Anthropology 568 Primate Ecology and Social Behavior: Life History & Kinship Spring, 2005

Three Matrilineal Generations of Chacma Baboon (© Ryne A. Palombit)

Instructor: Ryne A. Palombit

Prerequisites:  Permission of instructor (substantial background in behavioral ecology and/or primate behavioral biology)

Texts:

Kappeler, P.M., & M.E. Pereira, editors. 2003. Primate Life Histories and Socioecology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Chapais, B., & C.M. Berman, editors. 2004. Kinship and Behavior in Primates. Oxford University Press, Oxford

Strunk Jr, W., & E.B. White. 1979. The Elements of Style, 3rd ed. Macmillan, New York.

Requirements:

Participation in Seminar Discussions (25%) (includes moderating, discussion, summarizing)

Positions Papers (each worth 10%, totalling 20%)

Oral Presentation (15%)

Paper (40%)

Goal of Seminar:

Our goal is to reach some conclusions about the current state of studies of two central ideas in primatology and evolutionary anthropology:

Life History Theory
	vs. ?

Blood is Thicker than Water: Kinship

Readings will disproportinately emphasize the most recent literature, particularly the above textbooks; previous work will be covered in the course of seminar discussions.

Moderating

One or twice during the semester you’ll moderate discussion.  This means leading the discussion by offering your critical evaluations of the readings.  This does not mean simply rephrasing the content of the papers.  Rather, take a position on the work and present it.  Foster debate by presenting opposing views on a subject.  If you like, you can take time at the beginning of class to present material (a brief “lecture”) or you can present it during the course of the discussion.
    One of your responsibilities as moderator is to do a (computer) search of the literature on the topic you’re moderating and make recommendations regarding papers we should read in class.  The question basically is: are there other papers of enough importance to recommend we drop the currently assigned reading (see below) and replace it?  Your recommendations don’t have to be necessarily based on in-depth analysis of each paper.  Rather, you should be able to make a preliminary evaluation based on a quick examination of it.
    So, two weeks before your moderating date, you should hand in to me (or email to me) a list of several papers  (no more than 5) you’ve run across that you think are relevant for the discussion.  Then, for each one, explain in a few sentences why you recommend it or don’t recommend it for as a reading for the seminar.
    Another responsibility is to present the results of (at least) one other relevant, empirical study (not theoretical or review paper) that was not assigned as a reading.  You can pick from the readings you submitted above, if you like.


Summarizing:

Each meeting will have one person charged with summarizing the important points of the discussion that day.  This should generally not be longer than a page (single-spaced).  Summarizers should link ideas and views with the people who offered them.  Summarizer should identify and highlight in their reports the following:  (1) the 3 most important ideas presented (and explain why); (2) the best quote of the day (linked to the person who generated it).  The summarizer will email the summary to me within 24 hrs of the meeting.  I’ll then email it to all participants.


Position Papers:

    A couple of times during the semester you will write a position paper.  These are brief and cogent articulations of your position on a debate. This paper is somewhat similar to the “Open Peer Commentary” exemplified by journals such as The Behavioral and Brain Sciences.  Position papers will be photocopied and distributed to everyone for discussion in the next meeting. You are not graded on the position you take.  What is required for full credit is a serious effort to state a convincing position. Each position paper should not exceed 1500 words (that’s about 2 pages, singled spaced).  Remember: take a position and convince the reader of it.
    The first position paper will focus on brains and life history.   One issue is the question raised in Dunbar's chapter: Is the evolution of life history variables "driven directly by ecological considerations…or it is driven indirectly via socio-demographic variables?"    This position paper also provides an opportunity to review the Kappeler & Pereira volume and conceptual and methodological issues (e.g., researcher's use of data, how the same data sets can generate ostensibly opposing conclusions, the advantages and disadvantages of the correlational analyses we've read so far, etc., etc., etc.).
    The second position paper will be on a kinship topic to be announced.
    EMAIL:  Please email your position paper (as a Microsoft Word document) to me at palombit@rci.rutgers.edu by 5pm on the due date.  Please do not email participants in the course directly.   That evening, I will email all position papers to everyone.