چکیده:
Methodology in anthropological research, like other social science disciplines, is considered a very essential part of research. Despite claims regarding the universality of methodologies, in the anthropological field, it must be accepted that existing methodologies are shaped by the type of relationship cultural researchers have with the research subject and the conditions and contexts of this relationship. This relationship is formed within a framework of methodological assumptions of that science and the type of political relationship that exists implicitly and explicitly between the researcher and the subject. This can be seen most clearly in research on indigenous issues where the researcher is also a part of it. This type of research falls outside the conventional methodology of cultural research in anthropology, where a foreign and Western researcher conducts research on indigenous and non-Western peoples. In this article, based on anthropological fieldwork in the field of religious rituals in Iran (a field to which the researchers themselves belong), we will propose a dialogue methodology for indigenous anthropology. To this end, through an epistemological critique of the anthropological methodological paradigm and its shortcomings for indigenous anthropology, and considering the discussion that culture resides most of all in the unconscious realm of people's minds, a self-awareness-oriented dialogue methodology has been proposed. Based on this methodology, dialogue is the most appropriate way for the tacit knowledge shared by the researcher and the subject to be transformed, through discourse, into the conscious level and into a subject for anthropological and cultural reflections.
خلاصه ماشینی:
Based on this methodology, dialogue is the most suitable way for the implicit knowledge that the researcher and the subject share to be transformed, through discourse, into the level of the ego and into a subject for anthropological and cultural reflections.
Issues such as ethnocentrism and culture shock in anthropological methodology and theoretical critical discussions stem from this subject characteristic: "Cultural egocentrism or ethnocentrism is the tendency to judge other societies by one's own cultural standards" (Beats and Plag, 1996: 43); culture shock is a type of psychological pressure that an individual feels among members of a non-self social group (Spradley and McCurdy, 1993: 77).
In such an atmosphere of understanding the subject and field experience as the basis and way of connection between subject and theory, anthropological insight found its own original characteristic, and the importance of fieldwork became the most important key to gaining this insight: "Cultural anthropology relies heavily on fieldwork, which consists of first-hand observation of human societies and is a means for collecting data and testing hypotheses arising from theories" (Beats and Plag, 1996: 94).
The issue for the Western anthropologist in studying the religion of natives is to reach a scientific and critical understanding of their religious faith in relation to their society and culture.
(
, 
, 
)
