Upcoming Call for Papers, Panelists, Funding & Employment Opportunities, Awards and Summer Courses || Prochain appel à contributions pour les publications et conférences, bourses & offre d'emploi, prix et cours d'été

2 April | avril 2015

All members of CASCA's Student Network as well as graduate program directors who have events or opportunities of interest to our members are invited to contact the moderators ([log in to unmask]). Links to detailed posting guidelines: in English and French.

Tous les membres du réseau des étudiants de CASCA ainsi que les directeurs de programmes d'études supérieures qui ont des événements ou des possibilités d'intérêt pour nos membres sont invités à contacter les modérateurs ([log in to unmask]). Voir ci-dessous pour directives sur les affectations détaillées:en français et anglais.

N/A 

[1] AAA Panel - Reinforcing Monolingual Hegemonies: the Development State in Globalization

[2] AAA Panel - Keywords for a Post-neoliberal Anthropology

[3] AAA Panel - Black Bodies, Active Agents: Foodways in the Everyday Lives of Black People

[4] AAA Panel - Globalization, Education, Neoliberalism and Negotiated Meanings - Deadline: April 3, 2015

[5] AAA Panel - Educating for Food Sovereignty: Growing Critical Food Systems Learning - Deadline: April 3, 2015

[6] AAA Panel - Anthropology of Education, Meet Kinship - Deadline: April 3, 2015

[7] AAA Panel - Promoting (Gender) Equality on a Familiar Ground: Anthropology vs. (Campus) Rape Cultures - Deadline: April 6, 2015

[8] AAA Panel - Going Public / Becoming Private: Collaboration, Nontransparency, and Hybridity between Government and Industry - Deadline: April 6, 2015

[9] AAA Panel - Technologies of Care, Sensibilities of the Self: Tracing the Roots of Caregiving through Everyday Acts of Providing for Others - Deadline: April 6, 2015

[10] AAA Panel - Activist Ethics: Pushing the Anthropology of Morality into the Crossroads of Politics and Religion - Deadline: April 6, 2015

[11] AAA Paper - Panel - Enclaves, Fragments, Shards: Managing Borders across Spatial Discontinuities - Deadline: April 7, 2015

[12] AAA Roundtable - Strange New Techniques and Familiar Friends: Current trends in anthropology research methods - Deadline: April 7, 2015

[13] AAA Panel - Cultures of Difference: The Everyday Makings of Heteronormativity - Deadline: April 8, 2015

[14] AAA Panel - Estrangement from Familiarity: Decimation and Transformation of Workers and Industrial Heritage in the Context of Deindustrialization - Deadline: April 8, 2015

[15] AAA Panel - End Times and Chronopolitics in East Asia - Deadline: April 9, 2015

[16] AAA Panel - Rethinking the Everyday: Ethnography in Worlds in Flux - Deadline: April 10, 2015

[17] AAA Panel - (Un)making Sense, Reawakening Histories: Liminal Politics as Transformative Social Action - Deadline: April 10, 2015

[18] Abstract - Journal - Etnofoor: Anthropological Journal on SECURITY - Deadline: May 1, 2015

[19] Paper - Anthology - New Directions in Educational Ethnography - Deadline: May 15, 2015

[1] Book Prize - Leeds Prize - outstanding book in urban, national and/or transnational anthropology published in 2014 - Society for Urban/National/Transnational/Global Anthropology (SUNTA) - Deadline: June 10, 2015

[1] Research Ethics Coordinator - Ottawa - Deadline: April 5, 2015

N/A

N/A

-----

N/A 

Please see my developing abstract below and let me know if you'd be interested in forming a panel for AAA this fall. Send your abstract or any questions you might have to me at [log in to unmask].

Reinforcing Monolingual Hegemonies: the Development State in Globalization

Contemporary state-level policy makers reinforce national identity through nationally emblematic, reworked ‘indigenous’ or ‘proto-national’ (Errington, 2008) philosophies, and they are tagging onto these philosophical orientations singular national languages that are supposed to contain and re-awaken such philosophical orientations among their citizens.

These indigenous philosophies: *ujamaa*—or traditional socialism—in Tanzania (Blommaert, 2014), *hexie*—harmony—in China (Wang et al., 2013), and *Pancasila*—the five pillars—in Indonesia (Zentz, 2012) have been revitalized at different points in time in the past century, and revitalized repeatedly among developing nations through different waves of decolonization and globalization. They have been deployed to (often violently) enforce an inherent, “natural” and “self-defendable form of power and coercion that can be used to impose certain order and normativity” (Wang et al. 2013). In this panel we will explore national language policy statements and the histories that they are embedded within, among various developing nations, in order to examine trends and variations as these states vie for acceptance among an international community, while simultaneously consolidating and naturalizing state-level hegemony by politically and culturally unifying their nations.

Colleagues, I am looking for another presenter or two for a panel proposal that is almost the mirror-image of what EuyRyung Jun posted recently. My idea is to explore keywords either from research practice or everyday life that seem to resist incorporation by neoliberal logics, or fundamentally challenge them. I see this as part of drawing a sharper distinction between emerging (thoroughly neoliberal) discourses of knowledge production such as tech-driven higher ed reform and a kind of critical practice or attention that anthropology (very broadly construed) can claim and build.

Below is a draft of the abstract. David Roediger has agreed to discuss the papers. If you are interested in taking part, please get in touch with me (Ben). 

Keywords for a Post-neoliberal Anthropology

Despite devastating evidence against theories of efficient markets and their universal applicability to social projects, neoliberal thought remains hegemonic in much public discourse in the U.S.A. Among this set of dominant ideas is a tacit and prescriptive anthropology that posits an extra-cultural human nature characterized by individualist self-interest, financial rationality, and a continuum of responsibility and pathology that determines worthiness. Though this construction of the human is informed by highly specific historical contexts and sources, it has assumed the mantle of transcendent universality, taken to provide both a rationale for and evidence of neoliberal restructuring of modern society. “Capitalist realism” (Fisher 2009) declares the inevitability of this theory as a baseline for both understanding and engaging human subjects, in the spirit of Margaret Thatcher’s succinct slogan, “There is no alternative.”

Critical scholarship has run apace, finding examples of neoliberalism just about everywhere, and revealing much about its operative logics. What has been less evident or visible is a mode of cultural critique that explicitly offers alternatives, highlighting “epistemological differences and social organization” (Gershon 2011) that diverge from the models of neoliberalism and its implied anthropology. This panel explores what resources anthropology might now offer to break the assumed consensus around a neoliberal conception of the human and its normative social formations, ethics, and subjectivities. Decades of work in Marxist, decolonizing, reflexive, feminist, queer, activist, and other critical modes of anthropology suggest what these resources might be. The panel assembles some in the form of keywords in order to contribute to a post-neoliberal anthropological vocabulary. Whether encountered in self-conscious anti-neoliberal politics, habits and practices of everyday living, “the traditions of the oppressed” (Benjamin 1940), non-marketized moral or other value systems, or in meta-discourse about scholarship itself, this vocabulary aspires to offer an alternate route to public intervention in a moment when scholars have been enjoined to assert their relevance by gearing or translating their work into forms and language that are amenable to a neoliberal public sphere. The panel thus embodies an anthropology that uses knowledge built on lived experience to shift public discourse away from neoliberal logics and assumptions, in order to imagine, narrate, and practice something different.

Please send proposals (titled by a keyword) to Ben Chappell: [log in to unmask].

Ben Chappell

Associate Professor

and Director of Graduate Studies

Department of American Studies

University of Kansas

Lawrence, Kansas, USA

Please see the CFP below. If anyone is interested, please contact me directly.

-Ashanté  [log in to unmask]

******* Session Title: Black Bodies, Active Agents: Foodways in the Everyday Lives of Black People

 In recent years, the focus on food access in predominantly Black neighborhoods in the United States has intensified, highlighting the unequal distribution of grocery stores, the strains of rising food prices for low-income families, and components of alternative food movements as solutions to a broken food system. In international contexts, Black people around the world have been constructed as recipients of various types of food aid with little attention to the foodways and food-related strategies created amid global inequalities. In this way, when it comes to food justice and food aid, Black people have been constructed as risk objects in need of help rather than active agents who are constructing and navigating local food systems and health-related ideologies.

 In this panel, we build on the conference theme of “Familiar/Strange” by considering how common practices in food aid abroad and food justice movements in the United States reify notions of Black bodies as helpless, in need of outsides to “bring good food” (Slocum 2007; Guthman 2008). We highlight how “familiar”  neoliberal practices of service, health education, and cooking demonstrations sometimes exclude the real, everyday ways Black people navigate their spatial contexts, food inequalities, and ideologies about health/healthiness that are inscribed in food aid and food justice movements. The processes through which food access, food justice, and food aid are developed are laden with assumptions that have far reaching implications for both communities in which research or aid is taking place and broader conversations about racial inequalities and access.

We are putting together a panel on Globalization and Education. If you are interested in participating on this panel, please send a 250-word abstract by April 3rd, 2015.

Proposed session draft

Globalization, Education, Neoliberalism and Negotiated Meanings

In this panel we trace how colonial and neoliberal educational discourses, including those of commercialized programs, national and supranational education policies, and “educational” media, move, insert and are given meaning by and in communities outside Europe and the continental United States. While substantial work in this area focuses on the global circulation of neoliberal educational practices, this panel examines how teachers in these communities negotiate extralocal mandates, influences and “best practices”; curricular pressures from the core in their daily practice (Canagarajah, 2002). Following Bhabha’s (1994) notion of hybrid practices, teachers in the periphery have tactics for dealing with and opposing curricular pressures from the core. These tactics at times result in the reproduction of dominant curricular ideologies but they also resist and transform those ideologies; giving them new meaning in local contexts.  Organizers of this panel seek papers that address how teachers in the periphery deal with globally circulating discourses in light of the desire to retain educational practices and cultural knowledge central to their locations.

If you have questions please feel free to contact me at [log in to unmask] 

Allison Henward, Ph.D

Assistant Professor of Early Childhood Education

Institute for Teacher Education

Curriculum Studies

University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa

Everly Hall  224E

1776 University Avenue

Honolulu, HI 96822

Office: 808-956-3977

https://coe.hawaii.edu/directory/?person=henward 

Please email one of the panel organizers with your abstract (250 words) by this Friday, April 3rd.

Call for Papers for AAA 2015

November 18-22 2015. Denver, CO

*Session title: Educating for Food Sovereignty: Growing Critical Food Systems Learning*

 Session organizers: David Meek (University of Alabama) and Rebecca Tarlau (Soka University)

Food is both the source of and solution to a variety of the world's social and environmental problems. Over the past two decades, schools have begun to increasingly offering food systems education, incorporating curricular modules about food production and hand-on gardening activities. The popularity of these programs is exemplified by initiatives such as Michelle Obama's Let's Move campaign and Alice Water's Edible Schoolyard Project. 

Through studying subjects like 'food miles,' students begin to understand where their food comes from, and through experiential activities, gain basic gardening skills. This increasing pedagogical attention to food represents an international push to develop "local" food systems. However, in recent years, this focus on the "local" has been critiqued  (DuPuis and Goodman 2005), because it can mask inequalities in terms of socioeconomic and racial access to wholesome food. Is the field of food systems education in need of a similar critical engagement? The 2015 Annual Meeting theme of "Familiar/Strange" calls on us to cast "common sense in new light by making the familiar seem strange and the strange seem familiar", denaturalizing "taken-for-granted frames and expanding the horizons of students and public alike." As Apple and Aasen (2003: 1) indicate, "education, every aspect of it one can imagine, is political." This session sheds a new gaze on school gardens by centering an analysis of power and politics within food systems education.

Presenters will provide critical perspectives that illuminate the familiar/strange nature of food systems education from an anthropological perspective. The overarching questions guiding the proposed session are: *1) *How can food systems education help redress socioeconomic and environmental inequalities by assisting communities to attain food sovereignty?* 2) *What pedagogies and principles are best suited to help students connect critical reflection on food systems with transformative action? Through presentations of original research and a moderated discussion, participants and attendees of this session will engage complex questions concerning the intersection of food systems education, food sovereignty, critical knowledge production, popular education, and transformative action. By participating in this session, scholars will help develop critical food systems education as a new area of anthropological inquiry.

We are interested in two types of presentations. First, we welcome analyses of food systems educational programs that already incorporate critical perspectives. These presentations might include discussions of how these programs integrate elements of

--food sovereignty

--seed sovereignty

--agroecology

--critical pedagogy

--food justice

--cooperative production

--critical place based pedagogies

--decolonial pedagogies

--praxis

Secondly, we are also interested in analyses of food systems education programs that *choose* not to offer a critical perspective. These presentations might explore how the following factors shape the apolitical nature of school garden programs:

----political realities

----economic imperatives

----perceptions of race

----ethnic traditions

----school system constraints

----dominance of standards-based teaching

This session invites participation of researchers working in a wide variety of domestic and international contexts in which school gardens are being developed, including, but not limited to, K-12 schools, private and public universities, international non-governmental organizations, social movements, and governmental agencies.

Potential participants should send their abstracts (250 words max) to David Meek ([log in to unmask]) and Rebecca Tarlau ([log in to unmask]) by April 3rd 2015. Please include the title of the paper, author's name, affiliation, and email.

For conference requirements please see "Requirements for Section Invited and Volunteered Submissions" here: http://www.aaanet.org/meetings/Call-for-Papers.cfm

References

DuPuis, E. M. and D. Goodman (2005). "Should we go "home" to eat?: toward a reflexive politics of localism." Journal of Rural Studies 21(3): 359-371

Apple, M. W. and P. Aasen (2003). The state and the politics of knowledge.New York, Routledge.

Below please see an abstract for a proposed panel for next fall's AAA. If you're interested in participating, please email me a 250-word abstract by Friday, April 3. Also feel free to be in touch via email withquestions or comments: [log in to unmask] OR [log in to unmask].

Thanks,

Brendan

Brendan H. O’Connor

Assistant Professor, School of Transborder Studies

Arizona State University

480.727.4741

*Anthropology of Education, Meet Kinship*

In the spirit of “making the familiar strange,” this panel invites anthropologists of education to consider what *kinship* – one of the most familiar, traditional preoccupations of cultural anthropology – might contribute to our subfield. While the hoary concept of kinship has received renewed attention in anthropological research (e.g., Sahlins, 2013; Stasch, 2009), the same has not been true, by and large, in the anthropology of education. A good deal of work has focused on family members’ involvement with children’s schooling or on families’ positioning within institutional processes, but relatively few researchers have approached these issues from the perspective of kinship *per se.* However, foundational work in the anthropology of education engaged with questions of kinship in extremely productive ways: for example, the study of kin networks of reciprocity and mutual aid among Mexican-origin families led researchers to suggest that teacher-student relationships could be reimagined along the same lines; subsequently, it was found that teachers’ cultivation of quasi-fictive kinship with students transformed the teachers’ perspectives and relationships (Vélez-Ibáñez & Greenberg, 1992). To give another example, ethnographic investigation of families’ understanding of the meaning and role of kinship ties, or “familism,” revealed significant gaps between families’ and schools’ cultural models of good parenthood and parental obligations (Valdés, 1996). What is clear, from these two examples, is that engagement with kinship does not just entail cultural description, but orients us, as researchers and practitioners, to new ways of thinking critically about relationships in and outside of schools and envisioning alternative possibilities. This panel therefore proposes to examine the relevance of kinship – not understood merely in terms of blood ties, but broadly conceived as “mutuality of being” (Sahlins, 2013, p. 2) – to pressing contemporary questions in the anthropology of education. 

*Promoting (Gender) Equality on a Familiar Ground: Anthropology vs. (Campus) Rape Cultures*

Organizer: Tal Nits?n, University of British Columbia.

Discussant: Peggy R. Sanday, University of Pennsylvania.

Anthropologists have been studying violence and sexual violence all over the world and to an extent within Western Cultures; but what is our role when it becomes evident that such patterns of violence are part of the institutions our lives as scholars, researchers and educators are organized around?

Incidents of sexual violence on university and college campuses have become a common news topic in the past few years. Many of us attend or teach on campuses that struggle to find appropriate responses to such reports and to implement policies, programs and practices that will promote gender equality and safe campus life. Is the reported sexual violence a mere reflection of general society?s patters and ideologies of gender inequality? Are there unique patterns for sexual violence taking place on campuses? Can universities become leading institutions to transform general society?s gender inequality?

Familiar/Strange, the 2015 annual meeting theme, presents an opportune context to re-examine the question of sexual violence on campus by examining the familiar as strange and denaturalizing taken-for-granted institutional structures. It invites us to look at the us/them division as a continuum of contemporary relations of power and powerlessness, at the ongoing relation between universities as social institutions and general society, and to consider the role of anthropology in both highlighting awareness and impacting policy.

In this panel we will examine Campus Cultures as anthropologists who spend much of their day in this culture. Estranging our familiar environment we will look at universities as social institutions that maintain and reproduce inherently conflicted agendas. On the one hand, they represent and uphold conservative traditions through various institutions such as Greek life, sports team, and formal hierarchies. On the other, they are seen as a liberal haven, a space for young people to be intellectually challenged, as well as to explore and experience new, previously constrained and regulated, behaviors such as alcohol consumption and sexual explorations. How do these inherent contradictions aggravate the situation of gender inequality and incidents of sexual violence on campuses? And at the same time, how can we harness universities? creative, intellectual and enthusiastic potential into promoting rape free campus cultures?  Can we further motivate the citizens of tomorrow to continue challenging gender inequalities outside of their campus lives?

This panel invites scholars, educators and activists engaged with policies,

programs and research meant to promote gender equality and safe campus life to consider their position and work within universities? conflicted natureand to reflect on their efforts as insiders/outsiders, us/them. How can we use anthropological theories and methods to (re)produce new understanding of these situations? How do our particular positions within campuses impact our ability to challenge gender inequalities and promote safe campus cultures? Which particular roles can be taken by full vs. junior faculty members? How does faculty?s gender identity influence our contribution to these efforts? Which institutional collaborations are made possible and proved potent? How can we redesign hierarchical relations such as graduate supervision    that enable abuses? How can we remodel field schools to guarantee participants? safety?

Potential participants should send their abstracts (250 words max) to Tal Nits?n ([log in to unmask]) by April 6th, 2015. (Early submissions are encouraged). Please include the title of the paper, author?s name, affiliation, and email. If accepted, panel presentations will be limited to 10 min, to ensure sufficient time for discussion.

Our discussant is Dr. Elana Shever.

Interested panelists should submit an abstract to me at [log in to unmask] by April 6. Earlier expressions of interest are appreciated.

Thank you!

Leksa Chmielewski Lee

PhD Candidate, Anthropology

University of California, Irvine

AAA 2015 CFP: Going Public / Becoming Private: Collaboration, Nontransparency, and Hybridity between Government and Industry

Conditions of late capitalism, socialism and post-socialism have demonstrated that when it comes to relations between government and industry, myriad configurations are possible. NGOs and state-owned enterprises push the boundaries of what might be considered a business or a corporation, while privatization and corruption circumscribe new and strange members within constellations of the state, government agencies (Stark 1996), public property (Verdery 1997), and public money. Mindful that what we consider to be public must be made public (Latour and Weibel 2005), and that multiple economic systems operate, cheek by jowl, in the same spaces and institutions (Gibson-Graham 2006), papers on this panel ethnographically examine how forms of relationality between industry and government at all levels reshape our understandings of the state, local government, small and medium enterprises, and corporations, and reconfigure notions about what institutions, property, and forms of value are public or private. Ultimately, we explore how understandings of government-industry relations come to be, and the effects these understandings bring about in the world.

Papers for this panel might consider:

NGOs, State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs)

Special Economic Zones (SEZs)

Corporate governance

Public-private partnerships

Corruption, transparency and nontransparency

Taxation or insurance sweetheart deals

Intellectual property rights guarantees

Utility monopolies

Government land seizures and eminent domain

Too-big-to-fail financial institutions, moral hazard

CFP AAA 2015

Panel Title:

Technologies of Care, Sensibilities of the Self: Tracing the Roots of Caregiving through Everyday Acts of Providing for Others

Organizers:

Anna Corwin, PhD, Stanford University

Felicity Aulino, PhD, MPH, University of Massachusetts Amherst

Panel Abstract:

Care emerges in human interaction around the world in ways that are both familiar and strange. In recent years, there has been an explosion of interest in the topic of care in the anthropological literature – from the moral import of caregiving to the attenuation of care amidst neoliberal reform, from caregiving as a mode of compassion to care as coercion in structures of inequality. Yet while pressing social concerns and demographic changes warrant continued interest and excitement, we are now faced with diminishing returns on care as an analytical concept, as presumptions about forms and experiences of care often override more ethnographically calibrated explorations of care as it emerges for individuals in situ.

This panel seeks to amplify the critical potential of care by exploring the problem of making ethnographically visible the invisible undercurrents of care in a variety of contexts. In particular, we call for sustained attention to micro-interactions, habituated physical practices and basic psychological dynamics. How do the rote forms of providing for others embody large-scale social, economic, political, and religious structures? In what ways do practices that are repeated over and over again influence lived experience in the world? And how can the contours of history and ideology make visible aspects of this everyday experience that are, essentially, hidden in plain sight?

Together, the papers on this panel serve as an ad hoc comparative project, in which habituated or otherwise repetitious practices are tracked for their contributions to our understanding of care. 

If you would like to participate, please submit an abstract of 250 words by April 6 to: [log in to unmask] and [log in to unmask]

Activist Ethics: Pushing the Anthropology of Morality into the Crossroads of Politics and Religion

Organizers:

John Mathias (University of Michigan)

Bruno Renero-Hannan (University of Michigan)

Discussants:

Kristin Norget (McGill University)

Omri Elisha (Queens College, CUNY)

This panel explores how the study of activists can contribute to the anthropology of ethics, a field whose foundational concepts have been developed primarily in the anthropology of religion.  Activist efforts at social and political transformation also involve imagining, cultivating, and contesting values—thus, ethical life is central to activism for many of the same reasons that ethics are important to religion.  But how might studying activists make us think about ethics differently? Here, we treat this broad topic by examining various ways in which projects of political transformation are made sacred, spiritual, or otherwise akin to religion.  Rather than treating activism and religion as separate domains for the study of ethics, we seek papers that keep both of these in the conversation, so as to consider what is new about activist ethics and what we have seen before.  In doing so, we aim to produce concepts and analyses with theoretical purchase beyond the ethics of activists, to contribute to anthropology’s understanding of ethics more generally.

We invite papers that venture into the borderlands between politics and religion, coming from either side—for example, by examining the political activism of religious collectivities, on one hand, or, on the other, by examining the pieties of activist commitment and the various ways in which projects of political transformation are “consecrated” or “spiritualized.”  What happens to ethics when it goes activist?  What happens to activism when it starts moralizing?  Possible topics for discussion might include:

—How does the study of activists challenge, affirm, or supplement recent proposals for the theorization of morality in anthropology?

—How does the study of ethics help to clarify or rethink our notions of what is essential to activism?

—In what ways does a focus on the ethical dimensions of activism highlight, blur, or complicate distinctions between political and religious practices?

Studies of religious practice remain central to much recent theoretical work in the anthropology of ethics, as they long have been (for some recent examples, see Hirschkind 2006, Laidlaw 2002, Mahmood 2005, Robbins 2009, Zigon 2008).  This may be with good reason, since religious practices often work intensively to shape ethical life.  By the same logic, however, activist projects of social change are crucial sites for producing and reflecting on ethical practices, the study of which may lead to new theoretical insights.  While this panel agrees with scholarship that treats the connection between ethical life and religion as historically contingent (e.g. Keane 2014), we nonetheless recognize the foundational role such connections have played in the anthropology of ethics.  We turn to the study of activist ethics as a way of testing and building on those foundations.

If you are interested in contributing a paper to this panel, please send a paper abstract to jmathias(at)umich.edu, or vago(at)umich.edu, before April 6, 2015. 

We need one more paper for the following panel

“Enclaves, Fragments, Shards: Managing Borders across Spatial Discontinuities”

Organizers: Franck Billé (Cambridge) and Jeffrey Twu (Columbia)

Discussant: Sarah Green (Helsinki)

Abstracts are invited from anthropologists, geographers and colleagues in related disciplines. Please email your abstract (250 words maximum) by April 7 to Franck ([log in to unmask]) and Jeffrey ([log in to unmask]).

=============

Territorial enclaves have always aroused curiosity and fascination. As pieces of national territory located within another nation, they seem to run counter to a political imaginary of national integrity and spatial coherence (Jones 2009). They are frequently described as hangovers from the medieval era where ties of loyalty were the primary organizing principle of political space (Catudal 1979; Vinokurov 2007). The few enclaves that are found worldwide are viewed as messy (Reeves 2014), and “problems” to be resolved for their respective nations to achieve full status and equality (Whyte 2002).

Most enclaves are in fact modern creations that speak to a core political concern viewing nation-states as cultural, ethnic, and linguistic homogenous entities (Vinokurov 2007). The republics of Central Asia, whilst occasionally attracting the moniker “Absurdistan,” have been deliberate attempts at bringing order to an ethnically diverse and linguistically amorphous region. Similarly, the ossification of numerous enclaves and counter-enclaves found across the India-Bangladesh border (Cons 2012) has sought to delineate religious and linguistic affiliations and map them unambiguously.

Taking as its point of departure the dual nature of enclaves as exceptional political entities AND exemplary features of contemporary political mappings of space, this panel will explore the ways in which the size and territorial discontinuity of enclaves impact on practices of sovereign control. The presentations in the panel will look at how the political imagination of the nation-state as extending both upwards (airspace) and downwards is physically unenforceable at the scale of the enclaves, thereby creating disruptions between the surface and other layers of sovereignty. While cartographic discontinuities may be unambiguously inscribed at the surface through signs, gates or walls, the situation both above and below is far less clear. Indeed, the cartographic insulation of enclaves is belied by shared natural resources (water supply), and infrastructure (sewer systems, telephone cables) that enmeshes them into their surroundings and makes their very existence possible and sustainable.

The conceptualization of enclaves as volumes rather than flat surfaces is also illuminating for the study of borders and border-making practices overall. Taking on board the recent volumetric turn in architecture and political geography (Adey 2010, Bridge 2013, Elden 2008, Weizman 2007) the presentations of the panel will ask to what extent lines of demarcation on the maps can be readily transcribed onto other dimensions of space. If principles of spatial organization in aerial and subterranean realms do not coincide with borders on the ground, but are precise and unambiguous nonetheless, this panel further questions the viability of territorial clarity by foregrounding the enmeshed, interwoven, and interdependent nature of “sovereign” enclaves at other spatial dimensions.

Some of the questions addressed by the presentations will include:

- Do territorial enclaves confirm, compromise, or reinvent the logic of cartographical demarcations?

- If borders are not mere facsimiles transcribed from one spatial plane to another, how are they managed differently across spatial planes? And how does this difference in management impact imaginations of territorial integrity?

- What are the strategies adopted by human populations inhabiting fragmented spaces such as enclaves? Are they necessarily victims of convoluted territorial arrangements, or can these spaces afford opportunities and access not available elsewhere?

- Given the embeddedness of enclaves within an infrastructural network that does not abide by borderlines, to what extent do shared pipelines, sewage systems, and other underground utilities that sprawl across state boundaries challenge existing technologies of map-making? Might one argue that state cartography operates upon an antiquated logic of horizontal binarism, which fails to describe contemporary exploitations in spatial dimension previously inaccessible to humans? Do enclaves confirm or contest territorial assumptions in other spatial planes?

References

Adey, Peter. 2010. Aerial Life: Spaces, Mobilities, Affects. Oxford: John Wiley & Sons 

Bridge, Gavin. 2013. “Territory, now in 3D!,” Political Geography 34:.55-57

Catudal, Honore  Marc. 1979. The Exclave Problem of Western Europe. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.

Cons, Jason. 2012. “Narrating Boundaries: Framing and Contesting Suffering, Community, and Belonging in Enclaves Along the India-Bangladesh Border,” Political Geography 35: 37-46

Elden, Stuart. 2013. “Secure the Volume: Vertical Geopolitics and the Depth of Power,” Political Geography 34:35-51

Jones, Reece. 2009. “Sovereignty and Statelessness in the Border Enclaves of India and Bangladesh,” Political Geography 28: 373-381.

Reeves, Madeleine. 2014. Border Work: Spatial Lives of the State in Rural Central Asia. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Vinokurov, Evgeny. 2007. A Theory of Enclaves. Lantham, MD: Lexington Books.

Weizman, Eyal. 2007. Hollow Land: Israel’s Architecture of Occupation. London: Verso

Whyte, Brendan Richard. 2002. Waiting for the Esquimo: A Historical and Documentary Study of the Cooch Behar Enclaves of India and Bangladesh. Melbourne: University of Melbourne Press.

I'm excited to be organizing a roundtable to discuss new directions in research methods for the AAA's in Denver!

Please circulate the following description:

"Strange New Techniques and Familiar Friends: Current trends in anthropology research methods"

The practice of cultural inquiry is changing along with the technologies and methods we use to study people, places, and processes. Smart surveys can be administered via touch screen, participant observation and interviews completed over Skype, fieldnotes captured with electronic pens that translate to digital text and sound files. Many growing areas of anthropology including environmental, disaster responses, food studies, climate change, energy policy, medical, social movements, and STS research are engaging new methodologies and borrowing from outside the discipline. Researchers are experimenting in active dialogue with research participants over social media such as Instagram and Twitter, using internet communities for data collection, documenting mutualism in human-non-human relationships, and mapping spatial presentations of social networks through GIS mapping. Combined, these advances and experimental approaches are changing the face of ethnographic research. In this session w e will explore new and revised methods used to capture data on the human experience and the new (and familiar) dilemmas they present for ethical and robust research. How is research being pushed, improved, or challenged with current trends in technology? Whose voices are elevated or silenced through online engagements? What types of research methods are being generated with the new focus on materiality with the "ontological turn"? Are traditional ethnographic methods benefiting from these diversified techniques? What is lost and what is gained?

This roundtable will serve as a means for participants to reflect on recent advances and fusions in the research methods they use and to discuss the many facets that ethnographic research may take in the next decade. We will consider new ethical challenges, synergistic products, and new possibilities for anthropology research.

To participate please contact session organizer via email ([log in to unmask]) with a topic you would like to discuss by Tuesday April 7, 2015. Feel free to write with questions in advance of the deadline!

Thanks,

Caela 

Please see below our draft call for papers for the AAA 2015. If you're interested please send abstracts of approximately 250 words to Sertaç Sehlikoglu ([log in to unmask]) and Matthew McGuire ([log in to unmask]) by the 8th of April 2015.

Please feel free to share and contact us if you have any questions.

Thank you.

Cultures of Difference: The Everyday Makings of Heteronormativity

Any attempt to anthropologically study heteronormativity  involves multiple challenges, both theoretically and ethnographically. Works on globalization have suggested that there has been a growth in people all over the world identifying with Western models of sexuality, and has tracked the growth of gay scenes and other markers of identity (Altman 1996a, 1996b; Boellstorff, 2005, 2008). However, theory and ethnography has begun to trouble sexuality as a point of reference in certain parts of the world, and has also put under question pervasive divisions between the non-normative (homosexual, LGBT, queer) and the heterosexual/normative. Works on non-Western contexts questions the hetero-homo binary, and problematizes it as a form of Western hegemony (Massad 2008; Puar 2007; Boyce, 2006, 2007, 2008; Boellstorff 2011; Khanna, 2009 )  There has been less critical attention applied to the terms heterosexuality or heternormativity in this literature. Following Jackson, we take as our departure the idea that, ‘heterosexuality…is not a singular monolithic entity- it exists in many variants.’ (2006: 105). In studying sexuality from a queer perspective it becomes possible to take apart the mundane makings of (hetero)normativities, and begin to analyze the cracks and divisions within. In a context where both sexuality and normativity have become questioned, how might we understand institutions and practices that take at their heart the relationship between men and women as gendered persons?

We suggest one way to do this is to look in two places. Firstly, what Judith Butler (1990) calls the “heterosexual matrix”, which refers to the socially constructed relationship between sex (i.e. anatomy), gender (i.e. identity/subjectivity), and sexual desire. And secondly, Lauren Berlant’s concept “institutions of intimacy” sheds light to the makings of particular desires, aspirations, and also narratives “about something to be shared.” (1998:281). In other words, heterosexual culture simultaneously institutionalizes its narrations and normalcies, so that it operates in a way towards preserving its own coherency. Indeed, “sex, gender and sexuality are the product of a set of interactions with material and symbolic condition, mediated through language and representation” (Moore 1994). Thus, ethnographic enquiries are able to look closer at normalcies, institutions and practices that involve and create hugely diverse relationships between men and women (e.g. marriage, dating, consumer practices etc.)

In this light, we suggest that, in order to understand the complexity of heteronormative social relations, it is important to examine ordinary makings of heteronormativity and other normativities, whether they involve gender and sexuality or not.. . Kathleen Stewart (2007) proposes that the ordinary realm of everyday life is quite affective, yet looks so deeply banal that we often fail to recognize its complexity and its potency. Yet, “its very banality calls us to understand the technologies that produce its ordinariness” (Berlant and Warner 1998: 549). For this aim, we aim to further develop a conversation between the theories on ordinariness, banality and everyday life and those on gender and sexuality, with particular focus on heteronormativity.

This panel represents an attempt to discuss the ordinary makings of heteronormativity in order a) to contribute to the term itself, and b) to work out how it might be engaged as a topic for ethnography.

With this, we aim to ask the following questions:

•       How, as anthropologists, should we ethnographically approach the makings of heterosexuality?

•       What are the everyday makings of heteronormativity and heterosexuality across the world?

•       How does heterosexuality work in everyday contexts? What institutions does it involve and how are normalcies produced?

•       How is heterosexual made normal in a context where it didn't previously exist? How does it fix ideas of relationality that are not necessarily related to sexuality?

•       If heterosexuality is about normalcies and the institutions, then isn’t it also a way of knowing the world?

These questions are not exhaustive, and we welcome ethnographically grounded work that specifically examines the makings of heteronormativity from a broad range of geographical settings.

We are attempting to organize a session for the Denver AAA Meetings on 'Estrangement from Familiarity: Decimation and Transformation of Workers and Industrial Heritage in the Context of Deindustrialization'. Here is a tentative session abstract:

Industrial production has dominated global political economy for essentially the last two centuries producing a certain familiarity, and after Herzfeld (2005), a 'faux' intimacy between industry and society. However, in the rapid and intense environmental and economic transformations of the last two decades where industrial production shifts sites and declines precipitously, often leaving challenged environmental conditions in its wake, the familiarity of society and industrial workers and their 'heritages' breeds a 'contempt' and estrangement both of workers toward their system as well as state officials and business interests toward industrial sites and labor. The former, after Gaston Gordillo (2014) recognize themselves as 'rubble left in the wake of capitalist and imperialist endeavors… and the (spiritual) and material manifestation of the violence and dislocation that created it'. The latter offer paternalistic and benign neglect at best or, more typically, active opposition. In this way, then, effective strategies for development of Industrial Heritage sites are thus rendered moot.

This session thus explores the ways industrial workers and industrial heritage are portrayed in conditions of deindustrialization and environmental stress. Anthropology and cognate disciplines have paid considerable attention to the economic and social consequences of deindustrialization. However, questions of how industrial workers are represented in such conditions, what the diverse sources of those portrayals are, and whether and how such portrayals influence views of, treatment, conservation, and preservation of industrial heritage remain largely unexplored.

The papers consider public representations of and discourses about workers and their related work sites, technological processes and socio-cultural practices in classic occupations of manufacturing, mining, dock-work. Papers consider how the transformed conditions of labor as well as the remains of industrial work sites, technologies, social institutions, ritual practices and all that fits within the rubric of 'Heritage', are conceived and presented in intellectual discourse, public forums, media, literature, and the arts. Papers further consider how perceptions of industrial workers and sites influence policy. Thus, where diverse 'heritages' compete for scarce resources, the overly familiar and actually and potentially threatening industrial landscape suffers in comparison to 'sister histories'. This is embellished further by tension between the decline of industrial work sites, and the environmental costs of both continued industrial production processes and remediation of industrial heritage sites. Under these conditions Industrial Heritage is either ignored or, if not ignored, then denigrated.

The issue remains how to transform discourses and practices toward labor and heritage from objects of neglect, privatization, or active destruction to a force for rejuvenation of social practice? We assert a direct relationship between discourses of labor and treatment of heritage. What types of interventions and practices might exist or might be developed to address the partners to this relationship, so as to re-familiarize communities and society with their estranged forbearers and their heritages?

The deadline for session submission to the AAA is April 15, so please let us know of your interest soon, give us an idea of the topic and approach of a prospective paper, and plan to submit an abstract by April 8 at the very latest. In responding to this call for abstracts, please copy both David Kideckel ([log in to unmask]) and Jaro Stacul ([log in to unmask]).

Call for Papers

AAA Annual Meetings

Denver, Colorado

November 18-22, 2015

End Times and Chronopolitics in East Asia

Co-Organizers:

Jerry Zee, UC Berkeley

Emily Ng, UC Berkeley

Discussant:

Hoon Song, University of Minnesota

East Asian modernities have long entertained a complex relationship to concepts of historical and national emergence in time, where sovereignty and political action have been closely articulated with an action on time itself. From post-war developmental state apparatuses to a contemporary shift of global geopolitical and economic power, investment in the future has been a cornerstone of Asian state formations. However, adjacent to and within the great futures through which a series of East Asian states have elaborated their sovereignty, and in simultaneity with a sense that the future will be centered in Asia, this time of the state vies with a proliferation of visions of the end of the world and the end of time, small and large. From millenarian whispers that announce a coming spiritual-political apocalypse to narrations of a world ecological collapse emanating from Asian development, the contemporary in Asia is marked variously as a time of waiting—a present oriented toward  an ending to come, in contradistinction to  the promissory times of the state.

This panel considers the figure of Asia in contemporary imaginations of world-history as well as narrations of coming time in Asia, through which a modernist chronopolitics—a politics of time—is reorganized through the superimposition of temporal trajectories. It considers how the reorganization of past and  future vis-a-vis times of coming ending suggests a pivoting of political investment in time and history. While classical accounts of Asian politics rest on a distinction between the stagnant cyclicity of societies outside of history and the emergence of nations into progressive linear time, we ask how the disruption of this binary through oblique temporalities might offer other ways of thinking politics in Asia and beyond.

We welcome paper abstracts that think through and with the proliferation of micro-temporalities and eschatologies in East Asia that reorganize sovereignty or the time of the political, beyond the classical orientalist binary of cyclical and linear time. We are looking to build a panel that juxtaposes ethnographic moments from a series of sites across East Asia, to consider displacements and emplacements of temporality through regional imaginaries. Papers on disasters fast and slow and endings of different kinds are welcome!

Please email the panel organizers, Jerry and Emily at [log in to unmask] and [log in to unmask] with abstracts, questions, or comments - if you have an idea and are interested in workshopping it into a paper, please contact us as well. 

Deadline for abstract submissions: Thursday April 9, 2015.

[CFP] AAA 2015, Denver

Panel Title

Rethinking the Everyday: Ethnography in Worlds in Flux

Organizers: David Rojas (Bucknell University) and Daena Funahashi (Yale-NUS College)

Panel Abstract 

What becomes of the everyday within shifting worlds in which the exceptional is the norm? Ethnographic fieldwork is often understood as a method that requires an eye for capturing the “everyday.” Anthropologists have thus focused on the rhythmic qualities of everyday life offering insights into worlds emerging through customary practices, seasonal human/non-human entanglements and particular ontological perspectives. However, what becomes of the ethnographic method in situations in which the “every” of the everyday often takes the form of singular arrhythmic events? How can we ethnographically approach the everyday within temporal horizons in which the present day fails to be captured on the basis of its similarities with the past or its expected resemblance with the future? In a world in flux, what possibility is there to recover the everyday, and was the everyday ever there to be recovered?

We invite papers that rethink classic methodological questions on the “everyday” in the face of political, economic, socio-environmental, and medical crises. We take issue with ethnographic approaches that equate the everyday with the normal. Of particular interest to us are papers that ask: What can anthropologists learn from the practices of groups and people that experience, not the weight of tradition nor the imposition of foreign orders, but the unraveling of normalcy? How can we talk about the everyday from the standpoint of such unraveling? 

If you are interested, please send us your paper abstract (250 words) no later than 4/10 to [log in to unmask]!

*(Un)making Sense, Reawakening Histories: Liminal Politics as Transformative Social Action*

Panel organizer: Emanuela Grama

This panel focuses broadly on liminal politics, that is, on moments of convergence that seem to come out of nowhere.Simultaneously cherished as ?miracles,? embraced as ?surprises,? acknowledged as ?ruptures,? xperienced as ?shocks,? or rejected as ?crises? by different social actors, these moments of radical controversy reveal contestations over broader categories and values.Often, their sudden eruption is rather an illusion, as these events have already had a complex, though silent, gestation (Alain Badiou in Gaston Gordillo, AE 2015).

An ethnographic approach to the recent histories and social contexts in hich these ?surprises? are embedded becomes thus crucial for demystifying these events. How do social actors make sense of the unexpected? Are there some who engage in strategies of ?backshadowing,? (Gary Morson & Michael Bernstein,1999) by looking for signs and explanations in the recent past? Do they attempt to marginalize the events? momentum and/or gain cultural capital by adopting the mantra of ?I already knew it? (sometimes followed by ?and I will tell you how?)? At the same time, are there others who view these same moments of ?crisis? as ?surprises,? that is, as latent possibilities emerging out of infinite forms of ?sideshadowing? or other possible presents? How do the latter acknowledge the fluidity of these moments as ?possibilities/potentialities? (not as inevitabilities) when trying to stabilize them and transform them into key nodes of change?

Papers in this panel so far examine how these questions have unfolded in two radically different case studies: 1) the election of an ethnic German as Romania?s new president, in the conditions in which the ethnic Germans represent less than 1% of the country?s population (Emanuela Grama) and 2) the case of prosecutor Alberto Nisman in Argentina, whose death under mysterious circumstances has sparked intense public debate (Karen Faulk).

We are looking for additional contributions that focus on such moments of rupture as forms of radical intervention, sparking novel ways to imagine and pursue political participation qua social action.

Please submit a title and a 250-word abstract to Emanuela Grama ( [log in to unmask]) no later than April 10. All of the panel members (presenters, organizers, discussants) must have a membership (or have obtained a membership exemption) and registration to the 2015 AAA Annual Meeting by April 15 for proposals to be considered.

Call for Papers for Etnofoor: Anthropological Journal on SECURITY.  Deadline for abstracts is May 1st 2015.  

ETNOFOOR CALL FOR PAPERS: SECURITY

 ‘Security’ is a hot topic, for academics as well as for politicians, corporations and a broad range of state or quasi-state actors. The term can be seen as indicative of a defining moment in late modernity, with biopolitical forms of governmentality intersecting with sovereign and disciplinary forms. Across societies and in a broad variety of domains, we can recognize attempts to increase security by detecting, assessing and intervening in threats. Security and risk management have become increasingly prominent themes (see Baumann 2001; Beck 1999, and Zedner 2009), with consequences for governments, citizens and a range of other actors. Concepts such as human security, food security, and social security further highlight this preoccupation.

 While the study of security has primarily been the focus of political science and international relations, it is increasingly a topic of analysis for anthropologists, as highlighted by Daniel Goldstein’s (2010) call for a ‘critical security anthropology’, in which anthropologists can analyse the numerous ways in which security isemployed and constituted. Questions that can be posed within such an approach include the following: What does security actually mean and to whom? What dominant and counterhegemonic definitions or framings are used by different groups or individuals, and to which effects? How do such interpretations, implementations and consequences differ across states, societies and neighbourhoods?

 Such questions emphasize the need to understand more about the concept of security itself and the way it is interpreted. This approach ties into the increasingly pluralised and globalised nature of security that is no longer solely the responsibility of the nation-state. Instead, we see a plethora of security providers (vigilante groups, gangs, private security companies, and neighbourhood watches) that engage in performances of security and often use violence as a means of usurping authority. This forces us to rethink the supposed state’s monopoly on the use of violence, and the intricate dynamics between non-state security and violence. Furthermore, there is a need to further analyse how this impacts on the daily-lived experiences of citizens/political subjects and on their feelings of belonging. Additionally, we can observe the different measures people employ to affect their (in)secure circumstances themselves and how they talk about their own (in)securities.

 The growing emphasis on security has also impacted the architectural structures of many urban centres that are now increasingly marked by CCTV cameras, fences, high walls, and a range of other gadgets and systems. What do these various technologies mean for people living in the city, how do they impact how citizens experience their mobility within urban centres, and what does this reveal about the aesthetics of security?

 Furthermore, the growth of ethnographic accounts on security (and often violence) highlights the need for anthropologists to critically reflect on their role as researcher and the potential methodological dilemmas that they encounter in the field.

Etnofoor invites authors that ethnographically engage with these issues to submit an abstract of no more than 200 words to [log in to unmask] May 1, 2015. 

Please consider the following opportunity to submit a paper for an upcoming volume on new directions in educational ethnography.

Founded by Geoffrey Walford (Oxford U), the primary objective of Studies in Educational Ethnography is to present original research monographs based on ethnographic perspectives, and methodologies.  Having lay dormant for several years, now with an international editorial advisory board of renowned colleagues in the field, the book series is now in motion.  For your reference, the book series is located at the following link where you can find information about the call for volume proposal, information about the editorial scope, and other information of interest:

I would encourage you to consider two options for our book series.  Firstly, should you have a paper that fits the inaugural issue of the redesigned series on the general theme of "New Directions in Educational Ethnography", I would welcome your paper on or before May 15, 2015.

Secondly, should you have ideas or manuscripts in development for future thematic issues, I would welcome the opportunity to correspond with you about your developing book ideas.  Kindly consult the website for questions and directions on preparing manuscripts and volumes for the series.

In either case, please feel free to email me  (at [log in to unmask] or [log in to unmask]) should you have any questions.

Sincerely yours,

Rodney Hopson

--

Rodney Hopson, Professor

Division of Educational Psychology, Research Methods, and Education Policy

College of Education and Human Development

George Mason University

4400 University Drive

MSN 6D2, West Building 2102

Fairfax, VA  22030

(703) 993-3679<tel:%28703%29%20993-3679>/4178 (division/personal office)

(703) 993-3678<tel:%28703%29%20993-3678> (division fax)

http://cehd.gmu.edu/people/faculty/rhopson/ 

 The Leeds Prize is awarded each year by the Society for Urban/National/Transnational/Global Anthropology (SUNTA) for the outstanding book in urban, national and/or transnational anthropology published in 2014. The prize is named in honor of the late Anthony Leeds, a distinguished pioneer in urban anthropology. The prize is awarded to a book that uses ethnographic data from complex, transnational, urban societies in methodological innovative ways. The goal of the prize is to showcase model studies that advance the research agenda of urban anthropologists. The prize committee is chaired by Robert Rotenberg and includes Danny Hoffman, winner of the 2012 prize for “The War Machines (Duke University Press), Daniel Goldstein, winner of the 2013 prize for “Outlawed” (Duke University Press) and Mun Young Cho, winner of the 2014 prize for “The Specter of “The People”: Urban Poverty in Northeast China” (Cornell University Press).

•       This year's deadline for submission is June 10, 2015. No books received after that date will be considered for the 2015 prize.

•       To be eligible for consideration a book must be relevant to the field of urban, national or transnational anthropology. The book must have a publication year of 2014. Textbooks and anthologies will not be considered, but monographs of original scholarship by more than one author may be submitted.

•       Winners must to be willing to serve on the prize selection committee for three years.

•       Prizes are awarded at the business meeting of the SUNTA at the American Anthropological Association meetings each year. Winners must be willing to have their prize acceptance remarks published in *City and Society*, SUNTA's journal and to serve for three years as a member of the prize committee.

•       A letter of nomination (from an author, a colleague, or a publisher) is required only for those authors whose Ph.D. is in a different discipline from anthropology. The letter should specify the relevance of the book for an urban anthropology prize.

•       *Four* copies of the book should be sent before June 10, 2015 to:

Robert Rotenberg

Leeds Prize Committee

Department of Anthropology

DePaul University

2343 N. Racine Avenue

Chicago, IL 60614-3107

•       Be sure that books’ package is clearly marked "Leeds Prize Committee."

•       Please address all questions concerning the prize to Robert Rotenberg [[log in to unmask]]. 

3. EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES || OFFRE D'EMPLOI (in addition to/ en plus de http://www.cas-sca.ca/latest-jobs)

Research Ethics Coordinator

Office of Vice President, Research - Office of Research Ethics and Integrity

Job Type: Temporary Assignment or Contract

Open Positions: 1

Posting Date: March 26, 2015

Closing Date: April 05, 2015

Union affiliation: SSUO

Job Reports To: Director

Job description Salary (Grade: 07)

Hiring salary range Salary range maximum

$44,417-$50,949 $57,480

Position Purpose

Analyzes and manages ethics files which are eligible for delegated review, and provides administrative and operational support for the OREI and for the Research Ethics Boards (REB). Is the lead contact person for researchers on questions concerning Office procedures, files submitted for ethics review and requirements of the Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans (TCPS 2). Must therefore have good analytical and interpretative abilities, as well as strong interpersonal and written communication skills.

Essential Qualifications

Knowledge of qualitative and quantitative research methods normally acquired through work towards a bachelor’s degree, or an equivalent combination of experience and education 

Excellent knowledge of the Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans (TCPS 2)

Proven knowledge and experience in secretarial work, office skills and reception 

Knowledge of the research environment

Experience in conducting analyses and producing reports 

Experience in meeting coordination 

Experience in interpreting regulations and methods, and ability to analyze complex documents 

Experience in using computer systems and software, such as word processors, spreadsheet programs, databases, email and Internet 

Solid interpersonal skills and written communications skills.

Ability to ensure confidentiality

Meticulousness, attention to detail and ability to focus on results

Ability to organize duties and set priorities according to multiple deadlines 

Ability to work independently and in a team setting

Ability to work at a consistent pace and to learn quickly

Bilingualism (oral and written); to be considered for this position, candidates must be rated at the intermediate or advanced proficiency level for both oral comprehension and reading comprehension in their second official language. The rating is determined by a proficiency test designed by the Official Languages and Bilingualism Institute.

Key competencies required at the University of Ottawa:

Planning: Organize in time a series of actions or events in order to realise an objective or a project. Plan and organize own work and priorities in regular daily activities.

Initiative: Demonstrate creativity and initiative to suggest improvements and encourage positive results. Is proactive and self-starting. Show availability and willingness to go above and beyond whenever it is possible.

Client Service Orientation: Help or serve others to meet their needs. This implies anticipating and identifying the needs of internal and external clients and finding solutions on how to meet them.

Teamwork and Cooperation: Cooperate and work well with other members of the team to reach common goal(s). Accept and give constructive feedback. Able to adjust own behaviour to reach the goals of the team.

Note: Temporary assignment or contract of 12 months, with possibility of renewal. Eligibility to benefits and union affiliation will be determined upon hiring Applications from employees holding regular positions part of the bargaining unit SSUO will be considered first. The University also accepts external applications; they will be considered in second place. To obtain a temporary assignment, internal candidates must receive approval from their immediate supervisor. Schedule with an average of 35hrs/week. CODL certificates can be considered an asset. Don’t forget to add them to your resume. We thank all candidates for applying. We will only contact candidates selected for further consideration. If you are invited to continue the selection process, please notify us of any particular adaptive measures you might require. Any information you send us will be handled respectfully and in complete confidence. Remember to upload a current version of your CV into the My documents section of your career profile (please include the job ID number, i.e. J0000-0000, in the title of your document).

Apply: https://uottawa.njoyn.com/cl2/xweb/Xweb.asp?tbtoken=YlBbRRhdRFU4FgcDRSciFFFUBmUqc0xYeiNZTikPDhBFUUFuXUIbBWR1eENdGVtQTnBsWDpQ&chk=dFlbQBJQ&clid=27081&Page=JobDetails&Jobid=J0315-1028

4. Requests and queries from members of the CASCA Student Network (reply directly to the poster) ||  Requêtes des étudiant(e)s pour obtenir des conseils ou ressources (les réponses seront envoyées directement à l'étudiant(e) en question).

N/A

*Submissions to the CASCA Grad List: English posting guidelines