The Walking Seminar

Attending to appreciations

2012-02-21T04:40:00.004-08:00

Appreciations are everywhere. Diners enjoy a tasty dish in the restaurant, readers love a book at night times, and commuters stop their hasty pace to listen to a string quartet playing in the underground corridors of the subway network. But how to think of such moments of appreciation? How to write about them? These were the challenges we faced during our last walking seminar to the sea where snow, sand and water variously lay upon each other.

Before this walking seminar Annemarie had sent around a brand new not yet published (or reviewed!) article with the title: Is het lekker? Articulating appreciation. The paper itself concentrates on the issue of articulating appreciation. Its main concern is with relations between ‘language’ and ‘bodies’. It has been written for a special issue of Theory, Culture & Society with the title Social theory after Strathern. Engaging with the work of Marilyn Strathern, the article demonstrates how tracing a term (here: lekker) may be a way to link up sites and situations without seeking a ‘structure’ beneath them. It also plays with what it is to write in one language (here English) about field work done in another (here Dutch).

During the discussion in the morning and the walk in the afternoon we talked about the article a little bit. But we mainly used it as a good occasion to think about the relevance of “appreciations” in our own varied research projects and, from this, develop a lot of new questions that arise from attending to appreciations in practice.

Dangerous expectations

2012-01-17T06:42:00.000-08:00

Walking is dangerous. Snow and avalanches are serious threats in the Alps. The water and inundations can become a real peril in the Netherlands and had been warned of when we headed off for the walking seminar. But as it turned out we were lucky. The water level was extraordinary high, yet the paths had remained dry.

While walking we talked about - sometimes also dangerous - expectations of audiences.

There is your research. You know what you have done so far, what you are doing at the moment and what your plans are for the next couple of month. In other words: You know what this is all about. But not so others. Your colleagues or professors, your friends or family have little knowledge, sometimes no clue about what your research is about. As you meet them you give short descriptions, introductions and explanations. Then, you hear comments and remarks. These moments of encounter are both, brief and instructive.

How do you introduce your research topic to which audience? For instance, what do you say in academic research seminars and what to "the public", your family sitting next to the Christmas tree? What do you have to explain where?

Once you have introduced your topic, what are the comments that you hear most often? What does your audience expect? For example, what approach do they assume that you take? Or which topics/chapters might they expect in a thesis like yours?

In which ways do you fulfill these expectations? And more importantly: In which ways does your research differ? How can you steer the expectations? How do you frame your object in a way that clearly indicates what you are doing and what not?

And how - on a good day - might you even play with the expectations of your audiences?

Getting lost while walking and talking about nasty situations in the field

2011-12-05T06:39:00.000-08:00

On the 18th November we went for another walk/talk. The path we strolled along this time was new. Our way lead from the trainstation of Castricum through the dunes back to the point we started from. And I must say, I found it the most beautiful of all the walks we did in the last months.

The route was new, but another thing remained the same. As usual we got lost on the way - despite iPhone and several maps.

And these were the questions we discussed:

You are doing fieldwork. In the field a lot is going on. You do not just find answers to your research question, as so much more is happening. Your informants may hope that you will help them. Or they may act in ways that make you feel uncomfortable. Bad things happen. What to do?

How to engage with nasty situations? How to do so, then and there, and how later, when you are writing? When do you stress them, highlight them, or when might it be wiser not to mention them?

If to you it seems best to write about "the bad", then how might this be done? On which platforms: social science journals, the newspaper, the web? In which tone: critical, with wonder, concerned? Who are you talking to: ‘the public’, the masters of capital or the guardians of the state, your informants, who else? And how does all of this relate to writing a PhD thesis, which is also doing an exam?

What is the question?

2011-11-13T08:15:00.000-08:00

The question we dealt with this time - while walking in the rain through a wood full of autumn leaves - was a particular one, namely: What is the question?

You have an interesting case, a case that so far has not been studied or not in the right way. You are gathering or have gathered great material, experienced disconcerting moments, have plenty of stories to tell.

But what is the question?

How to invent a good question? And what makes a question 'good'?
Which questions open up a space to think and write in and which others lead on to dead ends? How to recognize how questions work out? And can a question be what comes out of a study: the point?

Excess and abundance

2011-09-28T03:23:00.000-07:00

Matei Candea is the guest who will join us this Friday on the walk from Overveen to the beach and back to Zandvoort. Matei currently explores questions on interspecies sociality next to lecturing at Durham University.

While walking he will help us to sort out or (or at least become aware of) a particularly tricky issue:

Dealing with excess and abundance

There are all but endless articles, books, authors, concepts. There is a lot of ‘world’ to go and do research on and once you have done this research, your material (interviews, observations, or other objects to analyze) tends to be excessive as well.
What to do? You cannot read everything, cite everyone, use all possible concepts. You cannot relate every story either, analyze every detail. Thus, a few questions present themselves.

How to recognize which literature is – and which other literature isn’t – relevant?
How to distinguish which interview partners or places to head for?
How to handle the limits of your possibility?
Is the rest not worth your effort, or simply too much? Once you have ‘material’, how do you select, quotes, examples, stories?
And how do you decide which points to make?
Once you have a first version, how do you recognize (or decide!) what ‘the argument’ is and what serves this argument?
What you expand, what you delete?
And when, in this process, is it productive to go back to the literature?

new dates

2011-09-08T05:01:00.000-07:00

Not only the new academic year has started. The walking seminar will resume as well.
The next three dates are:

30th September
19th October
18th November

Anna Tsing and Eating Bodies

2011-06-10T05:50:00.000-07:00

A wonderful encounter took place yesterday - between Anna Tsing from University of California Santa Cruz, the US, and The Eating Bodies Team. While walking through the most picturesque Dutch landscapes we were talking about the process of ontologies and the ontologies of process, about the slowing down (of writing) and speeding up (of reality), about experiments and surprise as new research methods, about "bads" (capitalism and destruction of resources) and "goods" (appreciation of food). What a wonderful encounter, indeed.

new dates

2011-05-25T06:15:00.000-07:00

The next two walking seminars will take place on

24th June
26th August

Getting to the point

2011-05-03T03:41:00.000-07:00

This Friday some of you might have been walking in "real nature" and might have moved a lot of meters vertically.

We were walking a lot of meters horizontally, namely 16 000 m. And while walking we were wondering: What is the point?

What is the point?

There are two kinds of ‘point’. One resonates with what is also called the ‘argument’. The point of an article may be to argue (for instance) that the walking path from Breukelen station into the polder is a fine one for holding a walking seminar – but not as good as walking path Z (well, which one?). The second ‘point’ rather evokes effects and is thus linked up with what these days is also called ‘interference’. It may be the point of writing to tell the truth, to relate gripping stories, or, let’s abbreviate, to improve the world (or some specific part thereof – which one?).

What, against this background, is the point of the text you are currently working on (the chapter, article, summary, introduction)? And how does it relate to and fit within the point of your overall research project?

Is it easy or difficult to make ‘a point’ with/in your specific research project – compared to others? Which others? Which comparisons are helpful and/or illuminating?

How about the many ways in which one may make ‘a point’ – upfront, by stealth, early on, gradually, angrily, critically, meticulously, seductively – which ones do you like on which occasions – in the texts of others – in your own?

And what do you do on days when you wonder ‘what is the point?’

Mobile Walking Seminar

2011-04-18T03:17:00.000-07:00

Last week it was The Walking Seminar that became mobile. It moved to Denmark. In Copenhagen, Bodil Christensen, Gry Jakobsen and Line Hillersdal are researching 'taste', 'eating bodies', and 'place' and after an inspiring workshop they took us for a walk on the outskirts of the city that looks like this from above:

There is always already politics...

2011-03-21T09:52:00.000-07:00

The landscape in Breukelen might look nice and innocent.

But. There is always already politics.

And this is what we talked about during the last walking seminar:

There is always already politics. So much of it and in so many versions.

State politics. Policy. Party politics. Intellectual politics. Politics embedded in the questions asked, the money flowing, the passions fostered, the ways in which some things are framed as ‘problems’, the ways in which some things (and not others) are performed as ‘real’.

And then there is research. Let’s say: yours.

Where is it situated, against which kinds of practices that might be called ‘political’? Where do you want it to move? What do you want to move with it? What are the twisty and thorny roads going here and there – that might take you in ‘bad’ directions?

What can you do, practically, to make your work stand out more as ‘political’ or rather less; what to make it be more or less ‘political’; and in relation to which kind of ‘politics’? (Maybe the answer differ for different force fields.)

How do you avoid over- and underpolitisation?

Where does your work risks to be overheated or rather fall flat? Where does it risk to make itself too loud or rather irrelevant? What would you hope to achieve? What is your concern?

fields...

2011-02-21T05:16:00.000-08:00

Breukelen turns out to be the adequate place for walking in winter, when it has a lot of wind (like three weeks ago) or when it is cold (like last week).

Three weeks ago we discussed questions arising from the relation of 'the researcher' and 'observing in the field'.

- which ﬁeld(s) do you go to in order to do your research? how do you get it contact with your ﬁeld?
- how do you present yourself? and what do you answer if your informants ask for "the results" of your
project?
-and, for those of who are further on in their trajectory: have you had informants reading your texts? what
happens? what is there to learn from their reactions?
- which problems arise during ﬁeld work? what do your informants tell you? what do they show you without
telling? what do they keep secret? what shifts between interviews and observations?
- how do you handle such problems?
- and what do the problems you encounter teach you about your research object/topic?

Last week the discussion centered around the relation of 'the researcher' and the 'academic field'.

How to 'use others', or how to mobilise human resources
- Who do you talk with when you need inspiration?
- Who do you ask for feedback?
- How do you draw on your friends?
- And how on colleagues (a) nearby and (b) far away (c) from your own research field (d) who work on different things (e) in different theoretical traditions
- How do you mobilise informants? Just to inform you, or also for feedback?
- Who do you talk to at conferences? To which sessions do you go, who do you have dinner with, etc.
- How do you decide to which conferences you go?

Winterwonderland

2010-12-08T05:01:00.001-08:00

Amsterdam is covered in snow. The walking seminar last Thursday, thus, turned into a journey through a winter wonderland. While wandering through the white Vondelpark, some of us acted as supervisors for their walking partner whereas others discussed the following questions:

- How to read academic literatures?
- What to take on board, what to leave out?
- What to spell out, what to skip?
- What to engage with? argue with? praise? build on?
- How to write about and with the work of others?
- How does liking or disliking specific literatures help or hinder you in your own work?

Dates

2010-11-12T04:19:00.000-08:00

The next walking seminars will take place on the following days:

2 December (Please not that this is a Thursday.)
21 January and
18 February

Stories in the Rain

2010-11-12T04:06:00.000-08:00

Last Friday we were walking and talking again. With the weather we weren't very lucky. It was raining heavily and the path from Baarn to Hollandsche Rading was changing between deep puddles, less deep puddles and mud. Despite these conditions we had a lot to talk about. Malte from Oxford had furnished us the following questions:

Storying: what is it to tell a story?

– What stories do you tell in your papers, presentations and talks? What work do they do? And what counts as a story anyway?
– How do you tell your stories? Do you think about this at all? What techniques, styles, strategies and narrative devices do you use? What works for you, what doesn’t?
– Where do you get your stories from? Is there a difference between your own and others’ stories? Whose stories are they?
– What makes a ‘good’ story—and what a ‘bad’ one? What are examples of storying that you particularly appreciate? What do you like about them and what can we learn from them?
– How useful/difficult/inspiring/problematic/etc. do you find it to think about your work in terms of storying?

Multiplying the Walking Seminar

2010-11-03T09:06:00.000-07:00

The Amsterdam Walking Seminar has become multiple. Malte Ziewitz is organising monthly walk-talks in the surroundings of the Oxford. The first walk-talk took place under perfect conditions, as Malte writes, on the 22nd October. The next one will be on the 19th November.
Cheers from Amsterdam to Oxford!

Walking, Talking, Supervising

2010-10-06T06:53:00.000-07:00

Walking is moving. There might be a plan in the beginning, for example to go along this particular path marked on the map; to discuss this specific topic along these questions. But once one starts walking, things might turn out quite differently.

This is what happened last week. We had a plan, a list of questions to discuss. But in the end, we supervised each others work: What are you working on at the moment? Where are you? What are your problems? And plans?

Dates

2010-08-24T01:02:00.000-07:00

The next walking seminars will take place on
1st October
5th November
See you there!

Travelling in many senses...

2010-08-21T06:07:00.000-07:00

This time, we travelled in many senses. We travelled by train from Amsterdam Centraal to Baarn, foot from Baarn to Hollandsche Rading, and by train again from Hollandsche Rading back to Amsterdam Centraal. We also talked about travelling, more precisely, how to make our work travel. Here are the questions. May they travel far...

The questions:

although you may have a nice supervisor, just writing for her/him is not what you always dreamt about – you would like to reach a somewhat larger Audience. Very good. So let’s talkwalk about what might be good ways of doing so – given the parameters of your topic, research questions etc.
what is the story or the point in/of your work that is most to dear and important to you? what/who is the implied ‘enemy’ of your work and/or what would change if your audience would believe you? do you write as if you want to convince your enemy? bystanders? or do you write for your intellectual friends? when to do what? what about writing for 'the big shots' versus writing for 'the next generation'?

who might already be interested in your topic? in your empirical field? in your theoretical inventions? in your ways of working (methods for doing research, styles of writing)?
who else might you actively interest, make interested? what is needed for that: how to link the interests of ‘the other’ to your work? which ‘other’ to target in that attempt and which other others to forget about (for now...)?

what are the gaps to mind: language (English – or something else?), country (who wants to know about anything that happens in the Netherlands? or in Bangladesh? what are good ways to bypass a lack of intrinsic interest in places like this? what to do with the fact that part of the audience has lots of background knowledge about these places while others do not?), discipline (there are still huge investments in Sociology or Anthropology, etc and so on: how to relate to that?) background knowledge about the field/topic (e.g. marine biology may seem something only specialists would dare to read about; while, by contrast, restaurants are a topic many readers presume they know more about than a young PhD might ever hope to – etc)

it might be helpful to also discuss some texts that you and your then talk-walk companion have both read and then wonder/analyse what it is that makes those texts travel or not travel

Questions may travel...

2010-06-02T06:37:00.000-07:00

The bad thing about the walking seminar is that, in order to participate, bodies have to be present at specific places at certain times. The good thing, however, is that the question, we discuss while walking, travel very easily. So, this is what we discussed the last times:

Writing about what it not good.

Detached. Calm. Angry. Sad. Argumentative. Empathic. Clinical. What else?

Which difference does it make whether this non-good seems irreducible (e.g. we all die) or someone’s fault (e.g. X killed Y) or puzzling (e.g. why did Y die?) or a social fact (e.g. Y lived in a country in war or with lack of food) – or something else yet again? Neglect, failure, disaster, agression, what have you...

How do you know, assess, judge, feel, find out – that in your field you hit upon something that is ‘not-good’?

What are interesting examples in the literature of ways of writing about what is not good? What makes them interesting?

And the month before:

Comparing: what is it to compare?
What do you compare with what as a part of your research?
How should that help you in answering your questions, telling your stories, etc? Does it?

What is fun/difficult/striking/surprising etc. in the work of ‘comparing’?

What difference might it make to use other terms, e.g. contrasting - or which other other term would be relevant to/in your work?

What are authors/texts in which comparison figures in a way that you particularly appreciate? In which ways do you learn from them; how do you (want to) do similar/different things?

What is it to compare and how have similarity and difference to do with this?

Dutchness as an effect of walking

2010-06-02T06:25:00.000-07:00

‘Dutchness’ as an effect of walking

Rogier wrote that we were walking in the ‘heart of Dutchness’. But what is ‘Dutchness’? The polders? The windmill? The light?

Great work on the question on difference is currently undertaken by Amade M’charek. In looking at ‘race’ and ‘Dutchness’, she conceives of differences not as given, but as effects that come about in relational practices. In that sense, walking enacts a very specific version of ‘Dutchness’.

	Vorarlberger Boden	Dutch Soil
What do you wear?	Hiking boots – all other kinds of shoes would be dangerous	Whatever you like – from hiking boots to flip flop
How do you get there?	Take the car for, at least, half an hour in order to go from 500 meters to 1000 meters or 1500 meters above sea level.	Take the train for 15 minutes.
What do you see?	In the beginning trees, later other mountain ranges, in the end the valley you will return to	A lot of sky and differences in heights of several centimetres between the polders
Which landmarks do you recognise?	Mountain tops. The real experts know all their names, of course.	Wind mills
What do you hear?	Nature: If you are lucky – and high enough – the skirling of marmots. Culture: The mountain farmer with his tractor.	Nature: Frogs quaking in the polder. Culture: The farmer with his tractor.
You might be disturbed by….	Mountain bikers and in the winter skiers	Cyclists
How you know that the end is approaching…	The air is getting warmer.	You see the train station.
How does it feel?	In the beginning challenging, you start sweating as you go up. When you reach the top, you are delighted because you achieved something.	You are walking, walking and walking. Nothing limits your sight, no woods or mountain chains. And as your gaze touches upon the horizon you feel free.

In the Heart of Dutchness

2010-05-26T01:13:00.000-07:00

On this last walk Annemarie took us to the heart of dutchness: the polder. We made a roundabout near Breukelen. As we talked about how to write about bad things and how to relate to them, we passed more than one icon of Dutch landscape engineering.

On our way...

Flat...

Corridor

At this point reflections about the landscape hit upon the issue of Dutch light. This documentary on Dutch Light is highly recommended: Dutch Light.

Obligatory Group Pose

Too much?

The next Walking Seminar will be on June 11, 13.50. For more info, please email Anna Mann, A.M.Mann[at]uva.nl

The Walking Seminar Blog!

2010-05-26T00:52:00.000-07:00

After three successful episodes we've decided to start a Walking Seminar Blog. Mainly to put pictures up, but also to broadcast what we do and why it is so much fun. In short, The Walking Seminar is an monthly walk, hosted by Annemarie Mol, during which we talk-walk about various issues concerning academic work. So far, we dealt with comparing and writing about things that are not good. The idea is that talking-while-walking enhances thinking in ways not attainable behind a desk or in a seminar sitting down.

Everyone is more than welcome to attend: please email Anna Mann