MAASTRICHT ETHNOGRAPHY GROUP MEETINGS 2016

THE FIELD

Friday, July 29th 2016, 16:00 – 18:00 Meeting spot: main courtyard of FASoS, GG 90 - 92

Person responsible: Whole group

What is your field? Where do you go to do research? How do you define or circumscribe your field? How do you get in contact with your field? Who are you when you are in the field, how do you present yourself? We will ask these and many other questions about the field during this walking seminar in Maastricht. We will take a local route that takes us past our own fieldsites (or if your fieldsite is not “local”, perhaps something which represents your fieldsite/s), past, present or future, as talking points. So send us in your sites by July 15th and we will map the path!

Optional readings/resources:

Amsterdam walking seminar on “fields”: http://walkingseminar.blogspot.nl/2011/02/fields.html Read about the recent Maastricht workshop on urban ethnography: http://tinyurl.com/z4havx3Burrell, J. (2009). The field site as a network: A strategy for locating ethnographic research. Field Methods, xx(x), DOI: 10.1177/1525822X08329699.

MAASTRICHT ETHNOGRAPHY GROUP MEETINGS 2016

FORAGINGAugust 25th 2016, 16:00 – 18:00

Meeting spot: Main courtyard of FASoS, GG 90 – 92 on bikes to ride together to Sint PieterPerson responsible: Anna

Where do you forage for inspiration for your writing? Does your ethnographic writing draw mainly upon your own fieldnotes and secondary sources, or do you also forage for material in other places – fiction, film, theatre, the archives? How do you forage and how do you bring the results of this foraging together in your work, to craft an ethnographic story? We will explore this topic through a short walk in the forest of Sint-Pieter, where we might not find mushrooms but will hopefully still have a nice stroll and talk. Over a break for coffee and tea at Slavante, we will also discuss the work of Anna Tsing, whose creative approach to ethnographic writing, Anna finds inspiring.

Optional readings/resources:

Selected readings from Anna Tsing’s recent book, The Mushroom at the End of the World: On the Possibility of Life in Capitalist Ruins will be provided

MAASTRICHT ETHNOGRAPHY GROUP MEETINGS 2016

THE CLASSROOMSeptember 29th 2016, 16:00 – 18:00

Meeting spot: TBAPerson responsible: Ragna

Ethnography is a small part of a short skills training in the AC/CW bachelor and I remember ES has/had something on (virtual) ethnography, but I am not sure how often and how that translated into using ethnography for a bachelor thesis and how feasible that is (short time period etc.). However, one wish I personally have for rethinking the AC/CW bachelor in terms of emphasizing skills that help students understand current modern society problems and to be able to critically discuss them, is more attention for observing (from a bit of a critical distance) what is going on. I think this is valuable for students whether they want to become academics or work in other organizational and societal settings. In my Marble projects I have had some ethnographic research and I do really enjoy that. It raises all sorts of questions though, practical issues, whether and how it can be done well for a bachelor thesis, but also concerns from (especially ES) students about whether it is scientific enough, when they have sufficient data, etc. It may relate a bit to time pressures in other research as well: when a project needs to be finished in 1,5 years, what does it mean for ethnographic research and terms such as saturation? Can we think of good ways to make observation, ethnographic fieldwork, interviews part of a bachelor program? How can we build it up in terms of increasing complexity? How can we make it part of regular PBL courses? How can bachelor theses draw on this within the short period of time students have?

Optional readings/resources: http://www.culanth.org/conversations/16-teaching-toolsFurther optional readings to be provided.

MAASTRICHT ETHNOGRAPHY GROUP MEETINGS 2016

DIGITAL ETHNOGRAPHYOctober 27th 2016, 16:00-18:00

Meeting spot: TBAPerson responsible: Annika

(Temporary) ‘Text Walking Lane’ in Antwerp; see: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-33124433 .

Laptops and smartphones have become ubiquitous and intimate companions in most contemporary societies. Social networking platforms, dating sites, online banking, health apps and wearables are only a few examples indicating the variety of emerging and established digital practices. The ongoing popularization of digital technologies has also fostered an expansion of ethnographic methods. In societies which are permeated by digital devices and in which online/offline spaces seem inseparable, ethnographers addressed the need to accommodate these developments in their methods. Numerous ethnographic approaches were developed in order to investigate how digital technologies are utilised in daily practices: virtual ethnography (Hine 2000; Gatson & Zwerink, 2004); an ethnographic approach to the Internet (Miller and Slater, 2001); cyberethnography (Kuntsman, 2004); online ethnography (Markham, 2004); or netnography (Kozinets, 2010). More recently, Sarah Pink et al. (2016) resumed this methodological discussion on ethnographic methods for digital societies. Their monograph Digital Ethnography. Principles and Practices explores ‘the digital-material environments that we inhabit and how human activity and the environments in which it takes place are co-constitutive’ (Pink et al., 2016: 152). Earlier methods suggested for ethnographic research on digital practices already referred to the relevance of physical practices and spaces for understanding digital activities. Pink et al. however particularly highlight that digital

MAASTRICHT ETHNOGRAPHY GROUP MEETINGS 2016

ethnography is in fact “non-digital centric”. Their approach does not focus on intangible practices and digital spaces, but instead addresses how the ‘digital has become part of the material, sensory and social worlds we inhabit’ (Pink et al., 2016: 153). During this meeting, we will discuss some of the questions which arise from this contribution and perspective: How different is this method in fact from alternatives such as “virtual ethnography”? In light of current technological developments, how could we explain the methodological emphasis on materiality in digital practices? If digital devices are (almost) everywhere, is there still such a thing as non-digital ethnography? When does it make sense to draw on digital ethnography: how do we decide if this method is suitable for a certain project?

Optional readings/resources:

Chapter one: Ethnography in a Digital World – Pink, S. et al. (2016). In: Digital Ethnography. Principles and Practices. Los Angeles/London: Sage, pp. 1–18. Available at: https://www.dropbox.com/s/bl7dn6h35kyonlm/Digital-Ethnography_2016_Ch-1.pdf?dl=0

MAASTRICHT ETHNOGRAPHY GROUP MEETINGS 2016

WRITING AND REPRESENTATIONNovember 24th, 2016, 16:00-18:00

Meeting spot: TBAPerson responsible: Bernike

I was thinking I would find it perhaps interesting at some point to compare some examples of ethnographic writing. I've just read Alice Street's Biomedicine in Unstable Places, really an extraordinary ethnographic and STS-related book but also interesting for how she writes (she narrates but hardly ever quotes people), but who takes for granted that writing can rely upon what can be represented while at the same time being about representation (and what is made invisible) all the time. I'm now reading Gunaratnam's Death and the Migrant, which is an interesting struggle with this question given that she finds events and things can defy sensual impressions and rational knowledge and she thus looks for ways to approach care (or perhaps any other topic) "indirectly, by extended analogies". Given my own work into sensible issues such as dying where much seems to go on that matters without it being easily worded, this question of ethnographic writing as well as the possibilities of using other repertoires to narrate, would be most interesting.

Optional readings/resources:

Selected readings will be provided.