Anthropology in a World of Exclusion:
Commonalities, Disciplinary Perspectives, Openings SEG/SSE 2016
University of Lausanne 10 – 12 november 2016
Call for Papers
If it is true that we live in a world that we ourselves create, then what kind of world are we creating? The answers to this question—for the answers must surely be in the plural—would seem to fall within the scope and ambitions of a refashioned anthropology of the twenty-first century. The 2016 meeting in Lausanne will place anthropology front and center in the face of emergent contemporary conflicts, dilemmas, and possibilities. What role do anthropologists have to play in elucidating these challenges as researchers, teachers, public intellectuals, and engaged scholars? What does anthropology have to offer the world as a scientific discipline that is unique and worth listening to? Is it the irreplaceable perspective offered by ethnography, a methodology that demands patience, empirical sensitivity, and the willingness to take seriously multiple and often contrasting perspectives? Or, by contrast, is contemporary anthropology producing theories of self and society that propose new ways of thinking about a range of key concepts and dynamics, from value to human rights, from religious belonging to the production and meaning of public goods? In responding to these fundamental questions, panels and participants will be encouraged to present case studies and results of research that move between the microlevel of anthropological research and these broader frames. The intention is to generate dialogue and collegial exchange over three days that cut across regional and theoretical specialties to engage with the discipline of anthropology itself, both in Switzerland and beyond.
Among the key dynamics that anthropologists confront today as researchers, teachers, and public intellectuals is the rise of politics and ideologies that appear to reject the legacy of
“cosmopolitics.” This was the dominant leitmotif of the first two decades of the post-Cold War, in which thinking and feeling beyond the nation was embodied in, among many others, the transformation of international development in terms of human rights, the dramatic expansion of the European Union as a supranational cultural and economic zone, and the
creation of a system of international criminal justice to prosecute for atrocities committed against humanity itself.
Yet from the perspective of 2016, this liminal period of cosmopolitan optimism seems to be ending, to be replaced by ever-expanding levels of global economic inequality; the strengthening of right-wing political movements committed to nationalism and the protection of national security over humanitarian concerns; and a pervasive undermining of international law, from the revolt against the International Criminal Court by African leaders to the nationalist and identitarian backlash against human rights. Even the European Union is undergoing a process of transformation leading to an uncertain future, from the continuing economic instability between member states to basic challenges by key nations over the very terms of belonging.
At the same time, new forms of control and constraint are appearing on the global landscape, from the manipulation of migration laws in order to exclude and restrict the free movement of people, to the rise of new medical technologies that create the potential to problematically engineer the building blocks of life itself in the name of individual autonomy and freedom of choice.
Each of these contemporary dynamics would seem to call out for the expertise of anthropology, as a discipline committed to qualitative modes of understanding, a respect for pluralism, and a history of critique and reflexivity. What is the response of the discipline as we as scholars survey the uncertain present? Are our existing subdisciplines adequate to the task of taking up these questions as areas for research, or could we imagine new alignments, new forms of collaboration? Finally, what role does the community of Swiss anthropologists have to play that distinguishes it from, on the one hand, international associations like the EASA and the AAA, and, on the other, the many other national anthropologies?
In responding to these questions, participants are encouraged to also consider problems of inclusion and exclusion in the discipline of anthropology itself. To this extent, we envision the meeting of SEG/SSE 2016 Lausanne as an opportunity to continue the dynamic and diverse exchanges around “rethinking Euro-anthropology” that were published in the August and November 2015 numbers of Social Anthropology.
The deadline for paper proposals is June 30th, 2016. As of this year, we kindly request prospective participants to submit paper proposals including an abstract of max. 2000 characters using one of our new digital forms. Please visit the following link to find the submission form corresponding the panel of your choice :
http://www.sagw.ch/seg/colloques/paper-submission.html
Panel 1
Who is in - who is out?
The categories of tourism and migration and the dynamics of socio-political inclusion and exclusion
Les dynamiques des catégories tourisme et migration concernant l’inclusion et l’exclusion socio-politique
Das Funktionieren der Kategorien Tourismus und Migration in Bezug auf Integration und Ausgrenzung
Convenors
Silvia Wojczewski, Ellina Mourtazina, Université de Lausanne Contact : silvia.wojczewski@unil.ch
Building on Glick and Salazar’s observation that there are indeed different “regimes of mobility that normalise the movements of some travellers while criminalizing and entrapping the ventures of others” (2013), the panel explores what consequences the politically and socially constructed typologies of migration and tourism have for different travelling people and how these typologies contribute to maintain the dynamics of social inclusion and exclusion.
Categories put in place to define travelling people need to be reviewed. The categories of migration and tourism were defined by the Statistical Office and Commission of the United Nations in 1985 in their report “Consolidated statistics of all international arrivals and departures”; with the aim to control and internationally compare the movement of people and to classify their effects on national economies. Guidelines were defined in order to frame how national governments would deal with international travelers. So, the nationalistic logic of
“living in one place only”, is deeply rooted in the very definition of the categories of migration and tourism. We need to challenge the paradigm of settlement that suits nation states to naturalize borders; borders whose only aim is to define who will be included and who will be excluded based on a neoliberal logic.
If anthropology has a long history of placing agency of a person at the centre of research in order to understand the diversity of lived experience, both scientific and common political discourses continue to articulate a strong distinction and moral polarisation between the concepts of migration and tourism. Migration is classically approached through models of push and pull, or stick and stay factors, problems of integration, assimilation, language barriers, or racism. Tourism, by contrast is approached through practices of leisure, adventure, spirituality, rupture from the ordinary, imaginary, immersion in and learning about new cultures. Also, migration studies have historically focussed on lower-class population movements in search of economic opportunities and difficulties they encounter while staying in another place whereas tourism studies have focussed on middle and upper- class population movements in search of entertainment, exoticism, adventure or magical experience.
Key questions for the panel include:
How do politically and socially constructed categories such as migration and tourism affect the mobility of people and what strategies are employed by persons to deal with, and challenge, these competing definitions of travel?
How does the nation-state interfere with peoples’ habits of travel?
What are the experiences of persons with travel categories and how is the interplay with other categories such as nationality, gender, ethnicity, age, or sexuality?
We invite researchers at every stage of their career to present their case studies and results.
We welcome contributions in English, German or French.
Panel 2
Development, Participation and Exclusion Entwicklung, Partizipation und Exklusion Développent, participation et exclusion
Convenors
Alexandre Savioz, Seraina Hurlemann, Université de Lausanne Contact : Alexandre.Savioz@unil.ch – Seraina.Hurlemann@unil.ch
Drawing from ethnographic case studies evolving around the policy concept of ‘participation’, the panel explores processes of exclusion and inclusion in the context of international development cooperation. Building on Olivier de Sardan’s approach to international development as an arena, the papers will investigate how ‘participation’ as a global policy is produced, mediated, received, articulated, co-opted, transformed and incorporated into governance processes at different local scales.
The notion of participation has entered the development discourse in the late 1970s and generated a series of related concepts such as community-based bottom up approaches, community empowerment or community capacity building. These concepts became integral parts to international development policies and project designs, defining examples of good governance.
Anthropology has long demonstrated the complexity of the working of what could be called social and political participation on the ground. Central questions are about who participates and who decides on who participates, and how participation generates new or reinforces or contests existing networks and forms of governance.
A crucial issue for an applied anthropology perspective interested in political planning and decision-making processes is how much decision-making power is attributed to specific social actors on the ground, and how processes of consultation aiming at wide-scale participation are to be designed. Moreover, it is to understand the effects of such participation approaches used by the institutions and agents of international development cooperation upon existing social contexts and political arenas.
Key issues that the panel will address are the political processes underlying participation processes marked by differential power hierarchies of the different intervening social actors, the sense these different actors attribute to these processes, and the eventual outcomes.
Contributions from all related fields are welcome in French, German and English.
Panel 3
Living apart, common “causes” ? Re-thinking kinship in migration/diaspora situations Vies séparées, causes communes ? Repenser la parenté en situation transnationale
Convenor
Anne Christine Trémon, Université de Lausanne Contact : Anne-Christine.Tremon@unil.ch
This panel invites reflection on the different forms kinship takes and the ways it shapes the choices and orientations of migrants or the diasporic descendants of migrants as well as their kin that stayed behind in or returned to the home country. Reciprocally, it aims to rethink kinship by shedding light on how it changes in form (the shape and extent of families and descent groups) and content (the relationships between its members and the obligations tied to them) by following the arrangements made to adjust to the transnational situation.
Kinship’s return to the scene as a side effect of the boom in migration and diaspora studies has been noted by several authors. We take the opportunity of this panel to reflect on the larger consequences that this renewed interest might bear on the anthropology of kinship and its working definitions. To what extent may we consider that a kin group constitutes a “group of potential mobilization,” as Raymond Firth described it? Firth thereby referred to groups of kin that are loosely related and dependent on the existence of affinities between persons, in contrast to corporate groups with strictly defined rules of belonging and behaviour. We propose that this understanding of kinship, particularly when it is a set of links that are rendered fragile by (long) distance and the passing of time, may benefit the study of kinship in migratory and diasporic situations.
This requires looking at the efforts deployed by its members to maintain their relationships as
‘operational’. Are kin related to each other by a ‘common cause’ that potentially mobilizes them, and how could we define this ‘cause’? We are particularly interested in the economic arrangements between kin, notably the organizations of family budgets, the sending of remittances to close kin, and donations to the community of origin. We look in particular at how individuals, conjugal partners, and other kin make choices about such basic expenses as housing and education and about professional strategies and economic investments. We examine how individuals’ decisions in these matters are influenced in varying degrees by the familial situation at large, by the situations of migrants and those that of their kin at home, and by their own or their children’s future. We ask how such choices can result from, but also further influence, the decisions to reunite with kin, to maintain dispersal, to send back some members, or to re-migrate elsewhere.
Contributions that examine these issues from an intergenerational point of view are particularly welcome. How are decisions about the allocation of resources to different members in the household and to different items shaped by the life cycle or the longer family cycle? How does the respective proportions of remittances and donations evolve over time along with generational distancing, family affinities, and the maintenance or fading away of a transnational orientation? How do these arrangements result from economic conjunctures, social and development aid policies in the receiving and sending regions, and legal regimes in terms of right of residence and citizenship? We examine how changes in migratory policies
and legal regimes influence choices and modify the social organization of kinship over several generations. Particular attention will be paid to the interactions between these structural dynamics and the changes in kinship.
We also ask how obligations toward certain kin are prescribed in several different ways by specific types of kinship, and how they change or are renegotiated under migratory or diasporic circumstances. How are relationships between patri- and matrilateral lines, generations, gender, and siblings reshaped? In sum, what kinds of effects do all the above- mentioned aspects have on the forms taken by kin groups and on the nature of the relationships between their members in the host and sending regions ?
Is kinship somehow its own cause—do kin mobilize for the sake of the kin group itself ? Or is kinship traversed or put under tension by diverging ‘causes’? In what ways do more or less remote kin that have stayed put participate in the definition of this ‘cause’, and to what extent do they maintain a power of influence from a distance and a moral ascendency on those who have left? Those who have left, and their descendants, may (re)define this ‘cause’, and change its meaning and scope, from a distance and over time. We welcome contributions that address in what circumstances ties can be severed and the group of ‘potential mobilization’ disappear.
Do the risks attached to migration and dispersion lead to an accentuation of obligations and moral injunctions to solidarity, the need to protect kin from exclusion and to help them from a distance? Or are they also, and perhaps even more, ridden with tensions that challenge solidarity, and do they precipitate relationships of exploitation between members or even to exclusion of some?
The panel will preferentially be held in English.
Panel 4
Tourism and the dialectics of exclusion and inclusion Le tourisme et la dialectique de l’exclusion et de l’inclusion
Tourismus und die Dialektik der Aus- und Eingrenzung Convenors
David Picard and Valerio Simoni Contact: david.picard@unil.ch
The panel explores the conference topic through the prism of tourism. In this specific field, anthropologists have observed myriad forms of exclusion, including for instance social and institutionalized definitions of who is a tourist and who is not, economic, cultural and political constrains to access tourism practices and places, the governance of touristic resources in destinations, and the processes of transformation of places into attractions. In most cases, these forms of exclusion are the result of dynamic processes that bring into contact a variety of actors with marked power differentials and a diversity of agendas. Exclusions/inclusions in the tourism field can thus be seen as a highly contentious arena in which competing notions, practices and assessments of tourism, of its promises or challenges and positive or negative effects, come to terms and struggle with one another. The prism of tourism also helps draw attention to the dialectical process that sees exclusion being potentially resolved through incorporation and metaphorical ingestion, (e.g. forms of co-optation and appropriation, transculturation, hospitality, inhabitation), while simultaneously reasserted as a basic condition of alterity-seeking tourism practice.
Based on this framing of the question and its interest for contemporary anthropological analysis, the specific focus of this panel is on processes of exclusion and inclusion in the contact zones of emerging tourist destinations. Key areas of interest are struggles over tourism-related resources, including their identification, characterization, ownership, and use; the gentrification processes that mediate global formats and aesthetics of urbanity, cleanliness, security, nature and localism; the dynamics of incorporation and appropriation by means of which such initially exclusive global formats are transformed, integrated, and diverted from their original intentions; processes of political mobilization of touristic resources to institutionalize and naturalize specific forms of sociability, and political order;
the emergence of new forms of localism or ethnic identification through the narrative power of tourist attractions and the economic and political power of the tourist gaze; processes of social and cultural resilience and creativity, by means of which cosmological orders and everyday aesthetics are variably maintained, translated or transformed into the field of tourism; the aspirational and distinctive dimensions of different tourism practices and ways of being a tourist (or claiming of not being a tourist), and their exclusionary dimensions. Last but not least, the panel is also interested in the ways anthropologists doing research on tourism get themselves caught in the dialectics of exclusion in the course of the ethnographic process, and on the politics of representation and positionality that our professional endeavors may entail.
The panel will be in English.
Panel 5
Music and Migration:
Performative Ways of Facing Exclusion Convenors
Prof. Dr. Monika Salzbrunn & Dr. Raphaela von Weichs ISSRC, FTSR, Université de Lausanne
Contact : monika.salzbrunn@unil.ch – raphaela.vonweichs@unil.ch
In a context of increasing inequalities and growing processes of political, economic and symbolic exclusion, minorities are developing new ways of political and cultural expression (Butler). Music is one of multiple ways of facing and fighting exclusion, notably in a context of migration (Martiniello, Lafleur). The lyrics, the music and the whole performance help to reverse stereotypes, to make claims and to struggle for recognition in diverse societies (Salzbrunn). Long before the increasing arrival of refugees, the "Refugees welcome"
movement already performed its political messages through music and video clips.
Furthermore, minorities and "minorities within minorities" (Pfaff-Czarnecka) emerged as part of transnational music scenes (Bachir-Loopuyt). Emotions and cultural intimacy are fundamental aspects of these performances (Stokes) and contribute to the creation of new soundscapes (Sweers). The analysis of music and musical performances also helps to grasp diverse and contrasting aesthetics and ideologies within particular communities, for example diverse Christian groups in Cameroon (von Weichs), various forms of religious belonging in Switzerland (Salzbrunn) or the gothic movement in Germany (Tauschek). The panel conveners invite contributions based on long-term fieldwork. The present panel aims at analysing performative ways of facing exclusion through the analysis of music. Furthermore, it invites (ethno-)musicologists and anthropologists to engage in a fruitful dialogue in order to rethink theoretical and methodological approaches to music and migration. The panel welcomes contributions in English, French, German and Italian (with slides in English if possible).
Musique et Migration: Faire face à l'exclusion de manière performative
Le présent panel invite des contributions d'(ethno)musicologues et d'anthropologues à un dialogue autour de l'analyse de performances musicales créés dans un contexte d'exclusion et de luttes pour la reconnaissance.
Musik und Migration: Performative Antworten auf Exklusionsprozesse
Das Panel zu Musik und Migration befasst sich mit performativen, insbesondere musikalischen Reaktionen auf Exklusionsprozesse in (super-)diversen Gesellschaften. Wir freuen uns auf empirisch gesättigte Beiträge aus der (Ethno)Musikologie und der Anthropologie.
Musica e Migrazione: Rispondere a l'esclusione per la performatività
Questo pannello invita i contributi di (etno-)musicologi e antropologi in un dialogo intorno l'analisi delle performance musicale creata in un contesto di esclusione e di lotte per il riconoscimento .
Panel 6
Studying along commodity chains: financialization and its impacts on local life Rechercher des chaînes de valeur: la financialisation et ses effets sur la vie locale Forschen entlang der Wertschöpfungskette: Finanzialisierung und ihre Auswirkungen
auf lokale Lebenswelten Convenor
Rita Kesselring, University of Basel Contact : Rita.Kesselring@unibas.ch
Over the last 15 years, Switzerland has emerged as a major global commodity-trading hub (Lannen et al. 2016). This development has reshaped geographies of power in significant ways. Swiss traders today take an intermediary position in commodity chains; they connect markets, influence pricing processes and, in doing so, change the life-worlds of people around the globe. This increased financialization of commodity trading, as enforced by Swiss trading firms, changes the way value is ascribed to commodities. It increases price volatility, partially reconfigures commodity chains and affects local conditions across the globe.
Our panel suggests that this “supply chain capitalism” (Tsing 2009) severely impacts different places along the commodity chain. By engaging with natural resources, social relations and cultural imaginaries are being produced. In order to understand the consequences of financialized commodity chains, one has to understand the particular dynamics in specific sites as well as their global connectedness.
For this reason, our panel seeks to ethnographically explore the consequences of financialization both in trading centres and in different places along commodity chains. We aim to examine how a heuristic focus on commodities enables a study of reconfigurations in value chains. How does financialization change overall power relations over different kinds of commodity chains? How does it affect pricing processes and volatility? How is the value of commodities defined in different places and by different actors? What kind of discursive practices are involved in mining, trading and consumption sites along a supply chain? And finally, how can we counter a discursive and imaginary segmentation of the commodity chain through ethnographic work?
We seek to invite papers that look at life-worlds or particular issues in the life of miners, traders, lorry drivers, custom officials, or construction workers along commodity chains. We are interested in contributions that connect financialization to local realities, pricing processes, exploitation, or opportunities. Due to the organizers’ research focus, studies done along commodity chains are preferred. However, if compatible to the overall theme, we also consider papers that deal with local life along other supply chains, such as food, textiles, or the like.
Language of the contributions: English
Panel 7
Les avenirs techno-scientifiques: la connaissance du futur dans les pratiques biomédicales
Covenors
Filipe Calvão, Grégoire Mallard, Graduate Institute Geneva
Contact: filipe.calvao@graduateinstitute.ch – gregoire.mallard@graduateinstitute.ch
Que ce soit dans l’espace public ou la vie économique contemporains, la prolifération de constructions de l’avenir – qu’il s’agisse de prévisions financières ou de techniques marketing utilisant les « big data », des projections démographiques ou des évaluations des risques environnementaux – nous interroge sur les façons par lesquelles l’avenir est transformé en un objet de savoir et en un site d’intervention. Porté par un intérêt théorique pour la temporalité de l’action sociale, l’étude des pratiques d’anticipation dans les domaines médicaux, sécuritaires, et technoscientifiques émerge comme un domaine de recherche particulièrement fécond en anthropologie, au croisement de l’anthropologie légale, économique, médicale et environnementale. Des recherches ethnographiques récentes sur le sujet ont en effet été menées dans une variété de sites comme l’innovation médicale, les règlements juridiques et les espaces virtuels de transactions financières. Ce panel contribue à ce champ de recherche en examinant comment l’avenir est construit { travers les pratiques biomédicales et techno- scientifiques, en passant par la modélisation de menaces d’épidémies futures, { des questions éthiques, politiques et épistémologiques posées par la recherche sur les cellules souches et/ou la biologie reproductive.
La question de l’exclusion, même s’il est souvent euphémisée ou opacifiée, est au cœur des pratiques d’anticipations biomédicales et biotechnologiques. Qu’il s’agisse de l’accès { des traitements thérapeutiques et de l’inclusion/exclusion de certaines populations potentiellement concernées par le développement de médicaments, ces technologies biomédicales sont affectées, et affectent en retour, les inégalités économiques et sociales. Le but de ce panel est ainsi triple : souligner les résultats principaux de recherches ethnographiques ; comparer les difficultés posées par des méthodologies variées ; et identifier des pistes de recherche futures et des avancées théoriques concernant la question de l’exclusion. Le panel est particulièrement pertinent pour la recherche sur l’inclusion et l’exclusion en relation avec des innovations technologiques et de nouveaux traitements thérapeutiques, ainsi qu’avec la recherche portant sur la production de savoir expert biomédical en lien avec de nouvelles pratiques émergentes de biologie reproductive, et enfin, avec la gestion des affect dans la constitution des risques de pandémies globales.
Techno-Science Futures: Anticipatory Knowledge in Biomedical Practices
The proliferation in contemporary public life and economic activity of expert renditions of the future – from financial forecasts to ‘big data’ marketing, demographic projections and environmental risk assessments – not only begs the question of how the future is turned into an object of knowledge and site of political intervention, but also of the inclusion in, or
exclusion from, access to promises of better health, security and/or welfare. Spurred by a theoretical engagement with the temporality of social action, the study of anticipatory knowledge has become a fast-growing research area in anthropology that cuts across the sub- fields of legal, economic, medical and environmental anthropology. Emerging ethnographic research on the topic has been conducted in a variety of sites ranging from medical innovation, legal settlements and the virtual spaces of modern financial transactions. This panel contributes to this increasingly refined field of research by examining how the future is constructed in biomedical and techno-scientific practices, ranging from the threat of future epidemics as an object of anticipatory knowledge to the ethical, political, and epistemological quandaries of stem cell research and reproductive biology.
The problem of inclusion in, and exclusion from enhanced futures sits center stage in biomedical and bio-technological practices of anticipatory knowledge, be it in the unequal access to therapeutic treatments and drug development, the economic and social exclusion from access to reproductive technologies, or, still, in the exclusionary effects of pandemic threats. The purpose of this panel is thus threefold: to highlight the main results of ethnographic research; to compare the challenges posed by various methodologies; and to identify future lines of research and theoretical advances. The panel is of particular relevance to research on the anthropological problem of inclusion and exclusion to technological innovation and new therapeutic treatments, as well as the production of expert biomedical knowledge with relation to new emerging practices of reproductive biology, and the temporality of affect management in the constitution of crisis and risk in imagined futures of global pandemics.
Languages accepted for contributions: French and English
Panel 8
Inclusion policies and new processes of exclusion within and through education Inklusions- und Exklusionsprozesse in und durch Bildung
Processus d'inclusion et d'exclusion en éducation
working group SEG SSE anthropology & education Convenor
Judith Hangartner, University of Teacher Education, Bern Contact: Judith.Hangartner@phbern.ch
From the perspective of social sciences, education’s primary undertaking is to provide social, economic and political integration. Recent research however has shown anew that formal education struggles to fulfil this promise. Students with low socio-economic status or migrant background, for example, are still underrepresented in advanced educational tracks. Unequal access to education however results in the (re)production of economic inequalities and in social exclusion. In response to these failings, the improvement of equality and inclusion within formal education is of primary concern to educational policymakers and researchers at the present. The aim of this panel is to critically examine the implications of educational inclusion policies. It shall discuss the hypothesis that their well-intended efforts might have unintended consequences and even induce new processes of exclusion.
Present-day educational policies pursue different objectives to enhance equality and inclusion: One major concern is the compensatory support of children from disadvantaged and migrant background in early years to provide them with a better start into formal schooling. At the moment, not only public schools but also universities in Switzerland are challenged to open their doors for young refugees. Worldwide, the inclusion of students with (learning) disabilities into regular classes is of primary political concern. These policies are part of broader efforts to support young people in acquiring the skills needed to get access to further education and the labour market.
However, we argue that these policies are a highly ambiguous endeavour whose implications and impacts we just begin to assess. We suggest they be analysed as part of the wider neoliberal policyscape which is increasingly shaping education: Its focus on quality, personalisation, learning outcomes, standardisation, and human capital production transforms public education into an economic asset of individuals acting in global competition. How far are inclusion policies under these conditions able to improve the social, political and economic participation of disadvantaged and migrant young people? How far do they individualise and depoliticise structural disadvantages characterised e.g. by urban segregation, ethnicity or by precarious residence status? Or do educational inclusion policies even serve as a humanistic legitimation for emerging conditions that increase social inequality and strengthen social, political and economic exclusion? Another concern is how inclusion policies impact on educational practice that might even generate new modes of exclusion. Therefore, there is a need to analyse the question of educational inclusion policies
in relation to the overall political framework, in particular to social policy, the regulation of migration, naturalisation and citizenship or economic and employment policies.
The aim of the panel is to scrutinise the intended and unintended consequences of inclusion policies within education. We welcome contributions that analyse politics, policies and practices of in- and exclusion in different fields of formal, non-formal and informal education.
Furthermore, the presenters are invited to give inputs from their perspective to the overall question of the particular contribution of anthropology and ethnography to questions of exclusion within and through education.
Abstracts for paper applications are welcome in English, French and German.
Panel 9
Digitalizing Everyday Life: on rights, ethics and autorship
audiovisual commission SEG SSE Convenors
Balz Andrea Alter, University of Basel, Francis Mobio, University of Lausanne Contact: francis.mobio@unil.ch
We want to address ethical practice in research in specific reference to visual practices or the creation and use of imagery. Visual methods require researchers to rethink how they need to respond to key ethical issues, including confidentiality, ownership, informed consent,
decisions about how visual data will be displayed and published, and managing collaborative processes.
And inspired by this year’s roundtable of the GIEFF, we want to ask focusing on ethical issues:
- Where do you see the greatest ethical challenges of audiovisual research at the moment?
- What would you consider currently the most exciting potentials of audiovisual research?
Languages accepted for contributions: French, English
