you explain any aspects of the Soc/Anth major
that make it different from other majors at St Olaf?
3- Do you feel that the Soc/Anth major is perceived as being a male or female major?
4- What were your initial thoughts or opinions about the department?
Probe How have
those ideas changed with increased exposure to the
department?
5- Do you perceive a political orientation to the department?
6- What do you think Soc/Anth professors have in common?
Probe What do you think Soc/Anth students have in common?
7- How do you associate or socialize with fellow professors outside the department setting?
8- How would you describe the atmosphere in your Soc/Anth classes?
(i.e. how do students interact with each other and
with their professors and what kind of feelings does
this create?)
Probe Is there
a difference between the “core” major classes and the
“elective” classes?
9- How do you believe this atmosphere—in your
Soc/Anth classes—compares to other classes at St.
Olaf?
10- How do you use the Soc/Anth lounge?
Probe In your
opinion, how does this space help to promote interaction
between students and professors?
11- How do you get along with other professors in the department?
12- In your opinion, how do Soc/Anth professors
compare with professors who teach in other academic
departments at St. Olaf?
13- What role has the department played in shaping
your experience at St. Olaf? (-through
classes, people you’ve met, student’s ideas, etc.)
14- What role has the department played in shaping your future aspirations or plans?
15- Is there anything else you would like to share with us about the department?
Appendix E
Questionnaire
If this questionnaire, or any questions asked herein make you
uncomfortable, you have the right to abstain from answering that/those
questions. You also have the right to refuse to fill out this
questionnaire in its entirety. Information will be used for
analysis purposes only, and will be kept strictly confidential
Year in school: ___ Junior ___ Senior
Sex: ___ Male ___ Female
In what setting did you spend the majority of your developing years?
___ Rural
___ Suburban
___ Urban
Do you consider yourself to be .?
___ Extremely well traveled
___ Well traveled
___ Somewhat well traveled
___ Somewhat less traveled
___ Less traveled
___ Extremely less traveled
About how much contact would you say you had with "diverse" social or
racial groups while growing up?
___ Above average contact
___ Slightly above average contact
___ Slightly below average contact
___ Below average contact
What personality type would you say you are?
___ Extremely extroverted
___ Slightly extroverted
___ Slightly introverted
___ Extremely introverted
Appendix F
Telephone Conversation
Hello, my name is Matt Van Vleet / or / Katrina Vigen, and I am a fellow Soc/Anth major.
We are conducting ethnographic research in regard to the Sociology/Anthropology department here at St Olaf.
We would like to interview Soc/Anth majors to find out heir thoughts and feelings about the department.
Interviews would last roughly 1 hour, including time allotted for a short questionnaire.
Would you be interested in participating in this research?