Fischer, Michael D., 1994, Applications in computing for social anthropologists , London: Routledge (ASA research methods in social anthropology), pp 233 biblio, index, ISBN 0 415 01818 8 hb (£ 37.50) ISBN 0 415 01819 6 pb (£ 13.99).

This is a challenging attempt to write an impossible book. I have found it instructive to read and to work out why I find it so much of it so misguided. To explain why this is so leads to some broad reflections about the relation of computers and other technology to anthropology. I hasten to add that the problems I shall outline are broad ones and no fault lies at the feet of Fischer himself. The book is written with endearing touches of humour although a reader without much computing knowledge would be daunted by the terminology used in some sections. This betrays an uncertainty about the intended reader, a point to which I return below. Fischer's stated principles are such that we can only agree:

Our most important goal in using computers as a tool of research must be to do better anthropology and not simply more. If you are satisfied with the state of ethnographic research, there is little purpose for introducing the additional cost and time for learning. The best way to introduce computing into our research is to first replicate what we have done before, but greater benefits will come when computers are used to do things we could not do before, not only for the amount of time these would have involved but because these could not easily have been conceptualized prior to the opportunities the computer as a tool can facilitate. 64/5

It is likely that the earier chapters will be of the greatest interest to most readers. After giving some background Fischer outlines basic ideas about the sorts of ways that computers can be used by social anthropologists: to manage and help analyze field data in all its manifold forms. Hence he covers processing fieldnotes, the use of graphics and video before continuing to tackle the issue of kinship data which is taken as an example of the way that building a model that a computer can undertsand both obliges one to be clear and rigorous (qualities increasingly rarae in anthropology) as well as providing a means of checking the analysis by comparing the model with the 'reality observed'. I should note that the inverted commas of the last phrase hold no matter what stance one takes to the social construction of reality (which itself is a subject suitable for computer assisted research). The final chapter looks at the way that 'expert-systems' can povide models of social processes and systems such as the way that marriage choices are made (to take Fischer's example).
Michael Fischer was a professional programmer before becoming an anthropologist. Such changes are not uncommon in a discipline that celebrates heterodoxy. Leach trained as an engineer, Fortes was a psychologist. Unlike these exalted predecessors Fischer, in this book, if not in his other publications risks the charge of evangelism. Are computers the answer to many (any?) anthropological problems? The problems that they certainly can answer are those problems that are common to all academics and researchers. It is reasonable to charge anyone attempting to write seriously entirely in longhand of being foolhardy if not downright unprofessional to neglect word-processors. Similarly, to manage bibliographies on file cards is foolhardy when bibliographic management programmes both do it better and allow both searching among the items of a bibliography and the (relatively) painless generation of consistently formatted bibliographies. Unfortunately, Fischer, for all the best reasons, attempts to consider only specifically anthropological computer applications. He therefore scarcely mentions bibliographic management, for all the constant niggle it poses (in the absence of computers) for routine anthropological work.
Still more curious is the omission of any mention of dealing with phonetic charactors and 'non-standard' alphabets. I suspect that this may be because the problems have been solved. But for all that there are now standard and easily accessible solutions, people still need to be told that for users of MS Windows and Macintoshes at least it is easy to use IPA, Arabic or other charactor sets. Once installed in the system the fonts are available in any application be it word processor database or drawing programme. For anthropologists this is a small revolution, but one that should be celebrated rather than ignored. It is probably of interest to more 'mainstream' anthropologists (however that is understood) than some of the topics discussed by Fischer.
A final ommision is of discussion of the Data Protection Act and other similar legislation elsewhere, although it is alluded to on p 62. The application of Data Protection Act to anthropological data is one of the great un-discussed minefields that may beset British Social Anthropology. A research methods primer such as this may have been the place to touch on the issues.
My greatest concern lies in Fischer's belief that it would be a good thing for anthropologists to know how to do computing programming, indeed that in order to use computers efficiently we should be, in part, programmers. For example on page 57 he quotes Read and Behrens with approval "Writing software and not just being a consumer of software is feasible and necessary if the full potential of the microcomputer for anthropological research is to be realized." Later on (p. 147) he endorses the same sentiments citing Gilbert (1971). However, when discussing the details of handling genealogical data and the problems of making computers draw genealogical diagrams he often talks of anthropologists and the 'programming partners'. Even this position in which anthropologists are seen to collaborate closely with programmers will be off-putting to many technophobic anthropologists. Sadly, I fear that as long as attitudes such as Fischer's prevail computing will remain marginal to most anthropologists at least in the UK where professional innumeracy and technophobia appears to be the norm. Be that as it may, Fischer, in these passages reveals an attitude to computer use that I disagree with. 'Programmers program, anthropologists anthropologize' sums up my position. The use of computers, just like the use of cameras requires us to use a technology, and to gain some competence in it. The anthropological use of photography does not require that we must develop and print our photographs although some background knowledge about the processes is very helpful if not essential¹ . Returning to computers I would encourage anthropologists to use them to their limits: customise remorselessly, turn the instructions on their head, learn the use of scripting and macro programs by all means but draw the line at programming (in its (increasingly old fashioned) meaning of the use of specialised and highly formalised languages to create applications from scratch). Quite simply it is time wasted. If you really cannot find an existing application to do what you want it is better to do more searching (send electronic mail to discussion lists, ask a wide variety of people) or even as a last resort find a tame computer programmer rather than try and learn to programme oneself. Fischer is misled by his background. Since he trained first in computer science it is easy for him to solve a problem by recourse to programming. For the most of us, the time is better spent doing anthropology. Lest this be taken as endorsing a technophobic position let me reiterate my enthusiasm for portable word processors with auto-delete facilities (such as pencils) and other innovative technologies that can help us do more research better, and types of research that we could barely conceive but scarcely realise. The micro-analysis of conversation is the clearest example of the latter. Without a form of voice recording conversational analysis is simply impossible. Malinowski had to record texts by having them dictated to him slowly for immediate transcription. This considerably affected the material he was able to record and to analyse. Once upon a time people sketched ideas in wax before transferring them to a more permanent medium (recall the view that Herodotus is among the first anthropologists). Technologies, as they become available, can open new possibilities in research - photography, sound and now video recording are clear examples. Computers, oddly, are not so easily accommodated in this sort of technological determinism. The results of research can be better presented - the standard of presentation of recent doctorates has improved whatever one may think about their intellectual merit. Examiners reflect this by being less tolerant of mistakes in spelling and bibliography. But has research itself - the questions asked and the sorts of answers admitted - have these been changed by the use of computers? Personally, I would venture a hesitant yes, but it is far from clear cut. The case is best put in the context of simulations which are discussed in Fischer's final chapter. Computer simulations allow us to consider the complex interactions between for example, demography and marriage preferences and the kinship structures that result. For all that the ethnographic record presents us with a 'natural laboratory' simulation permits the systematic alteration of variables and helps understand some of the patterns seen on the ground. Sociological and historical questions may then be attempted to explain the rest of the pattern. Other than that we enter to vague area between quality and quantity. Computers can enable us to deal consistently and systematically with a wider scope than before. Quite simply we can analyse more cases. Most of the analysis that Fischer discusses can, as he admits, be performed by hand. But performing the calculations and sorting on paper (using what Fischer calls CBIT - Cellulose Based Information Technology p. 71) imposes practical limits of size and complexity of data. The use of computers changes those limits and allows new scales of analysis that permit new questions - one can be demonstrably systematic in consideration of a wider range of material. That is, I believe, an unquestionably good thing. Furthermore as Fischer points out (137) 'A clear conceptual model of the material is necessary for any analysis traditionally or computer based. The first step in computer-assisted analysis is a clear development of the structural scheme we apply to a body of data.'

This book is comparable to the collection edited by Boone and Wood (1992). The latter book contains essays that touch on computers in a variety of ways ranging from the social anthropological study of the introduction of computers in an office, via kinship to the use of expert systems. Now, although there is a strong case to be made for anthropological studies of offices and other such institutions there is nothing intrinsically different about the introduction of computers. Any social historian can cite plenty of cases of social change (at the small scale at the very least) following the introduction of new technology. Unlike Fischer the contributors go into detail about the use of existing applications some of which already seem 'old hat'. To avoid just that problem Fischer restricts himself to discussions of anthropological types of problem, and the types of solution that are possible. Hardware and the software for it changes too fast for a printed book to remain current. As a solution one can connect via networks to electronic discussion lists and bulletin boards such as are maintained at the University of Kent, Canterbury. At the end of the book (p 212) there is mention of this and Fischer says that reviews of current technology are kept on this. Instructions for connection are given. In mid-April 1994, shortly after the book was published, I followed these instruction and successfully connected (using FTP) to the Kent anthropology server. Unfortunately the directory "reviews" mentioned in the book was not there. Connecting to the same server using a different protocol (Gopher) revealed the directory in question, but it contained no reviews. By September 1995 the main server had changed to using the WWW protocol and there was a lot more content, listings of programmes that could be obtained from Kent. There were not, however, the reviews such as Boone and Wood, or the more recent Miles and Weitzman (1995). The danger is that by writing somehting that will not go out of date int he way that these latter references surely will, he has failed to giev enough guidance to interested readers. Readers who are happy using newsgroups and WWW will be able to locate the information, but already only the converted will hear the message. The challenge for a computer enthusiast lies in setting up a service or making something work (more or less). Maintaining a service once it has been established, and ensuring that there is content within the structure is a more routine challenge of a different type to those that Michael Fischer finds attractive. As this example shows both must be addressed for a satisfactory result to be achieved.

Boone, Margaret S., and John J. Wood, (eds.) 1992. Computer applications for social anthropologists , Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Miles, M. B., & Weitzman, E. A. 1995. Computer Programs for Qualitative Data Analysis London: Sage.

David Zeitlyn
now a lectuer in Social Anthropology, UKC