Sesión 1. Ciclo seminarios “Lo común irreducido. Bruno Latour y los modos de existencia”

Para todos aquellos que estéis interesados en el ciclo de seminarios sobre “An Inquiry into Modes of Existence” (AIME) que estamos haciendo durante el primer semestre del 2014 en la Universitat Oberta de Catalunya, aquí tenéis el vídeo de la sesión 1 que hicimos el día 4 de marzo en el edificio mediaTIC de Barcelona.

En esta primera sesión Francisco J. Tirado (Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona) nos hizo una buenísima síntesis de los textos precursores de AIME: “Políticas de la naturaleza” y especialmente “Nunca hemos sido modernos”, aunque según Francisco J Tirado el primero lo es más que el segundo.

A continuación discutimos la introducción de AIME y sus conexiones con dichos libros.

CfP EASA 2014 | Ethnography as collaboration/experiment

Ethnography as collaboration/experiment

CfP Invited Panel – EASA2014: Collaboration, Intimacy & Revolution

Ethnography as collaboration/experiment

Provocation

In the past decades, anthropology has shifted from its traditional naturalistic mode with the ‘been-there-done-that’ rhetoric of immersive fieldwork to new forms of ethnographic engagement that intensify the involvement of anthropologists with their counterparts (Fassin & Bensa, 2008; Faubion & Marcus, 2009). ‘Collaboration’ has been one of the figures invoked by anthropology to describe this situation. However it is far from new (Stull & Schensul, 1987; Ruby, 1992): since the 1980s collaboration has been proposed as a way to inform ethically our relations in the field (Hymes, 1972), or as a way to engage politically with anthropological fieldwork (Juris, 2007). In the last years collaboration has been mobilized again but in this case in a new sense. It has been proposed as a methodological response to the ethnographies that are developed in expert contexts of knowledge production like scientific laboratories, political institutions, economic organizations or artistic and activist collectives. Holmes & Marcus (2008) have argued that in such context people have ‘para-ethnographic’ practices very similar to those of anthropologists. As a consequence, they can no longer be treated as ‘informants’ but as collaborating counterparts. In this situation, the articulation of relations in the field in a collaborative mode forces anthropologists to reconsider the scope of their epistemic practices and to rethink the outcomes and representational modes in a gesture that ‘refunctions ethnography’ (Holmes & Marcus 2005).

Following this argument, collaboration seems to be an ethnographic mode specifically apposite for social contexts devoted to the production of knowledge. But we have witnessed an intense change in the production of knowledge in the last years. Many hybrid institutions have emerged as part of processes that have brought about profound shifts in the nature and distribution of expertise (Nowotny et al. 2001). The generalization of digital technologies seems to have intensified this trend, as well as added new challenges to the anthropological fieldwork (Kelty et al. 2009). People with no social science expertise are taking part in the fabric of social science research through the development of tools (visualization of Twitter interactions, techniques for the extraction of Facebook social data…) that allow them to elaborate very sophisticated analyses of large empirical data.

Therefore, collaboration seems to be an ethnographic mode that could be generalized to even more contexts. In fact, we consider it to be part of the wider debate on the need to reinvent social science research methods provoked by this widespread distribution of digital technologies. A situation that, for some authors, represents a coming crisis for the social sciences (Savage & Burrows, 2007) while it is interpreted by others as a chance to renew the social sciences (Lury & Wakeford, 2012).

This claim for a collaborative mode in ethnography is part of the emergence of collaboration as a figure praised in many social contexts. It is pointed out by governments when promoting collaborative efforts in innovation; it is mobilized in artistic contexts as a way to articulate publics and to figure the social engagement of art; it is also claimed by technology designers and developers as a key feature of digital culture; it is praised and carefully reworked by marketing experts exploring the transformations of all of these features so as to articulate the brand new modes of a post-austerity ‘collaborative economy’. In such contexts, collaboration is praised as a value in itself and as a productive social practice. In its ethnographic mode collaboration seems to point to a two-way egalitarian relation that produces at the same time egalitarian benefits (Konrad, 2008), although it is not always necessarily this way (Strathern, 2008). However, despite such a collaborative impetus in our contemporary societies we lack a precise vocabulary to pay attention to the particularities, nuances and differences of diverse modes of collaboration, a trend that has also affected our lack of detail in the articulation of multiple experiences of participation (Fish et al. 2011).

Hence, in this session we would like to suspend for a moment many of the assumptions we have over collaboration to ask some simple questions: What do we mean when we call a form of relation ‘collaborative’? What ethical imprint do we concede to such a practice? What are the political dimensions attributed to it?

In doing so we would like to take into account the invocation of collaboration in contemporary knowledge-production contexts without forgetting its twofold character referring either to the manifold ways of ‘doing together’ (collaboration as a social form) or to the more specific ways of joint thinking and information sharing (collaboration as an epistemic mode). In this vein, maybe collaboration might be characterized as a specific contemporary mode of inquiry on the transformations of relationality in knowledge production contexts. For this panel we would like to follow this trail, exploring this twofold features in the ongoing revival of more explicit forms of ethnographic research collaboration. We believe that doing so might open up the possibility not only to think of the contemporary conditions of production of anthropological knowledge but also to explore the transformation of the contemporary as a consequence of the intensification of the circulation of knowledge.

Or, to say it otherwise, to think of collaboration practices as experimental forms for ethnographic research. Building on the practices of experimental sciences, both Isabelle Stengers (2006) and Hans-Jorg Rheinberger (1997) have characterized ‘experimentation’ as the sociomaterial craft of devices that pose us new questions. An experiment is a controlled situation that has the power to convey us with the power to speak and think otherwise about our world, as creating ‘causes for thought.’ More concretely, Rheinberger (1997) describes experiments as a situations that allow experimenters to pose new questions that they might not even have had in advance. Thus, we would like to think of collaboration practices as experiments that allow anthropologists to pose questions that they might still not be able to grasp. Collaboration, therefore, is not simply a methodological strategy but a relational and epistemic mode which anthropologists recursively unfold to pose questions that they are still not able to articulate. In this vein, ‘experimentation’ becomes a figure for capturing the transformation of ethnography in these collaborative situations (Marcus 2013).

Building from this, in this invited panel we would like to focus on a cluster of modes of field engagement derived from these transformations and problematizations that we might call ‘ethnography as collaboration/experiment.’ We would like the slash in our title to direct our attention to collaboration as an experiment, proposing experimentation as a strategy for problematizing the diverse and always particular modes of collaboration. It is our believe that different modes of experimentation/collaboration might entail a proposal to ‘rethink from’ and maybe ‘experimenting with’ new ethnographic modes (Harvey & Knox, 2008; Rabinow, 2011). Hence, in this invited panel we are interested in works addressing the specificities of those modes of engagement we deem ‘collaborative’ and what we mean when we call a relation collaborative. Indeed, we would like to to pay attention to the temporalities of these relations and when they might be said to be collaborative and how they might be sustained in time. It is our believe that these questions challenge us with new questions related to our role as anthropologists:

  • What are the contexts –in spatial, temporal and relational terms- needed for ethnography as collaboration/experiment to happen?
  • How could experimental collaboration be established and maintained? What are its catalysers and experimental devices? Could experimental collaboration explode, such as laboratory experiments sometimes do?
  • What might the methodological, epistemic and relational transformations of such collaboration/experiments be? How is the expertise of social science redistributed in these experimental collaborations? Could collaborative experiments in the field make us think of more experimental forms of fieldwork collaboration?

In sum, we believe that paying attention to the contemporary contours of ethnography as ‘collaboration/experiment’ might offer us the possibility of exploring new conditions for the production of anthropological knowledge.

References

Faubion, J. D., & Marcus, G. E. (Eds.). (2009). Fieldwork Is Not What It Used to Be: Learning Anthropology’s Method in a Time of Transition. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Fassin, D., & Bensa, A. (Eds.). (2008). Les politiques de l’enquête: Épreuves ethnographiques. Paris: La Découverte.

Fish, A. et al. (2011). Birds of the Internet: Towards a field guide to the organization and governance of participation. Journal of Cultural Economy, 4(2), 157–187.

Harvey, P., & Knox, H. (2008). “Otherwise Engaged:” Culture, deviance and the quest for connectivity through road construction. Journal of Cultural Economy, 1(1), 79–92.

Holmes, D., & Marcus, G. E. (2005). Cultures of Expertise and the Management of Globalization: Toward the Refunctioning of Ethnography. In A. Ong & S. J. Collier (Eds.), Global Assemblages: Technology, Politics, and Ethics as Anthropological Problems (pp. 235-252). Oxford: Blackwell.

Holmes, D. R., & Marcus, G. E. (2008). Para-Ethnography. In L. Given (Ed.), The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods (pp. 596–598). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hymes, D (Ed.) (1972). Reinventing anthropology. New York: Random House

Juris, J. S. (2007). Practicing Militant Ethnography with the Movement for Global Resistance (MRG) in Barcelona. In S. Shukaitis & D. Graeber (Eds.), Constituent Imagination: Militant Investigation, Collective Theorization (pp. 164-176). Oakland, Calif: AK Press.

Kelty, C. et al. (2009). Collaboration, Coordination, and Composition: Fieldwork after the Internet. In J. D. Faubion & G. E. Marcus (Eds.), Fieldwork is Not What it Used to Be: Learning Anthropology’s Method in A Time of Transition (pp. 184–206). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Lury, C., & Wakeford, N. (Eds.). (2012). Inventive Methods: The happening of the social. London: Routledge.

Marcus, G. (2013). Experimental forms for the expression of norms in the ethnography of the contemporary. Hau. Journal of ethnographic theory, 3(2), 197–217.

Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. (2001). Re-Thinking Science: Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty. Oxford: Polity.

Rabinow, P. (2011). The Accompaniment: Assembling the Contemporary. Chicago: University Of Chicago Press.

Rheinberger, H.-J. (1997). Toward a History of Epistemic Things: Synthesizing Proteins in the Test Tube. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Ruby, J. (1992). Speaking For, Speaking About, Speaking With, or Speaking Alongside: An Anthropological And Documentary Dilemma. Journal of Film and VIdeo, 44(1-2), 42–66

Savage, M., & Burrows, R. (2007). The Coming Crisis of Empirical Sociology. Sociology, 45(5), 885-889.

Stull, D., & Schensul, J. J. (1987). Collaborative research and social change: applied anthropology in action. Boulder, CO: Westview.

Stengers, I. (2006). La Vierge et le neutrino : Les scientifiques dans la tourmente. Paris: Les Empêcheurs de Penser en Rond / La Découverte.

Strathern, M. (2012). Currencies of Collaboration. In M. Konrad (Ed.), Collaborators Collaborating. Counterparts in Anthropological Knowledge and International Research Relations (pp. 109-125). New York and Oxford: Berghahn.

__

13th EASA Biennial Conference
Collaboration, Intimacy & Revolution - innovation and continuity in an interconnected world
Department of Social and Cultural Anthropology, Estonian Institute of Humanities, Tallinn University, Estonia
31st July – 3rd August, 2014

Convenors

Adolfo Estalella (The University of Manchester)
Tomás Sánchez Criado (Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona)

Panel Discussant

Alban Bensa (Iris – EHESS), French anthropologist, Directeur d’études at the Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales and joint director of the IRIS (Institut de recherche interdisciplinaire sur les enjeux sociaux – Sciences sociales, Politique, Santé), with field expertise in New Caledonia and the Kanak people. He has worked on the epistemological and political groundings of an anthropology of action, the event and social transformations. He has also worked on the political and practical conditions of anthropological fieldwork, a field in which he has recently co-edited with Didier Fassin the book Les politiques de l’enquête. Épreuves ethnographiques (2008).

Key dates
Call for papers: 27/12/2013-27/02/2014
Registration opens: 10/04/2014
End of early-bird rate: 22/05/2014

Ciclo de seminarios ‘Lo común irreducido: Bruno Latour y los modos de existencia’

“After the terrifying scenes of empires in which all the other populations watched with alarm the downfall of the brilliant madmen who were overturning their own values along with those of others in an indescribable disorder while chopping up the planet in a sort of juvenile fury, their eyes fixed on the past as if they were fleeing backward away from some dreadful monster before covering everything over with the cloak of an inevitable modernization and the irreversible reign of Reason, I would like to proceed as if the madmen could calm down, go home, get a grip, chill out, and then come back to present themselves, not in order to apologize (who is weak enough to demand apologies?) but to explain what they were looking for, and to discover at last, on their own, what they were ultimately holding onto. It is not totally fanciful to imagine that the “others” might then take an interest, in part, in the “Western” project—at last.” (Latour, 2013: 16)

Desde que salió el último libro de Bruno Latour, An Inquiry into Modes of Existences. An Anthropology of the Moderns (de ahora en adelante AIME), teníamos ganas de trabajarlo un poco a fondo. Probablemente sea su libro más filosófico desde Nunca hemos sido Modernos, del que es una continuación, pero también podemos decir que es el más empírico, ya que es a su vez programa de investigación y trabajo etnográfico. Su objetivo es volver sobre sus estudios sobre ciencia, tecnología, derecho, política y religión para describir detalladamente, como haría un antropólogo, sus particulares modos de existencia. Pero también es un libro con un claro propósito ético y político. Dicha descripción es un ejercicio diplomático que consisten en encontrar la manera de hablar bien (parler bien) de los modos de existencia, de hacer justicia a su singularidad para que, de esta manera, los modernos se presentan a sí mismos y a “los otros” de otros modos, abriendo la posibilidad a la generación de otros mundos comunes.

Nos apetece poner a prueba y discutir este programa filosófico, antropológico y diplomático con personas interesadas/preocupadas por los siguientes temas centrales en AIME:

  • La descripción de los modos de existencia y la Teoría del Actor-Red.
  • Una antropología ‘otra’ de los modernos
  • Cosmopolítica y diplomacia: irreduciendo los comunes

Hemos pensado que la manera más provechosa y divertida de hacerlo es leer y discutir el libro en 4 sesiones y, posteriormente, dedicar 3 sesiones monográficas a cada uno de los temas.

Las persona que quieran participar por favor registraros aquí.

Esto nos ayudará a gestionar la entrada al edificio, la comunicación entre los participantes y si fuera necesario buscar otra aula.

Cualquier duda me enviáis un correo a dlopezgom@gmail.com

Podéis encontrar más información en el libro digital aumentado: http://www.modesofexistence.org/

El programa quedaría como sigue

Sesión 1

Martes 4 de Marzo 2014, 15:00–17:00, aula 706 (planta 7 de l’edifici del Mediatic, C/Roc Boronat 117)

  • Organización de las sesiones y plan de lectura
  • Presentación Nunca hemos sido modernos a cargo de Francisco J. Tirado
  • Grupo de lectura: Trusting institutions again? (1–27), AIME.

Sesión 2

Martes 25 de Marzo 2014 Martes 1 de abril 2014, 15:00–17:00, aula 706 (planta 7 de l’edifici del Mediatic, C/Roc Boronat 117)

  • Grupo de lectura: Part One: How to Make an Inquiry into the Modes of Existence of the Moderns Possible (27–181), AIME

Sesión 3

Martes 29 de Abril 2014, 15:00–17:00, aula 706 (planta 7 de l’edifici del Mediatic, C/Roc Boronat 117)

  • Grupo de lectura: Part Two: How to Benefit from the Pluralism of Modes of Existence (181–295), AIME

Sesión 4

Martes 27 de Mayo 2014, 15:00–17:00, aula 706 (planta 7 de l’edifici del Mediatic, C/Roc Boronat 117)

  • Grupo de lectura: Part Three: How to Redefine the Collectives y Conclusion (295–484), AIME

Sesión 5

Martes 10 de Junio 2014, 15:00–17:00, aula 706 (planta 7 de l’edifici del Mediatic, C/Roc Boronat 117)

  • Seminario “La Teoría del Actor-Red y la descripción de los modos de existencia”

Sesión 6

Lunes 23 de Junio 2014, 15:00–17:00, aula 706 (planta 7 de l’edifici del Mediatic, C/Roc Boronat 117)

  • Seminario “Los modernos y la antropología de los otros”

Sesión 7

Martes 8 de Julio 2014, 15:00–17:00, aula 706 (planta 7 de l’edifici del Mediatic, C/Roc Boronat 117)

  • Seminario “Cosmopolítica y diplomacia: irreduciendo los comunes”

CfP Opening up the urban interface – 4S/ESOCITE Buenos Aires 2014

Opening up the urban interface: The smart city and other experimental forms of ‘infrastructural politics’

Martin Tironi, Centre de Sociologie de l’Innovation, Mines ParisTech

Tomás Sánchez Criado, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona

Francesca Musiani, Centre de Sociologie de l’Innovation, Mines ParisTech

Open Panel for the Annual Meeting of the Society for Social Studies of Science (4S) / ESOCITE, Buenos Aires, 20-23 August 2014, Intercontinental Hotel, (City Center).

Proposal

‘Smart city’ is becoming a fashionable concept in urban design (Picon, 2014), designating cities governed through the pervasive use of digital devices. In line with these prospects, many contemporary cities around the world are engaging in an experimental deployment of smart devices (Marres, 2012; Karvonen & van Heuer, in press). They ask experts and citizens to either become avid interpreters of sensors’ data or engage in urban automated governance on a variety of aspects, including air quality, urban hygiene, traffic lights and roads maintenance, mobility and public transportation or urban accessibility. Thus, they contribute to the articulation of cyborg citizens (Gandy, 2005; Sheller & Urry, 2006) or citizens as sensors (Goodchild, 2007).

However, beyond these top-down institutional and industrial-led projects, many citizens are also organizing into grassroots collectives seeking to ‘open up the urban interface’ in different ways. These are activist-led projects, permeated by a hacker ethos, targeting the intervention/transformation of a wide variety of urban infrastructures, articulating free-culture-like formats of public space design and use (Corsín, in press; Musiani, 2013; Van Oost et al., 2009). We believe such an ‘opening’ might bring to the fore a new ‘infrastructural politics’ (Denis & Pontille, 2013; Domínguez Rubio & Fogué, 2013). This allows scholars to counter the disembodied versions of the smart city project, and to rethink the very notion of ‘script’ considering the constant and ongoing work of intervening and maintaining scenarios and their alleged predispositions (Sánchez Criado et al., in press; Tironi, in press).

This session invites empirical work reflecting on the different ways in which the urban interface is being ‘opened up’ for scrutiny through these different experimental projects. It seeks to understand and theorise the different ways in which these projects are developing, intervening and countering the smart city project – and the definition of smartness itself.

References

Corsín, A. (in press). The Right to Infrastructure: A Prototype of Open Source Urbanism. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space. Retrieved from http://www.prototyping.es/uncategorized/the-right-to-infrastructure

Denis, J. & Pontille, D. (2013). Material Ordering and the Care of Things. CSI Working Papers Series nº 34. Retrieved from http://www.csi.ensmp.fr/working-papers/WP/WP_CSI_034.pdf

Domínguez Rubio, F., & Fogué, U. (2013). Technifying Public Space and Publicizing Infrastructures: Exploring New Urban Political Ecologies through the Square of General Vara del Rey. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 37(3), 1035-1052.

Gandy, M. (2005). Cyborg urbanization: complexity and monstrosity in the contemporary city. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 29(1): 26-49.

Goodchild, M. F. (2007). Citizens as sensors: the world of volunteered geography. GeoJournal, 69(4), 211–221.

Karvonen, A. & Van Heur, B. (in press). Urban Laboratories: Experiments in Reworking Cities. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research

Marres, N. (2012). Material Participation: Technology, the Environment and Everyday Publics. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Musiani, F. (2013). Nains sans géants. Architecture décentralisée et services internet. Paris: Presses des Mines.

Picon, A. (2014). Smart Cities. Théorie et critique d’un idéal auto-réalisateur. Paris: Edition B2.

Sánchez Criado, T.; López, D.; Roberts, C. and Domènech, M. (in press). Installing telecare, installing users: Felicity conditions for the instauration of usership. Science, Technology and Human Values.

Sheller, M. & Urry, J. (2006). The new mobilities paradigm. Environment and Planning A, 38(2): 207-226.

Tironi, M. (in press) Faire circuler des velos et des personnes. L’écologie urbaine et maintenance du programme Vélib’ de Paris. Revue d’Anthropologie des connaissances.

Van Oost, E., Verhaegh, S., & Oudshoorn, N. (2009). From innovation community to community innovation user-initiated innovation in wireless Leiden. Science, Technology & Human Values, 34(2), 182-205.

__

Deadline for submissions March 3, 2014.
Submission abstracts should be up to 250 words. Paper titles should not exceed 10 words.
Languages accepted: English/Spanish/Portuguese
To apply, submit an “individual abstract” via the 4S portal
Once you have a user name and password, go to submit proposal > submit new proposal > paper abstract. After entering your details, check the box beside Open Session #71 Opening up the urban interface: The smart city and other experimental forms of ‘infrastructural politics’

Cosmopolíticas

Junto a Ignacio Farías (WZB, Berlín) y David Rojas (Cornell University) estamos preparando un número especial para la Revista Pléyade.  A continuación pego el call for papers que hemos lanzado por si hay alguien interesado en presentar una propuesta de artículo.

Una de las nociones que más relevancia ha adquirido recientemente en l es la noción de cosmopolítica. Esto se debe, en gran parte, al trabajo de autores como Isabel Stengers y Bruno Latour por ir más allá de la noción clásica de política. Lejos de ser una actividad circunscrita al consenso y negociación de intereses entre humanos, la propuesta cosmopolítica de estos autores redefine la política como el arte de componer compromisos, uniones, y relaciones entre personas y entidades que pueden pertenecer a reinos ontológicos distintos. Desde neutrinos a huracanes. Desde virus a ideas. Desde árboles a ancestros.

El cosmopolitismo de estos autores se aleja así de la clásica preocupación por la consecución de un consenso global, de una paz perpetua basada en ideales universales. Su noción de “cosmos” hace referencia por contra a las tensiones y articulaciones que emergen al relacionarse mundos múltiples y divergentes. Nos habla, por tanto, de riesgos y virtualidades. De potencias y agenciamientos. De soluciones innovadoras para afrontar retos prácticos, concretos y a la vez complejos, que caracterizan un mundo cada vez más poblado y densamente articulado. Más que una esfera última de convergencia, la cosmopolítica de estos autores designa un espacio de duda e indeterminación, un espacio que requiere discusión más que consenso, controversias antes que acuerdos.

En línea con estas propuestas, el presente número especial está abierto a trabajos que aborden desde una perspectiva hispanoamericana los retos y posibilidades de esta redefinición de la política en clave cosmopolítica. En especial, invitamos a autores que hayan o estén explorando esta noción desde ámbitos disciplinares muy dispares: antropología, geografía crítica, estudios de género, ecología política, sociología, psicología social, filosofía política y otros campos afines. Dado el énfasis empírico de la propia noción, hacemos un llamado también a trabajos que incluyan estudios de caso que permitan dar cuenta de los retos y posibilidades que introduce esta noción, ya sea desde un punto de vista ético y metodológico o desde un punto de vista político u ontológico.

La fecha de envío de artículos que no superen las 7000 palabras es el 31 de Marzo de 2014. Todos los artículos serán sometidos a un proceso de evaluación por pares. Las versiones definitivas de artículos cuya aceptación haya quedado sujeta a modificaciones deberán ser enviados a más tardar el 31 de Julio de 2014. El número especial será publicado en Diciembre de 2014 y además de los artículos selecciondos incluirá traducciones de artículos de Isabel Stengers y Bruno Latour.

Contacto:
Ignacio Farías: farias@wzb.eu
Israel Rodríguez-Giralt: irodriguezgir@uoc.edu
David Rojas: dmr242@cornell.edu

Innovation in Digital Culture Research

Para quien esté por Barcelona en estas fechas. El Colectivo de investigadores Medi@acciones, de la Universitat Oberta de Catalunya, organiza una serie de seminarios interdisciplinares. El objetivo de los mismos es explorar el potencial creativo e innovador de las prácticas de investigación y los objetos de estudio de la cultura digital y la sociedad red.

Esta es la información sobre los seminarios abiertos:

Ethnography for theorising media and change
Dr. John Postill, Vice Chancellor’s Senior Research Fellow,
School of Media and Communication, RMIT University
25 Nov. 16:00-19:00
Sala Mitchell, IN·3, MediaTic
Roc Boronat, 117 Barcelona

Mobile Mediations: An Ethnography of Infrastructure on the Border of Haiti and the Dominican Republic
Dr. Heather A. Horst, Vice Chancellor’s Senior Research Fellow,
School of Media and Communication, RMIT University
26 Nov. 16:00-19:00
Sala Mitchell, IN·3, MediaTic
Roc Boronat, 117 Barcelona

Rethinking Fieldwork in Social Media
Dr. Annette Markham. Associate Professor, Dept. of Aesthetics & Communication, Aarhus University, Denmark. Guest Professor of Informatics, Umeå University, Sweden Affiliate Professor of Digital Media, School of Communication Loyola University-Chicago
11 Des. 16:00-19:00
Sala Mitchell, IN·3, MediaTic
Roc Boronat, 117 Barcelona

También podéis registraros en unos talleres que los mismos ponentes importirán. Para más información consultar aquí.

STS & Public Anthropology, ¿una conexión fecunda por hacer?

Hola

Simplemente escribo un post muy breve para plantear el interés potencial de vincular los STS con el creciente debate en la antropología sobre su “orientación pública”.

Quizá algunas referencias para ir tirando del hilo pudieran ser…

- Center for a Public Anthropology (dirigido por uno de los más fervientes “supporters” de la idea, Robert Borofsky, que ha publicado recientemente el libro Why a Public Anthropology?)

- Las publicaciones del blog Savage Minds sobre el tema de la Public Anthropology

- El artículo de Fortun (2006). Poststructuralism, Technoscience and the Promise of Public Anthropology, India Review Vol 5. No 2-3.