Next 9 Nov 2016 from 4-6pm, I will be sharing bits and pieces of my recent ethnographic work and reflections at the Goldsmiths Anthropology research >< practiceseminar series at RHB 256, Richard Hoggart Building
This seminar series explores the currency of practice research within and without anthropology. It will unpack some of the ways in which the relationship between these two “modes of engagement” has been understood and articulated, from militancy to co-design, from enskillment to collaborative art projects. Drawing from their first-hand experience in the field, the speakers will consider the epistemological challenges and opportunities of practice-led and practice-based research (as well as research-led practice).
Moderator and Organiser: Dr Isaac Marrero-Guillamon
‘Technologies of friendship’: Independent-living activism, open design and the refiguration of the social and the ethnographic
What stories–and more specifically ethnographic stories–would open design allow us to tell? Whereas open design is commonly associated with a multifarious transformation of knowledge-production and economic practices in and around design, in this presentation I will focus on their effect on the practice of ethnography and on the materialisation of forms of relatedness. To do this, I will draw from my engagement since 2012 as ethnographer/documentator in the Barcelona-based activist design collective En torno a la silla (ETS), whose primary principle–resonating with other aspects of the independent-living movement it is part of–is to grant value to experience as a form of knowledge to be used in processes of collaborative alteration of our material surroundings, engaging in the auto-fabrication of open design objects. Operating in a harsh context of austerity measures, fighting for accessibility for ETS has always implied reclaiming the necessary material means to increase the conditions of access between bodily diverse people. Hence, the interest is not to create ‘inclusive objects’–that seek to ‘integrate’ or, rather, open up the gates of an already existing community to those who had been formerly expelled from it–but to produce what they have usually referred to as ‘technologies of friendship’ (tecnologías de la amistad): this term does not bring to the fore a distinctive and static ontology of relations, but thanks to the reflexivity afforded by the investment in documentation, it signals a recursive interstitial form of probing into alternative material forms of relatedness to the ones offered by the state and the market.
Organized by Michael Guggenheim, Dan Neyland, Alex Wilkie
Recent Science and Technology Studies (STS) work on experiments has provided a basis for rethinking the terms, practices and consequences of experimentation. This has opened up opportunities to question, for example, experimental controls, provocative containments, training and professional practice. This work has also broadened the traditional STS focus on scientific laboratories to also include economic, social scientific and commercial experimentation, exploring new territories of experimentation and their attendant means of reproducing the world.
At the same time, scholars in STS, Sociology, Anthropology and Design have pursued experiments not just as an object of study, but also as something to do. Here we find, for example, experiments with algorithmic walks, expertise and issues. An earlier critique of experiments as artificial and interventionist has given way to a new embracing of material staging of situations and problems.
Social researchers have come to acknowledge we can learn precisely because of the non-naturalism of experiments. Experiments have become legitimate forms to intervene in the world, and to invent new worlds. In this way STS scholars have begun to think again about the realities in which they participate. In this workshop we will feature recent experimenters within STS with scholars who have analysed experiments in specific fields.
Programme
10.00: Welcome
10.15-11.30: Pelle Ehn (Design, Malmö):
democratic design experiments (in the small)
Commentator: Kim Kullmann (Sociology, Goldmsiths)
11.45-1pm: Tomás Sánchez Criado (STS, Munich):
The Ethnographic Experiment, Revisited: Experimental Collaborations, or the ‘Devicing’ of Fieldwork for Joint Problem-Making
Commentator: Isaac Marrero-Guillamón (Anthropology, Goldsmiths)
Fieldwork, the cornerstone to the ethnographer’s magic, seems to be under siege in recent times. The invocation that it ‘is not what it used to be’ runs parallel to intense debates on the place of ethnography in the production of anthropological knowledge (see for instance the recent take and forth on Ingold’s critique on ethnography here, here, and here). Challenges to fieldwork (and ethnography) come from all the corners of the discipline: anthropologist injecting a sensory approach to ethnography, drawing inspiration of design practices to devise new venues for the production of anthropological knowledge or endeavouring into partnerships with other disciplines and substituting the traditional trope of comparison for that of collaboration.
Amid this broad debate on the norm and form of fieldwork, we intend to open a debate on the place of experimentation in anthropology.
The invocation of experimentation in anthropology is not completely new, as we would like to recall, ‘the reflexive turn’ of the 1980s inaugurated a period of creative exploration of writing genres that George E. Marcus and Michael M. J. Fischerdescribed in experimental terms: ‘What is happening seems to us to be a pregnant moment in which every individual project of ethnographic research and writing is potentially an experiment’. While this turn focussed on the space of representation (particularly the written form), we suggest now the opportunity to emplace the experimental drive of ethnography into fieldwork. A call that echoes and draws inspiration of a number of projects carried out in recent times by a series of anthropologist (we find especially inspiring the work of Paul Rabinow, George E. Marcus and Douglas Holmes, Kim Fortun, Michael Fortun, Alberto Corsín Jiménez and Annelise Riles, among many others).
A very important caveat, we do not intend to place experimentation and (participant) observation in opposition, only highlight their specificities. Indeed we think that both epistemic practices usually establish complex relationships in our fieldwork, at times they are entangled, juxtaposed or alternated.
Despite these relationships, we contend that experimentation involves a different epistemic practice to participant observation and it constitutes an alternative trope to describe our forms of engagement in the field.
Colleex thus intents to open a space for debate and intervention around experimental forms of ethnographic fieldwork. It seeks to work as a collaboratory whose main agenda is to foster theoretical debates and practical explorations on this topic. Below you can read the statement for the network proposal; if you are interested just send as an email (tomas.criado@tum.de and jestalellaf@uoc.edu) or sign the proposal here. The network builds on and intends to continue the work we have been doing in the previous two years in a series of meetings and writings, you can have a glimpsed of it here.
Colleex: A Collaboratory for Ethnographic Experimentation
Colleex is a network that aims to open a space for debate and intervention around experimental forms of ethnographic fieldwork. Amid profound debates in recent years on the nature and conventions of ethnography, Colleex seeks to explore novel forms of knowledge production for anthropology. The network is organized as a collaboratory whose main agenda is to foster theoretical debates and practical explorations on what we call ethnographic experimentation.
Fieldwork
Fieldwork has traditionally been understood as the cornerstone epistemic situation for the production of anthropological knowledge in ethnography. Both an empirical practice and disciplinary narrative, we know that nowadays fieldwork is not what it used to be —or maybe it has never been what the canon narrates. The solitary confined research practice of ethnography has given way to collaborative projects, far-away locations have been replaced by close-to-home field sites, and traditional visual predominance has been expanded into a multi-sensory concern.
Anthropological imagination has traditionally understood the epistemic practice of fieldwork in observational terms. The core trope of participant observation has worked both as description and prescription for the kind of social relationships and epistemic practices through which anthropologists produce knowledge in the field.
The entrance of anthropology in novel empirical sites and the construction of new objects of study in the last decades seem to require from us to urgently revise and devise other forms of practising fieldwork.
Experimentation
Invoking the figure of the experiment acts as a provocation to investigate alternative epistemic practices in ethnography. Colleex intends to explore the infrastructures, spaces, forms of relationships, methods and techniques required to inject an experimental sensibility in fieldwork. Nevertheless, there is no intention to oppose experimentation to observation. On the contrary, Colleex seeks to discern the multiple forms of relationship between these two epistemic forms —and their correlate modes of relationality— that in different circumstances and situations may be complementary, adjacent or substitutive.
Not alien to the anthropological endeavour, experimentation was invoked decades ago as an opportunity to renovate the discipline through novel forms of ethnographic writing and representation. Colleex network would like to further develop that experimental impulse present in many anthropological sensibilities, shifting its locus from the process of writing to the practice of fieldwork. The intention is to work on a question: What would ethnographic fieldwork look like if it was shaped around the epistemic practice of experimentation?
Hence, fieldwork experimentation is not being invoked just for its own sake but because there is a prospect that it could help foster new forms of anthropological theorization.
Collaboration
The network seeks to connect with anthropologists and other practitioners of ethnography interested in discussing their fieldwork practice. It could be of interest for specialists in the fields of visual anthropology, sensory anthropology, digital ethnography, design anthropology, creative intersections of art and anthropology, or anthropology and STS. The network also seeks to include specialists from other domains like art, cultural producers, designers and practitioners of any discipline interested in the creative experimentation with ethnographic practice. The inventive unfolding of ethnography taking place in those areas could greatly contribute to strengthen the reach of anthropological fieldwork practices.
Colleex is established as a collaboratory, a project that aims at promoting forms of collaboration among all those interested in the topic under discussion.
In contrast with permanent networks, from its very inception Colleex would like to work with a temporary horizon of 5 years, after which we expect to deliver a contribution of the work done by the network in appropriate formats, be it in conventional academic and/or more experimental formats faithful to the collaboratory sensibility we are invoking. Four convenors will develop their task for periods of two years. The network will only continue after the first period of five years if a designed program for its continuity is agreed by its members.
Have you been affected by Ethnographic Experimentation Breakdown (EEB) or Excess of Engagement Stress (EES)? Are you suffering from breach-of-the-canon infection (BOTS)? Do you know how to detect the symptoms of Collaborative Fieldwork Disorder (CoFD) or Transdisciplinary/Interdisciplinary Associative Disorder (TRIAD)? If you have been experiencing some of these symptoms perhaps the CLEENIK integral treatment could be what you need. CLEENIK is a specialized anthropological clinic treating anthropologists suffering from the multiple syndromes consequence of ethnographic experiments in fieldwork.
This was our call for the laboratory that we organized in the last EASA conference (Milano, 2016). Laboratories grant spaces to play with academic formats and, hence, we took advantage of this opportunity to organize a meeting that staged a group therapy session for all those anthropologists whose fieldwork had taken an experimental detour. Our objective was to create the grounds for a discussion around the epistemic figure of ethnographic experimentation in fieldwork.
Invoking the figure of experimentation is for us a provocation to investigate epistemic practices and descriptions of fieldwork that may not be encapsulated under the heading of participant observation.
What would ethnographic fieldwork look like if shaped by practices of experimentation? The previously referred authors offer some insights (this is the topic too of a book we have been editing and contributing to for the EASA book series, more on it here). Yet, describing their fieldwork in experimental terms instead of drawing on the trope of participant observation poses anthropologists (especially those in early career stages) difficult questions: Have I been too involved in my fieldwork? Have I correctly followed the method? Have I maintained a proper distance? We designed the workspace of the lab attempting to address scholars facing this kind of questions.
The idea for the CLEENIK was to open a therapeutic space to face the worries that appear in experimental fieldwork, those situations that seem to transgress the methodological canon. It is a playful façade for a topic we take very seriously, an investigation into the appropriate venues to share and discuss these fragile and vulnerable methodological situations. The reference to a therapy group intends to underlie the need for intimacy and care, complicity and collaboration when discussing certain crucial situations of our fieldwork experiences.
The CLEENIK session lasted 90 minutes, in which each participant played alternatively the role of patient and doctor – these positions were made reversible (thanks, Alfred Gell!). The dynamic was organized in four parts around a mundane technology: a file card designed as a clinical report aimed at prompting reflection (here is a sample, feel free to use it). First, each ‘patient’ was asked to fill in a clinical report, where she or he would describe his/her ‘fieldwork symptoms’. Second, each of them passed the report to the participant nearby, who would then analyse these symptoms, identifying the disorder and providing a diagnosis (prior to the start of this we had introduced the Ethnographic Disorder Manual v1.0 who could guide them in the process of attributing syndromes or in compiling new ones. Third, the clinical report was passed again to a third participant who then offered a treatment proposal. In the final stage we shared all the contributions (where some new syndromes were identified like the terrible Lack-of-Funditis) and opened a debate with the lab participants.
The CLEENIK prolongs and adapts for anthropological audiences a methodology we had previously tested in an event organized in Spain in collaboration with ColaBoraBora, a group of cultural researchers that had been part of the fieldwork of some of us. We drew inspiration from their methodologies and brought them to our discipline. Organizing this lab we somehow wanted to bring these ‘foreign’ creative and epistemic resources into our disciplinary spaces. The lab thus evinces a topic of our interest: working with these experts, we wonder how we can use the ‘epistemic contamination’ we experienced in our collaborations to transform our anthropological practices.
We know very well that often, as anthropologists/social scientists, we appear to the eyes of those professionals we study as “too literal” and “too serious”, so bringing an ironic and playful inflection (that, by the way, we think is very appropriate for Allegra’s sensibility) we wanted to self-reflexively play with our anthropological practices and disciplinary-methodological assumptions. Needless to say that perhaps our condition of southern European early academics and our heightened sense of the precariousness of (academic) life, much contributed to the fearless use of such strange-to-the-discipline techniques, we did it to have fun – fun also being a desperate strategy of academic survival.
But acknowledging that fun is also temporary, we want to introduce a proposal to open a permanent space for those playful and experimental moments, the biggest proposal of the closing moments of the laboratory being devoted to discussing the interest to promote an EASA network Colleex: A Collaboratory for Ethnographic Experimentation.
Acaba de salir el nuevo tema emergente editado conjuntamente con Adolfo Estalella, publicado en la Revista de Dialectología y Tradiciones Populares Vol 71, No 1 (2016) sobre “Colaboraciones experimentales: Una modalidad etnográfica“. (DOI: 10.3989/rdtp.2016.v71.i1)
¡Con un buen puñado de trabajos bien interesantes y todo el contenido libre para descarga!
Este tema propone una discusión en torno a la figura conceptual de las ‘colaboraciones experimentales’, una modalidad etnográfica cuya producción de conocimiento adopta una forma experimental fundada en relaciones colaborativas en el campo. Las contribuciones reunidas en el compendio dan cuenta de etnografías realizadas en sitios de activismo urbano o espacios artísticos, contextos poblados por comunidades epistémicas dedicadas a la producción de conocimiento, altamente reflexivas sobre sus condiciones de producción. Aunque breves en su provocación, las contribuciones dejan constancia de cómo esos sitios parecen ofrecernos la posibilidad, o plantearnos la necesidad, de reconsiderar la forma y norma del trabajo de campo etnográfico. La figura de las colaboraciones experimentales intenta nombrar y describir la implicación de los antropólogos y antropólogas en esos sitios. Es por lo tanto una figura descriptiva y una propuesta conceptual. Los trabajos aquí presentados nos ofrecen un vocabulario que describe la etnografía a través de conceptos como ‘infraestructuras de campo’, ‘plataformas públicas’ o ‘eventos realizados en colaboración’, que da cuenta del trabajo de campo como un ‘estado borrador’ o que propone formas de ‘etnografía acción participativa’ o ‘experimentación participante’.
RESUMEN INTRODUCCIÓN
¿Cómo sería un ejercicio de experimentación etnográfica en el trabajo de campo? Pareciera que las etnografías de las últimas décadas dedicadas al estudio de los nuevos medios, la ciencia y las organizaciones globales nos ofrecieran la posibilidad, o plantearan la necesidad, de reconsiderar la forma y norma del trabajo de campo etnográfico. Este artículo discute a partir de nuestra experiencia etnográfica lo que designamos como formas de trabajo de campo experimentales. Planteamos nuestro argumento a través de la narración de un proyecto de pedagogía urbana realizado en estrecha colaboración con dos colectivos de arquitectura: una infraestructura urbana de aprendizaje, informada por los lenguajes vernáculos del campo y nuestras conceptualizaciones etnográficas, un gesto recursivo que vuelve nuestros hallazgos etnográficos sobre nuestra propia práctica. Argumentamos que este proyecto nos ofrece la posibilidad de re-aprender y reimaginar nuestra experiencia etnográfica, no mediante la estética tradicional del encuentro etnográfico sino a través de una instalación infraestructural que acondiciona el campo para lo que describimos como un ejercicio experimental. Nuestra evocación de lo experimental no pretende ser un ejercicio de ruptura con el método sino una renovación del vocabulario descriptivo y lenguaje conceptual de los relatos de campo de nuestras etnografías.
Sumario y trabajos
[es]
Experimentación etnográfica: infraestructuras de campo y re-aprendizajes de la antropología
CLEENIK is searching for “sick” ethnographers interested in donating their time for science, sharing their suffering experiences, and helping others find the #xcol™ cure!
For this, you would be receiving a treatment FOR FREE in our internationally renowned CLEENIK, an institution with the most innovative experimental collaboration techniques for the treatment of contemporary fieldwork disorders.
Have you ever suffered from…
EES – Excess of Engagement Stress?
When you and your natives get ‘too involved’ or simply ‘become too strange’. Symptoms may include permanent conflicts, provocations, an excess of questioning, quarrels, love & hate relationships, irritation, misunderstandings, too much objections, mutual aggressions, constant jokes, natives making fun of you/you making fun of them, playful inversion of roles or blurring the boundaries sensation (‘natives’ becoming the observers and you the object of their scrutiny), frictional effects, unpredictable consequences – and in extreme situations, ethnographic breakdown.
GN – Goingnativosis?
It’s that point when you realize you did it all wrong – in the ethnographic process you have become a ‘professional native’. Symptoms may include (cultural, disciplinary) identity crisis, feeling like a foreign in your own culture, feeling unadapted when back home, becoming too critical about your own culture (the ‘things are so much better back there’ kind of feeling), feeling like being a stranger within the anthropologist community, or never being able to ‘come back’ (physically, emotionally, etc.).
“One does not born, but rather becomes, an anthropologist”. The more typical symptoms of TRIAD are disciplinary disorientation. In our clinic we make change-of-discipline interventions – either from anthropology to other disciplines or from other disciplines to anthropology. You can also choose the hybrid half-way.
CLEENIK is a specialized anthropological clinic. We treat anthropologists suffering from the multiple syndromes consequence of ethnographic experiments in fieldwork. If you think you may have suffered any of these syndromes or you want to prevent in case of starting fieldwork, you may just drop by to our session and ask for advice and treatment.
In the CLEENIK we will create the grounds for a discussion around the figure of ethnographic experimentation in fieldwork. For this, we ask participants to share the diseases they have suffered in their fieldwork.
CLEENIK is an open-source adaptation and a continuation for ethnographic audiences of ColaBoraBora’sKlinikaalso an adaptation of an initiative by Maria Salazar, part of her artistic residence at Muelle3 in Bilbao (more info here).
Everybody seems to agree: There should be no more large infrastructural projects, especially in cities, without a proper citizen participation process. Fine. We need to democratize technical decision making. But what does this mean?
In this cycle of PARTIZIPATORIUM, we will explore a simple hypothesis: democratization of technical decision making does not simply require citizens or lay people to become experts. More importantly, it needs professional experts in the private and public sector to become aware of the limits of their own expertise, to open themselves to other forms of sensing, knowing and valuing and ultimately, why not, to be trained differently.
Dates 31.05.2016, 18-20h #1 | RE-EQUIPPING ARCHITECTS FOR THE INFORMAL CITY – AN EXCURSION TO CAÑADA REAL GALIANA Prof. Regine Keller, Johann-Christian Hannemann, Johanna Rainer, Laura Loewel (LAO, TUM) + Dr. Tomás S. Criado (MCTS) Comments by Dr. Eduardo Ascensão (Universidade de Lisboa)
In many projects of ‘slum upgrading’ technical professionals tend to call for the participation of local dwellers as a way to validate or discuss the prospects of their proposals. But this could also become an extremely top-down approach to the problems at hand. Hence, what if we thought of participation as something that involved a radical transformation of the technical professionals themselves? What if they needed to be ‘re-equipped’ to become sensitive to the needs of the local dwellers and to the constraints of the spaces in which they will operate?
For this, in this session, we shared and discussed a teaching experiment undertaken between Regine Keller’s LAO and MCTS’s Participatory Technology Design research groups at TUM: a field trip where Landscape Architects where speed-trained as social scientists, taking field-notes shadowing the local dwellers, using picture-based methods to elicit conversations with them, and reflecting on the involvement with them writing up comprehensive diaries. After presenting this experience, we sought to explore whether ‘re-equipping the technical professionals’ could be considered a necessary condition to redefine participation in urban affairs.
14.06.2016, 18-20h #2 | LEARNING NOT TO SEE – BLIND PEOPLE TRAINING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS IN ACCESSIBLE URBANISM Prof. Birgit Schimdt, Maja Prenzlau, Ferhat Türkoglu (HWST) + Mag. Melanie Egerer (BBSB) Comments by Prof. Dr. Michael Schillmeier (University of Exeter)
On Tuesday June 14th together with Prof. Birgit Schimdt‘s Objektplanung in der Landschaftsarchitektur (Hochschule Weihenstephan-Triesdorf), her students Maja Prenzlau & Ferhat Türkoglu, Melanie Egerer from the Bayerischer Blinden- und Sehbehindertenbund (BBSB) and with comments by Prof. Dr. Michael Schillmeier (University of Exeter) we will be exploring the devices, gadgets, activities and practices needed to ‘sensitize’ students of Landscape Architecture to become assistants in the political work of the BBSB’s associates to foreground problems in the design of accessible public spaces. We would like to understand the role played by these gadgets in learning what it means ‘not to see’, paying special attention to how lived and embodied experience is translated or worked out in these processes, and how sensitization might be crucial to democratize and to make urbanism more accessible.
05.07.2016, 18-20h #3 | FRIENDLY HACKING THE PUBLIC SYSTEM – A STADTTEILLABOR FOR NEUAUBING-WESTKREUZ Prof. Dr. Ignacio Farías, Claudia Mendes, Hanna Varga (MCTS, TUM) + Korinna Thielen (Stadtentwicklung, München) Comments by Dr. Anna Seravalli (Malmö University)
Tuesday 5th of July in this final session of the first cycle of the Partizipatorium Prof. Dr. Ignacio Farías, Claudia Mendes, Hanna Varga (MCTS, TUM), together with Korinna Thielen (Stadtentwicklung, München) and with comments and discussion by Dr. Anna Seravalli (Malmö University), we will be exploring how co-design projects might not only require a transformation of the relations between designers and potential end users, but also –and especially in projects involving the public administration– between different types of experts.
In this paper we would like to explore an ethnographic mode that takes the shape of experimentation in the field. We will draw on the ethnographies (Adolfo’s & Tomás’s) we have been carrying out in the last five years in urban contexts populated by urban activists, guerrilla architects, amateur tinkerers, and disability rights advocates located in Barcelona and Madrid. These projects account for the wave of urban creativity and civic invention that has spread out through these cities after the uprising of the ‘15M movement’ (the Spanish precursor of the Occupy movement).
Our ethnographic sites are populated by people struggling to transform the city: they do so building infrastructures, producing a vast amount of documentation that describes their own practices and exploring methodologies for the production of knowledge. Very often, these collectives invoke the trope of experimentation to refer to their relationship to the city. In a way, the locations we are describing might be aptly characterised as ‘para-sites’, following Douglas Holmes and George Marcus (2008) description of ethnographic sites populated by people whose research practices resonate with those of the anthropologists.
Even though ours has been a deep involvement in these sites, activist or militant registers and vocabularies would not be the best description of our practice. For lack of a better term, our engagement has been of an ‘epistemic’ kind. Indeed, during our fieldwork we both became gradually involved in the production of shared spaces of investigation, in the construction of material and digital infrastructures, and in the process of documentation, sometimes even taking a leading role, as we will describe here. We would like to suggest that our ethnographic projects were dragged into the experimental ethos of these projects.
Our ethnographies have been infused by these forms of experimentation: Somehow, our fieldworks seem to have incorporated in a recursive gesture the epistemic experimental practices of our counterparts in the field, as we seek to describe today. Thus, drawing on Tomás fieldwork we describe the distinctive practice of tinkering of an activist design collective called En torno a la silla. Working among tinkerers that extremely value the production of documentation, Tomás fieldwork turned into a tentative practice of tinkering with documentation. Describing his fieldwork in these terms (as a form of fieldwork tinkering), our attempt here is to provide a tentative descriptive vocabulary to account for this ethnographic mode we call ‘experimental collaborations’.
II. Tinkering in/with fieldwork
Barcelona, it’s the morning of February 8th 2013. We’re in the bedroom of Antonio’s house. I (Tomás) am struggling to adjust a semi-professional Canon EOS 60D camera that a good friend has lent me to shoot a video. The plan according to the rather informal script we have discussed is to re-enact for the record how the armrest-briefcase we have designed in the last months for Antonio’s wheelchair works. I take some shots of Alida disassembling the former armrest and assembling the new gadget to Antonio’s wheelchair. Later on we start improvising and moving around to demonstrate different uses of the briefcase. Since I am not a professional I struggle with the light settings in the inner parts of the house. The next month is really busy for us and I slowly learn to edit these video materials using an amateur software package.
After I have it, two months after shooting the video we three meet at Antonio’s house to discuss it using his big TV screen and my laptop. They like it and have nothing to comment, even though I spot and make them pay attention to some of the mistakes I’ve made with the light settings and the shots, to understand whether we should be recording it again. After some talk we decide that we cannot get stuck, that it’s good enough and we have to move on since this is only a very small thing of the many other projects that En torno a la silla is working on.
However, given that the video only shows the processes of disassembling, reassembling and use, Alida also wants to work to produce some exhaustive hand-drawn sketches to create a downloadable text and image tutorial showing the technical detail: how to build it and why, what were the main technical challenges in the conception and production, as well as showing detail on important pieces, such as the joystick-briefcase junction. We will work on that in the following weeks. That day the discussion leads us to upload the video to YouTube, later embedding it in a blog post, also adding a couple of high quality pictures, and collaboratively write on the spot the explanatory paragraph telling what the gadget is.
En torno a la silla was originally put together in the summer of 2012 in Barcelona by Alida – architect with a large experience in activist collectives in the city–; Antonio – mathematician, powered wheelchair user and one of the most renowned independent-living activists in the country–; and Rai – an anthropologist graduate who works as a wood craftsman and who also has a large experience in activist collectives in the city–. En torno a la silla was set up as a project seeking to prototype an open-source wheelchair kit to ‘habilitate other possibilities to the user.’ The kit consisted of three elements: a portable wheelchair ramp, a foldable table, and the armrest-briefcase described in the vignette.
The group started to work on the fabrication of these technologies in October 2012. We came to use the Spanish term cacharrear –to tinker– to talk about what we were doing. None of us were expert designers of technical aids, and neither of us were trained craftspeople in the many skills that the gadgets we have started learning to fabricate required. What we called tinkering was always characterised by playful learning processes, a rather mundane exploratory practice of searching for inspiration from tutorials, sketching and fabricating, sometimes searching for help from specialists in a given craft.
But I would like to explore a different nuance of the term tinkering, grounding on STS literature, where scholars like Karin Knorr-Cetina (1981) or Hans-Jörg Rheinberger (1997) have qualified the technoscientific practices of reasoning and laboratory experimentation as particular forms of tinkering. Tinkering is also an apt metaphor to foreground not only experimentation as an ‘opportunistic’ and open-ended reasoning practice, but also the important role of tweaking and setting material and spatial infrastructures in knowledge production: An arrangement that, if successful, might allow experimenters to pose new questions that they did not have in advance.
En torno a la silla also wanted to engage in another particular form of tinkering: from the onset they were worried about producing an open documentation of the process wishing to make it public so that their prototypes might be replicated by or serve as inspiration to others. When I approached the project for the first time in search for a case study for my postdoctoral project on participatory design in care technologies they were sharp in relation to my role: “You can’t be an observer here”, an imperative aligned with the motto of independent-living movement whose philosophy pervades En torno a la silla: “Nothing about us without us.” So when I started hanging around with them I was quickly dragged into their exploratory material and documentary practices of fabrication in a way that I would like to suggest infused my ethnographic practice with an experimental gesture.
III. Tinkering with documentation
Hence, I joined the project taking the responsibility of the documentation process shortly after it had began. This happened given that the ethnographic skills and interests that I had been displaying in our first encounters were thought to be useful for the project. But this also entailed a considerable effort, since I had to test and try a whole set of technologies to take care of documenting the design and fabrication processes. The regular notepad gave way to the use of Evernote software on my smartphone since I needed to take pictures and make quick notes. In other occasions I jotted down exhaustive minutes including verbatim quotes using my email that I would send others, and I later learnt to use WordPress blogs and many plugin services to manage the different aspects of the project’s documentation.
Indeed, I had to fabricate a shared environment to document and circulate the fabrication process. Testing digital platforms, discussing the records in joint meetings, collecting material from different sources and combining the appropriate media format for the records, I experimented with the documentation in a similar way to how the project struggled to fabricate an environment for the wheelchair. My fieldwork recursively became a tinkering ethnographic space. Tinkering ‘around the wheelchair’ indeed involved a twofold dimension: both material and documentary; that is, we had to explore the open source design of gadgets while testing the appropriate techniques and record genres to open up their process of fabrication.
At some moments in meetings where I was in charge of taking the minutes the distinction between design documentation and field notes blurred: taking the minutes of meetings later forwarded by email to the group I sometimes turned them into ethnographic notes of sorts, using verbatim quotes as well as remarks on personal impressions of emotional climates or situations. In other occasions it was the other way around: my very personal field notes were turned into the documentation of the process of fabrication, being scanned or shared for the common record after the fact. Often this double-register made very difficult to keep my record practices untouched. The distinctive written genre of my field notes seemed to blur with documentation, but my ethnographic practice blurred too. This went beyond a mere experimentation with literary styles.
IV. Experimental collaborations
Tomás’s collaboration tinkering with documentation unearthed an experimental moment in fieldwork. Tinkering with documentation took Tomás into a close relationship of collaboration with his tinkering counterparts through an open process of documentation and reflections. A collaboration that was neither a militant nor an ethical gesture, but an effect of the shared space of joint tinkering practices, both material and documentary.
My ethnographic experience (Adolfo’s) in the field has been similar to Tomás’s. I would say that during my work with urban activists and guerrilla architects I was also trapped by the experimental ethos of my counterparts. In a way close to Tomás’s experience, I felt that I was transgressing the norm and form of the ethnographic fieldwork I had learned and I felt the need of an appropriate conceptual vocabulary to account for my fieldwork practice.
Our joint discussions sharing the oddity of our experiences led us to work on an edited compilation focusing on similar experiences, where we refer to this particular ethnographic mode as a form of ‘experimental collaboration’, one whose relationality in the field is articulated (and described) in terms of collaboration (and not only participation); and in which the epistemic figure describing knowledge-production invokes experimentation (instead of only observation). But our invocation of experimentation is not new to anthropology.
Our invocation of experimentation is not completely new to anthropology. The reflexive turn of the eighties inaugurated a wave of writing experiments that addressed a deep reconsideration of authority and authorship, and explored different representational forms and textual genres or expanded authorship beyond the single ethnographer to include fieldwork counterparts. In recent times, an experimental invocation has been increasingly translated from the space of ethnographic representation to the fieldwork. Experimentation, hence, is invoked as a way to renew the norm and form of ethnographic fieldwork.
Our description does not invoke experimentation metaphorically. On the contrary, our fieldwork account foregrounding tinkering with documentation seeks to explore a vocabulary that is faithful to the empirical practices that we have found in the field and have infused our own production of knowledge. We have thus explored a descriptive vocabulary around tinkering but many more singular conceptual empirical languages could be developed to account for other anthropological forms of experimental collaboration in the field.
We are tempted to say that experimentation has always been an art part of the ethnographic repertoire in fieldwork, an epistemic practice that however has not been foregrounded in the tales of the field that have narrated our empirical practice in terms of participant observation and sometimes using the register of rapport or the instrumental management of relations in the field ‘participating in order to write’ (Emerson et al., 1995: 26-29). We have tried in this account to test a different tale of the field, one that describes our fieldwork through the mode of experimental collaboration.
References
Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R. I., & Shaw, L. L. (1995). Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Holmes, D. R., & Marcus, G. E. (2008). Collaboration Today and the Re-Imagination of the Classic Scene of Fieldwork Encounter. Collaborative Anthropologies, 1(1), 81–101.
Knorr-Cetina, K. D. (1981). The manufacture of knowledge: An essay on the constructivist and contextual nature of science. Oxford: Pergamon.
Rheinberger, H.-J. (1997). Toward a History of Epistemic Things: Synthesizing Proteins in the Test Tube. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Antropocefa: A kit for experimental collaborations in ethnographic practice
Through an ironic reflection put forward in a public performance, this paper seeks to unfold an argument around what we call “experimental collaborations”: an exploration with the aim to expand the call to experimentation with writing, opened up in anthropology in the 1990s, to a new locus: namely, fieldwork. We believe that such a displacement resonates with the transformations operated in the art world by participatory practices and the proposal of “relational aesthetics”. This article, hence, describes a “kit” for the experimental and collaborative renovation of ethnographic methods called “Antropocefa”. This kit allows us, then, to attempt a translation of such a relational sensibility into the production of collaborative devices in ethnography. This reflection emerged out of our ethnographic relation with artistic environments, whose practice around the production of “microtopias” has given us the chance to rethink the relations between the worlds of art and anthropology.
Antropocefa: un kit para las colaboraciones experimentales en la práctica etnográfica
A través de la reflexión irónica propuesta en una performance pública, el artículo despliega un argumento sobre lo que denominamos “colaboraciones experimentales”: una exploración que busca expandir el impulso experimental abierto en la antropología en los 1990s en el espacio de escritura hacia un nuevo locus, el trabajo de campo. Creemos que ese desplazamiento resuena con transformaciones introducidas en el mundo del arte por las prácticas participativas y la propuesta elaborada desde la estética relacional. El artículo describe un kit para la renovación experimental y colaborativa de los métodos etnográficos: el Antropocefa. A través de él proponemos trasladar esa sensibilidad relacional a la producción de dispositivos colaborativos en la etnografía. Nuestra reflexión nace de nuestra relación etnográfica con entornos artísticos, cuya práctica de producción generadora de “microtopías” nos ha ofrecido la posibilidad de repensar la manera de entender la relación entre el mundo del arte y la antropología.
Please consider submitting a paper for the 4S-EASST 2016 conference (deadline February 21st) taking place from August 31st to September 3rd in Barcelona to our open track!
We’d be very grateful if you could also forward it to potentially interested colleagues.
Wild research: Radical openings in technoscientific practice?
A collaborative spectre is haunting science and technology. In the past decades we have witnessed an explosion of radical openings of research practices where increasingly technified citizens and engaged professionals collaborate in the most diverse forms of knowledge production in both online and offline platforms of all kinds. In these efforts they generate and put into circulation documentation on the most diverse range of issues, attempting to materially intervene their everyday worlds with different political aims. Practices that, for lack of a better term, might be described as ‘wild research’ not only signal collaborative redistributions of the who, how, when and where of knowledge production, circulation and validation, but also more experiential and sociologically-related expansions of the knowledge registers and material interventions there emerging: a whole constellation of practices forging different versions of ‘science and technology by other means’. Paying attention to these transformations this track would like to welcome ethnographic and historical works analyzing in depth open, collaborative and experimental ‘wild research’ projects helping to expand what STS up to date has considered more collaborative or more democratic forms of technoscientific production: participatory engagements of lay people into expert-driven processes such as in citizen science or articulations of counter-expertise and evidence-based activism to engage in conversations with experts. We are particularly interested in analyzing not only the different forms of knowledge and the political, but also the forms of STS otherwise that these radical collaborative openings in technoscientific practice might be bringing to the fore.
Convenors: Tomas S. Criado (MCTS, TU München) & Adolfo Estalella (Spanish National Research Council – CSIC)
For more information on how to propose a paper, please check the conference’s call for papers
To submit a paper to this open track, please click here
