Conference Timetable

Please note that the conference dates are: 01 - 05 September



Anthropology Otherwise, Petnica Science Centre, 01-05 September 2011


Day One, 1.9.2011

Arrival during the day, up to 4 p.m.

16:00 Conference opening and Ice breaker

17:00-18.30 Facilitator training

18:30-20:00 Trip to Petnica cave

20:00-21:00 Dinner



Day 2, 2.9.2011

10:00-11:30 Lecture/Discussion

12:00-13:30 Lecture/Discussion

14:00-16:45 Lunch and trip to the lake

16:45-18:15 Lecture/Discussion

18:30-20:00 Discussions in 6 groups (facilitated by key note speakers and Marina Simic)

20:00 Dinner



Day 3, 3.9.2011

10:00-11:30 Lecture/Discussion

12:00-13:30 Lecture/Discussion

14:00-16:00 Lunch

16:00-17:30 Workshop session one: presentations

18:00-20:00 Workshop session two: discussion

20:00-21:00 Dinner

21:00-22:30 Workshop session three: reaching of a decision using consensus process


 
Day Four, 4.9. 2011

10:00-11:30 Workshop session one: presentations

12:00-14:00 Workshop session two: discussion

14:00-16:00 Lunch and Break

16:00-17:30 Workshop session three: reaching a decision using consensus process

18:00-20:00 Presentations of the consensus reached in each workshop (each facilitator will discuss for fifteen minutes)

20:00-21:00 Dinner


Day 5 5,9.2011

10.00-14.00 Parting discussion: opinions regarding the workshop and how successful consensus method was (and if it was implemented successfully)

14:00 Dinner and Departure

more details will follow

References

Here is the list of references relevant for the workshop. It will continue to be updated. 


Key readings will be distributed to workshop participants in due time. 



Adam Kuper. 1994. Culture, Identity and the Project of a Cosmopolitan Anthropology. Man. 29(3), 537-554

Alberto Corsín Jiménez. 2003. Teaching the field: the order, ordering, and scale of knowledge. Anthropology Matters 1 http://www.anthropologymatters.com/index.php?journal=anth_matters&page=article&op=view&path[]=127

Alexandra Bakalaki. 1997. Students, Natives, Colleagues: Encounters in Academia and in the Field. Cultural Anthropology 12(4), pp. 502-526

Alexandra Bakalaki. 2006. A Different Kind of Knowledge? Learning Anthropology in the Greek University System. Journal of Modern Greek Studies 24(2), 257-283

Alexandra Bitusikova. Ethnology and Socio-Cultural Antropology in Slovakia: State-of-the-Arts. Presentation at the conference in Madrid 2008, part of the project La Antropología en España y en Europa.
Aliki Angelidou. Pathways of anthropology in South Eastern Europe: an ethnographic approach of the discipline and its disciples in Bulgaria and Greece. Presentation at the conference in Madrid 2008, part of the project La Antropología en España y en Europa.


Aleksandar Bošković. 2005. Constructing ‘Self’ and ‘Other’: anthropology and national identity in former Yugoslavia. Anthropology Today 21 (2), 8–13

Allaine Cerwonka. 2008. Traveling Feminist Thought: Difference and Transculturation in Central and Eastern European Feminism. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 33(4), 809-832.

Barbara Einhorn. 1995. Cinderella goes to Market. London, New York, Verso.

Chris Hann, Mihály Sárkány, Petr Skalník (eds.). 2005. Studying Peoples in the People’s Democracies: Socialist Era Anthropology in East-Central Europe, Münster: LIT Verlag

Chris Hann et al. 2007. Anthropology’s Multiple Temporalities and its Future in Central and Eastern Europe. A Debate. Halle / Saale. Working Paper No. 90. Max Planck Institute for Social Anthropology Working Papers http://www.ucm.es/info/antrosim/docs/Hann_et_al_Anthropology_Multiple_Temporalities_Future_Central_Eastern_Europe_A_Debate.pdf

David Scheffel and Josef Kandert. 1994. Politics and Culture in Czech Ethnography.  Anthropological Quarterly 67(1), 15-23

Драгана Радојичић (ур). 2005. Етнологија и антропологија: стање и перспективе. Београд: Зборник ЕИ САНУ 21

Eduardo Restrepo and Arturo Escobar. 2005. Other Anthropologies and Anthropology Otherwise. Steps to a World Anthropologies Framework. Critique of Anthropology 25(2), 99–129

George E. Marcus and Judith Okely. 2007. Debate Section Social Anthropology/ Anthropologie Sociale 15(3), 353–367

Helena Tužinská. 2008. How Far Have We Gone With Being Applied? From Národopis to Antropológia, Curricula Heterogeneity and Public Engagement in Slovakia. Stud. ethnol. Croat. 20, Zagreb, 193-209

Ines Prica. 1998/1999. Etnologija ali antropologija! Prilog diskusiji na temu: Etnologija i?, ili?, i/ili,? kroz?, versus? (itd.) antropologija. Stud. Ethnol. Croat. 10/11, 201-214  
hrcak.srce.hr/file/74905

Ines Prica. 2004.2005. Etnologija postsocijalizma i prije. Ili: Dvanaest godina nakon "Etnologije... Etnol. Trib. 27-28(34/35), 9-22

Ines Prica. 2010. On the Possibility of Transmitting the Fieldwork Experience – Presentation of the Meta-Methodological Conditions of the Transitional Fieldwork. Гласник Етнографског института САНУ 58 (2), 17-28

Jasna Čapo Žmegač; Valentina Gulin Zrnić; Goran Pavel Šantek. 2006. Etnologija bliskoga : poetika i politika suvremenih terenskih istraživanja. Zagreb : Institut za etnologiju i folkloristiku : Naklada Jesenski i Turk 

Joel M. Halpern and E. A. Hammel. 1969. Observations on the Intellectual History of Ethnology and Other Social Sciences in Yugoslavia. Comparative Studies in Society and History 11(1), 17-26


Јован Цвијић. 1911. Упутства за испитивање насеља и психичких особина. Београд, 1-49

Јован Ердељановић. 1910. Упутства за испитивање народа и народног живота. Београд, 1-80

Јован Ердељановић. 1925. Упутство за испитивање народног живота и обичаја у Војводини. Нови Сад, 1-63

Јован Ердељановић и Миленко С. Филиповић. 1938. Упутства за испитивање народног живота, обичаја и особина у Јужној Србији. Упутства скопског научног друштва св. 1. Скопље: Скопско научно друштво, 1-79

László Kürti. 1996. Homecoming: Affairs of Anthropologists in and of Eastern Europe. Anthropology Today 12(3), 11-15

Laura Busheikin. 1997. Is Sisterhood Really Global? Western Feminism in Eastern Europe. In: Ana’s Land. Sisterhood in Eastern Europe, Tanya Renne (ed.). Boulder: Westview Press, 12-21

Љиљана Гавриловић. 2006. Југословенски етнограф Никола Арсеновић. Београд: ПИ ЕИ САНУ 55

Maja Povrzanović Frykman. 2003. The War and After. On War-Related Anthropological Research in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina. Etnol. trib. 26(33), 55-74  
hrcak.srce.hr/file/43592

Marek Skovajsa. Social anthropology and national ethnography in post-socialist academic fields: partners or rivals? http://www.gesis.org/knowledgebase/archive/anthropology/Article2.html

Marina Blagojevic. 2004. Creators, transmitters and users: women’s scientific excellence at the semiperiphery of Europe. In: Gender and Excellence in the Making, edited by European Commission Directorate-Genderal for Research. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 135-146

Marina Blagojevic. 2009. Knowledge production at the Semiperiphery: A Gender Perspective. Beograd: Institut za kriminološka i sociološka istraživanja

Marina Blagojević and Gad Yair. 2010. The Catch 22 Syndrome of Social Scientists in the Semiperiphery: Exploratory Sociological Observations. Sociologija 52(4), 337-358  http://www.doiserbia.nb.rs/img/doi/0038-0318/2010/0038-03181004337B.pdf

Марина Керимова. Етнографско програмирање у Русији у XIX веку (Састављање етнографског програма – упитника у Русији у XIX веку). Гласник Етнографског института САНУ 58 (2), 111-116

Marina Simić. Fieldwork Dillemas: Problems of Location, Insiderhood, - and Implicit Discourses. Гласник Етнографског института САНУ 58(2), 29-42

Marius Turda. 2010. Introduction: Whither race? Physical anthropology in post-1945 Central and Southeastern Europe. Focaal—Journal of Global and Historical Anthropology 58, 3–15 http://oxfordbrookes.academia.edu/MariusTurda/Papers/372036/Whither_Race_Physical_anthropology_in_post-1945_Central_and_Southeastern_Europe

Mariza G. S. Peirano. 1998. When Anthropology is at Home: The Different Contexts of a Single Discipline. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 27, 105-128

Michael Sozan. 1977. The History of Hungarian Ethnography, Washington, D.C.: University Press of America

Michał Buchowski. Hierarchies Of Knowledge In Central-Eastern European Anthropology http://scholarworks.iu.edu/journals/index.php/aeer/article/viewFile/296/372

Mihály Sárkány. Cultural and Social Anthropology in Central and Eastern Europe. http://www.gesis.org/knowledgebase/archive/anthropology/article1.html

Miloš Milenković. 2006 Postmoderna teorija etnografije. Prolegomena za istoriju postmoderne antropologije. Antropologija 2, 44-66

Miloš Milenković. 2008. Da li je etnografija deo antropologije ili je antropologija deo etnografije? Etnoantropološki problem 1(3), 275-278    http://www.anthroserbia.org/Content/PDF/Articles/milenkovic_etnografija_i_antropologija.pdf

Nanette Funk and Magda Mueller. 1993. Gender Politics and Post-Communism. New York, London: Routledge

Nanette Funk. 2004. Feminist Critiques of Liberalism: Can They Travel East? Their Relevance in Eastern and Central Europe and the Former Soviet Union. Signs 29(3), 695-726

Nanette Funk. 2007. Fifteen Years of the East-West Women’s Dialogue. In: Living gender after communism. Janet Elise Johnson, Jean C. Robinson (eds.), Indiana University Press. Bloomington and Indianapolis, 203-226 


Naumović Slobodan. 1997. The ‘Double Insider Syndrome’ Or Is Romanticist Heritage the Primary Source of  Ideologised Discourses in Balkan Ethnology.” Zbornik Filozofskog Fakulteta, Knjiga XIX, Serija А, Beograd, 319-351

Naumović Slobodan. 1998. Romanticists or Double Insiders? An Essay on the Origins of Ideologised Discourses In Balkan Ethnology. Ethnologia Balkanica 2, 101-120

Peter Skalník (ed.) 2000. Sociocultural Anthropology at the Turn of the Century. Voices from the Periphery, Praha, Prague Studies in Sociocultural Anthropology 2, Set Out

Peter Skalník (ed.) 2002. A Post-Communist Millennium: the struggles for sociocultural anthropology in Central and Eastern Europe, Prague: Set Out

Susan Gal and Gale Kligman. 2000. The Politics of Gender after Socialism. Princeton, Princeton UP.

Tamas Hofer. 1968. Anthropologists and Native Ethnographers in Central European Villages: Comparative Notes on the Professional Personality of Two Disciplines. Current Anthropology 9(4), 311-315

Timothy McCajor Hall and Rosie Read (Eds.). 2005. Editors’ Introduction. In: Changes in the Heart of Europe. Recent Ethnographies of Czechs, Slovaks, Roma, and Sorbs. Stuttgart: ibidem-Verlag, 9-18

Valentina Gulin Zrnić. Auto-ethnography: research into one's own culture. Some methodological insights. Conference: European City in Comparative Perspective
Session: Creating urban memories: the role of oral testimony http://library.panteion.gr:8080/dspace/bitstream/123456789/481/1/GULIN-ZRNIC.pdf

Valery A. Tishkov. 1998. U.S. and Russian anthropology. Unequal dialogue in a time of transition. Current Anthropology 39, 1-17

Vintila Mihailescu, Ilia IlievSlobodan Naumovic (eds.) 2009. Studying Peoples in the People's Democracies II: Socialist Era Anthropology in South-East Europe. Lit Verlag



SENSORY MEDIA


Askew, K & Wilk, R. (eds) 2002. The Anthropology of Media: A Reader. Oxford: Blackwell

Banks, M. 2001 Visual Methods in Social Research. London: Sage.Press

Berger, J. 1973 Ways of Seeing. London: BBC Books

Coote J and Shelton, A. (eds) 1994. Anthropology, Art and Aesthetics. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.

David MacDougall 2005  ‘The Corporeal Image: Film, Ethnography and the Senses’. Princeton:
            Princeton University Press

Edwards E & Bhaumik, K (eds) 2008. Visual Sense: A Cultural Reader. Oxford and New York: Berg

Feld, S. & Brenneis D. 2004. ‘Doing Anthropology in Sound’ in American Ethnologist 31:4, 461- 474.

Grimshaw, A. 1999. The Ethnographer’s Eye: Ways of Seeing in Modern Anthropology. Cambridge
            University Press.

Howes, D. (ed) 2004 Empire of the Senses Oxford and New York: Berg

Irving, A. Into the Gloaming: a Montage of the Senses (IN PRINT)


Layton, R. 1991 The Anthropology of Art. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Mirzoeff, N. (ed) 2002. Visual Culture Reader. London: Routledge.

Morphy, H and Perkins, M. (eds) 2006 The Anthropology of Art: A Reader. Oxford: Blackwell

Pink, S. Kurti, L and Afonso, A (eds) 2004 . Working Images: Visual Research and Representation in
            Ethnography. London: Routledge.

Rice, T. 2003. ‘Soundselves: An acoustemology of Sound and Self in the Edinburgh Royal Infirmary’                       Anthropology Today 19:4, 4-9.

Ruby, Jay. ‘Towards an Anthropological Cinema’. Lecture presented at the Nordic Anthropological Film Association Meetings, Ísafjörur, Iceland, 6 June 2008. 
www.mediaanthropology.net/ruby_anthrocinema.pdf 


Ruby, Jay. 2005 ‘The Last 20 Years of Visual Anthropology – a Critical Review’ in Visual Studies, 20:2, 159-170.  

Taylor, L. (ed) 1994 Visualizing Theory: Selected Essays from Visual Anthropology Review New York:
            Routledge.

Weiner, J. (ed)  1995 Too Many Meanings: A critique of the Anthropology of Aesthetics. Special
Issue of Social Analysis. 38

Deadline extended/Krajnji rok produzen

Please note that deadline for submitting applications is now June 15th

We apologise for two different deadlines on the application form... 



Novi krajnji rok za slanje prijava je 15. Jun!
Izvinjavamo se zbog navodjenja dva razlicita krajnja roka na prijavnom formularu...

Conference call

Anthropology Otherwise: Rethinking Approaches to Fieldwork in Different Anthropological Traditions

September 1st-4th 2011, Petnica Science Centre, Valjevo, Serbia
supported by the Wenner Gren Foundation


The conference invites contributors to:

(1) generate a dialogue between researchers working on projects based in the Balkan region/Eastern Europe, yet in different ethnographic traditions. This includes those who use 'immersion’ (long-term fieldwork) and ‘back and forth’ (repeated short visits) models of ethnographic research. The aim is to discuss epistemological possibilities opened and closed by each of these models, and how these two models complement each other.

(2) participate in a forum in which to try out a consensus-based decision making process in order to find common ground between different research methodologies and foci. By using consensus-based decision making process, we hope to illustrate how the workshop process, and ultimately, the knowledge produced, is shaped by the organisational forms in which it takes place. Hence we take seriously the premise that the material and organisational culture(s) of an event or institution shape (if not determine) in an important way, the kinds of and qualities of knowledge produced.


The conference has two key aims:

1. To generate a dialogue between researchers working in different ethnographic traditions. Participants will come from traditions which use the 'immersion model' of research (loosely defined as Anglo-Saxon, which involves spending an extended amount of time, usually a year or more, in one location), and from traditions which use an approach which we will call the ‘back and forth’ model for the purposes of this conference (loosely defined as Balkan/Eastern European, whereby researchers make repeated short visits to a fieldsite for a month or so at a time). The conference will be a place for thinking about relations of different ways of doing a discipline, which has at least four names: social anthropology/cultural anthropology/ethnology/ethnography, through research - how do researchers do it? Instead of theorising different possibilities of producing theory in ‘the West’ as opposed to producing theory in ‘the Balkans’ or ‘(South) Eastern Europe’ we intend to theorise ethnographic research practices and their implications for knowledge production. Since there are different ways of doing fieldwork research, what are their similarities, and what are the differences? What is gained and what is lost through particular ways of doing ethnography? Where does the link between geographical regions and the two models come from? In what way can elements of one model be translated into the other? How do researchers combine them? In what way is the boundary between them constituted? The conference will open a discussion about existing ways of doing fieldwork, and of methodological, epistemological, and political issues brought up by existing fieldwork designs.

2. To provide a forum in which to try out a consensus-based decision making process. Consensus method is a tool to challenge people who have been doing anthropology/ethnology in a particular way to find a common ground with people who have been doing ethnology/anthropology ‘otherwise'.
What is consensus-based decision making process and why use it?
The insights regarding the importance of material and organisational cultures (in shaping the kinds of and qualities of knowledge that is produced) are often applied to knowledge produced ‘in the field’ and less frequently to working contexts in academia as well. In academia knowledge comes out of institutional contact with other academics as much as, for instance, from texts and field experiences. Academic conferences are often quite hierarchically organised, with a chair, 'renowned' speakers, and academics who 'lead' discussions. Instead of a more traditional conference format, in which participants state their views and experiences and then ask questions challenging and criticising the views of others, the conference will use a format borrowed from anarchist modes of political organising, which is designed to minimise the presence or formation of hierarchies. It is committed to finding common ground rather than pitching one set of viewpoints against another. It is especially productive if there are participants who are committed to different approaches but who are asked to work together and find solutions to questions which suit the largest number of people present, rather than seeking to contrast one creative, often highly individual or idiosyncratic position with others.

Participants will attend two out of four offered sessions:

(1) Thinking through the particularities of different research methods. What kinds of topics, research questions and themes can be addressed through different kinds of ethnography?

(2) How can we rethink the oldies (old ethnograhies) from the region? What value do such classical ethnographies have today?

(3) ‘Field Guide’ Session. The aim of the session is to produce a 'field guide' where we aim to reach consensus on what difficulties researchers setting out to do fieldwork in the region may expect to come across.

(4) What is the place of sensory media in an ethnographic research? How do we use it – to tell a story, to convey an experience, to theoretically generate an anthropological knowledge, or for something else?

Key note speakers:

Sarah Green (University of Manchester)

Stef Jansen (University of Manchester)

Zorica Ivanovic (University of Belgrade)

Margareta Kern, artist (http://www.margaretakern.com/)

Slobodan Naumovic (University of Belgrade)



Working language(s)
primary: English
also: Bosnian/Croatian/Montenegrin/Serbian


Eligibility:
Applications are welcomed from researchers who have an active interest in practicing ethnography in a variety of fields: social/cultural anthropology/ethnology/ethnography would be the most obvious choice, as well as researchers working in fields of political science, sociology, cultural studies, etc. who (plan to) utilise ethnography.

Applications:
Please send a CV and the application form, including 3000 characters (with spaces) explaining in what way the conference themes are of interest to you and/or relate to your work. Also indicate your order of preference for the session, putting 1 next to the most, and 4 to the least preferable choice. The application should be sent to anthropology.otherwise@gmail.com
There is no conference fee. Accommodation and meals are covered, and there is a possibility of refunding travel expenses.

Organisers: Čarna Brković (University of Manchester), Vanja Čelebičić (University of Manchester), Marina Simić (University of Belgrade), Andrew Hodges (University of Manchester)

Deadline for applications: 1st June 2011


Successful candidates will be informed by 1st July 2011





Drugačija antropologija: ponovno promišljanje istraživačkih pristupa u različitim antropološkim tradicijama

 1-4. septembar 2011. Istraživačka stanica Petnica, Valjevo, Srbija
Konferencija podržana od strane Wenner Gren Foundation


Pozivamo potencijalne učesnice i učesnike da:

(1) generišu dijalog između istraživača i istraživačica koji rade na projektima na Balkanu/u istočnoj Evropi, u različitim etnografskim tradicijama. Pod ovim se misli na one koji koriste „uranjanje“ (dugotrajni terenski rad) i „napred nazad“ (ponovljene kraće istraživačke posete) kao pristupe etnografskom istraživanju. Cilj konferencije je promišljanje različitih epistemoloških mogućnosti koje svaki pristup otvara ili zatvara, kao i načina na koje ovi pristupi istraživanju mogu biti komplementarni.

(2) učestvuju u forumu u kojem ćemo isprobati proces donošenja odluka zasnovanih na konsenzusu, kako bismo pronašli zajednički jezik između različitih fokusa i metodologija istraživanja. Korištenjem ove metode, nadamo se da ćemo ilustrirati kako je proces sesija, a na kraju i proizvedeno znanje, uobličen organizacionim oblicima u kojima se odvija. Uzimamo ozbiljno premisu da materijalna i organizaciona kultura(e) događaja ili institucije oblikuju (ako ne i određuju) na važan način, vrste i kvalitete proizvedenog znanja.


Konferencija ima dva cilja:

1. Da generiše dijalog između istraživačica i istraživača koji rade u različitim etnografskim tradicijama. Učesnici i učesnice će dolaziti iz tradicija koje koriste model istraživanja koji nazivamo „uranjanje“ (okvirno određen kao anglo-saksonski, uključuje provođenje dužeg vremenskog perioda, obično godinu dana ili više, u jednom mestu), i iz tradicija koje koriste model koji ćemo za svrhe ove konferencije zvati „napred-nazad“ (okvirno određen kao balkanski/istočno-evropski, podrazumeva da istraživačica pravi ponovljene terenske posete, koje obično traju do mesec dana). Konferencija treba da bude mesto za razmišljanje o odnosima različitih praktikovanja discipline, koja ima barem četiri imena: socijalna antropologija/kulturna antropologija/etnologija/etnografija, kroz istraživanje – kako istraživači to rade? Umesto teoretizovanja različitih mogućnosti proizvodnje teorije „na zapadu“ kao suprotstavljene proizvodnji teorije u „(jugo)istočnoj Evropi“, želimo da teoretizujemo etnografske istraživačke prakse i implikacije koje one nose po proizvodnju znanja. Budući da postoje različiti načini na koje se radi terensko istraživanje, šta su njihove sličnosti, a šta razlike? Šta se dobija a šta gubi kroz određene pristupe etnografiji? Odakle potiče veza između geografskih regija i dva modela? Na koji način elementi jednog modela mogu biti prevedeni u drugi? Kako bivaju kombinovani? Od čega zavisi granica između dva modela? Konferencija će otvoriti diskusiju o postojećim načinima praktikovanja terenskog istraživanja i o metodološkim, epistemološkim i političkim pitanjima koja proističu iz postojećih dizajna istraživanja.

2. Da obezbijedi forum na kojem se može isprobati proces donošenja odluka kroz konsenzus. Konsenzus metoda je sredstvo koje treba da postavi izazov osobama koje su radile antropologiju/etnologiju na određen način, da pronađu zajednički jezik sa osobama koje su radile etnologiju/antropologiju na "drugačiji" način.

Šta je proces donošenja odluka zasnovanih na konsenzusu i zašto ga koristiti?

Uvidi vezani za značajnost materijalne i organizacijske kulture (u oblikovanju vrste i kvaliteta znanja koje se proizvodi) često se primjenjuju na znanje proizvedeno 'na terenu', a rjeđe na radne kontekste u akademskim krugovima. U akademiji znanje proizilazi iz institucionalnih kontakta s drugim akademskim osobama isto koliko, na primjer, iz tekstova i terenskih iskustava. Akademske konferencije su vrlo često hijerarhijski organizovane, sa predsjedavajućim, 'čuvenim' govornicima i stručnjacima koji 'vode' rasprave. Umjesto tradicionalnog konferencijskog formata, na kojem učesnici iznose svoje stavove i iskustva i onda postavljaju izazovna pitanja i kritikuju stavove drugih, ova konferencija će koristiti format pozajmljen od anarhističkih načina političkog organizovanja, koji je osmišljen kako bi smanjio prisutnost ili stvaranje hijerarhije. Ovaj način se zalaže za pronalaženje zajedničkog tla, a ne za predstavljanje jednog seta gledišta protiv drugog. Posebno je produktivan ako učesnici dolaze iz različitih metodoloških pristupa, a treba da rade zajedno i pronađu riješenja koja odgovaraju najvećem broju prisutnih.


Učesnici će prisustvovati dviju od četiri ponuđene sesije:

(1) Promišljanje specifičnosti različitih istraživačkih metoda. Koje oblasti, istraživačka pitanja i teme mogu biti obuhvaćene kroz različite vrste etnografije?

(2) Kako možemo promisliti ‘oldies’ (stare etnografije) iz regiona? Koju vrijednost klasične etnografije imaju danas?

(3) „Terenski priručnik“. Cilj ove sesije je pravljenje „terenskog priručnika“ kojim želimo da postignemo konsenzus o tome sa kakvim problemima istraživači i istraživačice koji rade u regionu mogu očekivati da se susretnu.

(4) Koje mjesto imaju senzorni mediji u etnografskom istraživanju? Kako ih koristimo – da ispričamo priču, da prenesemo iskustvo, da teorijski generišemo antropološko znanje, ili za nešto drugo?


Ključni govornici:

Sarah Green (University of Manchester)

Stef Jansen (University of Manchester)

Zorica Ivanovic (University of Belgrade)

Margareta Kern, umetnica (http://www.margaretakern.com/)

Slobodan Naumovic (University of Belgrade)





Radni jezik
primarno: engleski
takođe: bosanski/crnogorski/hrvatski/srpski


Kvalifikacije:
Prijave očekujemo od istraživačica i istraživača koji imaju aktivno interesovanje za praktikovanje etnografije u raznim oblastima: socijalna/kulturna antropologija/etnologija/etnografija bi bio očigledan izbor, kao i istraživači i istraživačice iz oblasti političkih nauka, sociologije, studija kulture, itd. koji (planiraju da) koriste etnografiju



Aplikacije:
Molimo vas da pošaljete CV i obrazac za prijavu, uključujući i 3000 karaktera (sa razmacima). Objasnite kako i zašto tema konferencije vas interesuje i/ili se odnose na vaš rad. Također označite vašu preferenciju za sesije, stavljajući 1 pored najviše, a 4 pored najmanje poželjnog izbora. Zahtjev treba poslati na anthropology.otherwise@gmail.com
Nema kotizacije. Smještaj i hrana su pokriveni, a postoji mogućnost refundiranja putnih troškova.

Organizacija: Andrew Hodges (University of Manchester), Marina Simić (University of Belgrade), Vanja Čelebičić (University of Manchester), Čarna Brković (University of Manchester)

Rok za prijave: 1/06/2011

Uspješni kandidati će biti obaviješteni do 01/07/2011

More about the sessions

(1) Thinking through the particularities of different research methods. What kinds of topics, research questions and themes can be addressed through different kinds of ethnography?

Research into social realities has different contours, shaped by various epistemological, historical, and methodological disciplinary traditions. Within socio/cultural anthropology/ethnology/ethnography, there are significant differences in understanding what constitutes ethnographic research. Does the phrase “long-term fieldwork” convey ‘being in the field’, or does it point to a complex ethnographic practice of tracking multiple actors who are in unequal power relations? In other words, is it enough to simply ‘be there’, and, if not, what does an ethnographer have to do during fieldwork to address her research questions?
Is knowledge gained through repeated short-term visits to one place – something we would call back and forth ethnography for the purposes of this session – necessarily different from knowledge gained through long-term fieldwork? What kinds of translations of research questions into social practices have to be made in order to do back and forth ethnography? And what kinds of translations have to be made in order to do long term fieldwork?
Finally, how solitary is ethnographic research? What kinds of translations occur when a team of researchers works in the same place at the same time? Where in their ethnographic research can they place points of collaboration and where points of individual work? What kinds of questions can, and cannot, be addressed through this team-ethnography?


(2) How can we rethink the oldies (old ethnograhies) from the region?

The level of empirical detail uncovered in many 'classic' ethnographic studies is unparalleled compared with more contemporary anthropology. Nowadays, there is often a larger emphasis on theory, which sometimes feels as if it speaks more to contemporary trends in the social sciences rather than the particularities of the field sites being studied. Yet much of the details classical ethnographic studies uncovered fed directly into political processes which have been heavily criticised over the past forty years. For example, the connection between naming and labelling and the ability to exercise political (in the Anglo-American tradition often colonial) control, and the role that cataloguing and detailing 'folk traditions' played in the production of national 'islands' of supposedly common and standardised cultures. What value do such classical ethnographies have today? Is a high level of empirical detail to be valued? If so, can we 'save' such works from the nefarious uses to which they may have been put? In this seminar we will look at some examples of classic texts from the region and have a discussion based around them, aiming to generate consensus on their range of possible uses today.


(3) ‘Field Guide’ Session

This session will entail a discussion of all kinds of fieldwork experiences in the region. We will focus less on debating or deconstructing the concept of 'the region' (although a limited amount of critical discussion of this may be useful) and focus more on producing a constructive dialogue charting potential points of interest and difficulties ethnographic researchers may expect to come across. What difficulties did you have doing fieldwork? Are any of those difficulties related to either (i) your status as being 'from' the region or not and (ii) doing ethnographic fieldwork in a post-conflict area? How did your status as 'insider' or 'outsider' impact on your engagements with people during the fieldwork period? How did your background and positioning open gateways or close off particular lines of inquiry? The aim of the session is to produce a 'field guide' where, through discussion in small groups, we aim to reach consensus (i.e. find 'common ground') on what difficulties researchers setting out to do fieldwork in the region may expect to come across, and whether there is any action that can be taken to either overcome those difficulties or if not, to at least protect the researcher and the people alongside whom she works as much as is possible.


(4) What is the place of sensory media in an ethnographic research?

The use of various sensory media methods may generate a very different kind of anthropological knowledge. The use of sensory media may be limited only to being a method while being ‘out there’ in ‘the field’ doing research, but it can also be used as means of representation which may focus on conveying an experience, and not only on telling a story. However, some would say that a sensorial anthropological representation can never have the last say in an anthropological argument or theory. If that is so, then what is the purpose of using the sensory media during an ethnographic research? How do we use it, and more importantly, how do we learn and represent complex social realities through it?

***


(1) Promišljanje specifičnosti različitih istraživačkih metoda. Koje oblasti, istraživačka pitanja i teme mogu biti obuhvaćene kroz različite vrste etnografije?

Istraživanja društvenih stvarnosti imaju različite konture, oblikovane epistemološkim, istorijskim i metodološkim disciplinarnim tradicijama. Unutar socio/kulturne antropologije/etnologije/etnografije postoje značajne razlike u razumevanju toga šta čini etnografsko istraživanje. Da li fraza „dugotrajni terenski rad“ znači prosto „bivanje na terenu“, ili da li referiše na složenu etnografsku  praksu praćenja mnogostrukih aktera koji su u nejednakim odnosima moći? Drugim rečima, da li je dovoljno da se prosto „bude tamo“ i, ukoliko nije, šta etnografkinja mora uraditi tokom terena da bi se uhvatila u koštac sa svojim istraživačkim pitanjima?


Da li je znanje proizvedeno kroz ponovljene kraće posete jednom mestu – pristup koji ćemo zvati napred nazad etnografija – nužno drugačije od znanja dobijenog kroz dugotrajno uranjanje? Kakve vrste prevođenja istraživačkih pitanja u društvene prakse moraju biti napravljene da bi se radila napred-nazad etnografija, a kakve da bi se radilo dugotrajno uranjanje?

Konačno, koliko je etnografsko istraživanje usamljena praksa? Kakve vrste prevođenja se dešavaju kada istraživački tim boravi u istom mestu u isto vreme? Gde se u takvom etnografskom istraživanju postavljaju tačke saradnje, a gde tačke individualnog rada? Kakva vrsta pitanja može, i ne može, biti istraživana kroz ovakvu timsku etnografiju?



(2) Kako možemo ponovno promisliti ’oldies’ (stare etnografije) iz regiona?

Količina empirijskih detalja u mnogim „klasičnim“ etnografskim studijama se teško može porediti sa više savremenom antropologijom. Danas obično postoji snažno naglašavanje teoretizovanja, za koje se ponekad čini da je usmereno ka savremenim trendovima u društvenim naukama, pre nego ka posebnostima mesta u kojima se radi istraživanje. Ipak, detaljna opisivanja klasičnih etnografskih studija su direktno povezana sa političkim procesima koji su snažno kritikovani u poslednjih 40 godina. Primer bi bila veza između imenovanja, označavanja i vršenja političke (u anglo-saksonskoj tradiciji često kolonijalne) moći i uloge koju je klasifikovanje i katalogizovanje „narodnih tradicija“ imalo u proizvodnji ideje nacionalnih kulturnih „ostrva“. Kakvu vrednost takve klasične etnografije mogu imati danas? Da li se može vrednovati ogromna količina empirijskih detalja? Ukoliko da, da li možemo „spasiti“ takve radove od zloupotreba kojima su bile podložne? U ovoj sesiji ćemo iskoristiti neke primere klasičnih tekstova iz regiona sa ciljem da generišemo konsenzus o njihovim mogućim savremenim vrednostima i upotrebama.



(3) Sesija 'terenski priručnik

Ova sesija uključuje diskusiju o različitim vrstama terenskih iskustava u regionu. Manje ćemo se fokusirati na raspravu ili dekonstrukciju pojma 'region' (iako bi određena količina kritičke rasprave o ovome mogla biti od koristi), a više na proizvodnju konstruktivnog dijaloga, kroz prezentaciju potencijalnih zajedničkih interesa i poteškoća na koje etnografski istraživači mogu naići. Na kakve poteškoće ste naišli dok ste radili terensko istraživanje? Da li se neki od tih problema odnose na (i) vaš status osobe 'iz' regije ili ne, ili možda na (ii) rad etnografskog istraživanja u poslijeratnom području? Kako je vaš status kao 'insajdera' ili 'autsajdera' uticao na vaše odnose s ljudima tokom terenskog rada? Kako su vaše obrazovanje i pozicija otvorili ili zatvorili pojedine linije vašeg istraživanja? Cilj ove sesije je da kroz razgovor u malim grupama proizvedemo 'terenski priručnik’ i da postignemo konsenzus (tj. da pronađemo 'zajednički jezik') o tome kakve poteškoće istraživači u regionu mogu da očekuju, i o mogućim postupcima koji se mogu poduzeti kako bi prevladali te poteškoće, ili barem zaštitili istraživačicu i ljude s kojim radi što je više moguće.


(4) Koje mjesto imaju senzorni mediji u etnografskom istraživanju?

Korištenje različitih senzornih medija može generisati vrlo drugačiju vrstu antropološkog znanja. Ovi mediji se mogu koristiti ‘tamo negdje’ dok se radi istraživanje ‘na terenu’ kao metoda, i/ili kao sredstvo za predstavljanje i prenošenje ljudskog iskustva, a ne samo njihovih priča. Međutim, neki će reći da senzorna antropološka reprezentacija nikada ne može imati posljednju riječ u antropološkom argumentu ili teoriji. Ako je to zaista tako, šta je onda svrha korištenja senzornih medija tokom etnografskog istraživanja? Kako ih možemo koristiti, i šta je još važnije, kako možemo upoznati i predstaviti složene društvene realnosti na ovaj način?

Model of consensus-based decision making

Model of consensus-based decision making

Step 1: Introduce and clarify the issue(s) to be decided. Share relevant info. What are the key questions?

Step 2: Explore the issue and look for ideas.
1. Gather initial thoughts and reactions. What are the issues and people's concerns?
2. Collect ideas for solving the problem – write them down.
3. Have a broad ranging discussion and debate the ideas. What are the pros and cons?
Start thinking about solutions to people's concerns. Eliminate some ideas, short list others.

Step 3: Look for emerging proposals
Look for a proposal that weaves together the best elements of the ideas discussed. Look for a solution that addresses people's key concerns.

Step 4: Discuss, clarify and amend your proposal. Ensure that any remaining concerns are heard and that everyone has a chance to contribute. Look for amendments that make the proposal even more acceptable to the group.

Step 5: Test for agreement
Do you have agreement? Check for the following:
Blocks: I have a fundamental disagreement with the core of the proposal that has not been resolved. We need to look for a new proposal.
Stand asides: I can't support this proposal because ... But I don't want to stop the group, so I'll let the decision happen without me.
Reservations: I have some reservations but am willing to let the proposal pass.
Agreement: I support the proposal and am willing to implement it.
Consensus: No blocks, not too many stand asides or reservations? Active agreement?


***

Sastanci donošenja odluka kroz konsenzus se oslanjaju na uspjeh (obično) dviju osoba koje funkcionišu kao fasilitatori. Fasilitator je osoba koja će posredovati diskusiju. Razlika između dobrog fasilitatora i predsjedavajućeg na akademskoj konferenciji je vjerovatno veoma mala. Ipak, fasilitator će usmjeriti pažnju na određene tačke koje će predsjedavajući akademske konferencije ignorisati.
Ukratko, fasilitatori će:
• Pomoći grupi da donese odluke i da se drži strukture i procesa sastanka. To znači da će voditi računa da se vremenski rasprava fokusira na svaki pojedini predmet, te će regulisati rasprave i biti odgovorni da svako učestvuje. Fasilitator također pojašnjava i rezimira tačke za konsenzus.
• Imati spisak govornika i pobrinuti se da svako govori u svoje vrijeme.
• Pisati sve tačke rasprave za vrijeme sastanaka. Ako je moguće, ovo se radi na računaru, s tekstom projektovanim na zidu, tako da svi učesnici mogu da vide ono što je napisano.
• Ako je potrebno, voditi manji broj bilješki na tabli, za 'brainstorming'.
• Održavati vrijeme.


 Model donošenja odluka kroz konsenzus

Korak 1: Predstaviti i pojasniti pitanje (pitanja) o kojima će se odlučivati. Podeliti relevantne informacije. Šta su ključna pitanja?

Korak 2: Prodiskutovati pitanje i tražiti ideje.
1.      Prikupiti početna razmišljanja i reakcije. Kakva pitanja i problemi se javljaju?
2.      Sakupiti ideje za rešavanje problema – zapisati ih.
3.      Organizovati široku diskusiju i raspravljati o idejama. Šta su prednosti, a šta mane? Početi razmišljati o tome šta brine učesnice i učesnice. Eliminisati neke ideje, izdvojiti ostale kao korisne.

Korak 3: Traženje predloga
Tražiti predlog koji integriše najbolje elemente ideja o kojima se razgovaralo. Tražiti rešenje koje odgovara ključnim problemima i zabrinutostima koje su se javile.

Korak 4: Diskutovati, pojasniti i promeniti predlog. Uveriti se da su sve preostale zamerke izgovorene i da je svako imao priliku da učestvuje. Potražiti promene koje će predlog učiniti prihvatljivijim za grupu.

Korak 5: Testirati slaganje
Da li ste se svi složili? Proveriti koliko osoba se nalazi u poziciji:
Blokiranje: Ja se fundamentalno ne slažem sa suštinom predloga. Moramo tražiti nov predlog.
Sa strane: Ja ne mogu podržati ovaj predlog zato što... Ali ne želim da zaustavim rad grupe, zato dozvoljavam da se odluka donese bez mene.
Rezervisanost: Ja imam određene sumnje ali sam spremna/spreman da pustim predlog da prođe.
Slaganje: Ja podržavam predlog i voljan/voljna sam da ga primenim.
Konsenzus: nema blokiranja, nema mnogo onih koji su sa strane ili rezervisani prema predlogu? Aktivno slaganje?

Application Form

If you want the application form, please write to us (anthropology.otherwise@gmail.com) or visit the link below. It will take you to www.scribd.com where you will be able to download the application form.

Ukoliko zelite prijavni formular, molimo pisite nam (anthropology.otherwise@gmail.com) ili kliknite na link ispod. Link ce vas odvesti na adresu www.scribd.com, gde cete moci da skinete prijavni formular. 
Application Form

Dobrodošli! Welcome!

Welcome to the blog of the conference
Anthropology Otherwise: Rethinking Approaches to Fieldwork in Different Anthropological Traditions


Dobrodošli na blog konferencije
Drugačija antropologija: ponovno promišljanje istraživačkih pristupa u različitim antropološkim tradicijama