1 Realising Anthropology’s Full Potential in the World
Elizabeth K. Briody; Riall W. Nolan; and Jennifer Studebaker
Anthropology combines ethnographic fieldwork with concepts guiding data collection and analysis: holism, cultural relativism, comparison, and the emic (i.e., insider) perspective. This orientation to research, in which people feature prominently, brings to the foreground the shared beliefs and patterns of behavior differentiating cultural groups. Anthropologists are masters at understanding what is happening in context, explaining why and how the cultural puzzle fits together as it does. Generalizing from their empirical examples, anthropologists have advanced theoretical knowledge through their lectures and publications and been rewarded by their universities and professional associations for their scholarship.
Anthropology graduates in the U.S., however, have been confronting the challenges of finding employment for several decades now. For recent U.S. PhDs, the number of full-time, academic positions has been declining in the US, while the job search for BA, MA, and PhD anthropology graduates in industry, non-profits, and government has been protracted and challenging. Numerous factors play a role (Briody, 2026), notably:
- reticence among most U.S. anthropology instructors to teach and apply anthropological knowledge and skills to organizational and community issues
- a lack of attention to career preparation in most U.S. anthropology programs
- employers’ general lack of knowledge of anthropology and its usefulness to them
- hiring decisions that put a premium on skills and experience that job applicants may not have acquired (e.g., communication, collaboration, problem solving).
Two sources of optimism have arisen in an otherwise bleak situation. Of the increasing numbers of anthropologists that have launched and built careers, many maintain connections with professional associations and are dedicated to assisting the next generation with career contacts and advice. Additionally, increasing numbers of anthropology programs have retooled in some way, offering applied degrees, program experiences, or coursework. Students and graduates from departments with an applied orientation have benefited directly from instruction, internships, and practitioner connections while those from colleges and universities emphasizing theory have had to navigate the job search largely on their own without any customized support.
Thus, we find that a gap has appeared between expectations tied to the job market and what anthropology offers. We also note a difference across anthropology departments as a few have chosen to expose their students to applied work or what has been termed “anthropology in use” (Rylko-Bauer et al., 2006), while the others have been steadfastly focused on the “development of social and cultural theory” (Foster 1969, p. 54). How can these gaps be addressed? What interventions are needed to help prepare students for the workforce, positioning them to apply their anthropological knowledge throughout their careers? Stated another way, to what extent is a broader alignment of interests possible between applied and academic anthropology?
This article has three specific aims. We begin with key features of the historical context that gave rise to the current conditions in anthropology departments. Next, we explain the formation and growth trajectory of the Anthropology Career Readiness Network (ACRN) whose mission is to improve career readiness for all anthropology students (i.e., Associate, Bachelor, Master’s, and PhD). ACRN partners with instructors, practitioners, and students to drive progress towards a vision where anthropology’s value is widely recognized in the workplace. Finally, our attention turns to ACRN’s future and potential options for expanding anthropology’s impact both in the world of work and the world generally.
The Uneasy Historical Context between Academia and Practice
A problem-solving focus was foundational to the emerging field of U.S. anthropology in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Employed by the U.S. government, anthropologists conducted ethnological studies of indigenous groups (Foster, 1969; Partridge & Eddy, 1987). A few notable elements about their work were evident:
- their attention was on contemporary people (rather than people of the past),
- ethnography became the mechanism for learning about contemporary people,
- policy development was often an outcome of their studies, though its effect was mixed.
Thus, the practical value of anthropological research was embedded in their investigations for such agencies as the Bureau of American Ethnology, Bureau of Indian Affairs, and Soil Conservation Service. Rylko-Bauer and her colleagues argued that theory and application shared “the same history, because the borders between them were blurred” given that anthropologists switched between academic and applied roles (Rylko-Bauer et al., 2006, p. 180). Anthropologists’ policy impact improved over time with the availability of government contract work during the Depression era through World War II (Partridge & Eddy 1987).
Yet friction over the role of an anthropologist was evident at least by 1941 when the Society for Applied Anthropology (SfAA) was established. The editorial statement in the first issue of Applied Anthropology (later, Human Organization) indicated that the journal was “devoted to the solution of practical problems of human relations…based upon the premise that a science of human relations can only be developed if theories are tested in practice” (1941, p. 1). Its founding symbolically drew a line in the sand between anthropologists who sought to apply their knowledge and skills to problems of the day, and those who preferred devoting their efforts to theory. A duality or “two-tiered model” emerged: “the production of theoretical knowledge is reserved for disciplinary elites, and applied anthropology is positioned in the ‘other’ tier, where its knowledge is considered derivative, less prestigious, and not a contributor to disciplinary theory” (Baba & Hill 2006, p. 192). It was an internal tussle for power and status, a decoupling of the once normative theory-to-practice continuum, and an ideological fracturing that would have profound consequences on anthropology’s impact in the world.
The “cultural chasm” (Foster, 1962, p. 242) or “artificial divide” (Guerrón-Montero, 2008, p. 2) between theory and application was cemented in the postwar period. With passage of the GI Bill (Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944), an extraordinary phase of university expansion occurred. For example, American Anthropological Association (AAA) data revealed that anthropology degrees rose 3,885 percent between 1947-48 and 1975-76 (Partridge & Eddy, 1987, p. 40). And with this upsurge, a career pivot took place. Most anthropologists in government employment returned to higher education to build or expand academic departments. The same pattern held for anthropologists employed by companies. It had been the case that private sector firms would sponsor university-based research and provide graduate students with workplace experience; in exchange, these firms would gain access to technological and scientific innovations and expertise (Baba, 1988).
Ethical issues arising from government employment (e.g., Japanese relocation efforts, Project Camelot) served to justify their academic career choice (Partridge & Eddy, 1987; Rylko-Bauer et al., 1989) since anthropologists did not want their research to injure the people they studied. Just as anthropologists’ distrust for the government grew, so too did their view of multinational firms (e.g., Nestlé), “identified as potentially dangerous sponsors” (Baba, 2006, p. 12). In distancing themselves from private industry, it was fortunate that a new funding source for academics became available in 1950—the National Science Foundation.
Not until the late 1970s and 1980s did academic hiring stall. Angrosino (1976, p. 1) reported that anthropology graduates relied “on short-term, contract work in public service agencies, work often involving program evaluation, and work that can often be undertaken off campus.” As they did during the Depression years, many anthropologists found positions in government (e.g., U.S. Agency for International Development) and in corporations (e.g., XEROX, IBM). Departments continued to produce BA and MA graduates lacking career preparation. PhD graduates suffered the same fate, all the while academia’s doors remained largely shuttered to them because of the increasing dearth of tenured academic positions and push towards contingent labor in the form of post-docs and adjunct lecturers.
The Rise in Anthropological Practice
“Practice” and “practitioners” emerged as major concepts during this time. Practice signified employment in which anthropologists were engaged outside academia; practitioners referred to those hired for work in industry, nonprofits, and government (Fiske & Chambers, 1996; Nolan, 2026). Thus, further differentiation within the anthropological community surfaced, with practitioners (sometimes called professional anthropologists) seeing themselves differently from applied anthropologists in academic departments. Indeed, practitioner roles and job functions—such as program managers, analysts, consultants, strategists, and researchers—contrast with those from the academy which, at a minimum, involved teaching. A survey of 464 PhD recipients by AAA members found that about one-half of new PhDs in 1994-95 secured employment outside anthropology departments, including research centers and positions beyond academia (Givens & Jablonski, n.d.). This statistic was memorable because it was among the first quoted demonstrating that practitioners were on the rise.
Applied anthropology programs have played an increasingly important role in preparing MA and PhD graduates to find work in industry, nonprofits, and government; this characterization is different from UK applied programs which are oriented to development. The culture of applied anthropology programs, “Group-based, collective, integrated; characterized by people working together,” was distinctive in contrast to the academically oriented programs: “Autonomous, self- reliant, independent, somewhat isolated; characterized by the ‘lone anthropologist’” (Briody & Nolan, 2013, p. 374). Collaboration and problem solving are two essential features of applied programs, with internships featuring prominently in them. The earliest U.S. applied programs began in the 1970s and 1980s; their tight relationship with the Society for Applied Anthropology continues due to their connections with problem solving. These applied programs were not typically established at the state flagship universities which already offered theoretically oriented educational degrees. Instead, due to state-imposed restrictions, they were usually found in second- and third-tier state universities, filling a niche left by the flagship institutions.
Among the most notable applied programs include the University of Maryland, University of Memphis, University of South Florida, Northern Arizona University, University of North Texas, and Wayne State University. Thus, a theoretical-applied difference appears across the educational landscape, even as many of these applied programs are part of R1 institutions (per the Carnegie classification). At the same time, these programs were not mirror images of each other. For example, while the University of Memphis relies heavily on its alumni for teaching, mentoring, and internship support, the University of Maryland uses adjuncts, primarily from the federal government, to accomplish the same goals (Briody & Nolan, 2013). While applied programs develop extensive connections with organizations and communities to enhance classroom learning, these networks serve as models for students as they seek internships and secure employment.
Other structural signs of change came to appear on U.S. anthropology’s landscape outside anthropology department settings:
- The initial Local Practitioner Organizations (LPOs) formed in Tucson, AZ (1973) and in Washington, DC (1976) to bring together practitioners and meet their professional needs. Fourteen of them had been established across the U.S. by the late 1980s (Bennett, 1988).
- The Praxis Award, initiated by the Washington Association of Professional Anthropologists (an LPO established in 1980), had two goals: “1. Record and promote the value of anthropology’s knowledge for solving problems of interest to government and industry, thereby expanding the discipline’s traditional focus beyond teaching and research. 2. Start the long effort to create a professional practice arm as a legitimate career alternative to anthropology’s academic arm.…” (Fiske & Wulff, 2022, p. xi). Awards are given every other year.
- Applied-friendly journals appeared on the market including the Society for Applied Anthropology’s Practicing Anthropology (1978) and the NAPA Bulletin (1985) which later became the Annals of Anthropological Practice and is poised to be integrated into the new AAA Praxis journal.
- The National Association for the Practice of Anthropology (NAPA) became a section of the American Anthropological Association (1983). Seven years later, it created the NAPA Mentor Program for one-on-one career guidance and 10 years later, it produced an awards-winning and highly circulated video, Anthropologists at Work: Careers Making a Difference, portraying a range of careers anthropologists held (Briody, 1995; Briody & Bodo, 1994).
Since 2000, the status of applied and practicing anthropology, relative to academic anthropology, has received mixed reviews. Some have pointed to the increased number of departments identifying applied anthropology as an area of specialty—which Moran attributes, in part, to an “internal concern with student placement (post-graduation)” (2000, p. 138-139). Others have emphasized pressure from “politicians and policymakers” who “are demanding that university personnel engage in more activities benefiting society” (van Willigen et al., 2005, p. 351), a trend that has ramped up again recently (Hartocollis, 2023). Regarding practice, some have asserted that “…the knowledge content of practice still is not appreciated or valued” (Baba, 2000, p. 17) or “…practicing anthropology has not received the same recognition and esteem as ‘pure,’ academic anthropology” (Guerrón-Montero, 2008, p. 2). Indeed, many anthropologists continue to believe in ideological distinctions that value basic research over application and practice.
Regardless of these differential perceptions, more structural changes appeared—again, outside department settings:
- EPIC, a nonprofit membership organization for those interested in “doing ethnography for impact in business and organizations,” was established (2005) to hold conferences but has since become “active year-round in courses, talks and seminars, meetups, and more.”
- The Applied Anthropology Network, part of the European Association for Social Anthropologists, was created (2010) to foster the “exchange of information and experiences related to practical applications of anthropology and ethnography.” One of its initiatives, Why the World Needs Anthropologists (WWNA), has been an annual symposium (2013) and has led to a book by that name (2021, 2026).
- Career webinar series have been featured by the American Anthropological Association:
- o Game-Changing Job Search Strategies as an Applied Anthropologist – A Four-Part Webinar Series (July 2020)
- o Acquiring New Skills for Your Job Search – A Three-Part Webinar Series (September 2020)
- o Pathways to Careers – An Eight-Part Webinar Series (March – April 2021).
This new set of changes occurred largely in parallel to university activities (WWNA excepted, given its European base). We see anthropological associations/organizations demonstrating a steadily increasing interest in anthropologists working in industry, nonprofits, and government. They find opportunities to appeal to practitioners as prospective members, learn about their professional needs and interests, and develop new programming and services which would be relevant for them.
In summary, with the rift between academic and applied anthropology, the discipline has suffered. Few anthropologists have tested their theoretical insights or partnered with others to do so. Similarly, anthropologists engaged in problem solving and implementation have not found sufficient opportunities to build theory from the field—either because their day-to-day work takes precedence, they lack academic partners, or their interests involve producing the fundamentals for or leading change initiatives. One result is that the discipline’s distance from practice deprives it of essential data about important organizational and community issues going on in the world. We have noticed that without this exchange of data and experience between academia and practice, the academic side tends to become more and more insular, wrapped up in issues mainly of interest to itself. Similarly, the practice side becomes increasingly aligned with their work requirements and collaborations.
This decoupling between theory and practice has also affected the training of generations of U.S. anthropology students. With little understanding of this powerful dynamic relationship, most students graduate with an ability to think and critique, but not the capacity to apply and address issues. Once on the job market, these graduates stumble and fall. They must independently invent a job search approach that will resonate with employers, all the while figuring out how to gain relevant skills and perhaps some project experience—quickly. Applied program graduates are more fortunate in terms of their exposure to workplaces and the issues there, along with a more robust methodological toolkit, practice in clear, concise verbal and written communication, and various professionalization skills. And although many anthropology programs have been or are re-tooling to incorporate some applied courses and experiential learning opportunities, these changes have been too little, too late for thousands of students.
The Pursuit of ACRN’s Mission
Against this historical backdrop and shifting perspectives on anthropological practice in the U.S., a voluntary network of anthropology practitioners, instructors, and students emerged. Led by Elizabeth K. Briody and Riall W. Nolan, the Career Readiness Commission (renamed ACRN in 2023) held its first virtual meeting on May 25, 2021. Among the confluence of trends influencing the launch included:
- Practitioners representing the rising majority of anthropology as a discipline; they represent new Bachelor and Master’s graduates and the vast majority of new PhD graduates.
- Students getting little training in professionalization skills and careers, and little experience in anthropological practice (applied programs excepted)
- Many academic anthropology departments struggling to remain relevant in the eyes of college/university administrators.
Our goal was to tap into the three distinct stakeholder groups to achieve the mission of improving student career readiness. A lack of attention to practice was at the core of this issue, a matter of relevance and significance to all practitioners and students interested in practice. We appealed for help among practitioners whose workplace experiences could help inform career preparation and planning. We targeted instructors that desired to help their students find success in their careers. We also sought both undergraduate and graduate students that were eager to use their anthropological training in the workplace. In five years, the Network has grown to well over 1,000 members, aided by ACRN’s website, services, and resources.
Current Activities
Research
Education support. Research helped to establish ACRN priorities and fill gaps in our understanding about practitioner work and readying the next generation for the workplace. For example, we used the Delphi survey technique to identify elements of anthropological practice that practitioners believed was missing from their training (Nolan & Briody 2024). Among the 34 respondents, about two-thirds were employed in the private sector with the remainder working in government or self-employed. About 52 percent had a master’s degree compared to 28 percent with PhDs and 9 percent with a bachelor’s degree. The majority of these practitioners (82 percent) had been part of the workforce 10 years or less. The results revealed that practitioners lacked training in networking and other job search strategies and were unable to translate anthropology’s usefulness to prospective employers. Perhaps even more concerning was that practitioners reported insufficient preparation in anthropological methods in doing their current job. Similarly, they indicated that they lacked communication skills, project planning and management experience, management and leadership skills, and professional development.
Membership surveys constituted another area of research. ACRN partnered with Daniel Ginsberg at the AAA in February 2024 to conduct a survey of 50 of 296 AAA institutional members (17 percent response rate). We focused on understanding instructor interest in teaching practical anthropology skills to their students. The vast majority indicated that they were very interested in learning to do a better job in teaching these practical skills. The qualitative comments revealed some lack of awareness about the kinds of practical skills anthropology students should acquire, the types of jobs practitioners do, and opportunities where students can do internships (unless they are archaeology students). Most of the comments indicated a lack of awareness of ACRN and its resources.
A second survey was conducted in April 2024 by a graduate anthropology class at the University of North Texas under the direction of Susan Squires; the response rate was 35 percent. ACRN members live and work in 13 countries, although 90 percent (N=218) are in the U.S. From the sample, 67 percent identified as practicing anthropologists and 60 percent identified as instructors; these two groups are not mutually exclusive with some who both teach and work outside the academy. A small percentage of respondents (14 percent) indicated that they were students. All respondents weighed in on what ACRN priorities should be. Consistency emerged across organizational, education, resource development, and outreach and marketing priorities. Several of the priorities pertained to learning about a research and publication framework for practice, course modules which could be incorporated into existing courses, and strategies for preparing students for careers. Workshops, whether in person or virtual, were considered an important venue for delivering such materials. Respondents also indicated strong interest in the development of a practitioner directory as well as a professionalization kit for students.
Tools
These research findings became the foundation for many of the job seeker and career tools that ACRN developed. These “tools” are currently our signature resource. They offer “how-to” information, insights, and advice related to skills, methods, problem solving, job search and interviewing. Written in concise, easy-to-interpret text, some tools target anthropology students and job seekers eager to apply their anthropological knowledge and skills in their careers. The most popular tools for students responding to the ACRN membership survey were What can you do with a degree in anthropology? (PDF, 2.8KB) and What’s in a Name? Job Titles to Explore (PDF, 219KB). In 2024, we compiled a Workbook called Career Tools for Anthropology which organizes all the job seeker and career tools by stage in the career journey; this inexpensive workbook is available for purchase through ACRN’s website. The most popular job seeker and career tool developed since the Workbook’s publication has been Explaining Anthropology to People in Your Life (PDF, 327KB); it was reposted more than 450 times on LinkedIn in one month.
Other tools designed for instructors incorporate practical career-ready skills from ACRN research into their courses, strengthen the curriculum with exposure to clients and prospective employers, and expand program networks to provide role models and mentors for their students. Instructors responding to the ACRN membership survey indicated that Applying Anthropology in the Workplace was the most frequently used instructor tool, although they also introduced job seeker/career tools to their students including Mastering the Elevator Pitch. Several of the recent instructor tools have been quite popular including Boosting Anthropology Enrollments, Your Career Ready Department Checklist, Your Career Ready Coursework Checklist, and A Better ANTH 101.
A second book followed in 2026: Teaching Tools for Anthropology Careers: Resources for Instructors and Departments. This book consists of three key chapters with these aims:
- Assist anthropology departments and programs plan for their future, planning which involves group coordination, discussion, and strategic decision making
- Incorporate career readiness into courses, with an emphasis on using anthropological knowledge and approaches in problem solving
- Implement and sustain career readiness changes, focusing specifically on the concepts of networking, communication, collaboration, and problem solving
The two books are designed to be used together since they are complementary.
Outreach
Effective outreach has been a major contributor to ACRN’s rapid and successful progress. During the first year, significant effort was spent in presenting to over 20 anthropology associations across the four subfields to introduce them to ACRN. Among them were the American Anthropological Association and several of its sections (e.g., National Association of the Practice of Anthropology, Association of Black Anthropologists), the Register of Professional Archaeologists, the Society for Applied Anthropology, Antropólogos Iberamericanos en Red, the High Plains Society for Applied Anthropology, and the Washington Association of Professional Anthropologists. These presentations to professional associations were enhanced through ACRN’s presence at annual meetings, as well as ongoing communications. Monthly, beginning in September 2021, ACRN began holding Network-wide virtual meetings on Zoom and distributing an electronic Newsletter. These two means of communication allow us to connect with members about 12 times per year.
World of Work Blog is an essential part of outreach. Launched at the end of 2021, writers focus their blogposts on careers or on career preparation. Blogpost titles appear as questions, which are then addressed in response. Examples include:
- How Do I Use My Anthropology Degree in the Workplace?
- How Can Anthropologists Prepare for Careers in AI?
- How Can I Conquer Feeling Lost on the Job Hunt?
- What Does Every Anthropology PhD Student Need?
- Why Is It Relatively Straightforward and Useful to Incorporate Practice into Anthropology Courses?
- What Can Museum Anthropologists Do to Protect Their Programs despite Cuts in Government Grants?
We solicit blogposts from the three main segments of our membership: practitioners, instructors, and students. Given the frequency of output—at least twice monthly—we have significantly improved our search engine visibility and enhanced our overall reach.
The Speakers Bureau, launched in summer 2023, is designed to introduce anthropologists and anthropology students to the work practitioners do. Employed in industry, non-profits, and government, speakers volunteer to serve as a guest speaker for a class period, departmental webinar, or organizational event, whether in person or online. Informal reports from both instructors and speakers indicate that this service is being well received. We currently have about 50 speakers.
Social media represents our most recent foray into outreach. It got into full swing in early 2023 with a press release announcing the change in our name from Commission to Network. We now have a LinkedIn page and a LinkedIn group that people can join and are active on other social media platforms including LinkedIn, Facebook, Bluesky, YouTube, and Instagram. ACRN also contributes to professional association newsletters and email blasts on a regular basis.
Practice Education
The last major ACRN activity entails hands-on involvement with key stakeholders in accessing knowledge about and experience with practice. Workshops offering skills-based training represent the most common form of practice education.
- Building Careers in Anthropology Conference: Twelve such workshops (e.g., Nailing the Interview, Skill Building for Success, Bringing Anthropology into Consumer Research) were part of an in-person ACRN conference held in May 2022 at Fordham University.
- Career Paths Series: ACRN completed a series of six webinars for the Applied Anthropology Network during Spring 2025. The topics ranged from Build Your Anthropology Skills Network to Exploring Domains of Practice, and from Setting Up and Conducting Informational Interviews to Turning Your CV into a Resume.
- Career Transitions Series: Currently, ACRN has been offering webinars as part of a Career Transitions Series. Occurring weekly on Fridays, the webinars alternate between topics (e.g., Finding a Pivot Point: Assessing Your Career Journey in Anthropology, Project Management Careers and Certifications) and Speed Networking opportunities. While this series was developed in response to the massive layoffs of anthropologists from U.S. federal government positions in 2025, it has also benefited any anthropologist who is looking for a new work role.
Client-based class projects, an innovation from the University of North Texas and adapted by ACRN, are another form of practice education. Working on a class project encompasses a semester-long commitment. These projects take various forms (e.g., ethnographic research, literature reviews), offering students exposure to a “real-world” problem that requires a solution. Class projects double as work experience since the projects are planned, executed, and presented to the client at the end of the semester.
ACRN has served as the client on several class projects. One undergraduate class at Indiana University conducted a study of anthropology majors to identify any concerns related to their future careers and offer recommendations to help alleviate those concerns. Two other undergraduate classes, Western University and University at Albany compiled published cases from the literature and/or unpublished cases from interviews in which anthropological perspectives and approaches have been applied successfully in industry, non-profits, and government.
Similarly, ACRN has served in the role of coach to class projects that have a client. The client for an undergraduate class at North Dakota State University was a group of ambulatory care pharmacists who feared a rise in burnout among their colleagues. Students conducted the interviews and analyzed the data. They found that despite the twin challenges of high workload and lower-than-preferred staffing, the pharmacists adapted reasonably well. Pharmacists value their patient relationships, are delighted when they can make a difference in patient outcomes and appreciate and rely on their colleagues for support.
The most recent type of practice education is also the most intensive. ACRN initiated its Departmental Advisory Initiative in 2023 with the goal of building capacity to teach practice within Anthropology Departments/Programs. We repeatedly hear instructors speaking of their discomfort in teaching practice, due largely to their lack of familiarity.
The DAI is a service involving a) prework, b) on-campus discussions, a design workshop, and a rough outline of an implementation plan during a two-to-three-day visit, and c) quarterly updates on the career readiness implementation plan over a 12-month period. An important tangible outcome of the DAI at the University of Delaware was a visual “roadmap” of content knowledge, skills, and experiences anthropology majors would acquire. Prospective students and their parents flock to view the roadmap during the Blue and Golden Open House on campus. Many other anthropology departments, once aware of the roadmap, request a copy of it.
DAI has had other important effects.
- Time and space to discuss career readiness: DAI has opened up a time dedicated to career readiness as well as a collective space in which new ideas can be proposed and elaborated among departmental leaders and ACRN facilitators. Additionally, we have noted information exchanges about career readiness among DAI participating departments. Indeed, based on departmental requests, we have launched a forum in which DAI participating departments convene periodically to pose questions, offer ideas, and share strategies related to career readiness.
- Relationships established with Campus Career Services: ACRN expectations for the campus visit have resulted in invitations to and discussions with members of Campus Career Services—typically a “first” for anthropology departments. Departmental members often point out how little they knew of the training, coaching, and internship opportunities Career Services was able to offer their students.
- Interest and excitement emerge within the anthropology department: We have observed how DAI participants get increasingly energized over the course of our campus visit. Their own notes of the visit, combined with ACRN support, its tools and resources on the ACRN website, and the structure provided by the Career Ready Curriculum (Nolan & Briody, 2023) seem to instill confidence and a “can-do” attitude.
- DAI Requests on the rise: We have seen a steady increase in the number of departments requesting DAI services. While the University of Delaware and Texas A&M University have finished the program, 16 other departments are at various stages of completion.
- DAI Awards are offered by the SfAA and AAA: Several anthropology departments or programs have applied for and received awards to offset ACRN facilitator travel costs to university campuses. The Consortium for Practicing and Applied Anthropology (COPAA) offered the first such awards; it has since been integrated into SfAA. In 2025, COPAA of SfAA and the AAA jointly decided to encourage departmental participation in DAI through these awards.
Future Plans
Any future planning would be done in the context of ACRN’s ways of working, of which there are four key components. First, our mission is our focus: preparing anthropology students for careers in industry, non-profits, and government. Second, we are strategically oriented to produce change and improvement. Third, we work in collaboration with members and stakeholders. Finally, we strive to work quickly and effectively so that we can be as responsive and timely as possible. These four elements guide us as we establish new offerings, even as we work to fulfill our existing initiatives and services. These aspects of our work are also relevant in any invitation to take on a leadership role within the Network. In April 2024, Briody and Nolan invited Jennifer Studebaker to become an ACRN Co-Chair. Active with ACRN since the outset, Studebaker exhibits the collaborative work ethic that ACRN espouses. She brings strengths in strategy, communications, social media, and project management.
Developing new avenues of activity also requires an expanded degree of organisation. Over time, we plan to confirm and/or invite anthropologists to take on specific functional roles in areas such as:
- Research and Publishing: Guiding ACRN’s research projects which includes recruiting research project teams, ensuring project goals and methods are in alignment with ACRN’s mission, and overseeing the production of related publications
- Editorial: Collaborating with the product editors (e.g., Blog, Tools) to ensure quality content as well as assisting in recruiting bloggers, tool authors, and tool reviewers
- Communication, Marketing, and Outreach: Working with members and stakeholders on communications, social media, and graphics to ensure consistency in messaging and timely sharing of content
- Practice Academy and Training: Recruiting program leads and presenters, submitting conference workshop proposals, leading workshops and webinars, and producing supporting training materials
- Consulting: Interacting directly with university department/program leaders on their concerns and issues and working with them to attain their goals
- Website: Serving as webmaster, consulting on website redesigns, and contributing new resources.
Conclusion
ACRN is serving as a force for disciplinary change. Doing so requires understanding academic constraints and incentives, as well as being able to imagine what the future of anthropological education could be. As we contemplate this future, we recognize that change agents face resistance but also acceptance. Our goal is to build on the energy that has been cultivated among our members, develop new initiatives, and expand our reach to those who range from being are simply curious to those who are eager (or desperate) to learn more.
Closures have been looming over anthropology departments for several years and some departments have been shuttered or combined; many more are likely to face these challenges in the near term. Instructors and administrators are gravely concerned about enrollment. ACRN cares about employment of anthropology graduates. We have an opportunity for a “win-win” scenario: colleges and universities can access ACRN and find resources to stem the “numbers” tide while ACRN can continue to develop materials and training that will help prepare students for the world of work. Toward this end, we have found both individual instructor and department collaborations to be effective. In working together, we have a far better shot at reinforcing the value of anthropology in the workplace by training new entrants to use their anthropological knowledge, skills, and experience.
Career readiness will remain a relevant concern in anthropology at all education levels. Similarly, it will be a concern in other social sciences and in the humanities. ACRN resources have the potential to aid students, graduates, and instructors in these sister disciplines. ARCN has taken inspiration from disciplines with strong traditions of professionalization. We hope ACRN can provide a model for other disciplines seeking to demonstrate the versatility of humanities and social sciences in a wide range of work settings.
References
Angrosino, M. V. (1976). The evolution of the new applied anthropology. In M. V. Angrosino (Ed). Do applied anthropologists apply anthropology? Southern Anthropological Society Proceedings, No. 10. Distributed by the University of Georgia Press, Athens, GA, 1-9.
Baba, M. L. (2006). Anthropology and business. In H. James Birx (Ed) Encyclopedia of Anthropology (pp. 83-117). Sage Publications.
Baba, M. L. (2000). Theories of practice in anthropology: A critical Appraisal. In C. E. Hill and M. L. Baba (Eds). The unity of theory and practice in anthropology: Rebuilding a fractured synthesis (pp. 17-44). NAPA Bulletin 18, American Anthropological Association.
Baba, M. L. (1988). The academic-industrial connection: Building linkages in the field of anthropology. In R.T. Trotter II (Ed.). Anthropology for tomorrow: Creating practitioner-oriented applied anthropology programs (pp. 128-160). Special Publication of the American Anthropological Association, Number 24.
Baba, M. L. & Hill, C. E. (2006). What’s in the name ‘Applied Anthropology’? An encounter with global practice. In C.E. Hill and M.L. Baba (Eds.). The Globalization of Anthropology (pp. 176-207). NAPA Bulletin 25, American Anthropological Association.
Bennett, L. A. (1988). Bridges for changing times: Local practitioner organizations in American anthropology. (Commentaries by Karen J. Hanson and Omer C. Stewart). NAPA Bulletin 6, American Anthropological Association.
Briody, E. K. & Bodo, D. – Co-Executive Producers. (1994). Anthropologists at work: Careers making a difference, DVD, 36 minutes, American Anthropological Association and EXPOSE: Communications Network.
Briody, E. K. (1995). Making anthropologists at work: Lessons for anthropologists. Practicing Anthropology, 17(1-2): 32-36.
Briody, E. K. (2021). Driving organizational change: 2020 Bronislaw Malinowski Award Address. Human Organization, 80(3), 177-182. https://doi.org/10.17730/1938-3525-80.3.177
Briody, E. K. (2026). Preparing for anthropology careers. In D. Podjed, M. Gorup, P. Borecky and C. Guerrón Montero (Eds.). Why the world needs anthropologists. (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Briody, E. K. & Nolan, R. W. (2013). High-performing applied programs. In R. W. Nolan (Ed). A handbook of practicing anthropology (pp. 372-387). John Wiley & Sons.
Chambers, E. J. (2000). Practicing anthropology: Hauling in the future. In P. J. Higgins and J. Anthony Paredes (Eds). Classics of practicing anthropology 1978-1998 (pp. 11-13). Society for Applied Anthropology.
Fiske, S. J. & Chambers, E. J. (1996). The inventions of practice. Human Organization, 55(1), 1-12.
Fiske, S. J. & Wulff, R. M. (2022). Foreword: The emergence of WAPA and the birth of Praxis. In T. M. Redding and C. C. Cheney (Eds). Profiles of anthropological praxis: An international casebook (pp. x-xv). Berghahn.
Foster, G. M. (1962). Traditional cultures and the impact of technological change. Harper & Row.
Foster, G. M. (1969). Applied anthropology. Little, Brown and Company.
Givens, D. B. & Jablonski, T. (n.d). 1995 survey of PhD recipients. American Anthropological Association.
Guerrón-Montero, C. (2008). Introduction: Preparing anthropologists for the 21st Century. In C. Guerrón-Montero (Ed). Careers in applied anthropology in the 21st Century: Perspectives from academics and practitioners (pp. 1-13). NAPA Bulletin 29, American Anthropological Association.
Hartocollis, A. (2023). Can humanities survive the budget cuts? New York Times, November 3. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/03/us/liberal-arts-college-degree-humanities.html
Hill, C. E. (2000). The relationship of theory and practice. In C. E. Hill and M. L. Baba (Eds). The unity of theory and practice in anthropology: Rebuilding a fractured synthesis (pp. 1-16). NAPA Bulletin 18, American Anthropological Association.
Moran, E. F. (2000). Theory and practice in environmental anthropology. In C. E. Hill and M. L. Baba (Eds). The unity of theory and practice in anthropology: Rebuilding a fractured synthesis (pp. 132-146). NAPA Bulletin 18, American Anthropological Association.
Nolan, R. W. (2026). Using anthropology in the world: A guide to becoming an anthropologist practitioner (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Nolan, R. W. & Briody, E. K. (2023). A career ready curriculum for anthropologists. Practicing Anthropology, 45(3), 26-30. https://doi.org/10.17730/0888-4552.45.3.26
Nolan, R. W. & Briody, E. K. (2024). How career ready are your students? Reflections on what we are (not) teaching anthropology students. Annals of Anthropological Practice https://doi.org/10.1111/napa.12209
Nolan, R. W., Greene, I., Emilova, T., Studebaker, J. & Briody, E. K. (Eds.) 2026. Teaching tools for anthropology careers: Resources for instructors and departments. ACRN Press.
Partridge, W. L. & Eddy, E. M. (1987). The development of applied anthropology in america. In E. M. Eddy and W. L. Partridge (Eds). Applied anthropology in America (2nd ed.) (pp. 3-55). Columbia University Press.
Podged, D., Gorup, M., Borecký, P. & Guerrón Montero, C. (Eds). (2021). Why the world needs anthropologists. Taylor & Francis.
Podged, D. & Guerrón Montero, C. (Eds). (2026). Why the world needs anthropologists (2nd ed.). Taylor & Francis.
Rylko-Bauer, B., van Willigen, J., & McElroy, A. (1989). Strategies for increasing the use of anthropological research in the policy process: A cross-disciplinary analysis. In J. van Willigen, B. Rylko-Bauer, and A. McElroy (Eds). Making our research useful: Case studies in the utilization of anthropological knowledge (pp. 1-25). Westview Press.
Rylko-Bauer, B., Singer, M., & van Willigen, J. (2006). Reclaiming applied anthropology: Its past, present, and future. American Anthropologist, 108(1), 178-190.
Society for Applied Anthropology. (1941). Editorial statement. Applied Anthropology, 1(1), 1.
Studebaker, J., Briody, E. K., Malik, Z., & Nolan, R. W. (Eds). (2024). Career tools for anthropology: An Anthropology Career Readiness Network workbook. ACRN Press.
van Willigen, J. & Kedia, S. (2005). Emerging trends in applied anthropology. In S. Kedia and J. van Willigen (Eds). Applied anthropology: Domains of application (pp. 341-352). Praeger.
