koncern it (den rigtige) · form of assessment: pass /fail comments: in case of re-examination, the...

1 af 23

STUDYPLAN

Programme: Anthropology of Education and Globalization

Module Educational Anthropology 1

ECTS: 15

Semester + year: 2016 – Fall semester

Campus: Emdrup

Coordinator and email address: Sally Anderson – contact person - [email protected]

Lecturers Jamie Wallace, Lene Teglhus Kaufmann, Cathrine Hasse, Sue Wright

Time and date (cf. online Course Catalogue)

Monday: 10:00-12:15, Room: A 130

Wednesdays: 10:00-12:15, Room: A412

Fridays: 9:00- 12:00, Room: week 36, 37, 40 A303; week, 38, 39, 41, A100a

NB!! Week 37, Monday, Sept 10:15 12:00; Wednesday and Friday: 9:00- 12:00

Content and aim (cf. the academic regulations)

https://mit.au.dk/EDDI/webservices/DokOrdningService.cfc?method=visGodkendtOrdning

&dokOrdningId=7386&sprog=en

Educational Anthropology 1 introduces students to key concepts and central questions intrinsic

to the field of Anthropology of Education and Globalization. It combines the disciplines of an-

thropology and education and explores how central questions – of socialization and education,

and the authority by which certain content, skills and forms of learning are upheld – have been

treated through shifting styles of inquiry (e.g. culture and personality, critical cultural studies,

cultural production and social reproduction) and conceptualized in different ways (e.g. as cul-

tural acquisition/transmission, upbringing, institutionalization, Bildung, formal and non-formal

learning, competence development).

On completion of this module, and based on an academic (i.e. a critical, systematic and theoreti-cal) foundation, students can demonstrate:

Knowledge of historical development and key concepts for the interdisciplinary field of anthropology and education.

Knowledge of different theoretical and methodological approaches to the study of the production of the educated person in formal and non-formal learning environments.

Skills and abilities to analyze and critically evaluate key questions, concepts and meth-odologies concerning issues of education and learning in a cross-cultural and interna-tional perspective.

Skills and abilities to concisely communicate and present research-based knowledge in English and discuss professional and academic issues with peers from various cultural, linguistic and national backgrounds.

Competences to work independently, alone and in groups of diverse nationalities and academic backgrounds.

Language of instruction: English

mailto:[email protected]

https://mit.au.dk/EDDI/webservices/DokOrdningService.cfc?method=visGodkendtOrdning&dokOrdningId=7386&sprog=en

https://mit.au.dk/EDDI/webservices/DokOrdningService.cfc?method=visGodkendtOrdning&dokOrdningId=7386&sprog=en

2 af 23

Examination:

Exam language: English

Exam options: An internal examination consisting of a written, take-home essay of 5-7 pag-

es (12,000-16,800 characters). One page = 2400 characters

Form of co-examination: Internal co-examination

Form of assessment: Pass /fail

Comments: In case of re-examination, the same regulations apply as for the regular examination.

Teaching and learning approach

A combination of lectures, group work, student presentations and exercises.

Supervision and feedback There is collective supervision before the exam, and individual feedback after.

Course Evaluation

You will receive an electronic questionnaire at your AU email address. Please answer the ques-

tionnaire individually and be prepared to for an evaluative discussion during the last session.

Literature

Course literature comprises core readings, ethnographic articles and supplementary readings.

Students are required to read one monograph and write a 2-page book review.

Lecture plan

This 7-week course has three sessions per week.

Sessions Theme Lecturer

1, 2, 3

Week 35

Introduction to Anthropology and Education

Core questions, Key anthropologists,

Ethnography

Sally Anderson

4, 5, 6

Week 36

Grounding the field: Sociality, relationality,

morality

Sally Anderson

7, 8, 9

Week 37

Embodied Learning, Making and Designing Sally Anderson

Jamie Wallace

10, 11, 12

Week 38

Ways of Knowing, Kinds of Knowledge Lene Teglhus Kauffman

13, 14, 15

Week 39

Cultural and Social production: Educated person, Schooling

Sally Anderson

16, 17, 18

Week 40

Learning, Technology and

Social Transformation

Cathrine Hasse

Sue Wright

19, 20, 21

Week 41

Course summary and review,

Collective evaluation and supervision

Sally Anderson

3 af 23

WEEK 35: INTRODUCTION TO THE ANTHROPOLOGY OF EDUCATION

Session 1: Anthropology and Education

Lecturer: Sally Anderson

Content: This session introduces students to:

1) Course: readings, group work, supervision and exam.

2) The anthropology of education: key terms, core question and ongoing tensions

3) Learning opportunities beyond the course.

Literature:

Levinson, Bradley (2000) ‘Introduction: Whither the Symbolic Animal? Society, Culture, and

Education at the Millennium’. In Schooling the Symbolic Animal. Social and Cultural Dimensions of

Education, B. Levinson, et al. (eds), New York: Rowman and Littlefield, pp. 1-11.

Levinson, Bradley A.U. and Mica Pollock (2011) Introduction. In A Companion to the Anthropolo-

gy of Education, B. A. U. Levinson and M. Pollock (eds), Wiley-Blackwell, pp 1-8.

Wolcott, Henry F. (2011) ‘If There’s Going to Be an Anthropology of Education’, In A Companion

to the Anthropology of Education, B. A. U. Levinson and M. Pollock (eds), Wiley-Blackwell, 97-111.

Schensul, Jean J. (2011) ‘Building an Applied Educational Anthropology Beyond the Academy.

In A Companion to the Anthropology of Education, B. A. U. Levinson and M. Pollock (eds), Wiley-

Blackwell, pp.112-134.

Supplementary literature

Anderson-Levitt, Kathryn M. (2011) World Anthropologies of Education. In A Companion to the

Anthropology of Education, B. A. U. Levinson and M. Pollock (eds), Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 11-24.

McDermott, Ray and Jason D. Raley (2011) The Ethnography of Schooling Writ Large, 1955-

2010. In A Companion to the Anthropology of Education, B. A. U. Levinson and M. Pollock (eds),

Wiley-Blackwell.

Preparation and group work

Read the articles carefully. Note the scope of this subfield, and the questions and concerns en-

gaging educational anthropology. Discuss how the articles present the connection between an-

thropology and education.

Which themes are popular in particular historical periods and in relation to particular ge-

ographical areas? Which themes are most persistent?

Compare/contrast understandings of ‘education’ in these articles with common under-

standings of ‘education’ in the languages you speak. Be prepared to discuss this in class.

NB!! Group work for Friday!

In groups of 2-3 (mix of Danish and international students) conduct a short field visit to

Danish educational/pedagogical institution.

Write a 1-2 page description of what you observe and share these in the group.

Discuss and compare what caught your attention and what you chose to ignore.

o What surprised you; what did not make immediate sense?

o Why do you think these particular things caught your attention? What cultural under-

standings are you drawing on to interpret what you see?

Discuss understandings of ‘culture,’ ‘learning,’ ‘education’ and ‘right and wrong ways of

doing things’ that come to the fore in your observations and discussions.

4 af 23


Session 2: Patterns and problems of culture


Content: This session introduces students to the theoretical concerns of early American cultural

anthropologists, whose work preempted the subfields of psychological, cognitive, and educa-

tional anthropology. We will explore Ruth Benedict’s and Margaret Mead’s understandings of

how collective social and cultural patterning influences processes of human self-making (auto-

poesis). Known as ‘The Culture and Personality School’, this relativistic, holistic and compara-

tive approach sought to understand how ‘culture’ impacts and shapes human psyches and

lives. Their studies of cultural patterning, normative social conduct, acceptable emotional regis-

ters and responses open crucial questions of how ‘culture’ impinges on individuals, and how in

adjusting to the demands of cultural patterning – individuals - (re)shape culture.

Literature:

Benedict, Ruth (1932) Configurations of Culture in North America, American Anthropologist, 34(1): 1–27.

Benedict, Ruth (1938) Continuities and Discontinuities in Cultural Conditioning, Psychiatry: In-terpersonal and Biological Processes, 1(2): 161-167.

Mead, Margaret (2000) ‘The Education of the Samoan Child.’ In Schooling the Symbolic Animal.

Social and Cultural Dimensions of Education, Bradley A. U. Levinson et al., New York: Rowman

and Littlefield, pp. 36-40.

Henry, Jules (2000) Education and the Human Condition. In Schooling the Symbolic Animal. Social

and Cultural Dimensions of Education, Bradley A. U. Levinson et al., New York: Rowman and Lit-

tlefield, pp. 53-56.


Geertz, Clifford (1973) ‘The Impact of the Concept of Culture on the Concept of Man [sic]’. In

Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books. Reprinted in: Schooling the Symbolic Animal,

Bradley A. U. Levinson et al., (2000) Rowman & Littlefield.

Ochs, Elinor, (1990) Indexicality and socialization. In Cultural Psychology: Essays on Comparative

Human Development , J.E. Stigler, R. A. Schweder and G. Herdt (eds), Cambridge University Press, pp. 287-308.

Preparation and group work:

Read the articles and carefully note how the authors define and analytically deploy the concept of

‘culture’ in their arguments. Search online for critiques and defenses of their work, specifically

the understandings of ‘culture’ deployed in the ‘culture and personality’ approach.

Prepare to debate the pros and cons of this approach in class. What does it help us think about?

What should we be wary of? Might Geertz and/or Ochs add to our understanding of ‘culture’?

5 af 23


Session 3: Ethnography/Anthropology


Content: The aim of this session is to familiarize students with processes of constructing com-

parative anthropological knowledge. Through a cross-cultural exercise in observation, descrip-

tive writing and analytical framing, students will work through their own and others’ notions

of culture, learning and education with point of departure in a Danish educational setting.

Literature:

Van Maanen, John (2011) ‘In Pursuit of Culture’ and ‘Fieldwork, Culture and Ethnography Re-

visited’, from Tales of the Field: On Writing Ethnography, 2nd. ed. U. of Chicago Press, pp. 13-44,

125-144.

Hammersley, Martin (1993) ‘Ethnographic Writing’, Social Research Update, U. of Surrey, pp. 1-9.

Wolcott, Harry F. (2008) ‘Ethnography as a Way of Seeing. In Ethnography as a Way of Seeing, Al-

ta Mire Press, pp. 69-102.

Supplementary literature:

Erickson, Frederick (1984) What Makes School Ethnography 'Ethnographic'? Anthropology & Ed-

ucation Quarterly, 15(1): 51-66.

Ingold, Tim (2014) That’s enough about ethnography! Hau: Journal of Ethnographic Theory 4 (1): 383–395.

Preparation and group work.

1. Pair up in groups of 2-3 (with a mix of Danish and international students), and conduct a

short field visit to Danish educational/pedagogical institution.

2. Write a 1-2 page description of what you observe and share these in the group.

3. Discuss and compare what caught your attention and what you chose to ignore.

a. What surprised you; what did not make immediate sense?

b. Why do you think these particular things caught your attention

c. What cultural understandings are you drawing on to interpret what you see?

4. Discuss the understandings of ‘culture,’ ‘learning,’ ‘education’ and ‘right and wrong ways

of doing things’ that come to the fore in your observations and discussions.

5. Be prepared to present your exercise and the outcome of your group discussions in class.

6 af 23

WEEK 36: GROUNDING THE FIELD

Session 4: Interaction and sociality


Content:

Human social organization, interaction, sociality, and intersubjectivity, are the building blocks

of all human institutions, relations, and social forms, writ both large and small. The aim of this

session is to gain insight into different ways of ways of understanding interaction and sociality

that we can use to think about human lives and collectivities.

Literature

Levinson, Stephen C. 2006. ‘On the Human “Interaction Engine,”’ in Roots of Human Sociality:

Culture, Cognition and Interaction, (eds.) Nicholas J. Enfield and Stephen C. Levinson. Oxford:

Berg, pp. 39-69.

Toren, Christina, (2012) Imagining the World that Warrants our Imagination, Cambridge Anthro-pology 30(1): 64–79.

Anderson, Sally (2011) ‘Civil Sociality and Childhood Education, ’ in A Companion to the An-

thropology of Education, eds. B.A. U. Levinson & M. Pollock, Blackwell Publishing, pp. 316-332.


Ochs, Elinor and Olga Salomon (2010) Autistic Sociality, Ethos, 38(1): 143-166.

Salomon, Olga (2010) What a Dog Can Do: Children with Autism and Therapy Dogs in Social

Interaction, Ethos, 38 (1): 143-166.

Rapport, Nigel (2007) Interaction. In Social and Cultural Anthropology. The Key Concepts, New

York: Routledge.

Preparation:

Read the first three articles carefully, noting the different arguments about basic human capaci-

ties, and familiarize yourselves with how Ochs and Salomon use the case of autism to generate

basic understandings of human interaction and sociality.

For each article, discuss examples/cases from your own experience that illustrate the ar-

ticles main argument.

Thinking across the articles, discuss how you might frame a study of one or two of these

cases using today’s readings.

Be prepared to present your case in class.

7 af 23


Session 5: Relationality: relatedness, relationships, mutuality and obligation


Content: In this session we will focus on the ways humans both find themselves in relationships

with one another and how they work to establish relationships with one another. Whether as-

cribed or achieved, prescribed or preferred, generalized or restricted, all relationships involve

particular kinds of mutuality (obligation, reciprocity), particular times and spaces, and all re-

quire constant relational work. The aim of this session is to gain insight into anthropological

understandings of relatedness and relationality (including separation and disjuncture) in rela-

tions of family and kin, neighbors, fellow villagers, schoolmates and friends.

Literature:

Carsten, Janet (2000) ‘Introduction: Cultures of relatedness’. In Cultures of Relatedness. New Ap-

proaches to the Study of Kinship, J. Carsten (ed.), Cambridge University Press, pp.1-36.

Stafford, Charles, (2000) ‘Chinese patriliny and the cycles of yang and laiwang.’ In Cultures of Re-

latedness. New Approaches to the Study of Kinship, J. Carsten (ed.), Cambridge University Press,

pp-37-54.

Jeanette, Edwards and Marilyn Strathern (2000) ‘Including our own.’ In Cultures of Relatedness. New Approaches to the Study of Kinship, J. Carsten (ed.), Cambridge University Press, pp. 149-166.

Amit-Talai, V. (1995) ’The Waltz of Sociability: Intimacy, Dislocation and Friendship in a Que-bec High School’. In V. Amit-Talai og H. Wulff (red.) Youth Cultures: A Cross-cultural Perspective, London and New York: Routledge.

Supplementary literature: Bodenhorn, Barbara (2000) ‘He used to be my relative:’ Exploring the basis of relatedness among Inupiat of Northern Alaska. In Cultures of Relatedness. New Approaches to the Study of Kin-ship, J. Carsten (ed.), Cambridge University Press, pp. 128-148.

Birenbaum-Carmeli, D. (1999) ’”Love Thy Neighbor”: Sociability and Instrumentality among Isræli Neighbors’. Human Organization 58(1: 82-93.

Preparation and group work: Come to class prepared to discuss. Read the articles carefully, noting the different relational forms, their ambiguity, the obligations they entail, and the ‘work’ required to stabilize them. Think about and discuss common and dominant forms of relationships in your culture/society.

What are they called? When, where and how are they mobilized, maintained, and discon-tinued. Are some more easily discontinued than others?

How you have learned to enact different relationships and the sociabilities and obliga-tions these entail?

Which relationships are mobilized by ritual events such as births, deaths, funerals, and weddings? What do you feel obliged to do or not do?

How do you create and maintain various relationships through gift exchange?

o How do we use gifts to signal, evaluate and sustain relationships?

o How do we know what kind of gift to give, and how ‘big’ or ‘small’ it should be?

o Do we feel indebted upon receiving a gift? How exactly?

What forms of relatedness are important in educational settings?

8 af 23


Session 6: Social organization and the work and play of morality


Content: The aim of this session is to discover and think about links between moral learning and

social organization and the ways in which proper or good conduct in various social spheres is

mediated (by story-telling, teasing, reminding, admonishing, showing) on a daily basis. How

do children learn to see ‘society’ as comprised of ‘home’, ‘family,’ ‘community,’ ‘school’ and

‘work’ as particular social spheres/spaces of moral personhood in relation to various kinds of

others. We will experiment in this session with mapping social organization through our under-

standings of responsible, moral conduct.

Literature:

Briggs, Jean (1992) ‘Mazes of Meaning: How a Child and Culture Create Each Other’, New Direc-tions for Child and Adolescent Development, 58: 25-49.

Ochs, Elinor and Carolina Izquierdo (2009) Responsibility in Childhood: Three Developmental

Trajectories, Ethos 37 (4 ): 391–413.

Basso, Keith (1984/2000) Stalking with stories: names, places and moral narratives among the western Apache. In Text, Play, and Story: The Construction of Self and Society: Proceedings of the American Ethnological Society. E.M. Bruner, ed. Pp. 19–55. This version in: Schooling the Symbolic Animal. Social and Cultural Dimensions of Education, Bradley A. U. Levinson et al., New York: Rowman and Littlefield. Supplementary literature: Ochs, Elinor and Bambi Schieffelin (1984) ‘Language acquisition and socialization: three devel-

opmental stories and their implications,’ Culture theory: Mind, self, and emotion, ed. by R.

Shweder & R. LeVine. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 276-320.

Rapport, Nigel (2007) World-making. In Social and Cultural Anthropology. The Key Concepts, New

York: Routledge.

Preparation and group work.

Read the articles carefully, noting the ways adults encourage children to take stock of how to

conduct themselves in various situations. What kind of cues and clues are given regarding ways

of acting and how do children respond to these?

As an exercise, make a spatial map (poster easiest, but PPT also OK) of the ‘society’ or ‘commu-

nity’ in which you live (or grew up).

Trace the various social and moral spheres to which you were introduced (at what age?)

and how you moved between these on a daily, weekly, yearly basis.

What did you call the different social spaces of social interaction and morality?

Compare and contrast the maps you make, and bring these to class, as we will use them to ground our discussion.

9 af 23

WEEK 37: APPROACHES TO LEARNING, MAKING AND DESIGNING

Session 7: Embodied Learning and cognition


Content:

The aim of this session is to introduce anthropological studies and theories of practical

knowledge and embodied cognition. Anthropologists have always been interested in how peo-

ple ‘know through the body’ (Jackson 1998), how they know how to do and make things, and

not least how they learn particular corporeal techniques, skills and arts. In this session, we ex-

plore theories of practical, ‘embodied’ learning.

Literature:

Jackson, Michael (1983) ‘Knowledge of the Body,’ Man, New Series, 18(2):327-345

Ingold, Tim (2013) ‘Knowing from the inside. ‘In Making: Anthropology, Archaeology, Art and Ar-

chitecture, London and New York: Routledge, pp. 1-16.

Marchand. Trevor (2010) ‘Introduction: Making knowledge: Explorations of the indissoluble

relation between mind, body, and environment. In Making knowledge: Explorations of the indissol-

uble relation between mind, body, and environment, T. Marchand (ed.) Wiley-Blackwell, RAI, pp. 1-

20.

Downey, Greg (2010) ‘Practice without Theory.’ JRAI, 16 (4): 21-38.

Ethnographic Cases

Marchand, Trevor (2010) Embodied cognition and communication: Studies with British fine

woodworkers. In Making Knowledge: Explorations of the indissoluble relation between mind, body, and

environment, T. Marchand (ed.) Wiley-Blackwell, RAI, pp. 95-114.

Venkatesan, Soumhya (2010) Learning to weave: weaving to learn … what? In Making

Knowledge: Explorations of the indissoluble relation between mind, body, and environment, T.

Marchand (ed.) Wiley-Blackwell, RAI, pp. 150-166.


Read the introduction and ethnographic texts carefully.

Note which theoretical frameworks the authors draw on to make their arguments.

Note particularly the methods used in these studies.

Discuss your own practical knowledge of how fx. to walk (on different surfaces in different

shoes), ride a bike, kick a ball, or play and instrument and how you have learned these skills.

Which of the articles, cases and/or theoretical frameworks help you to better understand

how you have learned these skills, and how you know you know that you can do them?

Figure out ways of teaching your skills to others in the group and come prepared to demon-

strate in class.

10 af 23


Session 8: Making

Lecturer: Jamie Wallace, mobil: 21653697, [email protected]

Content: The aim of this session is to explore the relations between making as a response to

material matter and as technology.

Literature:

Ingold T (2013) Telling by Hand. Chapter 8 in Making: Anthropology, Archaeology, Art and

Architecture. London: Routledge, pp. 109-124.

Wallace, Jamie (2015) Makers not Users: The material shaping of technology through use.

Cursiv Nr. 16, Institut for Uddannelse og Pædagogik, Århus Universitet.

Supplementary Literature:

Dobres, M.-A., (2001) Meaning in the making: agency and the social embodiment of technology

and art. In: Schiver, M.B. (ed.), Anthropological Perspectives on Technology. University of New

Mexico Press, Albuquerque, pp. 47–76.

Tonkinwise, C. (2008) ’Knowing by being-there making: Explicating the tacit post-subject in

use,’ Studies in Material Thinking, 1(2).

Preparation and group work: The exercise will involve exploring the materiality of bicycle inner

tubes as technological artifacts and as a medium for weaving. Preparation involves research

into weaving materials and techniques and reading the literature.

11 af 23


Session 9: Design

Lecturer: Jamie Wallace, mobil: 21653697, [email protected]

Content: The aim of this session is to consider the idea of design as a process involving

movements between exploring the world and re-presenting possible futures.

Literature:

Sevaldson, B. 2008. Rich Research Space. FORMakademisk, 1,1.

http://www.formakademisk.org/index.php/formakademisk/article/view/17

Binder, T., Brandt, E., Halse, J., Foverskov, M., Olander, S. and Yndigegn, S.L. (2011) Living the

(codesign) lab. Proceedings of the Nordes 2011, Helsinki, Finland.

Supplementary Literature:

Sheil, B., 2005. Design through Making: An Introduction, Architectural Design, 4(75), 5–12.

Hanington, B., 2003. Methods in the Making: A Perspective on the State of Human Research in

Design. Design Issues: Volume 19, Number 4, Autumn.


Group work and exercises involve exploring aspects of the 'local' environment and applying

design methods such as drawing and prototyping to co-design ideas for interventions able to

shape a 'better future'. Preparation involves reading the literature and going for a walk and

drawing 5 things that you notice on the way.

12 af 23

WEEK 38: WAYS OF KNOWING AND KINDS OF KNOWLEDGE

Session 10: Western knowledge – indigenous knowledge

Lecturer: Lene Teglhus Kauffman

Content:

This first session in the theme of knowing and knowledge will introduce you to a classical di-

vide in line with the us-them, civilized-primitive etc.: western knowledge – indigenous or ‘local’

knowledge. We shall discuss witchcraft and science as forms of knowledge and we will look

into the way this divide has formed classical anthropology as well as development theories and

practices. From this starting point, we will discuss in class how to define different forms of

knowledge and why this is an important discussion to anthropology. Central aspects of the par-

ticular anthropological gaze on knowledge are first of all that knowledge is socially embedded,

relational and dynamic.

Literature:

Evans-Prichard, E.E 1976 (1937): Witchcraft, oracles and magic among the Azande. Oxford: Claren-

don Press pp. 63-83.

Briggs, John 2013: Indigenous knowledge: a false dawn for theory and practice? In Progress in

Development Studies, 13, pp. 231-43.

Pottier, Johan 2003: Negotiating local knowledge: an introduction. In Negotiating Local

Knowledge, Pottier, Bicker and Sillitoe (eds), London: Pluto Press.

Preparation:

Read the texts and prepare a couple of questions or themes of reflection

In class, the texts will be the basis of my presentation. You will also work with the theme in

groups and share your questions and reflections in a group session in class.

13 af 23

WEEK 38: WAYS OF KNOWING AND KINDS OF KNOWLEDGE

Session 11: The dawn of the anthropology of knowledge

Lecturer: Lene Teglhus Kauffmann

Content:

In this session we will look into the subdiscipline called anthropology of knowledge. The ses-

sion will outline the development of the subdiscipline from the field of development into the

center of recent anthropology. We will discuss the relevance of placing knowledge as a central

analytical theme in anthropology, in relation to different issues of social life.

Literature:

Borovsky, Robert 1994: On the knowledge and knowing of cultural activities. In Borovsky (Ed.)

Assessing Cultural Anthropology. USA: McGraw-Hill pp. 331-60.

Harris, Mark 2007: Ways of knowing. Introduction. In Ways of Knowing. Anthropological ap-

proaches to crafting experience and knowledge. New York and Oxford: Berghahn, pp 1-24.

Ingold, Tim 2013: Dreaming of Dragons: On the imagination of real life. In JRAI 19, 734-752.

Kauffmann, Lene Teglhus 2014: Building up an anthropology of knowledge. In Sound

Knowledge. Reflexive practices of bypassing and trespassing the evidence discourse in the field of health

promotion, PhD dissertation, DPU; Aarhus University, pp. 41-59


Read the texts and prepare a short presentation of one of them, as well as a couple of questions

or themes of reflections in relation to the others. Your questions will form the basis of a group

exercise, followed by a class discussion about the idea of ‘anthropology of knowledge’ and its

relevance.

14 af 23

Week 38: Ways of knowing and kinds of knowledge

Session 12: Sound knowledge, creativity and improvisation

Lecturer: Lene Teglhus Kaufmann

Content:

This last session will delve into my own idea of sound knowledge, but also Tim Ingold, Kirsten

Hastrup and Matthew Engelke will have a word on what characterizes the specific anthropolog-

ical gaze on knowledge in recent research. We will look not only into the analytical discussions

of knowledge, but also discuss, on the one hand, knowledge as an empirical object and on the

other, the new context of the ‘evidence discourse’, that is, the utilization of/on knowledge. In

line with this, we will look into how different forms of knowledge are inscribed and enacted in

different contexts, which takes us to also education.

Literature:

Kauffmann, Lene Teglhus 2014: Sound knowledge. In: Sound Knowledge. Reflexive practices of by-

passing and trespassing the evidence discourse in the field of health promotion, PhD dissertation, DP,

Aarhus University, pp. 171-214.

Hastrup, Kirsten (2013) Anticipating Nature: The productive uncertainty of climate models. In

Hastrup and Skrydstrup (eds): The Social Life of Climate Change Models, pp. 1-29.

Ingold, Tim (2010) The textuality of making, Cambridge Journal of Economics 34, pp. 91-102.

Engelke, Matthew 2009: The Objects of Evidence. In Engelke (Ed.) The Objects of Evidence. Eng-

land: Willey-Blackwell/Royal Anthropological Institute, pp. 1-21.

Dilley, Roy 2010: Reflections on knowledge practices and the problem of ignorance. In JRAI

(NS) 16(1): 176-192.


Read the texts and prepare a short presentation of one of them, as well as a couple of questions

or themes for reflection in relation to the others. Your questions will form the basis of a group

exercise, followed by a class discussion about ideas of knowing, knowledge and evidence and

their relevance.

15 af 23

WEEK 39: CULTURAL PRODUCTION, SOCIAL REPRODUCTION

Session 13: Cultural production, social reproduction


Content: Questions of sociocultural production and reproduction, of continuity and change, are

central to anthropology. Attempts to understand continuity and change have led to studies of

how language, values, ways of relating, living, and governing are passed on to new genera-

tions. Although we are all born into worlds-not-of-our-own-making, basic human interaction,

both cooperative and conflicted, ensures a world always in-the-making. Production and repro-

duction are thus two aspects of the same process of worldmaking.

These basic tenets raise the question of what kinds of human action keep some cosmologies, rit-

ual events, modes of relating and governance in place, while changing others. The question ad-

dresses long-term historical change, abrupt shifts in government and policy, as well as the day-

to-day life-tinkering in which we all engage. In this session, we juxtapose Rapport’s positional

pieces on reproduction (cultural/biological) with more conventional positions on cultural pro-

duction and social reproduction in the field of education. The aim is to encourage thinking

about what we mean by cultural production and social reproduction in relation to education.

Literature: Positional

Rapport, Nigel (2007) ‘Irony’ and ‘Kinship’. In Social and Cultural Anthropology: The Key Concepts,

N. Rapport and J. Overing, London and New York: Routledge, pp 211- 229.

Varenne, Hervé with Jill Koyama (2011) Education, Cultural Production and Figuring Out What

to Do Next. In A Companion to the Anthropology of Education, (eds) B.A.U. Levinson & M. Pollock,

Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 50-64.

Willis, Paul (1981) Cultural production is different from cultural reproduction is different from

social reproduction is different from reproduction, Interchange, 12(2): 48-67.

Ethnographic examples

Heath, S. B. (1982): What no bedtime story means: Narrative skills at home and school. Language

in Society, 11, 49-76.

Collins, James (2009): Social Reproduction in Classrooms and Schools. Annual Review of Anthro-

pology, 38: 33-48.

Willis, Paul 1977 Learning to Labour, Aldershot: Gower. (Chapters 1, 2 and 4). (online on Black-board).


Read the articles and consider the authors’ arguments on how to view sociocultural production

and reproduction. Discuss a case in one of the ethnographic texts in view of arguments in the

positional texts.

Come to class prepared to debate: that is to argue for you own/or your group’s stance on how

best to understand social and cultural production/reproduction and what is at stake in focus-

ing on the questions and issues to which these concepts refer.

16 af 23

WEEK 39: CULTURAL PRODUCTION AND SOCIAL REPRODUCTION

Session 14: The cultural production of the educated person


Content:

In this session we use cultural production as a conceptual framework for understanding differ-

ent ways and contexts in which people come to be seen as ‘educated’, and what being seen as

educated in a particular way implies for people’s access to jobs, goods, esteem and membership

(or not) in ‘modernity’. In relation to this, we will consider what kinds of knowledge, skill, and

behavior comprise ‘being educated’ in different settings and contexts.

Literature:

Levinson, Bradley A. and Dorothy Holland (1996) The Cultural Production of the Educated Per-

son: An Introduction. In The Cultural Production of the Educated Person. Critical Ethnographies of

Schooling and Local Practice. B. A. Levinson, D. E. Foley, D. C. Holland (eds.) New York: State

University of New York Press.

Wolcott, Harry F. (2002) Adequate Schools and Inadequate Education. The Life History of a

Sneaky Kid. In Sneaky Kid and its Aftermath. Ethics and Intimacy in Fieldwork, New York: Rowman

and Littlefield.

Valentin, Karen (2005) The ‘Schooled Person’: Negotiating Caste and Generation, Schooled for the

Future? Educational Policy and Everyday Life Among Urban Squatters in Nepal, Information Age

Press.

Rival, Laura (2000) ‘Formal Schooling and the Production of Modern Citizens in the Ecuadorian

Amazon.’ In Schooling the Symbolic Animal. Social and Cultural Dimensions of Education, B. Levin-

son, K. M. Borman, M. Eisenhart, M. Foster, A.E. Fox and M. Sutton (eds), New York: Rowman

and Littlefield, pp.108-122.


Kentli, Fulya Damla (2009) Comparison of Hidden Curriculum Theory, European Journal of edu-

cational studies, 1(2),

Preparation and group work

Read the articles carefully and familiarize yourselves with the arguments regarding being an

educated person.

Discuss the different ways in which you yourself or people you know may be seen as ‘be-

ing educated.’

Discuss different understandings of being educated found in public debates on education.

What is at stake for the different sides?

Familiarize yourselves with the notion of ‘hidden’ or ‘unwritten’ curriculum and discuss

how this form of disciplining and production of tacit knowledge impacts being seen in

different contexts as ‘educated’.

Come prepared to discuss one of your cases in class.

17 af 23

WEEK 39: CULTURAL PRODUCTION AND SOCIAL REPRODUCTION

Session 15: The French Connection: Reproduction, education and ‘society’


Content: Although both Emile Durkheim and Pierre Bourdieu write about societal or structural

reproduction, they do not have the same view of these processes. Whereas Durkheim is con-

cerned with the maintenance of society as an integrated whole, Bourdieu focuses on the repro-

duction of social class and other hierarchical distinctions through accumulative processes of in-

dividual habituation and education. In this session we will explore their understandings of ‘so-

ciety’, ‘social structure’ and educational social processes that lead to social reproduction. We

will also explore ethnographic texts that use Bourdieu’s conceptual framework to analyze pro-

cesses of education in a variety of settings. One question this raises is whether and how well

conceptual frameworks devised to analyze ‘society’ in particular settings ‘work’ in other set-

tings.

Literature: Durkheim and Bourdieu

Durkheim, Emile (1956) Education: Its Nature and Its Role. In Education and Sociology, New York and London: The Free Press. pp. 61-90.

Filloux, Jean-Claude (1993) Emile Durkheim. Prospects: the quarterly review of comparative educa-

tion (Paris, UNESCO: International Bureau of Education), 23 (1/2): 303–320.

Bourdieu, Pierre (1973): Cultural and social reproduction. In R. Brown (ed.), Knowledge, Educa-tion and Cultural Change, London. Tavistock.

Bourdieu, Pierre (1986) "Forms of capital". In Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of

Education. J. Richardson (ed.), New York: Greenwood), pp. 241-258.

Bourdieu, Pierre (1989) Social Space and Symbolic Power. Sociological Theory, 7(1): 14-25.

Ethnographic examples:

Reed-Danahay, Deborah (2000) Habitus and Cultural Identity: Home/School Relationship sin Rural France. In Schooling the Symbolic Animal. Social and Cultural Dimensions of Education, B. Lev-inson, et al. (eds), New York: Rowman and Littlefield, pp. 223-236.

Retsikas, Konstantinos (2010) Unconscious culture and conscious nature: exploring East Java-

nese conceptions of the person through Bourdieu’s lens. In Making Knowledge, T. Marchand

(ed.), Wiley Blackwell, pp. 133-149.

Shah, B., C. Dwyer & T. Modood (2010) Explaining Educational Achievement and Career Aspi-

rations among Young British Pakistanis: Mobilizing ‘Ethnic Capital’? Sociology 44(6): 1109–1127.

Preparation and group work: Come prepared to discuss in class

1. Familiarize yourselves with the work of Durkheim and Bourdieu and discuss the similarities

and differences in their understandings of ‘society,’ social structure’ and ‘social reproduction’.

What issues/problems of continuity and change concern them?

How do they understand processes of continuity and change?

2. Read one or two of the ethnographic cases and discuss problems of importing and exporting

concepts and conceptual frameworks to the settings we study in different parts of the world.

Do Bourdieu’s concepts of habitus and capital or Durkheim’s concept of society as an inte-

grated organic whole make sense in all settings? Do these conceptualizations hinder or

help hinder or help our understanding?

18 af 23

WEEK 40: LEARNING, TECHNOLOGY AND SOCIAL TRANSFORMATION

Session 16: Anthropology of learning

Lecturer: Cathrine Hasse

Content:

This introduction will give students a general overview of the concept of learning and how it’s

been discussed in anthropology at different times and for different reasons. The lecture will

present an overview of anthropological conceptualizations of learning and introduce perspec-

tives on why the notion of learning is important in an anthropological perspective. The intro-

duction will bring the diverse concepts of learning in relation to other relevant anthropological

conceptualizations of e.g. ‘cultural markers’, ‘culture’ and ‘context’. The introduction will also

touch upon ways of studying learning, using learning theory in analysis and writing about an-

thropological learning theory.

Literature: Overview articles:

Hasse, C. (2012) The Anthropology of Learning and Cognition. In The Cognitive Encyclopedia of

the Sciences of Learning, Hamburg: Springer Verlag, pp. 255-261.

Hasse, C. (2014) The Anthropological Paradigm of Practice-Based Learning. In the International

Handbook of Research in Professional and Practice-based learning. Stephen Billett, Christian Harteis

(eds). Hamburg: Springer Verlag (accepted - in progress).

Bateson, Gregory (1972/2000) The Logical Categories of Learning and Communication. In Steps

to an Ecology of Mind, San Francisco, CA: Chandler, pp 279-308.


Lave, Jean (1996) Teaching, as learning, in practice, Mind, Culture, and Activity (3) 3: 149-164.

Pelissier, C. (1991) The anthropology of teaching and learning, Annual Review of Anthropology,

Vol. 20: 75-95.

Preparation:

Read the texts and prepare a question you would like to discuss in class.

19 af 23

WEEK 40: SOCIAL AND TECHNOLOGICAL TRANSFORMATION

Session 17: Culture and Technology

Lecturer: Cathrine Hasse

Content:

Technology has always been a focus of anthropological research. However with new technolo-

gies like the internet, robots and iPads and techno-anthropological theories like postphenome-

nology, cultural-historical activity theory and actor-network theory, there has been a renewed

interest in anthropological studies of technology in both education and beyond. This session

will introduce important themes within this area of anthropology; we will discuss research

methodology and relevant areas for futures studies of social and technological transformations.

There will be a special focus on the relation between learning, culture and technology and the

impact of technology on societal changes.

Literature:

Bruun, Maja., Hasse, Cathrine., Hanghøj, Signe. (2015) Studying Social Robots in Practiced Plac-

es, Techné: Research in Philosophy and Technology. 19(2) (Spring 2015): 143–165

Latour, Bruno (1994). On technical mediation - philosophy, sociology, genealogy, Common Knowledge, 3(2): 29-64.

Hasse, Cathrine. (2008) Learning and transition in a culture of professional identities, European

Journal of Psychology of Education, 23(2): 149-164.


Latour, Bruno (1996) Aramis or the love of technology. Translated by Catherine Porter. Cambridge,

MA: Harvard University Press.

Latour, Bruno (1993) We have never been modern. Translated by Catherine Porter. Cambridge,

MA: Harvard University Press. Originally published as Nous n'avons jamais été modernes: Essai

d'anthropologie symétrique, 1991.

Nardi, Bonnie A. and Vicki L. O’Day (1999) Information Ecologies: Using Technology with Heart

(1999). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Helmreich, Stefan. (2011) "From Spaceship Earth to Google Ocean: Planetary Icons, Indexes, and

Infrastructures." Social Research: An International Quarterly, 78(4): 1211–42.

Preparation:

Read the texts and prepare a question you would like discussed in class.

20 af 23

WEEK 40: SOCIAL AND TECHNOLOGICAL TRANSFORMATION

Session 18: Social Transformation and Ruling Relations

Lecturers: Sue Wright and Rebecca Lund

Content: In the 1970s, anthropology was entering one of its periodic internal debates, this time about how to study people’s everyday lives in the context of major post-colonial changes to the world. Anthropology was criticized for treating fieldwork localities as isolated worlds (not en-tirely true – Gluckman and the Manchester school had focused on understanding people’s en-gagements with mining and urban migration in Africa, for example). Laura Nader made a breakthrough in anthropology with her concept and method of ‘studying up.’ Cultural Studies (notably Raymond Williams and Stuart Hall) arrived on the scene as a new interdisciplinary field (English literature, popular culture, social history) trying to grasp how people participated in large-scale processes of political and social transformation. Sociologist Dorothy Smith pro-posed a slightly different way of connecting people’s everyday lives to what she called ‘ruling relations’. These two writers have a resurgent influence on analysing how people engage with neoliberalism, globalisation and other contemporary forms of governance and power. Argua-bly, now it is even more difficult to discern how individuals are tied into contemporary systems of power, and we end by considering how to teach this ‘under neoliberalism’.

Literature:

Nader, Laura (1972) ‘Up the anthropologist – perspectives gained from studying up’ in Dell

Hymes (ed.) Reinventing Anthropology. New York: Pantheon, pp. 285-311.

Williams, Raymond (1975) Keywords: a Vocabulary of Culture and Society. London: Fontana. (In-

troduction, extract).

Hall, Stuart (1993) ‘Culture, community, nation’ Cultural Studies 7 (3) 349-63.

Smith, Dorothy (1996) ‘The relations of ruling: A feminist inquiry’, Studies in Cultures, Organiza-

tions and Societies, 2: 171-190.

Shear, Boone W. and Hyatt, Susan B. (2015) ‘Introduction: Higher Education, Engaged Anthro-

pology, and Hegemonic Struggle’ in S. B. Hyatt, B. W. Shear, and S. Wright (eds) Learning Under

Neoliberalism. Ethnographies of Governance in Higher Education. Oxford: Berghahn, pp. 1-29.


Gonzalez, Roberto and Stryker, Rachael 2014 ‘On studying up, down, and sideways: What is at stake?’ in Stryker, R. and Gonzalez, R. (eds) Studying Up, Down and Sideways. Anthropologists Trace the Pathways of Power. Oxford: Berghahn pp. 1-26 (especially bottom of p. 6 to p. 26).

Preparation:

Look for signs of the characteristic features of these approaches, e.g.: 1. Don’t expect discourses/ideologies to be coherent or the meanings of keywords to be fixed

or closed – they are in a constant state of contestation, and people find the gaps and incon-gruities.

2. How do people maintain dominant interests and ideologies? Ideologies do not simply repre-sent class interests, but become dominant through the mobilization of people with a range of interests across classes in political alliance or ‘bloc’. Asserting and then sustaining a domi-nant ideology demands continual activity, and it is always possible for new alliances of eco-nomic and political interests to try and mobilise support for alternative ways of conceptualis-ing and organizing the world.

3. Key question: who is defining what for whom, with what material effects?

4. Consider how such approaches are (or are not) useful for studies you might have in mind.

http://www.berghahnbooks.com/downloads/intros/HyattLearning_intro.pdf

http://www.berghahnbooks.com/downloads/intros/HyattLearning_intro.pdf

21 af 23

WEEK 41: COURSE SUMMARY AND REVIEW, EVALUATION AND SUPERVISION

Session 19: Course summary and evaluation


Content:

You have been presented with a variety of topics and themes (culture, relationality, learning,

making knowing, production, reproduction and transformation) of importance to the anthro-

pology of education in a global perspective. The aim of this session is to review the course and

create an overview of the themes, their progression and the texts presented. Your participation

is crucial to clear up any questions, difficulties, understandings that have arisen along the way.

Literature:

All course texts.


To work on getting the larger picture – on an overview of course concepts, themes and texts: 1. Run through the compendium and make your own annotated* overview – 2-4 pages - of the articles. 2. Distribute the job, compile and share your results in the group. 3. Prepare questions – to specific texts and to the connections and links between them. Evaluation: Fill in the evaluation form (online) and come prepared to discuss in class.

*annotate= short overview of focus, content, key concepts, and main argument (2-4 sentences)

22 af 23


Session 20: Anthropological essay writing as genre


Content:

To demystify the writing process and look at how anthropologists construct arguments, we will

discuss important aspects of academic writing: grammar, composition, argument, analytical

framing and ethnographic cases. We will also address questions of language and conceptual

clarity, logical progression and the plague of plagiarization.

Literature:

AAA Style Guide: http://www.plagiarism.org/assets/downloads/AAA_StyleGuide_2009.pdf

(Also on blackboard)


1. Search online for writing centers, writing courses and texts on essay writing. It is important

that you know where to look for help – with simple things like verbs and prepositions as well as

more complex issues of grammar, composition and argument. Share these in and across groups.

2. Share examples of your writing (fx. your book review) with each other and give each other

feedback. Discuss whether or not you understand what the author wants you to understand,

and why this is.

3. Bring 2 examples to class for a common discussion on what works well and less well.

4. Don’t be shy. This is a learning exercise for all!

http://www.plagiarism.org/assets/downloads/AAA_StyleGuide_2009.pdf

23 af 23


Session 21: Mock exam: questions and outlines


Content:

With regard to the upcoming exam we will work on composition and on how to frame an an-

thropological argument and, working across selected texts, construct a logical and a clear dis-

cussion.

Literature:

All texts in the compendium.


Select texts from the compendium that you find relevant for discussing the mock exam ques-

tions posted on blackboard.

Prepare an outline for one or two of the mock exam questions, drawing on 3-5 of texts from dif-

ferent sessions.

Be prepared to explain your outline, the progression of the argument and the relevance of the

texts chosen.

koncern it (den rigtige) · form of assessment: pass /fail comments: in case of re-examination, the...

Documents