Use this section to create a joint glossary that illustrates our different perception or connotation of the same term.
A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z | ALL
Currently sorted First name ascending Sort by: Surname | First name
Marilyn Strathern (1999) A sense of engaging two fields (of knowledge/competence) at once, one 'out there' and another 'in academia'. "Ethnographers set themselves not just the task of comprehending the effect that certain practices and artefacts have in people's lives, but of re-creating some of those effects in teh context of writing about them."
Audrey Prost https://anthropologymatters.com/index.php/anth_matters/article/view/117/230 : 'the ‘ethnographic moment’, i.e. the moment in which the
anthropologist rises to meet a revealed problematic encapsulated in a
particular instance of fieldwork, may be paralleled to the
experience of religious epiphany, whereby embodied and
intellectual understanding of phenomena and situation come to
merge, producing a totalising understanding of the field and the
Sustainable Design Activism
Petra Hroch wrote the last chapter of the book "Deleuze and Design" that I'm reading. She says that sustainable design activism works "[...] by re-conceptualising, re-organising and deterritorialising flows of fruit, people, private property and profit, experiment with the reconfiguration of a system of deeply enmeshed social, environmental as well as economic ‘problems’ into a rich web of opportunities for the flourishing of different, more equitable, and perhaps even surprisingly fun, connections."
From p. 232 to p.238 there are a lot of case studies.
Marenko, B., & Brassett, J. (2015). Deleuze and Design. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
crisis of representation
Once one has, as researcher, embraced the idea of "weak knowledge" or "situated knowledge" that constructionism somehow secures, how can one navigate the political and epistemological sustainability of this type of research?
Alternatively put: once we have become aware of the power relations shaping disciplines, and colonial (or generally Eurocentric, anthropocentric, etc) perspectives shaping institutional agendas and everyday practices where research is structured, how may one find an acceptable ground (premises, methodologies) to building knowledge? The mere act of choosing or representing a phenomena or object of study, 'the other' of our interest, is bound to superimpose on them a series of philosophical or empirical categories of which we may not be even conscious of, and that have the risk of being loaded with questionable assumptions embedded in our specific cultural and political point of view.
For an overview of the anthropological discussion see "Writing Culture" (1986), by G. Marcuse and J. Clifford, a key volume for redefinitions of anthropology regarding issues such as who should do fieldwork (e.g., people “at home” in the field or “native” anthropologists); how it should be done (e.g., collaboratively, including “informants”; in a reflexive way, problematizing “culture” and being sensitive to issues of gender, race, and class; or tracing the translocal in multiple localities); what topics should be studied (e.g., the “home” countries of anthropology, Western knowledge and science, or literary practices); and how the results should be ethnographically represented (e.g., experimentally).
Artivism is a form of intervening in a process by using different creative practices.
The term came up in the course discussions so far in connection to the outcomes of qualitative research and the validation of the analysis developed from it. In dealing with methodologies to harvest and classify data, many cultural, subjective and contextual factors may affect our research questions and knowledge production. How can we claim that our research has any validity or that it actually and accurately depicts the phenomena it aims to understand ---or impact?
The binary logic between Positivism of natural sciences and complete Relativism or perspectivism is challenged in Constructionism by an idea of knowledge that both understands and acknowledges its own limits (knows that it is cultural embedded and subjectively shaped), but at the same time has rigorous procedures to account for these variables and arrive to solid descriptions of phenomena, be them social or natural or ways of intervene on it.
In natural science this means understanding that however precise mathematical models and sophisticated instruments may be, human grasp of reality however wide is always limited ,and what is called reality is disputed by different branches or models (paradigms) of science. So, instead of presuming to have objective truth, scientist may aspire to have the more robust or best possible description (tested both analytically and empirically) in a given moment of history.
In social sciences, and particularly in arts and education, what this means is social and cultural descriptions cannot be separated from the cultural backgrounds (and biases) of those building such descriptions. This can take a very political and postcolonial direction (the variants of which can be explored in this article) but the essential take out is the same: specific perspectives and cultural conceptions clashing cannot be ruled out, in fact the only way for a researcher to arrive to the best possible description of a behavior or social situation is to fully and properly acknowledge all the forces at play in it and to find ways of counterbalancing their impact on results. (Maria)
Constructionism/constructivism Epistemologies in which the social reality is seen as the result of constructive processes (activities of the members of processes in their minds). For example, living with an illness can be influenced by the way the individuals see their illness, which meaning they abscribe to it, and how this illness is seen by other members of their social world. On each of these levels, illness and living with are socially constructed. (In Flick, Uwe. (2014). An Introduction to Qualitative Research, Glossary, p. 535). (The italics and underline are mine (Paola's)).
See for contrast Positivism.
A glossary, also known as a vocabulary or clavis, is an alphabetical list of terms in a particular domain of knowledge with the definitions for those terms. Traditionally, a glossary appears at the end of a book and includes terms within that book that are either newly introduced, uncommon, or specialized. While glossaries are most commonly associated with non-fiction books, in some cases, fiction novels may come with a glossary for unfamiliar terms.
Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary
Edit by Mirko:
On the right, you can click the cogwheel to edit an entry and add your definition. You can also post links, upload attached files or write a comment below.
Basic a assumption that scientific descriptions of phenomena are objective representations of a reality that is 'out there'. 100% accurate, derives from observation. Involves a progressive notion of science.
Cultural beliefs have no impact on science because it proceeds according to universal reason. Proper knowledge is only that which can be empirically demonstrated or analytically proven.
Positivists might not accept qualitative methods.
Positivism A philosophy of science which bases the latter on the observation of data. The observation of data should be separated from the interpretation of their meanings. Truth is to be found by following general rules of method, largely independent of the content and context of the investigation. (In Flick, Uwe. (2014). An Introduction to Qualitative Research: Glossary, p. 541).
See for contrast Constructivism / Constructionism.
Yarn Bombing is a form of 'artivism' using yarn to partially cover objects in public spaces in an artistic way.