04/2/14

Bringing 2013-14 class to a close.

Eight months ago we gathered for our first class.  The opening topic was decolonizing anthropology.  Today, our last day of this course, we have returned to this topic via a book that exhorts us to reverse the anthropological gaze.  This is fitting.  History, for that is what we are studying, is constructed, debated, and revised generation by generation.  There are empirical traces left for us to find – these are the readings, especially in our first term.  What becomes more interesting, I think, are the narratives that spin these facts into the whole cloth of the anthropological tradition.

Let’s review the original learning objectives that I set:

1.   develop your understanding of  anthropology in terms of the people, schools, and theoretical models that have been instrumental in shaping the canonical texts.

2.   locate the historical development of anthropology as a discipline within the context of wider historical processes, such late 19th century colonial expansion and industrial development, nation building in the Americas, post-world war II decolonisation, and late 20th century socio-economic transformations. 

3.   evaluate the mechanisms by which marginal voices have been excluded from the mainstream of the discipline.

From our first term we explored the following topics

·      Anthropology and Colonialism

·      Creating the ‘Field’ & the ‘Methods’ of Anthropology (Cushing, Barbeau and Malinowski).

·      Creating the ‘Discipline’

o    I: Franz Boas & Americanist Anthropology   

o   II: The British School (Structure & Function)

o   III: The French Ethnographic Tradition

o   Is there a Canadian Anthropology?

·      Structure, Order, and Exchange (Durkheim)

·      Anthropology and Marx’s Legacy

o   (I): Labour, Production, and Estrangement

o   (II): Power and Ideology

·      Three transformative ideas:

o   Interpretive Anthropology: Geertz.

o   Engaging with Gender: Second Wave Feminism & Anthropology

o   Engaging with History: Political Economies

By beginning with the twinned concepts of Anthropology and Colonialism our discussion was situated within a well-recognized trope.  We could have taken a more historical, rather than political,  approach.  We could have started with Herodotus, for example, the Greek historian and ethnographer of  the 5th century BC and then traced our way forward tracking the traces of European civilization as it’s members cogitated upon the strange people met.  But we didn’t.

I began with the idea of colonialism as anthropology in order to unsettle our comfortable ideas of the discipline of one neutrally located within simple fields of inquiry: content, method, practice.  Do we remember our first fieldtrip?  We walked over to be hind the museum of anthropology, to view the replica Haida village as though we were coming a shore on a vessel.  To get there, we had to pass over the vestigial structures of a World War Two gun emplacement.  Then we had to scramble around a large event tent.  Finally, after pushing through the overgrown weeds, we were able to stand as though in a canoe or on a merchant sailing ship and look ashore to the village. 

This is the view of the stranger, the visitor, the newcomer.  This is the vantage point that anthropology has taken throughout most of it’s academic life – to cast a gaze over top of other people, to play with use with foreign theories, to become experts upon us.  But, this is not what anthropology has to be.

In our second term we have explored a set of subjects that should, if we reflect upon them, help us turn our gaze around. 

·      Turning into/to Text and Considering Film

o   Anthropology at Home

o   Affect, Autobiography, and Autoethnography

o   Ecology & Poetics

o   Collaborative Anthropologies

·      Reversing the Gaze

Here we have explored a series of recent ethnographies (written over the course of the past two decades or more).  These ethnographies offer us examples of approach.  Incidentally, they also show us a wide range of the topics anthropologists work on.  Let’s review the books:

·      We eat the mines and the mines eat us, June Nash

·      The devil and commodity fetishism, Michael Tausig

·      In my father’s study, Ben Orlove

·      Stranger in the village of the sick, Paul Stoller

·      Abalone Tales, Les Fields

·      More than a labour of love, Meg Luxton

·      Between history and tomorrow, Gerald Sider

·      Ordinary affects, Kathleen Stewart

·      Lines in the water, Ben Orlove

·      Reversing the gaze, Mewenda Ntarangwi

 

This is quite the range of books we have travelled from South America through North America and Africa.  In our films we visited France and Africa again.   Today we will end the course back again near our start.  So it should be.  You are learning the history of your chosen discipline.  You are finding the walls and boundaries to this particular intellectual tradition.  While we might  “make our own history, we do not make it just as we please; we do not make it under circumstances chosen by ourselves, but under circumstances directly encountered, given and transmitted from the past. The tradition of all the dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brain of the living.”

03/27/14

The Bittersweet Truth of Award Adjudication

One of the hardest things to take as a student and an academic (forget that – for all of us) is the bitter taste of rejection and denial.  It’s hard to hand out rejections too, but receiving them is way harder.  We all know that.  It’s part of the price that is paid for supporting and being part of the neo-liberal market economy where competition and excellence rule the day (you can find my critique of the university of excellence online in New Proposals)

Recently I read a comment about how a student found the process of fellowship award adjudication unfair.  I appreciate that feeling.  It was sincere and heartfelt. Oh, and yes, I do sometimes read what students post online – it’s a public place- I don’t go looking for these things, but it is amazing what one stumbles across on a causal jaunt through the blogosphere.   That said, I think that some of the conclusions and information that the student had been provided with aren’t quite accurate. 

The student’s concern was over what they had been told about the granting process and the likely outcome of this process.  Then, to make matters worse, the explanation for why their file didn’t actually get sent up to the next level of decision making was even more innervating!

You should know that over the course of a couple of decades I have sat on local, national, and international adjudication panels for graduate students and faculty.  I was a member of the doctoral fellowship national adjudication panel in Canada for about 6 years and even chaired the committee one year.  I’ve also reviewed faculty grant applications (as both a member of adjudication committees and a peer reviewer on behalf of granting agencies) for a range of national and international grant awards.

So here’s my gloss on the local process for grant awards . 

The faculty of graduate studies gives each department a quota of how many applications for each award that can be sent forward to the university-level selection committee.  This quota will vary from year to year, but this year (for example) the department in question was only allocated one space for international student applications for affiliated awards and eight spaces for Domestic & Permanent Resident applications to  SSHRC MA fellowships.  Departments have nothing to do with setting the quota.

The selection process involves each member of the departmental committee individually ranking all applicant files.  We are provided with clear criteria (as are students when they fill out the forms) for assessing each file. I personally create a quantitative rubric that includes research proposal, student record (i.e. publications, presentations, employment history, and consider that relative to stage of career), reference letters, and transcripts.  I personally tally up those scores and then rank applicant files accordingly. Other committee members may have different approaches, but we are all expected to follow the criteria set by the granting agency and/or UBC (as the case determines).  Then the rankings from each individual committee member is combined and tallied up to created an overall ranked list of applications.  The outcome thus involves  a combination of factors and no one factor can be singled out as ‘the’ main factor.

[Note, I am very deliberately saying applications, files, etc.  These are rankings of the FILES, not the STUDENTS.  Semantic point?  I don’t think so.  To be fair and honest rankings should look only at the material in the files that we are provided with.  That’s the application, that’s the data we have to work with.]

The SSHRCC MA fellowship applications are considered separately from the MA affiliated award applications and are not compared against each other. The department in question had 20+ applications for the SSHRCC. Our quota to send up to the university level committee was 8. Perhaps 2/3 of those will ultimately be funded. The Affiliated pool was much smaller and only 1 space was allocated to be sent up. Only when there are cases in which the number of applicants equal the quota set by the university would all applicants be sent up.

I also know that no amount of explanation or empathy will make a difference as to how one might feel about the outcome.  Say what one might, rejection is always a bitter pill to swallow.