amanthro-theory-building

Theory & Argument Building (amanthro-theory-building)

At AA, evidence is not a contribution until it is attached to an argument other anthropologists can use elsewhere. This skill turns fieldwork, material, or measurements into theory: explicit concepts, mechanisms or interpretive logics, scope conditions, and positionality, in the idiom appropriate to your subfield. Thick description is necessary at AA but not sufficient — the "so what" must travel.

When to trigger

• The ethnography/data are rich but the conceptual payoff is thin
• A reviewer said the paper is "descriptive," "undertheorized," or "just a case"
• You need to state concepts, mechanisms, and scope conditions explicitly
• You must make your positionality and relationship to the field part of the argument

Build the argument (by mode of work)

Ethnographic / interpretive paper

1. Concept — define the key analytic precisely; distinguish it from neighbors and from the interlocutors' own terms (and say where you keep their term and why).
2. Interpretive logic / mechanism — the social process: who does what, with what meaning, under what constraints. Make it legible without flattening complexity.
3. Evidence-to-claim link — show which fieldwork moments, utterances, or materials ground each claim, and what would have disconfirmed your reading.
4. Scope conditions & portability — where the argument holds and where it does not. Portability ≠ universalizing the particular.

Archaeological / biological paper

• State the substantive question the material/biological evidence addresses before the methods.
• Keep inferential assumptions transparent (taphonomy, dating, sampling, comparative frames).
• Translate findings into a claim about social life or human variation that anthropologists can use, not only a site- or specimen-specific result.

Linguistic-anthropology paper

• Show what the language practice indexes (identity, power, ideology, cognition) beyond its form.
• Connect the discourse/grammar analysis to a cultural or social argument readers in other fields share.

Reflexivity & positionality (an AA hallmark)

• Make explicit who you are in this field — your relationship to interlocutors, how access shaped what you saw, and how your position bears on the interpretation. AA practices an ethics of care; reflexivity is part of the argument's credibility, not a confessional aside.

The "portability" test (AA-specific)

Ask: Could an anthropologist in another subfield import this concept/mechanism to their own problem? If yes, you have a four-field contribution. If the argument only works for your exact case, tighten it into a general logic or reframe (back to amanthro-topic-selection).

Anti-patterns

• Thick description with no portable concept (rich case, thin theory)
• Universalizing a single ethnographic particular with no scope conditions
• Concepts named but never grounded in specific evidence
• Erasing positionality / writing a "view from nowhere" in an interpretive field
• Importing a deficit framing of communities rather than their own analytics
• Burying the argument under the material — the contribution must be stated plainly

Output format

【Core claim】one sentence
【Concept】the key analytic, defined
【Mechanism / interpretive logic】the social process
【Evidence link】what grounds it / what would disconfirm it
【Positionality】how the author's relation to the field bears on the reading
【Scope + portability】where it holds / who else can use it
【Next】amanthro-research-design

Supplementary resources

• ../../resources/external_tools.md — concept-mapping, qualitative-analysis, and comparative tooling
• ../../resources/official-source-map.md — AA scope and contribution expectations