On @szarota’s pondering:
I am wondering if field-oriented linguistics degree shouldn’t have more training in anthropology, ethnography etc. as core subjects, and encourage students to take seminars on the political/social/economic situation of the regions where they plan to undertake fieldwork.
Is this tantamount to saying that only those trained in linguistic anthropology should be fieldworkers? I’m not sure anyone doing comparative, formal or computational linguistics MA could also be expected to complete graduate training in anthropology – although for a PhD program, see what Anne Charity Hudley said on Twitter yesterday:
@Andrew_Harvey also referred to students who want to do linguistics but not fieldwork still benefiting from learning about some of the ways linguistic data is recorded:
How do we make field methods (a course which I believe all linguistics students should take, no matter what subdiscipline they eventually settle into) as easy as possible for students to take, to enjoy, and, ultimately, to want to learn more about?
A middle ground here may be including ethical/contextualization content to field methods course not just as a lecture or reading, but as part of the assessment. As a student I know it was easiest just to focus on the material I was actually being graded on. Perhaps a reflection writing assignment as part of the grade would be a really useful way to signal that there are a lot of issues around linguistic fieldwork that a course focused primarily on data analysis cannot cover but that students should be aware of if they ever intend to go out into the real world with these skills.