United States

With the advent of Trump’s wall and its resulting effects on human lives and communities, walls on nation-state borders have become a prominent focus in the world today. At the time of the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, globally there were only about 15 border/security walls in place or under construction. In contrast, today there are more than 70 walls, with additional ones being proposed. Members of a special AAA Task Force set up to study the global proliferation of border and security walls will discuss the resulting impact of the walls, including the displacement of native peoples; increased militarization; forcing migrants, refugees, and asylum seekers to take more dangerous routes; the division of communities and families; an increase in violence and death; environmental impacts, and the adverse effects of wall construction on archaeological and cultural heritage sites.

AAA Annual Meeting 2021

Border Walls: Open and Hidden Agendas

human rights and advocacy

borders

migration

The 65th Annual Conference on Magnetism and Magnetic Materials (MMM 2020) was held in a virtual form. The COVID-19 pandemic, with its associated uncertainty about international travel and the ability to gather in large groups, meant that the Steering Committee decided to cancel the face-to-face meeting that had been planned in Palm Beach, Florida November 2-6, 2020.

We were reluctant to give up the benefits of meeting face-to-face, and know that shifting to a virtual conference is a significant change for this community. Nevertheless, we are first and foremost concerned about the health and safety of all our Conference participants and their loved ones on returning home after travelling.

The MMM 2020 Steering Committee was working exceptionally hard, along with our sponsors, the IEEE Magnetics Society and AIP Publishing, to make this event serve the needs of our participants, who live in time zones all around the globe, in the best possible way. 

You need a ticket to explore this event.

If you have already registered for MMM 2020, and you have already created an account, then you
just need to login (above).

If you have already registered for MMM 2020, but you have not yet created an account, then you
need to click on &quot;create an account&quot; (above) and then login.

Forgot your password? Go to
https://www.underline.io/log-in

If you have not yet registered for MMM 2020 but would like to do so, go to
https://magnetism.org/register

Still need help? Contact our team!


MMM 2020

panel

Truth and Responsibility
“Truth and Responsibility” is a call to reimagine anthropology to meet the demands of the present moment. The imperative to bear witness, take action, and be held accountable to the truths we write and circulate invites us to reflect on our responsibility in reckoning with disciplinary histories, harms, and possibilities. To whom are we giving evidence and toward what ends? For whom are we writing? To whom are we accountable, and in what ways? We are thrilled to announce the theme of the 2021 AAA Annual Meeting to be held in Baltimore, MD: Truth and Responsibility.

Many consider anthropology to be a holistic social science dedicated to cross-cultural understanding as a way to reduce bigotry and more fully comprehend “what it means to be human.” Others push against this readily circulated origin story, arguing that “human” remains a highly contested, political category—evident as the presumed set of rights and protections associated with the “human” continue to be stripped away violently in the communities in which some of us live and work. Which violent histories and epistemologies must anthropologists take responsibility for in telling truth(s) about the discipline’s development? How do the dual histories of settler colonialism and slavery continue to influence anthropological thought and practices? In these political times, how can anthropologists throughout the globe work to secure a capacious, progressive vision of the human? How might movements for anti-racism, decoloniality, queer liberation, and healing such as #BlackLivesMatter, #ProtectMaunaKea, and #MeToo push a future anthropology out of the ashes of the anthropological past? Finally, what are the limits and possibilities of the anthropological imagination?

Across subfields, we find truths in patterns of human behavior, language, evolution, and cultural worlds. Industry-positioned anthropologists do this by extending the boundaries of the discipline not as an administrative solution to job shortages but as a source of intervention and knowledge production. Increasingly, anthropologists who make use of the scientific method question how status and identity help to decide which facts come to represent truth. How might quantitative researchers use our methods to identify patterned truths, and what responsibility do we hold in challenging conventional wisdom about these patterns? What responsibility do we have to both our colleagues and larger publics, to push toward increased transparency and ethical grounding in our data collection, analysis, and presentation?

Pedagogy is a key medium for the communication of anthropological truths. Which (and whose) truths are foregrounded in our curricula? What are the possibilities for a liberatory pedagogy in a precarious, “post-truth” era? Conferences, museums, organizing spaces, and classrooms are sites where pedagogy and various forms of communication can help us interrogate the performativity of truth. How might anthropologists conceive of truth performances? Might visual, aural, and choreographic performances during AAA sessions offer anthropologists alternative genres for truth-telling and truth-making that provoke discussions about responsibility?

In accordance with the urgency of the year’s theme, the questions posed in this call for papers do not have easy answers. The hope is that those who submit proposals will take up these questions and engage in collective thinking and imagining about the truths we hold, the truths we challenge, and the responsibilities we bear in co-creating a free and more equitable world. All panel proposals should have a statement about how the panel has incorporated the goals of equity, diversity, and inclusion, and/or analysis of power.

Executive Session proposals have already been selected and speak directly to the theme “Truth and Responsibility.” To practice the critical reflexivity this call for papers invites, we asked that Executive Session submissions explicitly address the diversity of session participants, such as organizational/institutional affiliation, career stage, race, ethnicity, disability, sexuality, class, religion, national identity, and gender. Proposals for Executive Sessions that demonstrated a commitment to equity and inclusion and/or a clear analysis of power (i.e. anti-imperialist, anti-white supremacist, decolonial, anti-ableist, feminist, anti-transphobic, anti-xenophobic, etc) were given priority. We are excited to be in conversation with residents of the Baltimore region and look forward to the discussions, performances, and actions generated by the dynamic group of anthropologists attending the 2021 AAA Annual Meeting.

“Truth and Responsibility” is a call to reimagine anthropology to meet the demands of the present moment. The imperative to bear witness, take action, and be held accountable to the truths we write and circulate invites us to reflect on our responsibility in reckoning with disciplinary histories, harms, and possibilities. To whom are we giving evidence and toward what ends? For whom are we writing? To whom are we accountable, and in what ways? We are thrilled to announce the theme of the 2021 AAA Annual Meeting to be held in Baltimore, MD: Truth and Responsibility.

After Reality: Ethnography and the Pursuit of the Real, part 2 This companion virtual roundtable to the Part 1 in-person panel offers a discussion of how reality figures into ethnographic practice. Five anthropologists engage each other in conversation, drawing from their distinct thematic and geographical fields, including affective relations with anime characters in Japan, spectral presence in North American spiritualism, miracular imaginaries amid disaster in Colombia, the social lives of economic statistics in post-austerity Greece, and the emergent notion of reality from therapeutic and psychiatric practice in Poland. They explore intersecting themes of fictionality in the production of ethnographic reality, truth as an effect of encounter, the irruption and securing of reality, and reality as that which places demands on us. Contemporary concerns about truth and responsibility seem to index an instability in the cultural production of reality itself. Intersecting technopolitical and biosocial upheavals are disrupting the conditions under which the real is constituted. Across various domains, the procedures underpinning the real and the claims it warrants are being both exposed and remade: from the rise of inflationary media (Castillo and Egginton 2016) and the virtual in technology and biomedicine (Boellstorff 2008; Whitehead and Wesch 2012) to the nonhuman ontologies of scientific practice (Barad 2007) and indigenous multinatural perspectivism (Viveiros de Castro 2015; cf. Todd 2016). At a time when the ways of producing the 'reality effect’ in social life are changing, the panel seeks to explore the shifting parameters of the real through the lens of ethnography. It also aims to examine how our discipline, with its moorings in the concrete, practical and experience-near, itself engages and evokes the notion of ‘what is.' Reality is a longstanding key concern for ethnography, in terms of both its objects and method, its narrative styles and the very stakes of the anthropological encounter. It is also, and increasingly, a troubled and troubling term. We contend that the real has a history of its own. A history, on the one hand, of the specific modes of its social production and the slippages of reality’s grip at moments of crises or around edges of epistemes; on the other hand, a history of the ways reality has been approached and rendered in anthropology, including in phenomenology, thick description, constructivism, or experimental methods of research and writing that affirm or challenge ethnography’s own ‘realism’: the authority that comes with having ‘been there’ in that real that ethnographic description purports to immerse the reader in, yet cannot fully capture (Jackson 2005; Stewart 2007, cf. Barthes 1986). The roundtable suggests that the production of reality, in social life as in writing, is intrinsically bound up with relations of power and the specific structurings of the worlds we inhabit, study, and seek to build (van de Port 2011; cf. Yurchak 2006). As such, reality is precisely a matter of not only truth and responsibility but also of the imagination.

After Reality: Ethnography and the Pursuit of the Real, part 2

Despite increased public sphere attention given to care work during the pandemic, many workers have experienced heightened degrees of exploitation and instability, with devastating effects on those whose labor is undervalued, “flexible,” racialized, feminized, stigmatized, and/or criminalized. These trends are especially evident in the United States, where lack of social safety nets combined with longterm racial discrimination in healthcare and politicized pandemic responses have lead to historic levels of housing and food insecurity (Center on Budget and Policy). Though we are hardly the first to address the “crises of care” indicative of late capitalism (e.g., Borris and Parreñas 2010, Chandrasekhar and Ghosh 201, England 2005, Fraser 2016), much has yet to be done within and outside of anthropology. More interdisciplinary collaborations with workers and activists are needed. To foreground collaborative approaches and answer the call to “reimagine anthropology to meet the demands of the present moment,” this roundtable brings together workers, activists, and scholars who care about labor and whose labor involves care. Drawing on our backgrounds and research interests in "crimmigration" (the convergence of criminal and immigration law), domestic work, education, healthcare, labor and community organizing, sex work, and social work, we explore connections across care work categories and center precarious workers’ struggles. For example, by extending an ethos of care into the public domain, social workers and educators engage in socially reproductive labor that has drawn scorn from politicians seeking to atomize social wellbeing through the evacuation of the notion of the public good. But, these politicians’ attempts notably have been met with pushback from workers across the country (Blanc 2019). Healthcare workers and sex workers are also connected through their engagement in “intimate service labor” (Hua and Ray 2021)--labor that can have a vitiating effect on workers themselves while sustaining the individuals who receive their care. At the same time, because of criminalization, sex workers face difficulties not unlike those encountered by undocumented workers, with doubly challenging circumstances for sex workers who are undocumented (Smith and Mac 2018). Roundtable participants have studied and worked in a variety of caring fields, allowing us to bring an embodied perspective and subjective critique to otherwise abstract academic notions of the collision between precarity and care work. We envision this roundtable as an opportunity to discuss our care work and research experiences and to think about what the future of care--and work--could look like. The conversation will be guided by the chair, Elizabeth Hartman, with time reserved for dialogue among participants and audience contributions. Some of the issues we will address include: what care work encompasses today; the pandemic’s effects on care workers; what accounts for the enduring gendered and racialized dimensions of (precarious) care work; what the work of caring for others feels like to those who do it; how we subjectively experience precariousness; how workers take care of themselves/each other; where power resides in the precarious capitalist economy; what anthropologists can do to help foster change; and how we can dissolve disciplinary and academic-public divides.

Who Cares? The Truth About Precariousness and Care Work in the Contemporary U.S.

The People’s Republic of China was the site of the world's first outbreak of COVID-19 and also the site of the world’s first mass containment effort. More than a year into the pandemic, China’s containment measures remain some of the world’s most enduring and successful. What the Chinese government did to control COVID-19 in the winter and early spring of 2020 foretold, in ways that few initially anticipated, what was going to happen in the rest of the world. Planes stopped coming and going, stores and restaurants closed down, highway checkpoints were put in place, and all over the country ordinary people hoarded food and cowered in their apartments, anxiously posting their travails on social media. And yet, unlike in most of the rest of the world, the measures worked • and continued to work. After the initial outbreak subsided in China, Covid-19 ravaged the globe, but mostly left China alone. For all of its apparent successes, the dramatic disease control response that China undertook also has been criticized, both outside and inside China, for its authoritarian tactics, its lack of transparency, and ultimately its failure to keep the new coronavirus from breaching the borders of China and upending billions of people’s lives. This panel will examine China’s early response to COVID-19, and the global reaction to this response, to explore questions about power, truth, and responsibility in epidemic control and global health politics. In January 2020, when Covid first appeared, whose responsibility was it to control a virus capable of spreading around the world? Who can or should decide when or how to initiate mass containment measures like mass quarantines and border closings, and how do geopolitical inequalities shape this decision-making process in different places? What truths did the Chinese government, the international media, the global health community, and ordinary citizens create and disseminate about Covid-19’s origins in the early days of the pandemic, and why? How have the ways in which these truths have been circulated and shared changed global approaches to epidemic response? How are global power dynamics involving China’s relationship with the rest of the world manifesting and transforming as a result of this pandemic? This roundtable will focus on a close examination of the early months of COVID-19, when the virus we all now know intimately was still considered a “Chinese” problem. Medical anthropologists who have published extensively about previous outbreaks in China and beyond • including SARS, H1N1 influenza, HIV/AIDS and Ebola • will attempt to answer these questions and others that audience members raise. They will be joined by two graduate students who experienced the early weeks of COVID-19 in China firsthand. Each presenter will draw upon their own expertise in studying previous outbreaks, and their experiences with the current pandemic, to present an analysis of the COVID-19 outbreak as it played out in China in early 2020. Senior scholars with expertise in global health and in China studies will provide further commentary, and then the floor will be opened for questions.

Truth and Responsibility in the Heat of an Outbreak: The Emergence of COVID-19 in China

At least 15 million Roma live around the world. This diasporic population, which originated in North India more than a thousand years ago, has faced discrimination and oppression in multiple forms across time and place, including slavery in Romania for 500 years, genocide and ethnic cleansing during the Porajmos (Romani Holocaust), and ongoing, systemic oppression and neglect in every place Roma live, from the United States to Europe, Australia and Brazil to Russia. Against this background, the recognition and inclusion of Roma is critical. A worldwide movement has been working to increase the visibility and influence of Roma art, music, dance, culture, history, activism, and resilience. Anthropologist, activist, performer, and folklorist Carol Silverman has been an active member of this movement for decades. This roundtable centers on Roma rights and recognition, truth and responsibility, by celebrating the work of Carol Silverman, who is retiring after 40 years at the University of Oregon. Carol Silverman (who is not Romani) exemplifies what it means to bear witness, take action, and be held accountable to the truths we write and perform as anthropologists. Focusing on Bulgaria and Macedonia as well as on Balkan Romani migrants to North America and Western Europe, Silverman has investigated the relationship among politics, ethnicity, ritual, music, and gender. More specifically, she has explored the phenomenon of “Gypsy” music in relation to issues of appropriation, representation, and the negotiation of identities in the world music market. A true public scholar, in addition to dozens of academic book chapters and articles, she has also designed exhibits and written op-eds, festival booklets, and websites, liner notes for recordings, and documentary photographs. Her first book Romani Routes: Cultural Politics and Balkan Music in Diaspora (2012) came with an extensive accompanying website with video and audio clips. Her second book, Ivo Papasov’s Balkanology (2021), highlights the ways in which Romani musicians in Bulgaria resisted the communist state’s prohibition against Romani music and fashioned a genre that became a youth movement in Bulgaria and a world music phenomenon. As a performer, she has given over 300 concerts, workshops, lectures and demonstrations on Balkan, including Romani, folk music and its cultural context. Silverman also serves on the board of the US NGO Voice of Roma, with which she has crafted annual public culture programs. Participants in this roundtable include a diverse representation of Carol’s many students and collaborators, who are performers, artists, activists, and scholars in their own right. Participants will address the goals of equity, diversity, inclusion, and power in their respective fields, and through the lens of civil society, music, performance, politics, and art, while also recognizing the extraordinary work and influence of Carol Silverman.

Truth and Responsibility in Romani Studies: Celebrating the Work of Carol Silverman

Truth is hard. It pulls back the curtain, dispenses with illusion, and insists upon reckoning. The recent homegoing of iconic Black comedian Paul Mooney reminds us, however, that truth is the only way forward. His performances were revered for their unwavering candor, frequently eliciting the enthusiastic refrain, “Say it, Paul!” Likewise encouraged, linguistic anthropologist Lanita Jacobs (2009) has “been charged, on many occasions, by Blackwomen scholars, mothers, clients, friends, etc. to “Tell the truth”” Concordant with the theme of this year’s annual meeting, the scholars on this roundtable will speak truth to power in discussing the semiotic terrain of raciogender. Remarkable silences remain in anthropology around the meaningful ways race and gender intersect. While there is a rich and long history of Blackfeminist anthropology spanning many subdisciplines (McClaurin 2001), misogynoir persists across the field, the academy, and the world. Over a year after the 2020 surge in protests against anti-Black police brutality precipitated by officers murdering George Floyd and Breonna Taylor, no officers have been charged for the shooting death of the latter. And yet, not long after, Kamala Harris became the first Blackwoman to serve as Vice President of the United States. What truths can anthropology tell about the gendered dimensions of anti-Black state violence? What truths can it tell about what Kimberlé Crenshaw (1991) described as “representational intersectionality”? These types of questions, those that demand earnest consideration of how raciogender’s multiplicative effects influence our lives and institutions, motivation our interest in holding space for dialogue.  As such, this roundtable focuses on the ways meaning-making practices and signification reveal the mutual constitutions of language, race, and gender as well as the sociopolitical implications therein. We discuss, specifically, the ways embodied and linguistic performances of Black genders (understood as also inextricable from sexuality) construct a topographic terrain of discourse. Toward that end, we bring together a group of scholars coming from various angles on the subject, allowing us to bring often isolated perspectives together, generating cross-pollination of ideas. The range of perspective among our participants opens a unique space for concurrent discussion of such diverse topics as racialized masculinity in digital space, the construction of cosmopolitan femininity through racialised appropriation in global musical performance, the discursive construction of Blackfemme sacred geographies, the reproductive capabilities of performativity on the blackqueerfeminine plane, and so on. This conversation, we suggest further, requires attending to the responsibility and ability of anthropology to disrupt anti-Blackness, misogyny, and queer/transphobia (among other societal ails) in the study of humanity. We will attempt to, as Audre Lorde (1978) put it, transform “silence into language and action”.

The Semiotic Terrain of Raciogender: A Dialogue

Anthropologist Pem Buck’s The Punishment Monopoly challenges anthropology to take seriously the history of dispossession in the study of the construction of white supremacy and class formation. Further, her work posits the centralization of the power to punish as a sine qua non of both, and of state formation itself. In a work of truly public scholarship, Buck reaches into her own family’s history and mythology to reexamine the state as a historically constructed entity. The book ranges widely, in time, geography, and political formations, as she follows one branch of her ancestors and the people they enslaved, fought, and dispossessed from the late 1500s in the Highlands of Scotland and England, through the 1600s in Igboland, Powhatan Virginia, and colonial Virginia, to the mid-1800s in Kentucky. A final chapter connects the history of the power to punish and the dispossession it enabled to ongoing processes in the present. How does Buck’s book push anthropology to examine the themes of whiteness, settler colonialism, racial capitalism, and the rise of the carceral state? How does it enrich our understanding of the some of the most contentious issues of the twenty-first century•issues such as the exploitation and mass detention of immigrants, the judicial and extra-judicial killings of people of color and some poor whites, mass incarceration, racialized phobias constructing enemies, and now the threat of a fascistic response to Covid-19? What are the ways in which Buck’s work challenges us to create an anthropology for the public?

The Power to Punish: In Honor of Pem Buck's The Punishment Monopoly

The last decade has witnessed an explosion in the number of books and articles dedicated to forecasting the transformations, futures, and ends of work. In Give a Man a Fish, James Ferguson (2015) marshalled his ethnography of southern Africa to offer a radical vision of a sweeping move from productivism toward a new “politics of distribution.” Here, he argued, one's worth, deservingness, and social personhood would not be contingent on the marginal value of one's productivity but on the fundamental right to a share in the collective patrimony of post-industrial society. Universal basic income trials, referenda on citizen's income schemes, and the growth of public interest in policy proposals like Andrew Yang's “freedom dividend” suggest that distributivism has become a thinkable, even desirable politics. And yet, around the world, there is a curious persistence to work and its ethics. Against the threat of technological unemployment, one finds no shortage of exhortations to produce•to produce faster, to produce more. These productivist imperatives are typically bound to broader moral frameworks, showing work to be central not only to how people “make a living” but conceive of and achieve “a life worth living” (Narotzky and Besnier 2014). Beyond its moral valences, productivism is wound tightly with subjectivity, making both work and the refusal to work constitutive elements of identity, selfhood, and belonging (Lane 2011; Ong 1987; Weeks 2011). Moreover, work and its ethics continue to organize our relationships and our time (Thompson 1967), structuring and sustaining social institutions, the rhythms of everyday life, and the phases of the lifecycle (Lynch and Mains 2016). For a world tilting toward its distributivist possibilities, we seem unable to exorcise productivist desires, longings, anxieties, and modes of living from our increasingly technologized societies. This roundtable draws together ethnographers of the United States, Japan, China, Norway, and Kyrgyzstan. Their work examines a variety of topics, including the tension between distributivist and productivist logics in rural secondhand markets, neoliberal corporate restructuring, social democracy, “social parasitism”, and the search for employment in "crisis economies." By bringing creating space for a virtual dialogue, this roundtable aims to examine the curious persistence of productivism at a moment when work as we have known it appears to face significant challenge, curtailment, or even wholesale abolition.

The Persistence of Productivism

The rigor, heterogeneity and creative vision of medical anthropologists are apparent in the ongoing proliferation of modes of writing currently emerging in the field. Some reflect the diversity of audiences for whom medical anthropologists write: students, patient populations, clinicians, public health practitioners, scientists, journalists, policymakers and more general publics as medical and scientific technologies are commercialized to become household items for the self-governance of well-being. In addition to reaching beyond disciplinary audiences, some efforts center on trying to get outside the confines of scholarly books and articles in a time when communicative technologies and practices are diversifying and multiplying rapidly. Participants have created websites, such as Somatosphere, that feature web-based essays that respond more rapidly to developments and challenges, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. Other participants have written trade books and newspaper op-ed pieces designed to reach large audiences. Like other anthropologists, medical anthropologists are experimenting with forms of writing, using the graphic novel, literary non-fiction formats, creative writing and poetry genres as well as other formats, such as photography, videography, and sound production to reach new audiences and push readers to think in different ways. Two participants, as editors of major medical anthropology journals, are stretching the limits of what comes between the covers of print and digital issues to bring in a variety of other forms of writing and types of materials. Rather than training their students narrowly in forms of academic writing•leaving the acquisition of new modes of engaging audiences to post-graduation individual endeavors•some roundtable members are offering seminars or workshops on pressing current events that teach these forms of more-than-academic writing. At the same time that it will enable panelists to report on how they have expanded the envelope of academic writing in medical anthropology and the successes and obstacles they have encountered along the way, this roundtable will point toward the future. What challenges lie ahead? What avenues for innovation and dissemination can be imagined? How will different styles and venues contribute to analytic and ethnographic innovation? Lastly, how do authors consciously attend to expression, voice and writing as a practice that connects them with the larger world? We anticipate that the roundtable will interest medical anthropologists from graduate and undergraduate students to the most experienced scholars and practitioners. Instead of traditional presentations, panelists will read or share an idea or prose from their work to launch a discussion on possibilities for the future. We will also open up space for graduate students and those in the beginning stages of their careers to raise questions regarding balancing the forms and venues of writing, thus offering a renewed space for medical anthropologists’ many modes of expression. The goal of this work is simple• to ensure that we use our voices to responsibly and creatively contribute to how stories get told about the world.

The Futures of Writing in Medical Anthropology: Voice and Practice

Current rhetoric positions higher education as a key institution for individuals’ social mobility and economic success and as remedy for injustice. But, central to higher education are issues of access and equity that must be excavated for the institution to truly become a change agent. The truth of what college “is” must be analyzed from both etic and emic perspectives to be understood as constructed by society, as reflective of the lived experiences of those within it, and as the overlapping and contrasting realities of all of these. A quandary of what constitutes the identities in and of postsecondary education emerges. On one hand the state, as represented by policy makers, accrediting bodies, etc. focuses on neoliberal perspectives of accountability and producing a market product that will meet the goal of providing students with value for dollar. This process reduces what higher education is to a system of training for the job market (Canaan and Shumar, 2008). However, contingent on and contributing to the university’s legitimacy are the students and communities they serve. Anthropological studies have illuminated how spaces of possibility emerge within higher education that are reflective of social identities and justice (Brayboy, 2005; Tierney, 1993). These potentials for becoming, on the part of the faculty, student, and community, rely on higher education being an open and expansive field, not one narrowed by a perspective of accountability and governing by numbers (Shore & Wright 2015). Nevertheless, these identities are being commodified by institutions as an attempt to “diversify” student populations and sell a neoliberal narrative. Thus student populations are increasingly diverse regarding ethnicity, language, abilities, gender, immigration status, and socioeconomic status (amongst others) (NCES, 2019). Hence, the identity of the institution has changed in part because the student population has changed and the identities of students within higher education have changed presumably because the institution has changed. But, to what extent are these identities congruent? To what extent are they repellent? Perhaps, how are they intersecting? Several tenets of this identity quandary are worth exploring. First, the identities in and of post-secondary institutions, and the forces influencing them, must be understood as lived experiences. Deep ethnographic research is needed to understand how the intersecting identities of post-secondary stakeholders (students, faculty, staff, administrators, community members) are experienced in higher education. Second, the positionality of higher education, and its ideological influences, need to be examined in relation to whether stakeholders can fully live their complex identities within the institution. Finally, a multifaceted comparison between society’s perspective of higher education’s identity, the perspective of the institution on its own identity, and the nuanced experiences of those who co-construct its cultural space is necessary to thoroughly understand the true identity of today’s post-secondary education. This purview of research seeks to capture a truthful assessment and critique of the current identities of and in post-secondary education, serving as a space for and of contemplative thought regarding what higher education is and could become.

The Emic and Etic Identities of Higher Education

Digital technologies increasingly play a prominent role in communication within and outside the classroom. Digital technologies also offer possibilities to facilitate as well as complicate efforts to promote equity and diversity in teaching as well as collaborative/participatory research that works toward decolonizing truth making. Following this year’s AAA Theme, which highlights pedagogy as a "key medium for the communication of anthropological truths,"* this roundtable features effective strategies for mobilizing digital technologies to support equity and diversity within anthropological pedagogy and student research, to foster equitable collaborations and interactions among our communities and students, and to help students become critical consumers and producers of data. The roundtable discusses the possibilities of digital technologies to address issues of power and inclusion in anthropological pedagogy. It demonstrates how cloud sharing and image-sharing projection software can be used to distribute power from the instructor to students in productive ways and give voice to those who do not feel comfortable participating in class. In addition, it explores how to take online teaching to the next level by effectively mobilizing virtual reality to foster interactivity and virtual co-presence. Not only are such efforts of inclusion important for countering feelings of isolation commonly reported during the COVID-19 pandemic, but they also open up new possibilities for student engagement that may not otherwise be possible. At the same time, presenters illustrate how such software can help students reflect on different subjectivities and how “truths” are constructed; ultimately helping students become critical consumers of information. The roundtable also investigates how digital technologies can be mobilized to help students become responsible co-producers of "truths" through collaborative/participatory research and digital ethnography. From start to finish, presenters illustrate how to help students “enter” into a digital field site, navigate the ethics of engagement in digital ethnography, and coproduce public-facing digital deliverables that foster civically engaged dialogue and align with community members’ objectives. To illustrate this process, the roundtable draws on both long-term and recently established collaborations. Presenters discuss a decade-old community-based collaboration among Jewish and African-American elders in Indianapolis and students in an ethnographic methods course as well as a recently established university engagement with eSports and accompanying digital ethnography project within a qualitative methods course. Considering that responsible pedagogy involves multiple stakeholders, including not just faculty, students, and community members but also administrators and staff, the roundtable also explores how to design and scale up and out an online program originally developed for students to recognize interpersonal and systemic forms of bias. It illustrates how lessons learned can be applied for staff and faculty professional development. It also presents advice on designing online courses and curriculum and mobilizing course management systems to be more inclusive of students from diverse backgrounds. Through featuring work from cultural anthropology and archaeology at public and private universities that serve a wide range of students, this roundtable discusses key “how-to” steps for mobilizing digital technology to reflect on and address the power dynamics and truth making we engage in with our students and our communities. *https://www.americananthro.org/AM_Theme

Premium content

Downloads

Next from AAA Annual Meeting 2021

After Reality: Ethnography and the Pursuit of the Real, part 2

Similar lecture

Domain Walls in Antiferromagnets with Strong Magnetoelastic Coupling