ABSTRACT As calls for research ‘impact’ intensify across academic, policy, and entrepreneurial, Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences (HASS) scholars face the challenge of remaining epistemologically grounded while responding to demands for translation, engagement, funding, and value creation. Impact metrics are often misaligned with qualitative research, yet scholars are still encouraged to adopt STEM-centric models of commercialisation and innovation. This article interrogates research commercialisation through the lens of ‘post-conventional’ anthropology as developed by (Kearney 2025), tracing the rise of the ‘impact agenda’ and the ‘Impact Economy’ in Australia. We critique the dominance of speed, competition, productisation, and quantifiability, which can risk marginalising the relational and qualitative modes of inquiry fundamental to social research. Building on public and post-conventional anthropology, we introduce public-facing Humanities and Social Sciences (HASS) as a framework for recognising ventures that engage society to create shared value. This orientation resists fears of commodification or diluted critique, advancing ethically attuned and epistemologically informed approaches to entrepreneurship and translation. Rather than reinforcing binaries such as ‘academic’ versus ‘commercial’ or ‘public good’ versus ‘profit’, we advocate for more pluralistic models that integrate HASS epistemologies and alternative value logics. Drawing on Anthroprospective, we show how circular, regenerative, and civic-minded models can foster ethical and effective impact. We conclude by proposing institutional supports to bridge academia, industry, and community while sustaining equity, care, and long-term relational work.

From human ecology to public anthropology: an interview with Yunita T. Winarto, emeritus professor in anthropology at Universitas Indonesia

Abstract Writing is key in anthropology, one of its main modes of communication. Teaching, research, publications, and outreach all build on, or consist of, writing. Anthropological writing styles have evolved over time according to changing politics in the discipline. One game-changer was the 1980s ‘writing culture’ debate that led to an understanding of writing as a craft to be cultivated in the discipline. Anthropological writing genres range from memoirs to fiction and journalism. Writing in non-academic genres can be a way to make anthropological approaches more widely known, and can inspire academic writing to become more accessible. Writing accessible academic anthropology requires training, and writing public anthropology does too. However, the focus on citation indices in academia can hinder experimental and creative writings.

This article reviews the development of public anthropology in Japan. It was Shinji Yamashita who introduced the term ‘public anthropology' (kōkyō jinruigaku) to Japan in the mid-late 2000s through his work Introduction to Cultural Anthropology and Praxis of Contemporary Anthropology, in which he used the terms ‘applied anthropology' and ‘practical anthropology’. Through his active efforts and the involvement of cultural anthropologists in the Great East Japan Earthquake, which had just occurred, public anthropology became well known within a few years, followed by the appearance of books, research projects, and university lectures that advanced public anthropology. The development of public anthropology in Japan, however, did not go smoothly. Now, ten years after the publication of Yamashita’s edited book, Kōkyō Jinruigaku (Public Anthropology), the term public anthropology is less visible. Has this endeavour lost momentum then? Showcasing several public anthropological projects developing in Japan that do not call themselves public anthropology, this article argues that what Yamashita aimed for has, in fact, been taking root in Japan.

This epilogue concludes a special issue honouring the life and work of Professor Shinji Yamashita and his profound influence on anthropology and anthropologists in Japan and beyond. I describe Yamashita’s career as I experienced it through professional and personal encounters with him. As a pioneer in the anthropology of tourism, his take on tourism as an ideological framing of history, nature, and tradition significantly shaped academic discourse. His use of the concept of glocalisation, which adapts global ideas to local contexts, was pivotal in understanding cultural dynamics of globalisation in Southeast Asia and elsewhere. Yamashita’s extensive fieldwork in Indonesia and his role in advancing public anthropology highlight his commitment to bridging Japanese and global scholarship. His contributions to disaster risk mitigation research further underscore his interdisciplinary impact. Yamashita has left us with an important legacy, and his innovative ideas continue to inspire and shape contemporary anthropological research.

This special issue explores topics dear to Japanese anthropologist Shinji Yamashita—the nation-state, migration, diversity, globalisation, and tourism—spanning varied cultural and geographic landscapes. In this introduction, we show how the contributions in this collection extend the inquiries through which the authors of the articles have been guided and mentored by Yamashita over the years. The articles in this collection draw on Yamashita’s work to also initiate a critical exploration of the anthropological field—the current state of anthropology in Japan, the project of public anthropology, the latest developments in anthropology of disaster, and anthropological methods that consider the increasingly transnational context of lives today. We aim to engage imaginatively with the issues raised by Yamashita’s extensive scholarship and to offer ways of building a more inclusive, diverse, and just society. We also emphasise the influence of mentors working outside the Euro-American sphere and pay tribute to the project of world anthropologies.

Abstract The European Association of Social Anthropologists was the first anthropological association to speak out against the genocide taking place in Gaza. On the 25th of October 2023, the Executive Committee published a statement unequivocally condemning the violence perpetrated by the state of Israel against Gazans. Following the publication of the statement, easa received a number of reactions, both positive and negative. In this text, I reflect on what the statement and some of the negative reactions to it revealed about empire anthropology within the context of the association. I dwell on one reaction, formulated by a group of former members of easa’s past executive committees, which stated that easa should not express political stances, and conceptualize it as a form of empire anthropology. I explore what is at stake (and for whom) in speaking out and conclude with a reflection on the kinds of public anthropology that can emerge from the current moment.

Broadly speaking, public anthropology is understood to signify the dissemination of anthropological knowledge beyond academic circles, but no clear definition yet exists. The article takes part in the discussion on what public anthropology is and how it might be promoted through the case study of the online publication AntroBlogi.fi. The article approaches public anthropology through six modes of knowledge sharing derived from AntroBlogi’s portfolio: popularising academic research, applied knowledge, social commentary, light entertainment, multidisciplinary meaning-making, and awareness creation. Through these modes, it is shown what successful public anthropology might look like. It is argued that anthropology can be popularised without compromising academic rigour. Towards this end, it is suggested that it is worthwhile to approach the concept of public anthropology with the same analytical ambition as other central concepts of the discipline. Only by advancing public anthropology inside academia can it be effectively promoted outside of it.

This intervention deals with the engagement of public anthropology in current decolonization processes in Berlin’s urban space. Current struggles over colonial street names are examined as acts of postmigrant citizenship.

Abstract The practice of anthropology is based on the ethnographer “being there” in time and space. And the act of writing is the reenactment of “presence” for the reader. “The field” is a romanticized space for empirical exploration. However, technological innovation and connectivity have enabled easy access to new “fieldsites” and vicarious participant-observation without being “present.” The entertainment media ecosystem is now more heterogeneous than ever and is more relevant in everyday life. The depth with which we immerse ourselves in these imaginary worlds speaks volumes about our withdrawal from other forms of engagement with the people, communities, and social problems around us. Romance and fantasy are a means to escape vulnerability and hopelessness, as well as serving as an outlet for the frustrations of failed social mobility. This essay posits that romance is a method for living today, and enjoyment is empiricism for a public anthropology. Romance is more than a genre; it is a guide to understanding how society functions. There is something deeply human about living through our imaginations to escape our present. Enjoying romance as a method to engage with the world offers insight into political infrastructures, social hierarchies, and elite intrigue. Life is full of afflictions, and romance is more than a salve; it offers a strategy for navigating social relations.

Through a strategic and transformative approach, the aim is to facilitate constructive dialogue between local communities and external entities, reconciling urban-centric and polycentric visions. The growing awareness of climate change emphasizes the importance of valuing marginalized spaces, particularly in mountainous areas, where experimenting with energy and digital transitions presents significant opportunities. Public anthropology, with its ethnographic methodology, provides a profound understanding of local realities, while the mutualism between new and longstanding residents fosters meaningful synergies. This cultural interaction enriches communities and stimulates creative processes, suggesting that rediscovering life in small mountain villages can serve as a valuable resource for future social and community developments. Renewable energy communities emerge as essential tools for transforming perceptions and planning territory with a sense of self-determination.

ABSTRACT The article explores the common ground between critical public anthropology and critical public pedagogy as critically conscious, engaged, and animating practices. Through intervention in the public domain, they engage with the contested role of culture in the production, distribution, and regulation of power. These affinities are envisioned within the framework of shared anthropology, which asserts the co-authored nature of knowledge through “sharing-the-anthropology”. This approach aims to decolonize and democratize knowledge using multimodal narratives and art as mediums; not merely as “research objects or aims”, but as methods to explore “knowing-in-practice” and as strategies for mediating knowledge. To further elucidate our arguments, we will introduce the conceptual framework of the project, “Weaving Memories,” a work-in-progress in which the authors are currently involved. Aligning with the critical principles of shared anthropology, the project adopts a critical approach to problematize the subordinate condition of handmade carpet weavers within the production and distribution regime. Thus, we explore the connection between the ethico-political and epistemological frameworks established for shared anthropology and the conceptual framework envisioned for the project.

Nonhuman primates (primates) are one of the most endangered mammalian taxa in the world. In the Global North, primates are considered exotic species and, as such, humans' impact on primate conservation and responsibility to protect primates is often ignored. This view differs from the spectrum of relations and attitudes of humans that live in connection to primates, which can include viewing these animals as culturally/religiously significant, cohabitors of forests, nuisances, or sources of protein. While conservationists argue that primates deserve our protection, the conservation crisis facing primates is rarely framed as a public issue, in contrast to other global crises, such as climate change. However, over half of the world's human population lives within 100 km of primate habitat. Thus, humans and primates share the same environments. We suggest leveraging a holistic approach, such as One Health, that considers the interconnectedness of primates, humans, and their shared environments, through the lens of public anthropology. By approaching primate conservation as an intersectional issue that affects and is affected by humans, researchers and conservationists can identify strategies that simultaneously protect primates and address global inequities that frequently affect people in primate range countries. Reflexive research practices further allow academics to consider the broader impact of their ecological research through means such as publicly accessible dissemination of results, equitable capacity-building of high-quality personnel in primate range countries, and social activism. The use of inter-, multi-, and transdisciplinary concepts and methodology can address the intersectional challenges associated with implementing ethical and sustainable primate conservation measures.

Abstract This paper reflects on anthropology’s public role in the aftermath of Germany’s so-called “refugee crisis” of 2015. Media and political discussions clearly showed that the dominant (German) culture/Kultur discourse had been primarily based on nineteenth-century evolutionist ideas, structural racism, and growing right-wing populism rather than on established anthropological insights into cultural identity, gender, religion, transnational realities, and political economy. Methodological anthropological tools (i.e., self-reflexivity, ethical considerations, positionality) were nearly non-existent in sociopolitical programs or strategies. We argue for an epistemological shift by referring to current challenges and limitations regarding collaborative research. We propose Encounter/Begegnung as an epistemological standpoint for public anthropology by going beyond research, enabling diverse engagement, knowledge production, and representation. Based on cumulative insights spanning six years of the interdisciplinary, multilingual (Arabic, Farsi, German, English) “Encounter/Begegnung” media project, we argue for shifting the focus from collaboration to encounters as a necessary impetus for public anthropology in post-2015 Germany.

Doing Oral History as Public Anthropology

In the Editors' note, we present the texts of this issue, which consists of individual article and research report submissions sent to us. Once again,by fortunate happenstance, the various articles, research reports and essays discuss related topics, lending the issue a sense of internal coherence. The texts discuss common topics such as migration and border violence, activist anthropology and the anthropology of activism, rootedness and displacement. In addition, the essay and conference report engage in debates over public anthropology and contesting hegemonies within the discipline.

Nina S. de Friedemann (1930-1998) was a public anthropologist. She practiced engaged research, with a view to promoting social justice for the communities with whom she collaborated and studied, and she anticipated the public anthropology of the North Atlantic academia by five decades. A pioneer in Afro￾Colombian studies and in visual anthropology, she documented and defended the cultural contributions of Black populations to the identity of an ethnically diverse Colombia. Friedemann’s fundamental work inspired leaders of the Black communities in their demands that culminated in Law 70 of 1993, also known as the ley de negritudes. Her research materials are housed at the Luis Angel Arango Library under the name Fondo Nina S. de Friedemann, a repository available for study. Using unpublished materials, correspondence, publications, and photographs, Greta Friedemann-Sánchez reflected on three pillars of her mother’s ethical legacy within the contemporary normative framework for the protection of human subjects and the historical context during which Nina S. de Friedemann worked as an anthropologist.

General AnthropologyVolume 30, Issue 1 p. 6-11 Original Article Public Anthropology in a Pandemic: Advocacy, Ethnography, and Theory David Bond, David Bond Bennington CollegeSearch for more papers by this author David Bond, David Bond Bennington CollegeSearch for more papers by this author First published: 26 May 2023 https://doi.org/10.1111/gena.12109Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Volume30, Issue1Spring 2023Pages 6-11 RelatedInformation

Resumo Este artigo aborda questões decorrentes do envolvimento da antropologia com o Estado no âmbito das políticas de regularização fundiária de terras indígenas no Brasil. A discussão parte da efetiva contribuição da antropologia no âmbito da biopolítica estatal para assegurar justiça social e ambiental para povos indígenas no Brasil, a fim de contextualizar a crítica relativa à antropologia e a seus praticantes por grupos e setores econômicos da sociedade, que se fizeram representar em uma comissão parlamentar de inquérito, a qual expressou o nível de incompreensão sobre o papel desempenhado pela disciplina nas referidas políticas. Ao analisar o discurso do Relatório Final da Segunda Comissão Parlamentar de Inquérito da Fundação Nacional do Índio/Instituto Nacional de Colonização e Reforma Agrária (CPI FUNAI/INCRA 2) como um texto formado a partir do senso comum sobre os indígenas, os antropólogos e a disciplina, o artigo aborda em que medida esse mesmo senso comum se ancora em concepções essencialistas de identidade existentes dentro da antropologia e aponta para a necessidade de revisão crítica do próprio discurso teórico da disciplina.

Abstract This article calls attention to problematic effects of the so-called “ontological turn” that now gains ground in academic anthropology, especially the entailments of perspectival multi-naturalism. I argue that a consistent embrace of this approach challenges public anthropology at its core. The irrealist grounding of perspectival multi-naturalism encourages withdrawal from both analysis and engagement, rendering the application of anthropological knowledge dubious. In order to counter this development, I suggest a reorientation in terms of realist principles, notably those of Roy Bhaskar’s critical realism. The diverging theoretical and ethical implications of these approaches are exemplified through a discussion of threats to health and life in Java, Indonesia.