Paper short abstract:

Drawing on my ongoing research, which focuses on entrepreneurs operating within the field of the ethics of artificial intelligence, I argue that key issues brought about working with industries demonstrate that anthropologists still struggle with studying upper ends of the social structures.

Paper long abstract:

In 1972, Laura Nader pointed out to the necessity of researching higher

echelons of the power structures, if anthropologists were to develop any

adequate description or theorisation of social phenomena. Still, nearly

fifty years afterwards, we ask ourselves whether companies, institutions

at the core of the hegemonic capitalist system, are a legitimate object

of inquiry. This has to do with the anthropological inclination towards

the underdog, reinforced by the discipline’s swapping of the “savage

slot” with the “suffering one” (Robbins 2013), but also with challenges

that “studying up”, as Nader labelled the scrutiny of the upper ends of

power structures, brings. These pertain to securing access within the

context of pronounced property rights, the inability of the participant

observation method to travel smoothly “up the social structure” and

writing critical repatriated anthropology (Gusterson 1997).

In this paper, I draw on my ongoing research in Finland with “AI ethics

entrepreneurs”, people whose job consists of translating increasing

ethical concerns related to artificial intelligence into a commodity,

which they then try to sell. I reflect on the issues of trade-offs in

negotiating and maintaining access, polymorphic nature of my research

material and difficulties I am facing in writing up. I compare these and

contrast them with the challenges I encountered during my doctoral

research, as a foreigner studying transformations of Finnish

universities. I argue that resolving issues brought about work with

industries requires stronger disciplinary engagement with questions

related to “studying up”.