5,681
edits
Difference between revisions of "Ideas for Future Research"
Ideas for Future Research (view source)
Revision as of 09:50, 30 September 2019
, 09:50, 30 September 2019no edit summary
| (5 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
__NOTOC__ | |||
==Globalizing knowledge== | ==Globalizing knowledge== | ||
"Globalizing knowledge" is today a popular catchphrase in academic circles and the title of Michael D. Kennedy’s ground-breaking book on knowledge and change. How does the Global Informality project contribute to the globalising of knowledge? How local knowledge feeds into wider frames of thought? How is wisdom embedded in informality maintained and transmitted? What are the prospects of ‘network expertise’ assembled in the Global Encyclopaedia of Informality? Can we overcome the limitations of understanding local knowledge, unwritten rules, and hidden practices in societies other than our own? How can we use the interconnectedness of present-day academia to produce novel analysis within and beyond academic circles? Can we facilitate public engagement for expanding our dataset? What are the implications of local knowledge in the global context? Specific ways in which knowledge, images, and symbols are shared globally are only an illustration of universal patterns underlying the workings of informality. Looking at our case studies in the Encyclopaedia, do they facilitate the globalising of knowledge and in which ways? Have we managed to supersede geographical borders and area studies divide in our dataset?" | "Globalizing knowledge" is today a popular catchphrase in academic circles and the title of Michael D. Kennedy’s ground-breaking book on knowledge and change. How does the Global Informality project contribute to the globalising of knowledge? How local knowledge feeds into wider frames of thought? How is wisdom embedded in informality maintained and transmitted? What are the prospects of ‘network expertise’ assembled in the Global Encyclopaedia of Informality? Can we overcome the limitations of understanding local knowledge, unwritten rules, and hidden practices in societies other than our own? How can we use the interconnectedness of present-day academia to produce novel analysis within and beyond academic circles? Can we facilitate public engagement for expanding our dataset? What are the implications of local knowledge in the global context? Specific ways in which knowledge, images, and symbols are shared globally are only an illustration of universal patterns underlying the workings of informality. Looking at our case studies in the Encyclopaedia, do they facilitate the globalising of knowledge and in which ways? Have we managed to supersede geographical borders and area studies divide in our dataset?" | ||
==Learning commons== | ==Learning commons== | ||
Is the Global Informality Project network a community? Wikipedia defines learning commons, also known as scholars' commons, information commons or digital commons, are learning spaces, similar to libraries and classrooms that share space for information technology, remote or online education, collaboration, content creation, and meeting. Can the Global Informality Project website become a virtual learning common? What do we need for it? How would you be able to use the dataset? How to facilitate growth of entries? How to engage with related projects? How can it be used for teaching? For research proposals? For publishing? How can the users rearrange the data for their own use? What does it miss? Do we want to set up an International Board and an annual meeting? A lot of authors have worked with policy-makers, would it be a good idea to share experience? To share training materials and research findings? | Is the [[Global Informality Project]] network a community? Wikipedia defines learning commons, also known as scholars' commons, information commons or digital commons, are learning spaces, similar to libraries and classrooms that share space for information technology, remote or online education, collaboration, content creation, and meeting. Can the Global Informality Project website become a virtual learning common? What do we need for it? How would you be able to use the dataset? How to facilitate growth of entries? How to engage with related projects? How can it be used for teaching? For research proposals? For publishing? How can the users rearrange the data for their own use? What does it miss? Do we want to set up an International Board and an annual meeting? A lot of authors have worked with policy-makers, would it be a good idea to share experience? To share training materials and research findings? | ||
==Building on resistance capacity== | ==Building on resistance capacity== | ||
| Line 19: | Line 20: | ||
*'''Dr Predrag Cvetičanin, Centre for Empirical Cultural Studies of South-East Europe, Belgrade''' | *'''Dr Predrag Cvetičanin, Centre for Empirical Cultural Studies of South-East Europe, Belgrade''' | ||
*[[Vernaculars of informality|Dr David Henig]], Senior Lecturer, School of Anthropology & Conservation, University of Kent | *[[Vernaculars of informality|Dr David Henig]], Senior Lecturer, School of Anthropology & Conservation, University of Kent | ||
*James McLeod-Hatch, SSEES alumnus | *[[Salam Credit|James McLeod-Hatch]], SSEES alumnus | ||
*Petra Matijevic, Postdoctoral Research Associate, School of Slavonic and East European Studies, UCL | *Petra Matijevic, Postdoctoral Research Associate, School of Slavonic and East European Studies, UCL | ||
| Line 35: | Line 36: | ||
*The distinction formal/informal is in itself ambivalent and can be used for different purposes and to serve different interests | *The distinction formal/informal is in itself ambivalent and can be used for different purposes and to serve different interests | ||
*There is a limit in using informal categories in different cultural contexts (blat is not štela, is not guanxi) – we should be very cautious. | *There is a limit in using informal categories in different cultural contexts ([[blat]] is not štela, is not [[guanxi]]) – we should be very cautious. | ||
*In some cases in the Encyclopedia the ambivalence is exaggerated (e.g employment through party channels) | *In some cases in the Encyclopedia the ambivalence is exaggerated (e.g employment through party channels) | ||
| Line 138: | Line 139: | ||
*[[Carrots versus sticks in patron–client networks|Prof Paul Heywood]], Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Nottingham, | *[[Carrots versus sticks in patron–client networks|Prof Paul Heywood]], Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Nottingham, | ||
*[[Brodiazhnichestvo|Sheelagh Barron]], SSEES alumna | *[[Brodiazhnichestvo|Sheelagh Barron]], SSEES alumna | ||
*[[Blat (Russia)|Alena Ledeneva]], SSEES, UCL | *[[Blat (Russia)|Prof Alena Ledeneva]], SSEES, UCL | ||
First, we asked either information communication technologies (ICTs) allow to replicate traditional informal practices relying on new digital tools or we can actually see that ICTs contribute to innovation on the field of informal practices and give a rise to new practices. We divided our discussion between focus on the emergence of new actors that rely on ICTs in order to perform informal practices, and on the traditional actors that use ICTs. | First, we asked either information communication technologies (ICTs) allow to replicate traditional informal practices relying on new digital tools or we can actually see that ICTs contribute to innovation on the field of informal practices and give a rise to new practices. We divided our discussion between focus on the emergence of new actors that rely on ICTs in order to perform informal practices, and on the traditional actors that use ICTs. | ||
| Line 175: | Line 176: | ||
*'''Dr Vesna Popovski, Visiting Lecturer, Department of Government, LSE''' | *'''Dr Vesna Popovski, Visiting Lecturer, Department of Government, LSE''' | ||
*[[Dirt book|Dr Anna Bailey]], SSEES alumna | *[[Dirt book|Dr Anna Bailey]], SSEES alumna | ||
*[[Krugovaia poruka|Prof Geoffrey Hosking]], Emeritus Professor of Russian History, SSEES, UCL | |||
Informal governance is almost as broad as informality itself, the participants brought up very different aspects of informality during the discussion | Informal governance is almost as broad as informality itself, the participants brought up very different aspects of informality during the discussion | ||
| Line 220: | Line 222: | ||
==Area studies without borders== | ==Area studies without borders== | ||
How can we making connections with other conventionally-defined areas in the interest of crosschecking relevance and/or bridging disconnected discussions. For example, how does the unification of Germany compare with unification of Korea? Economies of favours are often associated with post-communist and post-socialist contexts, how do we compare their workings with those in other places? | How can we making connections with other conventionally-defined areas in the interest of crosschecking relevance and/or bridging disconnected discussions. For example, how does the unification of Germany compare with unification of Korea? [[Economies of favours]] are often associated with post-communist and post-socialist contexts, how do we compare their workings with those in other places? | ||
==Migration of informal practices== | ==Migration of informal practices== | ||
| Line 233: | Line 235: | ||
*Dr Ruth Mandel, Vice-Dean (International), Faculty of Social and Historical Sciences, UCL | *Dr Ruth Mandel, Vice-Dean (International), Faculty of Social and Historical Sciences, UCL | ||
H.P. began by speaking about his work on “squatters” (a translation approved of by H.P.) in the Netherlands. He spoke of how the movement had moved with practitioners to the US, particularly New York City, where they “started doing it” and “interested fellow students.” R.M., familiar with NYC, asked for more information as to where/when, and M.S. asked for some clarification as to “how political” the action had been. H.P. also discussed a squatting movement created in the 1970s in New York’s Upper West side by immigrants from Puerto Rico. He found out about this because of the research performed by Sister Ann Brotherton for the Jewish Theological Seminary (JTS). JTS was interested in this because it happened in their neighbourhood, and allowed H.P. to examine the data and materials that Brotherton collected. When M.S. commented that it seemed not so explicitly “evangelical,” H.P. emphasized that the practice is about “identity,” and discussed his own participation in the “Euro-squatting network.” R.M. asked how people organize, stay in touch, and H.P. noted several websites. H.P. also noted the concept of “flexible institutionalization” he had developed to describe how though state institutions had regulated and begun implementing the practice, the “activists” mobilized and retained control. | H.P. began by speaking about his work on “squatters” (a translation approved of by H.P.) in the Netherlands. He spoke of how the movement had moved with practitioners to the US, particularly New York City, where they “started doing it” and “interested fellow students.” R.M., familiar with NYC, asked for more information as to where/when, and M.S. asked for some clarification as to “how political” the action had been. H.P. also discussed a [[squatting]] movement created in the 1970s in New York’s Upper West side by immigrants from Puerto Rico. He found out about this because of the research performed by Sister Ann Brotherton for the Jewish Theological Seminary (JTS). JTS was interested in this because it happened in their neighbourhood, and allowed H.P. to examine the data and materials that Brotherton collected. When M.S. commented that it seemed not so explicitly “evangelical,” H.P. emphasized that the practice is about “identity,” and discussed his own participation in the “Euro-squatting network.” R.M. asked how people organize, stay in touch, and H.P. noted several websites. H.P. also noted the concept of “flexible institutionalization” he had developed to describe how though state institutions had regulated and begun implementing the practice, the “activists” mobilized and retained control. | ||
M.S. shared that what brought her to the group was an interest in how “ideas” or “concepts” as well as people move, and described a current research project on how Western and Mongolian consultants and analysts often use the same terms but mean different things, and how their different results can even cohabit the same reports and consulting work. M.S. also highlighted the issue of the anthropologist being hailed as a consultant or analyst and brought into these projects as well, on “both sides.” | M.S. shared that what brought her to the group was an interest in how “ideas” or “concepts” as well as people move, and described a current research project on how Western and Mongolian consultants and analysts often use the same terms but mean different things, and how their different results can even cohabit the same reports and consulting work. M.S. also highlighted the issue of the anthropologist being hailed as a consultant or analyst and brought into these projects as well, on “both sides.” | ||
| Line 245: | Line 247: | ||
==Cross-disciplinary analysis== | ==Cross-disciplinary analysis== | ||
What possible links and additional angles and discourses could make research relevant for other disciplines? What are the methodological approaches that we use to study informal practices, what are the methodological approaches we are using when they appear? How do these practices look through the lenses of various disciplines? | What possible links and additional angles and discourses could make research relevant for other disciplines? What are the methodological approaches that we use to study informal practices, what are the methodological approaches we are using when they appear? How do these practices look through the lenses of various disciplines? | ||
<div class="toccolours mw-collapsible mw-collapsed"> | |||
'''A blog by [http://www.grahamscambler.com Graham Scambler,] Emeritus Professor of Sociology, UCL, Visiting Professor of Sociology, Surrey University, 29 March 2018''' | |||
<div class="mw-collapsible-content"> | |||
The other day I attended the launch of a two-volume ‘Encyclopaedia of Informality’ edited by Alena Ledeneva, an impressive and valued former colleague at UCL for whom I have a lot of time. I had hoped to get there early enough to participate in one or another small-group workshop session on selected topics, but I couldn’t make it. But I did catch the general discussion and a word with Alena, and I undertook to pitch in with a blog. It is, I must add, the blog of an ‘outsider’. Moreover, I have opted not to consult the Encyclopaedia – which I purchased for £50 on the spur of the moment – because rightly or wrongly I thought it best to write something off the top of my head. | |||
‘Informality’ oils wheels; and it does so by time, place and institution. As Alena noted in passing, the later Wittgenstein is relevant here, ‘meaning by use by language game’, as is, I would suggest, the theory of those influenced by him, like Garfinkel. Informality is a phenomenon worthy of, and justifying, examination in its own right, that much I buy. If I might borrow (reluctantly, and not without embarrassment, even pain) from the terminology of variable analysis though, I’d be tempted to insist that informality is more often an intervening than an independent variable. | |||
When I was on the tube heading for UCL’s Wilkins Building I had two thoughts. They were allied to specific concepts: Weber’s ‘social closure’ and CW Mills’ ‘tacit understanding’. Approaching informality through either of these lenses might show a return. | |||
Weber most obviously deployed the notion of social closure in his study of the multidimensional phenomenon of social stratification (class, status, party/power); but he also alluded to its much wider relevance. Wherever the insider/outside dichotomy appears, so too do issues of inclusion/exclusion and ‘othering’. Social closure is as pertinent to postcode gangs, problem- or disease-specific internet groups, classroom cliques and so on as it is to deeper, broad-brush societal divisions. And the critical input of informal ‘rule-making’ and ‘rule breaking’ has long been home territory to symbolic and dramaturgical interactionism as well as to Wittgenstein-inspired ethnomethodology and phenomenological sociology (via Weber’s disciple Schutz). So there are prior sociological traditions that provide means as well as foci for considering informality: it is in and amongst the day-to-day minutiae and intimacies of the micro-relations of production and reproduction of the lifeworld that informality most tellingly bites. With reference to Habermas’ lifeworld/system distinction, it is in particular at the interface of lifeworld and system – and in the context of ongoing system rationalisation/colonisation - that informality can be pivotal. | |||
Mills compares and contrasts his concept of ‘tacit understanding’ with that of ‘conspiracy’. While: (1) many a real conspiracy can be effective disguised by ideological rhetoric against ‘conspiracy theory and theorists’, and (2) elites are always ready to conspire if and when necessary, it is far more normal practice for the advantaged in general, and elites in particular, to get what they want via tacit understanding. In other words, they share an amalgam of types of capital or asset (material, psychological, social, cultural, status, spatial, maybe even biological) that give birth, naturally (no need for forceps or a C-section), to what Bourdieu calls a habitus. This is at the very core of Mills’ The Power Elite. | |||
So what follows? In a nutshell, while informality certainly warrants investigation in its own right, and doubtless possesses properties intrinsic to it, it is also, and most frequently/saliently, an aspect of much else: to adopt critical realist terminology, it is fertile ground for (causal) ‘generative mechanisms’ in what is ineluctably a structured, but not structurally determined, ‘open system’. As far as this ‘much else’ is concerned, context is paramount. But, to repeat, informality has its own character and dimensions and I’m sure will yield productive ideal types and typologies (witness Alena’s own studies of ‘soft power’ in Russia). | |||
As this scatter of remarks testifies, I am a novice in this field and have yet to dip into this Encyclopaedia. So I’m closing by tempting my arm and adding a few additional thoughts. | |||
First, as was mentioned by more than one discussant at the launch, informality qua oiling of wheels/getting things done can service bad as well as good projects. Second, multiple sociological theories and studies are around to be mined as we move ahead (see above). Third, informality lends itself most readily to ethnographic case studies. Fourth, several foci for investigation are popping into my mind, I’m sure reflective of my own research interests. Here are a couple: | |||
* How is Mills’ ‘tacit understanding’ informally accomplished, reproduced and elaborated amongst those - I would say, class-driven – players in the tiny hard core of a capitalist executive which is now transnational, nomadic (Bauman) and, however strong the continuity of capitalist structures, more heterogeneous in nationality and background and given to individualism and opportunism (Davis)? | |||
* If, as I have contended, it is appropriate to suggest that stigma is increasingly being weaponised’, that is, ‘blame is being heaped on shame’ (leading ultimately to ‘abject’ subjects it is easier for states to subdue and neglect), then how does informality play into this dynamic and, at the sharp end, how is abjection ‘acted out’ in the lifeworld? | |||
I’m getting into the swing of this and could go on and on, like many an academic; but my sympathies for readers of blogs requires me to call a halt around now. I close with my congratulations once more to UCL’s Alena Ledeneva and her colleagues. Alena’s own work on informality and the Foucault-like diffusion of power in Russia signals a paradigm. I will now turn belatedly to items in the Encyclopaedia. | |||
</div> | |||
</div> | |||
==Curious incidents in the dataset (what does not fit?)== | ==Curious incidents in the dataset (what does not fit?)== | ||
Looking at the clusters in the table of the contents, which entries are the odd ones out? What are the implications of these cases? | Looking at the clusters in the table of the contents, which entries are the odd ones out? What are the implications of these cases? | ||