CfP - Speaking more broadly: Adapting anthropological concepts for a broader audience

Following up on our previous post, AAA in San Jose - Anthropological Concepts for Non-Anthropologists, Jennifer and I would like to take this opportunity to circulate a call for papers for our proposed AAA panel. We hope that this panel will be a launching pad for the new kind of anthropological handbook we have been imagining over the past year or so.

So, without further ado, here's our call! If you are interested in participating in this panel/ project, please get in touch with us by April 12th.

Call for Papers  |  Speaking more broadly: 

Adapting anthropological concepts for a broader audience

 

Panel for AAA 2018 Annual Meeting in San Jose, CA:

“Change in the Anthropological Imagination”

For questions or to submit an abstract for consideration, please email Jennifer Long (longjen@mcmaster.ca) and Rhiannon Mosher (rhmosher@yorku.ca) by April 12th.

In this panel, we seek to identify, contextualize and ‘translate’ anthropological concepts and constructs for a broader audience. This year's conference organizers ask anthropologists to write about holism, social change, resistance, resilience, and adaptation in the contemporary moment, and to recognize the importance of discussions about species, societies, reorganization, transformation and stasis. We invite anthropologists to take this challenge literally.

                                                                    

This CfP seeks authors who wish to break down the organizers' questions into their sum of parts in an effort to consider: how other disciplines, our applied experiences, and interdisciplinary partnerships inform our discussions. We want to know how we can tap anthropological experiences and perspectives to engage and educate a wider public? We seek to understand specifically how an anthropological vocabulary shapes and frames the field and our practices with our partners, interlocutors, and colleagues. Further, we want to better understand the ways in which anthropological understandings are understood, changed, and integrated into new contexts.

This proposed panel is a response to calls like Ryan Anderson's (2013) post (on the blog now known as Anthro{dendum}) to break the closed loop in which anthropologists often work. Anderson argues that anthropologists often end up speaking (just/ only) to one another about our work – all the while, this cacophony of anthropological insight remains locked behind closed doors. In our current sociopolitical context, and with more and more of our graduates working outside of the academy in interdisciplinary contexts, learning how to "get involved, to collaborate, to find ways to communicate and bring the ideas of anthropology to wider issues and conversations" (2013) should be the discipline's priority.

While the irony of calling for papers at the Annual Meeting on the topic of breaking open the closed loop of anthropological discussions is not lost on the panel organizers, we seek to create a resource which situates various anthropological concepts historically within our discipline, and then contextualizes these concepts in their new, renewed, and revised contexts. Importantly, each concept or term should be explained through a case study, an experience from the field, with researchers from different disciplines or through original research. It should be noted that this call is open to anthropologists in all four fields. The goal of this panel is to jump-start the draft for a text where various concepts are discussed using to be used by students, practicing and interdisciplinary colleagues.

Therefore, panel organizers seek papers that define, describe, and compare anthropological concepts used in practice, past experience, in industry (e.g. ethnography in user design or market research) or other disciplines (e.g. other social sciences, hard sciences or technology, engineering or math). Panelists should define the term in plain language, provide a brief history of its origin and use, then elucidate on the term using a case study from fieldwork, in conversation with non-anthropologists, and the workplace.

For questions or to submit an abstract for consideration, please email

Jennifer Long (longjen@mcmaster.ca) and Rhiannon Mosher (rhmosher@yorku.ca)

by April 12th.

Ethnography & Case Study Research: Saying yes to the project

Over the past few Mondays, we have been posting on the recent case-study research project I worked on with OCWI. Working with OCWI on this short-term project was an opportunity

• to learn more about research approaches that complement ethnography (Program Evaluation and Case-Study Research), and 
• to rethink some the skills already in my research toolkit, but not in my methods vocabulary, e.g. "grey literature."

In this post, I want to reflect on one more unexpected learning opportunity that came out of this experience: what it means to say "yes" to a new project.

What did it look like to say "yes"?

Interestingly, I hadn't applied to OCWI for this research contract. In fact, I had applied to the organization a few months earlier for a different research role, and had OCWI keep my resume on file. So, when I got an email from my future supervisor at OCWI about this position, it was unexpected, and at the time I wasn't sure if I would be able to juggle more work with my already busy teaching schedule.

Even so, I felt like it was important to meet for an interview to network, learn more about the organization, and learn about the proposed project. I left for the meeting telling myself that I would probably have to turn down the opportunity, but it would be good to "show my face" and let this organization know I was interested and had important skills and experience to offer.

In the meeting, as soon as I heard what the project would be about... I was sold.

Not only was the program I was asked to write a case study on reflective of my previous research interests and areas of expertise, but it was also a chance to gain valuable work experience with this research network, and to actually do field research again -- after years of writing my dissertation, and then the time-consuming teaching duties entailed in preparing new courses year after year.

I immediately began calculating how many hours I could squeeze out of my week, and weighing whether or not I could realistically complete this work to the high standard I would want. I was up front with my soon-to-be supervisor about my availability, my enthusiasm, and interest in this project. When I left the meeting, I had all but signed the contract.

Thinking about what it means to say "yes"

Two months later, I met with my former PhD supervisor for lunch. As I told her about the project I was then deep in the middle of, she remarked how one of my strengths was my willingness to try new things, to take on new challenges and say "yes!" to opportunities outside of my comfort zone.

This comment really struck me because I hadn't considered this willingness to try new things to be an out-of-the-ordinary strength for a) an anthropologist, and b) a recent PhD grad today.

Anthropological adventurousness?

As a relatively shy person, I have always found conducting social research to be a step out of my comfort zone. Connecting with new people and asking them questions about their lives was never something that came naturally to me.

I chose to become an anthropologist because I loved what this approach to social questions could tell us, not because I love talking to strangers. Yet, now that I am an anthropologist, I know that in order to be an effective social researcher, I need to step out of my comfort zone sometimes.

Enacting (neoliberal) agency in the face of neoliberal structures?

Secondly, as a recent PhD grad in a highly precarious academic labour market, many of my conversations with colleagues over the past several years have focused on how not to get stuck in adjuncting purgatory. My approach has been to apply for interesting opportunities that seem like a good (if not perfect) fit... We are all expected to be "entrepreneurs of ourselves" in a neoliberal society, right Aihwa Ong?

I was therefore surprised to hear that it seemed that many of these same colleagues aren't doing the same. One of the great strengths of someone who, for a very long time, identified as a professional student is that I am able and willing to learn new things!

On the other hand... the more I thought about "adventurousness" as a strength, I also found myself thinking about the structures that limit the ability to say yes.

I was only able to take on this new research project because of the modicum of stability I have this academic year in teaching the same courses. Instead of dedicating 8-20 hours a week in preparing new lectures and assignments on top of my regular teaching duties, these are mostly already in place -- meaning that time can be given to exciting new research opportunities.

If this opportunity had fallen into my lap during the two previous years, I would have had to turn it down during the academic term. In working as a professor, I love the opportunity to teach anthropology to my students, but as an adjunct I work in a structure that has often limited my ability to do other kinds of "professorial" tasks (such as supported time for writing and research).

Lessons from saying "yes" to the project

Taking on this research contract has been a valuable experience, both personally and professionally. Yes, there was a bit of a learning curve to this project for me as I engaged with new research approaches and methodological vocabulary. Importantly, I didn't need to identify these problems and their solutions all on my own. A key lesson has been that being up to a new challenge doesn't mean tackling it alone.

I was hired because my supervisor/ co-researcher recognized how ethnography (and an ethnographer) could add a valuable dimension to OCWI's series of case-studies. So, I decided to approach this opportunity as an ethnographer; in addition to making sense of the community-based program at the heart of our case study, I would also make sense of the unfamiliar culture of this research network.

In approaching my co-researcher/ supervisor at OCWI as a key informant, I positioned myself to ask naive questions, check-in about my understanding of the project and directions, and draw on her local cultural expertise. For instance, she suggested methodological resources on program evaluation and case study research, facilitated introductions to key research participants in our community program, and helped orient me to key landmarks in the grey literature. Rather than getting caught up in "imposter syndrome" in an unfamiliar field, I was instead doing what I have been trained to do as an anthropologist.

So, to close out this post -- the last in this series until the research communications from this case study are published -- I would like to say "thank you!" to my supervisor/ co-researcher, Dr. Michelle Coyne, and OCWI for these enriching opportunities to think about the connections between Ethnography and Case Study Research.

Further reading:

• Advice for Grad Students | Job Market: Realities & Opportunities (anthro everywhere!)
• All posts from this series on Ethnography & Case Study Research can be found on our special series Ethnography & ... page
• Ethnography, Case Study Research, and Program Evaluation (Oh my!) (8 January 2018)
• Ethnography & Case Study Research: Applying an ethnographic approach (15 January 2018)
• Ethnography & Case Study Research: Grey Literature (22 January 2018)

Ethnography & Case-Study Research: Grey Literature

What is "grey literature"? Is this a term that you use in your work? Why does knowing this language matter?

The first time I heard the term "grey literature" I was speaking with an anthropologist who had become a public servant with the Canadian federal government. He was describing some of the tasks of his job in policy development and mentioned reviewing grey literature.

I could not recall ever using myself this term myself, or coming across it in ethnographic studies or methods handbooks. When I asked him to elaborate, he referenced all of the internal reports and white papers that provided important background for current policy issues. The term struck me as a peculiar, almost demeaning way to talk about existing documents that seemed like they were rather important in giving a researcher a holistic picture of the context under study.

Although a strange term to my ears, clearly the concept of "grey literature" was a normative term in the field of policy development and in the public service.

The next time I heard the term grey literature, it was when I was hired to develop a case-study for OCWI. As my supervisor outlined the project she envisioned, reviewing the grey literature on the program being evaluated and in locating it in its larger context would be paramount.

Again, it struck me that this term – despite being rather foreign to me – was part of the everyday language of Case Study and Program Evaluation research that I was now venturing into.

So, what is "grey literature"? 

The term seemed so foreign to me, and yet seemed to describe something so familiar or commonplace that I found myself overthinking the concept, and worrying that I was out of my depth as an ethnographer doing Case Study and Program Evaluation research.

As it turns out though, as an anthropologist, I have always worked with grey literature – I just didn't have this blanket term in my methodological vocabulary!

Grey literature encompasses all of the documents that are available, but not intended for wide distribution. Think of the term as contrasting with "black and white" literature that is commercially published (see Western University Library's informative, quick video on the topic of grey lit).

According to the International Conference on Grey Literature (GreyNet), grey literature includes the "multiple document types produced on all levels of government, academics, business, and organization in electronic and print formats not controlled by commercial publishing i.e. where publishing is not the primary activity of the producing body." As such, grey literature includes:

• government documents and websites
• white papers
• evaluations and research reports
• conference proceedings and unpublished/ working-papers
• data (e.g. census, geospatial, economic)
• practice guidelines
• patents
• theses and dissertations
• internal communications
• community-based websites, newsletters, and blogs

For some anthropologists, perhaps "grey literature" is already a prominent part of your methodological vocabulary. However, in speaking with colleagues, I have found that I am not the only anthropologist who was unfamiliar with this term, even though I am deeply aware of the importance of the kinds of documents it references.

So, to come back to the last question I posed at the beginning of this post...

Why does knowing this language matter?

Knowing this language matters because it allows us to speak about and champion our skills as social researchers to a broader public.

As I have discussed in previous posts in this series, anthropological ethnography has a lot of offer in projects centred on case studies or program evaluation (and beyond). However, in order to show that we can 'walk the walk' of these kinds of projects, and with these kinds of audiences, we first need to learn how to 'talk the talk'.

Quick links and further reading:

• International Conference on Grey Literature (GreyNet)
• Western University Library's Grey Literature Video Tutorial
• anthro everywhere!'s Special Series: Ethnography & ... page with all the posts in our Ethnography & Case Study Research series
• Ethnography, Case-Study Research, and Program Evaluation (Oh my!) (8 January 2018)
• Ethnography & Case Study Research: Applying an ethnographic approach (15 January 2018)

Ethnography & Case Study Research: Applying an ethnographic approach

Last week, I shared my recent experiences being hired as a research assistant at Ontario Centre for Workforce Innovation to conduct a case-study on a local example of innovation in workforce development. In this post, I want to continue that discussion, thinking a bit more about: what case study research is, how it intersects with ethnography, and why this matters for anthropologists.

What is Case Study Research? 

As anthropologists, we might be used to referencing case studies in our classroom. Isn't Malinowski's work among the Trobrianders an interesting case study of non-market exchange? How have Evans-Pritchard's study of the Azande or Gmelch's study of baseball magic become textbook cases for discussing systems of supposedly irrational belief? Or we might ask students to focus their examination of course issues on a specific case-study in a final essay...

This way of understanding a case-study echoes how Robert K. Yin understands the term and frames "Case Study Research" as a (qualitative and/or quantitative) methodological approach in his text Case Study Research: Design and Methods (5th edition).

Interestingly, Yin argues that a case-study approach is useful

in situations when (1) the main research questions are 'how' or 'why' questions;  (2) a researcher has little or no control over behavioral events; and (3) the focus of study is a contemporary (as opposed to entirely historical) phenomenon (Yin 2013, 3).

Case studies, writes Yin, have been popularly used by a wide range of disciplines, including anthropology. Whether conducted from the perspective of a psychologist, political scientist, social worker, nurse or community planner, Yin states that "the distinctive need for case study research arises out of the desire to understand complex social phenomena. In brief, a case study allows investigators to focus on a 'case' and retain a holistic and real-world perspective" (Yin 2013, 4).

How does Case Study research reference or intersect with Ethnography? 

So far, this understanding of when and why to apply a case study research approach seems remarkably similar to ethnographic research! And the parallels continue...

Yin frames the six sources of evidence used in case study research as documentation, archival records, interviews, direct observations, participant-observation, and physical artifacts (Yin 2013, 105-118). Hmmm....

In order to be a good case study researcher, Yin argues (2013, 73-79) that one must:

• Ask good questions - Essentially, Yin asks researchers to recognize the iterative nature of the research process and to constantly ask questions as the study develops during fieldwork, even as "substantive review" comes later. Yin even discusses grounded theory as an apt approach to case study research.
• Be a good "listener" - Yin advocates that we be active listeners and pay attention to all the social cues given during interactions with study participants. Importantly, Yin is advocating a certain amount of cultural relativism -- without using this term -- and openness to paying attention to what people do as well as what they say.
• Stay adaptive - "Few case studies will end exactly as planned. Inevitably, you will have to make minor if not major changes, ranging from the need to pursue an unexpected lead (potentially minor) to the need to identify a new 'case' for study (potentially major)" (Yin 2013, 74). If this doesn't sound like ethnographic research, I am not sure what does!
• Have a firm grasp on the issues being studied - Yin's argument here is to keep one's research question or purpose in mind throughout the research, and attend to how the data collected might shape or demand a shift in the direction of the research.
• Avoid biases - Yin urges researchers to be open to what the data shows, rather than trying to force the data to support a preconceived hypothesis. Again this echoes how anthropologists often pose exploratory how and why questions in our research.
• Conduct research ethically - Here, Yin even cites the AAA's Code of Ethics among other disciplinary and processional ethical codes.

In many ways, how anthropologists approach ethnographic research seem to mirror how Yin frames the case study approach. Yet, Yin frames ethnography as a single method that can be incorporated into case-study research.

A good place to start unpacking the placement of ethnography in his toolkit for case study research is to reflect on how ethnography is understood outside of anthropology.

Although more and more people are being hired in alt-ac careers as professional ethnographers, there is still a misunderstanding or a "watering-down" of ethnography in industry and other professional spheres. What anthropologists are apt of see as "ethnography-lite" is a relatively narrow understanding of what ethnography is, and seems to reflect how this research approach has been popularly adopted by non-anthropologists, for instance in education, nursing, and business. As Marc LeFleur (VP Insights and Co-Head Health at Idea Couture) underscores "something has been lost in this widespread adoption of ethnography outside of academia. Ethnography is on its way to now just becoming another method, simply shorthand for hanging out with people for longer than a focus group would take, another hammer in the market researcher’s toolkit."

The Case for Ethnographers...

Recognizing the overlap and shared strengths of ethnography with case study research presents an interesting opportunity for anthropologists, especially those of us looking to engage a non-academic audience. Not knowing the language of Case Study Research means that anthropologists are missing out on important opportunities to bring our holistic, rigorous, and thickly descriptive approach into social research in the public sphere.

Like ethnography, case studies are used to answer how and why type questions. We can see from Yin's text that the sources of data used for case studies are the same as those any ethnographer would consider. Similarly, the skills and approach to research Yin outlines for case study research sound a lot like my second-year lecture on ethnographic methods.

What makes case study research different from ethnography?

Depending on the type of case study undertaken, there really might not be much difference between this form of research and ethnography. In my work with OCWI, I found that my research approach as a trained ethnographer fit rather seamlessly with the goals and structure sought for this report ― with the exception of framing the research question, anchoring my analysis, and writing for a non-specialist audience.

Research Questions

Importantly, case study research questions may be preset by the organization or funder rather than by the researcher themselves.

In my work with OCWI, I was hired to develop a research report on a single, predefined case that would speak to their mandate regarding workforce innovation. This meant that during research, I had to keep the priorities and interests of my employer (and case program stakeholders) in mind. A challenge here was balancing how to stay on task, while attending to interesting threads that were less pertinent but nonetheless important to understanding the case.

For instance, in my research of the Youth Empowering Parents program, I was interested in following up on the connections and outcomes surrounding voluntarism, community belonging, and the role of the YEP program in immigrant integration. However, with OCWI's key interests around employability, it was important to consider these research threads in relation to the task at hand. YEP's interest in framing their program as a youth empowering initiative and voluntarism opportunity for low-income youth encouraged me to trace connections between youth voluntarism, community/ civic engagement, and OCWI's key interests in employability. Questions around identity and community belonging -- although fascinating -- were less important to pursue in the context of this research.

Anchoring the analysis

While my background in social theory certainly helped me to analyse my data, this report was not to make theory explicit. When I began writing my first draft, I felt a little adrift in terms of how to speak to OCWI's understanding of employability and employment outcomes. This industry-specific language was not something which which I was familiar and I felt a bit out of my depth.

By recognizing my OCWI supervisor as a valuable informant in this field, I approached her for guidance. She steered me to key documents and policies from the Ontario Ministry of Advanced Education and Skills Development (which is funding these case studies). These documents helped to give me an anchor point for considering the Program Evaluation dimension of the intended final report. Grounding my report in this literature was important for helping produce a case study that would speak to our intended audience(s).

Writing for a non-specialist audience

One of the reasons that I was hired by OCWI to develop this case study, was because my supervisor recognized the value and richness of ethnography and wanted to bring this dimension into our report. The format of my report was set by the template developed by OCWI, covering context, history, implementation, and “lessons learned.” Being able to frame the lessons learned, or impact, of the YEP program in people's everyday lives was clearly well-suited to an ethnographic approach.

While case studies might be directed at academic readers, they are also likely to be of interest or use to non-specialists like community stakeholders, policy makers, practitioners, and funders connected to the case you are studying (Yin 2013, 180). In my case study for OCWI, it was clear from the outset that the report should be accessible, not overtly theoretical, but nonetheless based on rigorous empirical evidence and analysis. Our anticipated audience would be community organizers across Ontario (and potentially beyond) interested in implementing similar workforce innovations in their own communities.

In my case, I worked in close contact with both my supervising colleague at OCWI and my key contact at YEP throughout the writing phase. In many ways, this experience reflected the professional relationships that academic anthropologists have with colleagues/ supervisors/ reviewers and their research participants, incorporating and addressing constructive criticism and concerns for representation from both parties. Sharing my early drafts with both partners helped to ensure that my report met the needs of both my employer's mandate, and the needs of our community partner who would use this report to help grow their program in different communities and gain the support of additional funders.


The experience of learning about and doing "case study research" has raised some important questions for me about the intersections of this approach with ethnography -- some of which I have tried to answer here. Next Monday, we'll continue this series by thinking about some more of the parallels between this form of research common in alt-ac spheres and ethnography through the concept of "grey literature." Stay tuned!

If you have experience with case study research as an anthropologist, please let us know! You can tweet us @anthrolens or email us anthrolens@gmail.com.

Quick links and further reading:

• Robert K. Yin's text Case Study Research: Design and Methods (5th edition)
• USC's Research Guide: Writing a Case Study
• Marc LeFleur on Reclaiming Ethnography (2017, LinkedIn)
• Ethnography, Case-Study Research, and Program Evaluation (Oh my!) (anthro everywhere! 8 January 2018)
• For all posts in this series, check our Special Series: Ethnography & ... page.

Ethnography, Case-Study Research, and Program Evaluation (Oh my!)

What is Case-Study research? What about Program Evaluation? What role can Ethnography play in these other approaches to social research?

As an anthropologist, "Program Evaluation" and "Case-Study Research" were familiar terms to me. But these were not methodological approaches or reporting styles that I had received formal training in. I had a vague idea of what both of these terms meant and how they might apply to my research. In fact, I had never thought much about what these kinds of approaches would look like combined with ethnography, or how ethnography might be used to do this kind of research... until recently.

Between September and December 2017, I had the opportunity to learn more about these research approaches in my role as a research associate with the Ontario Centre for Workforce Innovation (OCWI). OCWI was launching a new series of case-studies on programs and practices in Ontario that demonstrated an innovative approach to workforce development. Based on rigorous research, and in keeping with OCWI's mandate, a case-study should evaluate the program or practice, and based on this evidence, explain how "these practices can be transferred, scaled up, and made relevant for the broader workforce development sector." The research associate supervising these case-studies envisioned using ethnography to help ground the impacts of the case-study project or practice in the everyday lives of community stakeholders.

One of the great strengths of ethnography is the iterative nature of our approach to social research, allowing you to shape your research questions and follow up on leads that you didn't expect. So,  what does it mean to bring an ethnographic research approach and perspective into a project where the framework is very clearly defined through case-study research? How can ethnographic insights provide meaningful metrics in evaluating a program or process or practice?

As we have noted elsewhere on the blog, it is important (and expected) that anthropologists learn to speak the langauge of their research participants. For an anthropologist venturing into the realm of interdisciplinary, alt-ac research, it is also important to learn to speak the langauge of our employers and their stakeholders.

This is where I chose to start this project: by learning to speak the language of case-study research and program evaluation. As a social research professional, I quickly found that these other approaches are really more like dialects than completely different languages.

For a basic introduction to Program Evaluation, check out these Open Learning modules on Interdisciplinary Program Evaluation from Ryerson University:

• Module 1: The Basics of Program Evaluation
• Module 2: Logic Models
• Module 3: Qualitative Tools in Program Evaluation
• Module 4: Performance Management

After reviewing these different modules (described as covering about "10-15% of a a one-semester undergraduate, graduate or certificate course"), I had a much better idea of how a program evaluation project is framed. Knowing that program evaluation was a key component of this case-study project, these modules helped orient me in many ways to the task of this case-study project. I could see what ethnographic research could contribute in this type of study, better consider what kinds of questions I should pursue as the project developed, and how I would need to frame my results in my report.

Next Monday, check back for more in our "Ethnography & ..." series exploring the connections between Ethnography and Case-Study research through this project.

Quick links:

• Open Learning: Interdisciplinary Program Evaluation (Ryerson University)
• Language learning (16 June 2016, anthro everywhere!)
• Ontario Centre for Workforce Innovation (OCWI)
• anthro everywhere!'s "Ethnography & ..." series on research projects conducted by our bloggers

Writing better Conference Abstracts and crafting better Posters

We originally planned to write this post for grad students, but really, couldn't we all benefit fit from learning a bit more about how to write a great conference abstract or an eye-catching poster?

Here are a couple of interesting resources for helping you do just that.

From the LSE Impact Blog, you might like to read Your essential ‘how-to’ guide to writing good abstracts and their follow-up post How to write a killer conference abstract: The first step towards an engaging presentation. These posts contain some useful tips for grad students applying to a conference for the first time. Veteran conference-goers may also benefit from reviewing these suggestions, and considering how conference abstracts are different from article abstracts.

Conference posters are often less common among social anthropologists than paper presentations. As a visual medium, posters present unique challenges for researchers whose work is based in narrative. However, we're not the only discipline who struggles with how best to represent our findings in this format. Luckily, there are many resources available to help you craft an informative and eye-catching poster:

• 4 Design Tips, For Awesome Research Posters (22 October 2012, AAA Blog)
• Better Posters: A resource for improving poster presentations
• How to Create a Research Poster: Poster Basics (NYU Libraries)
• Creating Anthropology Conference Posters: A Guide for Beginners (Jason E. Miller and John K. Trainor)

We've also taken the opportunity to update our page on Advice for Grad Students | Writing Tips with this information on conferencing. If you're getting ready to head to a conference, you might also want to check out our collected tips on networking on our Advice for Grad Students | Professional Development Strategies page.

The Event! Designing Human Futures

Dr. Paul Hartley came to McMaster last night to give us a talk about Reassessing our (i.e. Humans') Relationship with Technology.

The talk was extremely useful in that it provided attendees with an 'archaeology' of technology.
What do I mean by archaeology? Archaeology, in a Foucaudian sense, examines "discursive traces and orders left by the past in order to write a 'history of the present'. In other words archaeology is about looking at history as a way of understanding the processes that have led to what we are today" (Clare O'Farrell for Michel-Foucault.com, 2007).

Dr. Hartley's main premise of the talk was to reassess how we think about our relationship with technology because much of what we think about technology and the future, is steeped in mythology of the past. If we think technology will 'save' us by making life easier, that it necessarily drives (good) change, or that technologies will bring the human race to the pinnacle of progress - these narratives are not new - in fact, he traced their lineage over centuries - and they do not necessarily have to dictate our future relationship.

Dr. Hartley spoke of the importance of using a human-centered (what he called the Human Futures Framework) to re-articulate this relationship in future design and innovation projects.

In so doing, he gave the audience 5 steps to this process (i.e. the framework):
1. Deconstruct - what you know about your project/product/problem
2. Observe - for the purpose of building a better picture of the context
3. Understand - analyzing collected data within the context
4. Speculate - identify possible future pathways (of design, of interest, of intent, etc.)
5. Activate - generate next steps and understand the implication of the investigation.

In all, Dr. Hartley's talk helped frame our understanding how the technology - as we understand today - came to be. It also helped attendees recognize what steps they could take to use a human futures approach (where the human bookends the technology - as a hybrid form that enables humans instead of any other scary apocalyptic scenarios where robots take over for humans) in our everyday design practices.

Solutionism - The Role of Technology in Solving SocioTechnical Problems

It all began, over a year ago (June 2016), with what author Ethan Zuckerman described as hate-linking. Through this practice, Zuckerman stumbled upon and read an article by Shane Snow who is the co-founder of a content-marketing platform. Briefly, in his article, Snow advocates for change in US prison systems - to lessen the financial burden and remove instances of violence - by locking everyone in a room...indefinitely and by feeding them the Silicon Valley version of Ensure. The role of technology - a crucial point to Zuckerman's response - in this prison life would be to give all those incarcerated access to VR (virtual reality) equipment and video games to socialize and learn. Snow's thought is that with less contact, there will be less violence and deaths.

In his lengthy response, The Perils of Using Technology to Solve Other People's Problems for the Atlantic, Zuckerman systematically pokes holes in Snow's proposed solutions to the US prison system (as a design developed out of context and without input from those living and working in such a system) and questions the role of technology as the prolific savior in sociotechnical issues.

As an engineering instructor at MIT, Zuckerman is interested in finding ways to: disrupt better, challenge knowledgeably, and engaging (or codesigning) new and better technology alongside the intended or target audience. Zuckerman drives home what he sees as an issue in (most) engineering design processes where many of the technologies we benefit from, weren’t designed for their ultimate beneficiaries, but were simply designed well and adopted widely.

Zuckerman draws attention to Evgeny Morozov's critique of “solutionism” which Morozov describes as the act of focusing on problems that (only) have “nice and clean technological solution at our disposal.” The problem with the solutionist critique, Zuckerman argues, is that it tends to remove technological innovation from the problem-solver’s toolkit. He advocates that robust solutions to social problems must incorporate technology as one of many levers toward social change.

Zuckerman mentions the work of Genevieve Bell at intel to briefly mention the role of ethnography and ethnographers in collecting important user information in the design process. He writes:
Understanding the wants and needs of users is important when you’re designing technologies for people much like yourself, but it’s utterly critical when designing for people with different backgrounds, experiences, wants, and needs.

Although an older article, Zuckerman's response to Snow's design situates anthropological and ethnographic analysis into the heart of the design process, where the heart does not represent the centre of a process, but the life blood of design and innovation. It's here that the expert - that is the user or client or target audience - and their knowledge is paramount.

Quick Links: 

Perils of Using Technology to Solve Other People's Problems: What will it take to design socio-technical systems that actually work? Ethan Zuckerman in the Atlantic (June 23, 2016)

How Soylent and Oculus Could Fix The Prison System (A Thought Experiment) - note, this has been revised due to feedback from the wider community - Shane Snow (Sept 23, 2015) 

For more links about technology on AnthroEverywhere!

Isuma TV - Indigenous Media collective (Sept 4 2017)

Anthropology Podcasting (Aug 24 2017)

Remembering & Memories: there's an app for that... (Jul 17 2017)

Anthropology Podcasting

Heard any great podcasts lately? What about anthropology podcasts?

We've posted about anthropology and podcasting before on anthro everywhere! as a way of communicating ethnography in a different format, as Dr. Lindsay Bell has done with her students. Podcasting can be an opportunity to engage a wider or different audience than text-based communications. The medium and our possible audiences might also challenge us to think through and present theoretical ideas and ethnographic details as a public anthropologist speaking to a perhaps non-specialist audience.

So, what about the podcasts that are already out there? You might be surprised that so many anthropological associations and initiatives have jumped into podcasting to share our insights. From audio versions of academic lectures to more intimate conversations about ideas, here's a by no means definitive list for your listening pleasure:

• As you might have suspected, the RAI Lectures podcasts are audio files of keynote lectures given mostly by anthropological rock-stars on a variety of topics.
• This Anthro Life might be the best known anthropology podcast. Episodes run about 20-30 minutes, and are put together by a team of grad students on issues "inspired by Anthropologist Ruth Benedict’s claim that anthropology’s job is to make the world safe for human differences."
• AnthroPod: The SCA Podcast is hosted by Cultural Anthropology  in line with their open-access format and mission. Many episodes deliver interviews with anthropologists on their work, while others explore particular issues more broadly. Episodes vary from about 30-60 minutes in length.
• A Story of Us comes from Ohio State's Anthropology graduate students, with series themes from researchers in the department, such as childhood, death, and migration.
• Anthropological Airwaves is American Anthropologist's new podcast series, and aims to mirror the journal's "four-field, multimodal research, the podcast hosts conversations about anthropological projects—from fieldwork and publishing to the discipline’s role in public debates."
• Oxford Podcasts from the School of Anthropology and Museum Ethnography. With over 200 episodes since 2010, this podcast showcases lecture and seminar discussions from the department.
• Thinking Allowed is BBC4's ethnography podcast, which bills itself as "New research on how society works." While the presenter, Laurie Taylor, is a sociologist by training, the focus really is on the value and power of an ethnographic perspective.
• The Sociological Imagination podcasts from a sociological and interdisciplinary perspective, and is worth including in this list. It's also a great site to mine for further listening, through posts like "The LSE’s remarkable archive of public talks."
• You can also check out AAA's Podcast Library and its impressive list of archived podcasts, which include episodes covering the four-fields of anthropology.

Inspired to make your own podcasts? Check out this informative piece on the podcasting medium, "Talking Anthropology: Podcasting for the Public," (and Part 2) from Teaching Culture for ideas about how to craft your own and/or bring podcasting into the classroom.

Know about other great anthropology podcasts that should be on this list? Tweet us @anthrolens or email anthrolens@gmail.com. Here are few more from readers like you:

• Updated - 25 August 2017: From the Relevanth blog, Anthropologist on the Street interviews anthropologists and others about "today’s controversies, debates, and trending issues to examine the hidden cultural forces at play."
• Updated - 27 August 2017: The Sausage of Science Podcast with Cara & Chris is a new podcast series from the Human Biology Association. This podcast "combines interviews and lectures with and by new researchers and research in science writ large and that applies to those interested in the field of human biology."
• Updated - 27 August 2017: You might also want to check out The Leakey Foundation's Origin Stories, podcasting "about what it means to be human and the science behind what we know about ourselves and our origins."
• Updated - 10 November 2017: Thanks to René Herrera for alerting us to AnthroAlert - live on Fridays or catch up on past episodes with this public anthropology project (@AnthroAlert).
• Updated - 14 January 2018: Have you heard The Familiar Strange podcast yet? Besides having a great name, this project in public anthropology is supported by the "Australian Anthropological Society, and the Australian National University’s Schools of Culture, History and Language, Archeology and Anthropology, and the Centre for Public Awareness of Science." They've got a blog too!

2017: An Ethnographic Renaissance?

I recently read an interview between Smithsonian's Steven Beschloss and sociologist Matthew Desmond. This article detailed Desmond's fieldwork in a trailer park and a rooming house in Milwaukee between 2008 and 2009. There, he conducted fieldwork with eight families and two landlords and, in the words of Beschloss, "captur[ed] how the toxic mix of extreme poverty and economic exploitation can leave individuals unable to keep a roof over their heads."

This article is a series of questions and answers by Desmond whose new book Evicted is recently published. In one question particular to ethnography, Beschloss asks:

What about [...] ethnographies [that provide] not only insights but were part of a progressive tradition to influence social problems?

Desmond responds (this is a selection here):

"If I get down onto the ground with this problem, try and see it as closely as I could and write about it with complexity and humanity, maybe that would make a difference in and of itself.  I am heartened by the fact that we have this wonderful tradition of ethnography and in-depth journalism that’s focused on these moral questions and made a difference."

How accessible is the 'wonderful tradition of ethnography' AND in-depth journalism? Are these supposed to be read as one in the same? Something of a very similar tradition? Is this too traditionalist of a perspective (asking oneself...but is your method informed by ethnographic theory?!?!)?

Deepa S. Reddy, Ph.D. wrote about Ethnography (is) Everywhere! in 2013. Four years ago, Reddy wrote that "ethnography seem[ed] to have acquired a new cachet in the last decade."

She goes on to pose a problem that was originally behind Desmond's answer:

"The trouble is that ethnography has also become industry jargon, used to describe quite a range of qualitative consumer research approaches, often diluting ethnography to simply another way to generate a “real-world understanding” of consumers. The other trouble is that ethnography, classically conceived and thoroughly executed, requires some fairly intensive field studies. Its focus is on studying people and practices in their native contexts. But does this mean that those who cannot immediately commence extensive field studies are stuck at the shallow end of research? Not necessarily."

Reddy then goes on to list a number of ways in which we can draw from ethnographic approaches in a deep (as opposed to shallow) way. Follow the link below to see Reddy's list.

Quick links and further reading:

• Experts Have Been Studying Income Inequality for Decades. Has Anything Changed, (May 25, 2017, Smithsonian.com)
• Ethnography is Everywhere, (July 2013, Deepa Reddy)
• Our previous post on Teaching Ethnography (26 January 2017) inspired by student complaints about the "tyranny" of ethnographic texts like Desmonds.
• Our Teaching Ethnography resources on our Reading Lists, Syllabi, & Teaching Resources page

Promoting publications behind paywalls... or anthro everywhere! in Anthropologica

Jennifer and Rhiannon at CASCA-IUAES
with Vol. 59, Issue 1 of Anthropologica (May 2017)

What a nice surprise to arrive at the CASCA-IUAES intercongress last week and see our new journal article "Agency and Agendas: Revisiting the role of the Researcher and the Researched in Ethnographic Research" published in the most recent issue of Anthropologica! This article was co-authored by the authors of anthro everywhere! (Rhiannon Mosher and Jennifer Long) as well as Elisabeth Le and Lauren Harding.

This is also an opportune moment to reflect on how we can best communicate about our new article through social media. During CASCA the publisher (University of Toronto Press) had made this latest issue open access, but now that the conference has ended, our article is once again behind a paywall. So, as Aidnography suggests in Don’t post direct links to your new journal article! (17 April 2017), here's a brief description of our latest publication. If you have access to Anthropologica as a CASCA member, or through your institution, we hope that you download and read the full text.

"Agency and Agendas"

"Agency and Agendas" came out of the discussions we had as members of a panel during CASCA 2015 with the late Pierre Maranda (1930-2015) on the researcher as starting point for ethnographic research. Growing out of that early discussion, this article focused in on how ethnographic research is an essentially collaborative project between the researcher and the researched, all of whom exert agency in how they choose to engage with the ethnographic project (or not), and in the service of their own agendas -- which may align or differ from those identified by the researcher in their project. This article doesn't focus on explicitly collaborative research approaches -- like PAR or activist approaches -- but thinks about how ethnographic knowledge is created more generally. In thinking through the diversity of moments that comprise what we come to know through this approach to social research, we find Anna Tsing's notion of "friction" useful, as it "engages not only the ‘‘awkward zone of encounter’’ but also the potentially generative results of diverse, even divergent, agendas and agencies coming together" (Mosher et al. 2017:154). As we write,

Tsing’s friction refers not to conflict or poor relations among the researcher or researched. Instead, friction refers to the idea that our interlocutors are agentive individuals who wilfully take part in, and influence, our research. How our interlocutors participate (or refuse to participate) deeply affects our work as ethnographers (Mosher et al. 2017:146).

In this article, we wanted to try to move beyond simply discussing reflexivity and positionality, and instead consider how the people who participate in our research co-create what we consider 'the field' -- how this interaction deeply "enables, shapes, redirects, and limits the kinds of research we may ultimately produce." Through drawing on our own research experiences, we argue that what we come to know through ethnography "is in no small part due to the agency and agendas of those we recruit as participants in our studies" (Mosher et al. 2017:147). As authors, we tackle these questions and hope to open up this discussion through addressing considerations of:

• how our potential participants shape and direct our access to data. Our interactions with the people, places, and issues that we seek to understand are deeply entangled in the iterative process of ethnography.
• what might be called the "observed" effect on our research. In what ways are we and our research agendas/ approaches shaped by becoming an object of scrutiny among our research community/ participants/ informants? 
• the adaptation of ethnographic methods to non-academic research contexts. With the growing interest in ethnographic methods in industry, how can anthropologists pursue "thick" ethnographic relationships and insights in the context of rapid, industry research timelines (including where our research contacts have been pre-arranged by a third party)?
• the afterlives of research. How do the reputations of past researchers among the communities we study impact or frame the kind of research we do in the present? How might our own research findings become incorporated into yet unimagined future projects and agendas, including among our former research communities?

Quick links:

• "Agency and Agendas: Revisiting the role of the Researcher and the Researched in Ethnographic Research" Anthropologica (pay-walled article)
• Aidnography's Don’t post direct links to your new journal article! (17 April 2017)
• A New Home for Ethnography: The Use and Legacy of Ethnography by Anthropologists and Non-Anthropologists (anthro everywhere! 9 June 2016)

Water Politics Syllabus & Resources

We have been seeing some very interesting discussions and resources emerging around water politics recently.

Image from "The Rights of the Whanganui River" (Peeps)

In addition to the many discussions happening in relation to #NODAPL and the importance of water to indigenous communities and ways of life in North America, the struggles for access to clean and safe drinking water in places like Flint, Michigan and across reserves in Canada, in March, you may have read the news that a Māori community has been successful in their battle to have New Zealand grant the Whanganui River the legal rights of a person. (The anthropological magazine Peeps published a beautiful photo essay on "The Rights of the Whanganui River" in their second issue earlier this year -- unfortunately, not available online.)

In response to these shifts and public spotlights, we offer readers a couple of interesting resources for thinking and teaching about water politics.

First, we'd like to draw attention to the thematic issue of the Canadian journal of anthropology, Anthropologica, published this past fall (Volume 58, Issue 2): An Amphibious Anthropology: The Production of Place at the Confluence of Land and Water, guest edited by Karine Gagné and Mattias Borg Rasmussen. Contributors to this issue draw on their ethnographic research to share insights into water politics and issues in the Himalayas, Bhutan, Bangladesh, Peru, and North America.

Each of these articles from Anthropologica would be a valuable addition and anthropological contribution to this already well-rounded (anthropology, geography, environmental studies) syllabus: "Water Rights and Social Protest: Politics, Governance, and the Meanings of Access" designed by Jake Blanc and Stepha Velednitsky (graduate students at the Center for Culture, History, and Environment (CHE), Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies at the University of Wisconsin-Madison). 

Quick links and further reading:

• A New Zealand River Now Has The Legal Rights Of A Human (16 March 2017, NPR)
• Peeps magazine
• Karine Gagné and Mattias Borg Rasmussen (eds.). 2016. Anthropologica. Thematic Section: An Amphibious Anthropology: The Production of Place at the Confluence of Land and Water. 58(2). 
• The "Water Rights and Social Protest: Politics, Governance, and the Meanings of Access" syllabus
• This Cultures of Energy podcast episode featuring anthropologist Jessica Barnes (winner of a Wenner-Gren engaged anthropology grant) on water politics in Egypt
• anthro everywhere!'s page on Reading Lists & Syllabi Resources

When Cognitive Mapping and Life Histories Meet

Anthropologists use life histories as a means to shed light on larger systems through the eyes of one individual, over time. Atlas Obscura author Lauren Young recently reminded readers of Michael Druks work, called Druksland. This portrait captures Druks' life story through cartography.


Young writes: Outlining the shape of his head, Druks’ conceptual map incorporates features you would see on a topographical map, including coordinates, bodies of water, and a map legend. Yet the map also serves as an unconventional self-portrait, the coordinates corresponding to major life events, significant people, and important institutions. Druks shows how the contours of a face could be a more complex terrain than any geology on Earth.

This is an interesting example of a medium where cognitive mapping and life histories may meet.

Book Report Entry #3: Taking Notes from Field notes: A Guided Journal for Doing Anthropology

In our continued feature of Fieldnotes: A 'guided journal' for doing anthropology by Luis A. Vivanco, we're delving into his fourth chapter on Taking Notes in his Doing Fieldwork section of the book.

Vivianco documents the principles of good note taking which he's adapted and modified from Emerson et al. 1995. Some of these principles include:

1. Show, don't tell or summarize events and experiences
2. Avoid generalizing or impressionistic words
3. Avoid projections of emotions
4. Keep a running list of questions

Vivianco's list includes other important principles and reminds me of another blog post I read a while back on Writing Live Fieldnotes by Tricia Wang.

Wang defines live fieldnoting as: 

a blog post that is intended to provide an on-location and synchronous visual and textual coverage of an instance from the ethnographer’s fieldwork. The live fieldnote is created with a image sharing app on a mobile phone that is then shared to other social networking services. Images are accompanied by a description of the image and can also include a brief analysis of what the interaction means to the participants in the image and/or to the ethnographer. 

As part of this process, Wang highlights how these materials are accessible on the internet (although, this may be an issue in certain countries where participants can't reach some social media sites), time stamped and include locating data. Wang argues that live fieldnoting combines what she calls

two activities that are central to ethnographic research: 

1. the ethnographer’s participation in a social world
2. the ethnographer’s written account of the world through her/his participation. 

Live fieldnotes are typically comprised of a one to five sentences. The accumulation of many live fieldnotes works towards producing a “thick description” along with other long form fieldnotes.  Live fieldnotes are not intended to replace the entire fieldnote writing process, rather it is just one of many ways notes can be jotted down for reflection at a later point in time.

Both authors of this blog kept blogs during their PhD research (see for example, When in doubt... Map the city and make kinship charts. An Anthropologist in Amsterdam) yet, this live field notes is something different, perhaps something more 'raw'. 

To bring this discussion back to Vivianco, he writes of the importance of converting "raw" to "cooked" fieldnotes. He writes that this process of returning to the scene and adding details missing in the first "raw" take helps create a more holistic picture, what Wang (from Clifford Geertz) identifies as thick description.

**Jennifer, the author of this post, is reviewing this book from front to back; however, as she flipped through the text after having completed the first draft of this post, she came across Vivianco's own reference to Wang's work in his chapter on 'Going Digital'. Wang's post on ethnographymatters.net definitely has some fans...**

Quick Links:

• Writing Live Fieldnotes by Tricia Wang (August 2, 2012)
• Rhiannon's PhD blog: When in doubt... Map the city and make kinship charts. An Anthropologist in Amsterdam
• Blogging for research (9 January 2017, anthro everywhere!)
• Field Notes: A Guided Journal for Doing Anthropology

Other posts from anthro averywhere!'s ongoing Book Report on Vivanco's Field Notes:

• Book Report Entry #1: Field notes: A Guided Journal for Doing Anthropology (February 20, 2017)
• Book Report Entry #2: Beyond Informants (March 20, 2017)

Book Report Entry #2: Beyond Informants

In continuation from our coverage of Luis A. Vivianco's Field Notes: A Guided Journal for Doing Anthropology, he provides a practical appraisal of fieldwork in his second chapter.

In one of his Fieldwork Tips, Vivianco describes the terminology used to identify the people who anthropologists conduct research with. He reminds us that fieldworkers actively select and synthesize with those individuals what actual details will become data, in a process that Fabian recognized was neither objective or subjective but intersubjective, which refers to the joint creation of comprehension and meaning between a fieldworker and the subjects of his or her research.

Below is a list of terms that Vivianco uses to point to the relationship between the researcher and participant:

1. Interlocutor - speaks to an ongoing conversation between an ethnographer and the individuals involved with their research 
2. Collaborator - highlights an attempt to find equity between participant and researcher
3. Consultants - evokes a feeling of seeking out and working with participants as 'experts'
4. Informant - potential negative associations on account of their use in criminal and legalistic connotation (e.g. police informant)

It's important to realize the position of anthropologists (historically and currently) in relation to their participants - I would argue that this is unique to anthropology within the social science disciplines.

In 2015, Kristina from the cool Anthropology, or so we seem to think blog published a post about the differences between Anthropology and Sociology. In this post, she describes the similarities between anthropological and sociological studies, which is no small feat. Through comparison, the author is forced to frame these disciplines as binary opposites in order to account for their historical impressions; yet, she teases out the important and growing cross-over work by researchers in each of these fields.

An example of this teasing out process is found in understanding the location of a typical field site, which she writes as: Both Anthropology and Sociology have transformed over the last 100 years or so, but their roots are still present in the disciplines today. Sociological studies are most often based in Western or industrialized societies, while anthropological studies have more traditionally been based in non-Western societies. While many, many anthropologists work in Western societies and communities now, this early difference is still significant. 

Kristina doesn't write about the position of researcher in relation to the participant in her post; however, one might argue that anthropologists typically prioritize the voices of their research participants in the write up, and analysis, of their work as is pointed out by Vivianco in his fieldwork tip titled Beyond "Informants"? While there are certainly sociologists who understand their research relationships in the same way, this distinction could be identified as something unique to our field.

Quick links and further reading:

•  cool Anthropology, or so we seem to think blog
• Vivianco's text Fieldnotes: A guided journal for doing anthropology
• anthro everywhere's: 
• Google Translate from Photos (March 09, 2017)
• Book Report Entry #1: Field notes: A Guided Journal for Doing Anthropology (February 20, 2017)

Fieldwork: preparing for the good, bad, and the ugly

From Anthropology Matters come this article by Amy Pollard: "Field of screams: difficulty and ethnographic fieldwork."

As explained in the abstract, many novice field researchers -- here, PhD students -- are often unprepared for the emotional toll of this staple of our discipline: the long-term, immersive field research trip.

Ethnographic fieldwork can be a time of intense vulnerability for PhD students. Often alone and in an unfamiliar context, they may face challenges that their pre-fieldwork training has done little to prepare them for. This study seeks to document some of the difficulties that PhD anthropologists at three UK universities have faced. It describes a range of feelings as experienced by 16 interviewees: alone, ashamed, bereaved, betrayed, depressed, desperate, disappointed, disturbed, embarrassed, fearful, frustrated, guilty, harassed, homeless, paranoid, regretful, silenced, stressed, trapped, uncomfortable, unprepared, unsupported, and unwell. The paper concludes with a set of questions for prospective fieldworkers, a reflection on the dilemmas faced by supervisors and university departments, and a proposal for action.

This piece should be essential reading for all students and advisors, including the concluding "Questions for PhD students" and notes on Supervisor and Departmental Dilemmas.

Quick links and further reading:

• Amy Pollard, "Field of screams: difficulty and ethnographic fieldwork" (Anthropology Matters, 2009)
• Past anthro everywhere! posts on doing ethnography:
• Book Report Entry #1: Field notes: A Guided Journal for Doing Anthropology (20 February 2017)
• Doing anthropology everywhere (14 November 2016)
• Blogging for research (9 January 2017)
• Podcasting (ethnography) in the classroom (11 July 2016)
• Other Advice for Grad Students including on Grad Student Wellness (anthro everywhere!)

Book Report Entry #1: Field notes: A Guided Journal for Doing Anthropology

This blog will feature a series of posts on a new (2017) resource for first-time and long-standing ethnographers - a 'guided journal' for doing anthropology by Luis A. Vivanco. The incentive for reviewing certain features of this coil bound book are its uniqueness as a resource and its usefulness as a tool of reflection for those experienced ethnographers.

Much of this blog is dedicated to the application of anthropology and ethnography which is why it was with great pleasure to come across Vivianco's first chapter entitled "Fieldwork Skills are Life Skills."

Vivianco argues that competently conducting fieldwork, which he defines as "participant observation in a community to investigate its behaviors and beliefs" (2017, p.10). affords anthropologists the following list of life skills (explanations are paraphrased and at times expanded upon):

1. Directed learning - from our participants/interlocutors and about matters they find important.
2. Curiosity - a habitual approach to research and life in the field.
3. Asking good questions - formulating questions that elicit meaningful answers (perhaps through trial and error, and learning more over time about what is meaningful and to whom)
4. Accuracy and attention to detail - the focus on documentation for accurate data collection and interpretation.
5. Listening - Vivianco references active listening as one being at the 'heart of fieldwork'. This simple act speaks to the many things, including the primacy of the participant in anthropological fieldwork, the construction of worldviews through personal experience, and more.
6. Negotiation - while we're starting to sound like lawyers here - Vivianco is speaking to the balancing and building of relationships.
7. Networking - fieldworkers identify, understand and use networks to cultivate relationships
8. Adaptability - a requisite value for contemporary workplaces - speaks to the ambiguous grey zone that anthropologists typically work in and through  
9. Communication - about one's project - a skill that most researchers require and few master.
10. Recognizing, respecting, and working with difference - such an important skill and one which anthropologists rarely mention. Some might identify this as uniquely anthropological not just for their use of practical realism but in their approach to theory, data, and our attention to multivocality.
11. Critical thinking - a skill for researchers when collecting, analyzing and evaluating their data. 

An Anthropologist, a Climate Scientist, and a Geographer walk into NASA...

The joke introduces a recent news article describing a new project that brings together various scientists to study changing patterns of urbanization and land use in the Himalayan region. This project will combine satellite imaging data with other qualitative data including census information, data concerning flow of remittances and land use, as well as the results of new ethnographic studies. These latter projects will take place in India, Nepal, and Bhutan for the purpose of understanding 'why' and 'how' different economic, political and social forces influence urbanization.

This overview of the research reads like a well-crafted SSHRC proposal, outlining the knowledge mobilization: Turin and Shneiderman (two Canadian UBC Anthropologists) hope to create conduits for effective information transferring between the researchers and local communities, national governments and development organizations. Such channels will help ensure that the results of the study can be broadly disseminated, but also that the needs and concerns of those in the communities being studied can be communicated back to the team to further inform the direction of the research.

The article ends with Turin describing how he will leverage the partnerships he and his wife (Dr. Shneiderman) have built over the last 25 years to connect with local need and take the results back to communities at all levels. 

This quick article in the Ubussey highlights some really interesting research collaborations for anthropologists and highlights some of the unique attributes they bring to such an endeavor.

Imaginative Ethnography Syllabi (CIE)

The Centre for Imaginative Ethnography has gathered links to a number of syllabi that "attend to some combination of performance, theatre, visual media, writing and ethnography."

This treasure trove includes inspiration from courses such as:

• GIRL STORIES: RACE, POLITICS, AND PEDAGOGY, Melissa Harris-Parry and Dani Parker
• ANTHROPOLOGY OF THE SENSES, Zulfikar Hirji and Natasha Myers, Department of Anthropology, York University
• and ETHNOGRAPHIC FILM: HISTORY AND THEORY OF ETHNOGRAPHIC REPRESENTATION ON FILM AND VIDEO, Deborah Matzner, Department of Anthropology, Wellesley College

You might also wish to have a look CIE's page on "Pedagogical Experiments" or our page on Reading Lists & Syllabi Resources.

Teaching ethnography

The anthro everywhere! authors recently came across an intriguing article written for the online magazine Quillette entitled "Tyranny of the Ethnography: How Lived Experience Corrupts the Social Sciences." This piece, written by Toni Airaksinen, an undergraduate student at Barnard College, argues that teaching ethnography is misleading students, and even dangerously so. Citing her experiences of most social science classes (though all appear to be in sociology), where professors are keen to assign recent works such as Evicted: Poverty and Profit in the American City by Matthew Desmond, On the Run: Fugitive Life in an American City by Alice Goffman, or Hillbilly Elegy: A Memoir of a Family and Culture in Crisis by J.D Vance, Airaksinen writes that:

Ethnographies — books based on “lived experience” — are one of the most powerful types of books professors can assign. Yet, most of these books give students an extremely distorted understanding of what life is like for people living at the lowest rungs of society. Academia’s multicultural oppression fetish, which permeates the social sciences, ensures assigned books will invariably revolve around at least one aspect of the Holy Trinity of Oppression: race, class or gender.

The complicated and nuanced issues that face people of color, women, and the poor do exist in reality, of course. But ethnographies are not reality. Instead, they are a collection of the most sensational anecdotes of a novel culture deliberately curated to convey the most shock value.

As anthropologists, our first instinct is to dismiss this statement as part of a clear misunderstanding of what ethnography is and is intended to convey to the reader. Yet, as anthropologists, we also have to respect the fact that these condemnations are (ironically) based on Airaksinen's own lived experience and observations as a student. For her, the real problem with ethnography is that "books like these give students the sense that they “understand” phenomena they’ve never had personal experience with."

As university instructors with backgrounds in anthropology, we can't help but read Airaksinen's complaint as a teachable moment -- for instructors teaching ethnography in their classrooms. If this is what students like Airaksinen are taking away from the ethnographies that we teach, where are we failing them, and how can we teach ethnography better?

While we don't have all of the answers, here is a short list of blog posts and online resources shared by anthropologists on how they approach teaching ethnography as text and method in the classroom.

On encouraging critical engagement with ethnographic texts in the classroom:

• Julia Kowalski's outline for creating "Ethnography Labs: Unpacking Ethnographic Narrative" offers a useful assignment structure for helping students "recognize ethnography as a rigorous, empirical, and argumentative method by learning to identify where arguments are in ethnographic texts and to help them see the distinctions between argument and evidence." 
• Carole McGranahan's post offers her experience of teaching and tracking "What Makes Something Ethnographic?" (Savage Minds, 2012) in her classroom.

These posts offer instructive reflections and suggestions for how to teach ethnography as a method:

• Carole McGranahan's "What is Ethnography? Teaching Ethnographic Sensibilities without Fieldwork" (2014, Teaching Anthropology) 
• Lindsay A. Bell's "Teaching Culture and Methods to Novice/Non-Anthropologists" and "Five Simple Steps for Helping Students Write Ethnographic Papers" (2013, Teaching Culture) is useful for teaching students to work through their own ethnographic projects.

For instructors/ writers reflecting on ethnography as a form of writing, these discussions may be useful:

• Raul Pacheco-Vega's "On having ethnographic sensibility" (2016, personal website of Raul Pacheco-Vega, PhD)
• Dhruv Sharma's "Everybody’s an Ethnographer!" (2016, Ethnography Matters)
• Robert Potts' "What’s the matter with Ethnography?" (2016, Ethnography Matters)
• Savage Minds' series: "Anthropologists Writing: The Fall 2015 Writers’ Workshop Essay Series" (2015)

If you have resource suggestions for teaching ethnography in the classroom (guiding students through critically reading ethnographic texts, as a methodology, or otherwise) we'd love to read them! Contact us via email or Twitter @anthrolens.