Hemment, her US-based feminist anthropologist colleague, mentee, and friend. Since we first met in 1995 when Hemment was a doctoral student, we have undertaken several collaborative research projects; our relationship has been one of mutual enlightenment
Celebrating Twenty Years of Feminist Enlightenment Projects in Tver’
Julie Hemment and Valentina Uspenskaya
Political Ecologies and the Matter of Damage
Noah Theriault and Simi Kang
” is collaborative research that challenges oppression by advancing a community's aspirations, capacities, and resources. This “desire-centered” approach aims not to ignore harm, but instead “to reformulate the ways research is framed and conducted” so
An Impact Case Study of Anthropological Collaboration in Tobacco Control
Andrew Russell and Sue Lewis
In this article we consider the 'impact case study' (ICS) as a specific kind of document, one which, as part of the U.K.'s Research Excellence Framework (REF), enforces a common template for the description and measurement of the social and economic effects of research in U.K. higher education. We track the development of an ICS describing anthropological research in tobacco control which, after many iterations, was not submitted as part of the REF. We ask 'what is impact?' in cases where anthropological research is based on principles of collaboration and serendipity rather than the mechanistic 'research > translation > impact > measurement' model which an ICS is expected to follow. What is included and what excluded by the strictures of such a model? We are generally supportive of the impact agenda, feeling that university resources and activities have a vital role to play in progressive social change. However, the way 'impact' is recorded, appraised and measured in an ICS only captures a small proportion of the effects of anthropological research, and encourages particular forms of public engagement while discounting others.
Perspectives on Repatriation
Rebecca L. Bourgeois and Andie D. Palmer
The concept of ‘readiness’ in collaborative research is almost exclusively framed and evaluated with respect to the preparedness of a community. We argue that the concept of readiness should be flipped to consider institutions, and thus ‘institutional readiness’, rather than solely assessing a community’s capacity to engage in research projects. To investigate institutional readiness in Canada, we surveyed publications resulting from projects funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council’s (SSHRC) Community–University Research Alliances (CURA) programme to look at the frequency of mention of limitations related to institutional readiness versus those related to on-the-ground project specifics. Our findings suggest that institutional factors are major barriers to collaborative research and provide perspective on areas where readiness for repatriation could be built.
In this special issue, we draw on our collaborative research as the Matsutake Worlds Research Group to explore the world-making dynamics of multispecies encounters. We center our exploration on matsutake, a gourmet mushroom eaten primarily in Japan. Drawing on cases from around the world, we suggest that the cosmopolitan worlds of matsutake cannot be accounted for by any single agent or individual set of cultural or political economic processes. Rather, we propose that contingent multispecies attunements and coordinations knit together the various world-making processes that allow matsutake to flourish. We use the notion of ‘elusiveness’ to capture these shifting dynamics of attraction, coordination, and elusion.
Dilemmas in an Ethnographic Study of Health Policy Makers
Serena Heckler and Andrew Russell
In this article we report on collaborative, ethnographic research investigating the first regional tobacco control office in the U.K. and some of the dilemmas it poses. The ideal of collaboration is fully realisable in this setting, where the participants are both eager and qualified to contribute meaningfully to the project. However, the fulfilment of such an ideal poses its own problems. For example, the educational level and professional expertise of some participants allows them to fully engage with the theoretical framework to the extent that they could, if allowed, rewrite manuscripts. Other issues are more subtle, such as how to establish appropriate boundaries between the researcher and the tobacco control office staff. We suggest that the collaborative research model presupposes differentials of power, education and culture between researchers and participants that do not necessarily apply in the case of research in such settings. Where these differentials are lacking, the field is open for dominant participants to assume `undue influence' over the research project. To prevent this, we have reinstated boundaries between object and subject that were originally dissolved as part of the collaborative model. As a result, our project is maintaining a delicate balance between the conflicting aims of objectivity and collaboration.
Mobility in doctoral education – and beyond
Corina Balaban and Susan Wright
This special issue emerged as a result of Universities in the Knowledge Economy (UNIKE), a four-year collaborative research project and training programme for early-stage researchers that investigated the dynamic relationships between universities and knowledge economies in Europe and in the Asia-Pacific Rim. The project was funded by the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Commission (EC) and included researchers based at six different universities in five European countries. Mobility was not only a widespread research interest within the UNIKE academic community but also a reality of the project, which was in itself a practical example of mobility in doctoral education, as envisaged by the European Commission. Many questions emerged as to how mobility became so central to the European Union’s policies for higher education, but also as to how the portrayal of mobility on a policy level compared to the actual lived experiences of mobile students and researchers. ‘Mobility’ can refer to many different things: geographical mobility, social mobility, cross-sectoral mobility or intellectual mobility (interdisciplinarity). The academic literature mostly treats them separately, with clusters of studies around each concept. In contrast, this special issue sets out to investigate these different types of mobility collectively, with authors covering several parts or the whole spectrum of mobilities. We believe it is valuable to discuss these four different aspects of mobility together for two reasons. First, they are often mentioned together in higher education policy as ‘desirable’ characteristics of a given education programme. Second, the ideal profile of the new, flexible knowledge worker supposedly combines all these aspects of mobility in one persona. The policy literature produced by influential stakeholders in higher education such as the European Commission and the OECD focuses on how to encourage, foster and support different kinds of mobility, working on the assumption that mobility is inherently good and will benefit countries, higher education systems and individuals. Much of the academic literature has adopted a similar approach, focusing on ways to enable mobility rather than challenge it.
Elisabet Dueholm Rasch, Floor van der Hout, and Michiel Köhne
link to or alignment with a social movement ( Hale 2006 ; Piven 2010 ). Such an approach does not necessarily involve using participatory and collaborative research methods. The second approach is participatory research or the use of methods that
Practising Relating Differently with Dementia in Dialogue Meetings
Silke Hoppe, Laura Vermeulen, Annelieke Driessen, Els Roding, Marije de Groot, and Kristine Krause
refusing to draw boundaries between researcher and researched, viewing collaborative research as a form of political action ( Woelders et al. 2015 ). Similarly, within critical pedagogy, the distinction between teacher and student is dissolved, with
Affective Continuities across Muslim and Christian Settings in Berlin
Omar Kasmani and Dominik Mattes
–2019). It is funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG) under the framework of the Collaborative Research Center “Affective Societies” at Freie Universität Berlin. Omar Kasmani and Dominik Mattes work closely in collaboration with Hansjörg Dilger, the