Doing Research Otherwise 4th edition (2024-2025)

 « To resist this loss of a common orientation, we shall have to come down to earth; we shall have to land somewhere. So, we shall have to learn how to get our bearings, how to orient ourselves. And to do this we need something like a map of the positions imposed by the new landscape within which not only the affects of public life but also its stakes are being redefined. » (Latour 2018)

Doing Research Otherwise is the seminar series of the Deradicalizing the City project. While we investigate the intersection of urban (in)security and anti-radicalization policies, our seminar aims at reflecting on ways of anthropological inquiry that are traditionally enshrined within the social sciences, especially regarding sensitive objects and fieldworks. As such, this seminar series builds upon recent calls to decolonize social sciences. Within this impetus, scholars have consistently sought to demarcate themselves from classical research models that build on a clear opposition between researcher and respondent, and/or which objectify research participants as other. Rather, experimenting with alternative and co-creative methods and techniques, studies have sought to think and imagine knowledge production as a collaborative process whereby both academics and non-academics act as stakeholders. This also implies the exploration of research epistemologies which abandon positivistic and scientistic conceptions of knowledge, and where the central objective becomes one of understanding the way a particular condition is lived and experienced together.

Doing Research Otherwise seminar series fourth year is dedicated to the problematics of where to land, borrowing Bruno Latour’s expression. After yearly editions committed to exploring the themes of speculation, imagination, cooperation, i.e. ways to indeed do research otherwise, less extractivist and objectivist than the most traditional epistemologies in social sciences, we now want to think of how to reinscribe our co-constructed knowledge and methodologies in the urgency of contemporary times, in other words – to land. What moral or political function can have social sciences in times of crises ? How this urgency come to interplay with our way of intervening in the academic and public debate? How to write in times of urgency? As such, while the question of politics of knowledge is foundational to the realm of social sciences – from Karl Marx (1988 [1845], Max Weber (1946 [1919]), to Emile Durkheim (1893) –, it seems to have gained even more acuteness in the current context. In times of extreme state violence, ecological catastrophe, and the rise – in all of Europe – of right-wing or proto-fascist political parties, what can social sciences still do to be worth more than “an hour’s effort” in Durkheim’s famous words?

This year, the seminar will be dedicated to the problematics where to land and restitution of knowledge in catastrophic times (Stengers 2015). After having sought to explore alternative ways of constructing knowledge, we want to raise the question of how to write for, or to speak nearby in Trinh T. Minh–ha’s words (Chen 1992), how to build allies (Lazarus 1996) or to join larger coalitions (Descola and Pignocchi 2022), in sum, how to be fully part of larger societies? What kind of outputs are required from critical social sciences to be worth of times of crisis?

Weber, Max (1946). Politics as vocation, in From Max Weber, tr. and ed. Hans Gerth and C. Wright Mills. New York: Free Press.Stengers, Isabelle (2015). In Catastrophic Times: Resisting the Coming Barbarism, London: Open Humanity Press. Durkheim, Emile. (1893). De la division du travail social, Paris : Félix Alcan. Marx, Karl. (1988 [1845]). The German Ideology, Amherst : Prometheus Books. Latour, Bruno. (2018). Down to Earth. Politics in the New Climatic Regime, Cambridge : Polity Press. Chen, Nancy N. (1992), "Speaking Nearby:" A Conversation with Trinh T. Minh–ha. Visual Anthropology Review, 8: 82-91. Lazarus, Sylvain. (1996), Anthropologie du nom, Paris : Seuil. Descola Philippe and Alessandro Pignocchi. (2022). Ethnographies des mondes à venir, Paris : Seuil

Doing research otherwise

In Deradicalizing the city, we aim at changing our understanding on how to do research and how to engage with the public sphere. In order to help us think on more collaborative and hybrid ways to work in our fields, we decided to organize a seminar series with researchers, artists and activists.

Asking the question of doing research otherwise is at the heart of the project Deradicalizing the City. While the project ostensibly engages with politics of security and counter-radicalization in the urban setting, it aims to reflect on what it means to do research otherwise, in a way that doesn’t replicate mechanisms of surveillance and discipline as traditionally enshrined within the social sciences. The complicity between surveillance, the state and the social sciences has been long established, whether it concerns sociology as a ‘science de la gouvernance’ or anthropology which worked in close complicity with colonial administration in the management of indigenous populations. These mechanisms of surveillance and discipline continue up to the postcolonial context. Hence, one of the key questions of Deradicalizing the City is to examine what it means to do research in contexts of surveillance in urban settings that are mainly populated by postcolonial migrants. The seminar series will have a specific interest in the anthropology of the state, as the problematics of deradicalization as well as surveillance and disciplinary mechanisms question key political concepts and practices such as sovereignty, territory, citizenhood etc. How to investigate the state and its rationality? What sort of epistemology is needed for a critical anthropological approach of such notions? 

Additionally, this seminar series equally builds upon recent calls to decolonize social sciences. Within this impetus, scholars have consistently sought to demarcate themselves from classical research models that build on a clear opposition between researcher and respondent, and/or which objectify research participants as other. Rather, experimenting with alternative and co-creative methods and techniques, studies have sought to think and imagine knowledge production as a collaborative process whereby both academics and non-academics act as stakeholders. This also implies the exploration of research epistemologies which abandon positivistic and scientistic conceptions of knowledge, and where the central objective becomes one of understanding the way a particular condition is lived and experienced together.

Doing Research Otherwise is therefore intended as a place of lecture as well as a place of discussion, where researchers from the project can discuss their ways of doing research with lecturers who have gone through similar (or not) paths. Common interests may include ethical and methodological aspects of our collective work, as the seminar will induce a reflexive investigation on our knowledges and practices. The expected conversation cover all steps of the research process: from collecting data (and the ethical/epistemological problematics) to forms of collaboration and research outputs (academic but also more hybrid forms of writing etc.). As the seminar is intended as both methodological and epistemological, it aims at addressing the project’s objective to experiment more grounded and collaborative ways of doing research.

The seminar 2023-2024 theme’s will be centred on Speculation, Imagination, Collaborations. Speculation has in the recent years found a new entry point in the field of philosophy, social theory, and anthropology. Works like those of Isabelle Stengers (2020), Dona Haraway (2016), Saidiya Hartman (2008), Marisol de la Cadena (2015) or Anand Pandian (2019) have invited us to consider the ways in which the value of social theory, history or anthropological practices lies not only in describing the world ‘as it is’, but also ‘as it could be’. Therefore, the reflection of potentiality (Whitehead 1929) or virtuality (Deleuze 1994) opens social sciences to new ways of both inquiring into the contemporary (Rabinow 2007) as well as working with interlocutors outside the classical model of objectification and extractivism (Alcoff 2022).

While in feminist and pragmatic philosophy, this engagement with speculation is informed by a desire to perform a different understanding of the world in turmoil (Haraway 2013), in the case of Saidiya Hartman’s work it is also tied with an incapacity to have access to the stories which haven’t been archived, most notably those who were subjected to the transatlantic slave trade. Across these different perspectives, there is an understanding and desire to go beyond a descriptivist and realist account, and to engage in what Haraway describes as speculative fabulation, and Hartman (2008) as critical fabulation.

The call for an anthropology of the future that is yet to come has also been enunciated from a Global south perspective. According to Arjun Appadurai, popular aspirations, hopes and ability to think of different futures should be at the heart of the anthropological discipline (2013). While social sciences have traditionally focused of the ideas of reproduction and persistence – even in a critical fashion –, inquiry into the future as it is imagined by our interlocutors is key to what Appadurai calls the ethics of “possibility”. 

This year’s seminar aims at exploring this invitation to speculate, imagine and collaborate. What does it mean to do research of on “what is” but also “what is possible” – especially in the field of anthropology and the social sciences? In exploring this, we will engage with works and studies that seek to go beyond the established representative practices, whether it is methodologically (through the combination of arts, activism) or by allowing the “data” to speak beyond the here-and-now. How does one articulate a lived experience that is not legible, or may not be expressed directly because of the risks involved in doing so? And what does it mean to tell different stories than the one that overwhelmingly saturate a particular question? Therefore, the seminar questions the very process of knowledge construction and asks how we can envision forms of research that goes beyond the simple idea ‘evidence’ and ‘facts’.