Click the star to add/remove an item to/from your individual schedule.
You need to be logged in to avail of this functionality.
Log in
- Convenors:
-
David Trigger
(University of Queensland)
David Martin (Anthropos Consulting)
- Formats:
- Panels
- Location:
- Claus Moser
- Start time:
- 10 June, 2012 at
Time zone: Europe/London
- Session slots:
- 3
Short Abstract:
If anthropology increasingly has multiple audiences, is the distinction between pure research ('about the world') and applied work ('in the world') better understood as a continuum of professional endeavour established through such factors as diverse languages, media and contexts of communication?
Long Abstract:
In asking the question "Is anybody out there?" of audiences for anthropological writing, David Sutton (1991) raised the issue of the nexus between the language and purposes of anthropological texts and their intended audiences. Sutton argued that …
"taking audience into consideration is part of a process by which anthropologists are developing their theories, not just communicating them. Indeed, we may benefit by cultivating a more direct interaction between theory, rhetoric and audience. (1991:100)"
Grant McCall (2000: 75) has similarly suggested that the academic audience is just one of several that we might address. While his focus was largely on the responses of increasingly literate 'natives' to anthropological writings, he argued (p.83) that …
rather than fear or be suspicious of our multiple audiences … we should embrace them and value their reactions to our work.
This panel seeks contributions (written papers or other forms) which address the issue as to whether anthropology has (or should have) multiple audiences, and if so how this might impact on the often hierarchical distinction drawn between pure research ('about the world') as practiced in the academy, and applied work typically practiced outside it ('in the world'). Does anthropological engagement with diverse audiences and for diverse purposes necessitate the adoption of multiple communication strategies in terms of such factors as the languages and media adopted and the contexts in which they are communicated? If so, are the 'pure' and 'applied' endeavours better understood as mutually entailed and lying on a continuum of anthropological practice?
Accepted papers:
Session 1Genevieve Bell (Intel Corporation) Kat Jungnickel (Goldsmiths, University of London)
Paper short abstract:
This article starts with the question – is thick description enough? We argue that in order to fully realize the radical promise of multi-sited ethnography to produce a new understanding of ‘local’, we must also expand our notion of ‘thick description’ to incorporate a broader set of textual and non-textual practices. We call this newly expanded form of ethnographic practice: “thicker description”. We draw on our own personal evolution of thicker description from our earliest ethnographic collaborations to our current projects, charting the rise of some of the more salient thicker description practices – inter-textuality and ethnographic portraiture.
Paper long abstract:
: In this article we suggest that what was missing from Marcus's (1995) call to arms to move beyond single sited fieldwork is a sense of the ways in which new methodological and epistemological directions might also necessitate shifts in the traditional anthropological practices of representing research. Producing ethnography in or of the world systems might well require a critical reappraisal of what it is that we do when we are done with fieldwork. This article starts with the question - is thick description enough? We argue that in order to fully realize the radical promise of multi-sited ethnography to produce a new understanding of 'local', we must also expand our notion of 'thick description' to incorporate a broader set of textual and non-textual practices. We call this newly expanded form of ethnographic practice: "thicker description". We draw on our own personal evolution of thicker description from our earliest ethnographic collaborations to our current projects, charting the rise of some of the more salient thicker description practices - inter-textuality and ethnographic portraiture.
Henk Driessen
Paper short abstract:
Anthropology is not only an act of walking the high wire between the local and global but equally implies a balancing act between academia and wider society. The success of this act is essential for the survival of the discipline. For this we need to cooperate with journalists.
Paper long abstract:
Anthropology involves a balancing act between the local and global as well as between academia and the wider world, not only during fieldwork but also in view of communicating ethnographic knowledge. This means, among many other things, moving back and forth between detachment and engagement. In the end the success of this balancing act is essential for the survival of the discipline. This paper discusses the dilemmas and problems involved in reaching out to wider publics and the inevitable relationships between anthropologists and journalists.
Siew-Peng Lee (Brunel University London)
Paper short abstract:
This paper examines how the language used by anthropologists might limit their opportunities for engagement outside academia thus making public anthropology difficult. The paper also explores possible responses by anthropology departments to the new tuition fees regime.
Paper long abstract:
"Think straight, talk straight" was the motto of the accounting firm Arthur Andersen (founded 1913), reflecting its founder's emphasis on honesty in its accounting duties (Enron 2000 notwithstanding). Staff at their consulting division (now Accenture), where this writer worked, are admonished to communicate in this manner with both colleagues and clients.
In contrast the language of anthropologists has been described by academics as being "hermetically sealed", "a language which ordinary people cannot understand" and, by business associates, "gobbledygook".
The UK tuition fees regime makes "employability" a key concern. Employers expect graduates (even non-British ones) to hit the ground running. Anthropologists who preach a "holistic" perspective must acknowledge that the goalposts have shifted. In order to preserve traditional anthropology it might be that anthropology departments must engage more with the non-academic world.
Business anthropology is one potential "growth area" because anthropology graduates trained in ethnographic research could become very good management and product design consultants. However, would business students who have merely read about ethnography - but who write succinctly - have the edge over anthropology graduates with ethnographic experience?
This writer would
• contrast language used in anthropology and in business, using the Gunning Fog Index to analyze selected writings, and explain the importance of learning how to write for business
• interrogate the linkages between language use/choice and its impact on public anthropology, and
• propose responses to this changing university "market-place" to ensure the preservation of traditional anthropology at universities.
Grant McCall (University of Sydney)
Paper short abstract:
Anthropologist feature occasionally in films and television, although by far the largest media attention goes to archaeology (ie Indiana Jones). The paper explores through comments and clips of the portrayal of anthropologist in film and television, from Charlie Chan to "Bones".
Paper long abstract:
One of the major audiences for anthropology is our portrayal in popular culture, notably in the movies and on television. The anthropological actor is a wise knower of strange things and a seeker after the exotic; a comic researcher of the obvious and a heroic defender of the oppressed.
With these images in mind and searching fictional filmic media, the paper argues that by distancing the anthropological researcher, people (and their governments) are not required to take the profession seriously but can ignore its findings as amusing and quaint, but not useful in civil society. The anthropologist has, in Erving Goffman's words, the "stigma" of "spoiled identity".
The paper is illustrated with examples using short clips integrated into the presentation.
John Morton (La Trobe University)
Paper short abstract:
In this paper I look at the debate over the recent (2009-2011) publication of Peter Sutton's The Politics of Suffering: Indigenous Australia and the End of the Liberal Consensus. I suggest that Sutton's writing, while for a general audience, is having a profound effect in the academy, making us rethink the question of the addressees of anthropological work.
Paper long abstract:
Anthropologists are always free to write for a general audience, although relatively few take the plunge. But, when they do place their writing in some general, non-academic public domain, how might they be judged by their colleagues? Here I look at the recent (2009-2011) publication of Peter Sutton's 'The Politics of Suffering: Indigenous Australia and the End of the Liberal Consensus', a book which has not only appealed to a wide audience and sold extremely well, but also provoked a good deal of spirited, even sometimes frenzied, debate, both in and out of the academy. While giving a general account of the debate, including my own participation in it, I particularly examine one of its key aspects - reactions by the academic left to Sutton's announcement of the end of 'their' era. I argue that these reactions show how the intended readers over the anthropologist's shoulder may not necessarily be other academics, even when the writing appears in an academic arena. I further suggest that this has been a critical problem in the making of anthropological reputations in recent decades, although not always explicitly, and that the Sutton example ironically illustrates how work intended for a general audience has implications for our understanding of the addressees of anthropological work in the academy.
David Trigger (University of Queensland)
Paper short abstract:
Anthropological research and related work focused on Aboriginal culture in Australia has been increasingly sought as expert opinion in legal cases. The paper addresses debates about the moral standing of such work, its contributions to social theory and its practical applications.
Paper long abstract:
Over the past four decades there have been vigorous debates about the relationship between academic and applied studies in anthropology. In the Australian setting the discussion has focused particularly on the involvement of Aboriginal people in a variety of legal cases including land claims, native title, cultural heritage issues, economic development, negotiations over resource development projects and a range of criminal cases. Tensions within the discipline revolve around the posited moral standing and practical outcomes of anthropological work prepared for audiences outside the academy, encompassing the courts, community organisations, industry parties and government. The paper addresses the mix of evidence-based scholarship, critique of postcolonial society and political advocacy that currently constitues anthropological work in Australia. Case studies will inform an argument that anthropology oriented to readers other than academics has strengthened the discipline and should be promoted and defended.
Julie Finlayson (ANU)
Paper short abstract:
This paper explores the cultural logic of public sector bureaucracies and the instrumental reasons why anthropology’s attempts to communicate with this audience often result in parallel talk.
Paper long abstract:
In Australia opponents of applied anthropology claim it is aligned to and can be described as a project of the state. Yet evidence of an ethnographic influence is weak in policy-making. Why has the wealth of available ethnographic knowledge of Indigenous communities had only a peripheral impact on programs to engage with, and deliver benefits to, Indigenous communities?
I argue that the lack of synergy between what is known of contemporary Indigenous life styles and every day experience and how this is framed when bureaucracies design Indigenous programs can be thought of as "parallel talk" - a condition partly the result of anthropology's failure to apply its own methods, including critical scrutiny to engagement with the state, and partly the result of principles and practices behind how public sector bureaucracies communicate with their external and internal audiences.
The paper draws on experience working in public sector agencies together with recent literature critiquing the assumptions informing Indigenous policy making, management values and practice in these institutions. It outlines dimensions of this parallel talk, including how anthropology limits its capacity to bring its analyses to others by the manner in which it addresses audiences outside the academy from within its own cultural logic.
David Martin (Anthropos Consulting)
Paper short abstract:
This paper argues that if anthropology is to speak truth to the human condition in all its diversity and circumstances, it must also render its truths and insights accessible to others, including those who are the subjects of its analyses.
Paper long abstract:
AASNet, the internet discussion forum auspiced by the Australian Anthropological Society, was recently stirred from its habitual torpor by a lively debate on anthropological writing practices. While some argued for the use of accessible language, others were of the view that the complexity of the phenomena which are anthropology's concern requires an equivalent complexity in its theories and language. Yet much of the debate, on both sides, proceeded on the implicit assumption that our audience is ourselves and others of our ilk. But if anthropology is to speak truth to the human condition in all its diversity and circumstances, I argue, we must also render our truths and insights accessible to others, including those who are the subjects of our analyses. From this perspective, the languages, mediums, strategies and circumstances of communication of anthropological insights assume a critical importance.
In making this argument, I present three short case studies from my own anthropological practice outside the academy illustrating issues of language, audience, and engagement. These concerned the incorporation into legislation of measures to deal with high levels of alcohol consumption in a remote Aboriginal community, developing a participatory process to ascertain if there can be 'informed consent' around a particular development proposal on Aboriginal lands, and lastly examining implicit assumptions of causality in government programs designed to address high levels of domestic violence in some Aboriginal communities.
Esther López (UNED- centro Asociado A Coruña) Laura Sánchez Pérez (UNED - C.A. A Coruña)
Paper short abstract:
This paper is a reflection about of the intersections between the classical academic fieldwork and practicing applied anthropology in East Timor. We describe this convergence through the analysis of our participation in different projects addressed to different segments of Timorese society.
Paper long abstract:
During our stay in East Timor, from 2006 to 2009, while we were doing our academic research and, perhaps because of it, we contacted Timorese government agencies and NGOs that provide us information of certain needs and limitations arising from the process of building a modern State and reinforcing a Timorese national identity.
One of the strategies of forming this national identity was the adoption of both Portuguese and Tetum as official languages. This decision brought about material and organizational changes in several areas for which neither the institutions nor general society were prepared. One of the most affected areas was education. And this precisely, one of our field research interest objectives. Thus, we considered the possibility of using the scientific knowledge, taking it out of purely academic environment opening it to a less specialized public. We plan and carry out different projects focused in education trying to address certain identified needs working as Applied Anthropologist.
In this paper we discuss how these projects were carried out by remodeling the academic knowledge into resources more accessible to different sectors of society. At the same time, we were able to help to attenuate some of the needs identified in this new national context. Mean while we contributed to the revitalization of some aspects of Timorese culture. From this experience, we could examine how to generate new specific tools to be used in Applied Anthropology projects.
Makiko Taniguchi (PARC)
Paper short abstract:
The proposed paper discusses the issue of multiple audiences for anthropology in and about the world from the perspective of anthropological understanding we produce as contextualized/situated knowledge and how the context is shaped by our engagements with different audiences.
Paper long abstract:
Working as an anthropologist in the innovation and design industry, I believe that anthropologists in the world also conduct research about the world by using anthropology as a set of conceptual tools, while participating and functioning as part of the world with a particular committal responsibility. What appears to be the main difference between anthropology about and in the world seems to be the context.
In the applied anthropological research, boundaries of the context are drawn to drive and serve particular needs of so-called clients, which could be public organizations, philanthropies, or full-profit companies. The context is set up to drive certain solutions, and the knowledge we produce is framed and communicated to clients for such purpose. The context necessarily involves business prioritization as there is a tremendous pressure for speed. Furthermore, this notion of "client(s)" often implies a complex agent consisting of multiple audiences with different interests.
Through the recent widespread popularity of ethnographic research in the industry, an increasing number of researchers are claiming anthropological authority over the knowledge they produce for being "truer" understanding of the subject matter. The issue of context and how researchers' choices are implied in setting up a particular context to thrive for desired outputs remain unmentioned. Such phenomena challenge anthropologists in both domains with commodification of anthropology. In the proposed paper, I will discuss the role of anthropology in engaging with the world for difference audiences in relation to the relevance of anthropological practices established in our discipline.