Workshop Infancia_c #6: Materiales / Materials (6-7 April 2018)

Aquí puedes encontrar los materiales generados por los/as participantes en el Workshop Infancia_c #6: Estudios Culturales de la Infancia / Cultural Studies of ChildhoodSe trata principalmente de pequeños videos o textos escritos. Si los comentas o compartes en otros medios, por favor, utiliza el hashtag #wsic6 y crearemos un link a estos hilos aquí.

Here are the materials generated by participants in the Workshop Infancia_c #6: Estudios Culturales de la Infancia / Cultural Studies of ChildhoodThese are mainly videos and short texts. If you share or comment them in other social media please use #wsic6 as a hashtag and we will add a link to these threads here.

(1) Mar Gil (Universidad Autónoma de Madrid): Jugadores de Rol

En esta presentación me centro en el vínculo establecido con el grupo de jugadores de rol al que tengo el gusto de observar. Destacaré especialmente su iniciativa, ya que ha sido notable en todo momento. Desde su decisión de contactarme al conocer mis intereses de estudio, hasta su propuesta de incluirme en el terreno como una jugadora más; haciendo mención, así mismo, de los debates post-partida en los que comentamos el juego y, gracias a los cuales, puedo ir definiendo posibles puntos a analizar.

(2) Gabrielle Oliveira (Boston College): Transnational Families in a Global World

In this age of mobility we are confronted with the redesign of concepts such as families, motherhood and care. Who takes care of children who are across borders and how do we do research with this population? What does it mean to belong or be part of a family and take care of one another? In this research I located the transnational family within a constellation of people who are involved in the everyday care of children in both sides of the border. This practice shines a light on how migrant folks live their everyday lives in the host country and in the country of origin while still keeping the idea of family alive


(3) Sally Galman Campbell (University of Massachusetts – Amherst): Your Research Participants Are Making Paper Airplanes Out of That Fancy Journal Article

My topic is research outputs, dissemination, dialogue and sharing with child participants, and the problems inherent in who we write for as scholars – especially when our participants cannot reasonably read (or engage with) most of our outputs. This speaks to larger issues in scholarly output, which outputs and products are valued in the academy and which might be more useful for our actual stakeholders. This isn’t a conversation about dumbing down or rejecting historically validated modes of scholarship, but rather asking what it would mean if we did things differently in childhood research, and in this way led a bigger conversation about who we are working with and for in the radically shifting academy. Also implicit in this is the fact that expanded outputs require expanded supports from our institutions. What might that look like and how might we support each other to get it? This brief commentary draws from my experience as a childhood ethnographer whose 4 year old participants want to «read what I wrote about them.»

(4) Diana Rodríguez (Universidad de Los Andes, Colombia): Conflicto armado y juventud: Aproximaciones metodológicas desde la etnografía visual: (pdf) 

En este video examinaré el potencial de la etnografía visual para develar el sentido que jóvenes colombianos afectados por el conflicto armado hacen de su cotidianidad en el Ecuador. En contraste con quienes insisten en acercarse a esta población desde categorías propias de la política pública, como víctimas, migrantes, desplazados o refugiados, esta presentación explora movimientos metodológicos de corte etnográfico que permiten acercarse a las experiencias de esta población en sus propios términos.

(5) Miriam Thangaraj (University of Wisconsin – Madison): The work that ‘child labor’ does: A consideration of the autonomous worker in neoliberal times

In Kanchipuram, India, transnational rights-based projects to “eradicate child labor” have, in the last 20 years, “rescued and rehabilitated” child apprentices by moving them out of work on the Kanchipuram’s famed hand-looms and into classrooms: from “exploitation to education,” as these projects proclaimed. The significant number of those rescued into school, however – as my research maps – dropped out at the end of free schooling to take up precarious contract-work on the assembly-lines of Special Economic Zones (SEZs). SEZs, in embodying neoliberal modes of development, offered a deregulated labor regime on its assembly-lines as an incentive for multinational investment. From exploitation as child workers to school education – to exploitation as contract labor, in fact? Yet, as teachers and policy-makers insisted, SEZ-work was a “good opportunity” for the youth of Kanchipuram’s weaving neighborhoods. In this video, I draw on postcolonial studies of labor that deconstruct the figure of the autonomous worker in modernity, in order to consider the work that ‘child labor’ does in establishing the child-adult binary as the primary frame for protective intervention on behalf of workers. If work is exploitative for children because they are children and, by definition, unable to autonomously contract work, then adults, as autonomous workers, are not exploited, irrespective of the conditions of their work.

(6) Frances Vavrus: Topographies of power: Critical historical geography and youth studies in Tanzania


(7) Jennifer Keys Adair: Agency and Children

(8) Roozbeh Shirazi: What are the methodological implications for anthropologists of education and youth studies when schooling and access to schools are increasingly securitized?

Schooling in the US is increasingly implicated in securitizing discourses, those that work to frame bodies that are safe/secure, bodies that are suspect and threatening, and bodies and spaces are in need of various forms of protection. Most prominently, language of safety and security has been mobilized in recent debates legislative efforts in response to mass school shootings, concerning the arming and training of teachers as well as increasing the numbers of SROs (police who work in schools as school resource officers) in schools. However, policies governing external researcher access to schools also invoke notions of “student safety,” “safe learning environments,” and “protecting instructional time.” The language of safety and protection is also mobilized to govern what modes of inquiry in schools are possible, and what research methods are acceptable in light of safety and security concerns. This raises many conceptual and methodological questions, notably for anthropologists of education and youth studies about how and to what extent we may work and engage with our participants, and more broadly, which methodological approaches are viable/necessary in such conditions. Similarly, such conditions compel us to grapple with how notions of childhood and youth are being transformed in relation to the broader reconfigurations of schooling through discourses and practices of securitization. My brief commentary will draw upon my experiences in securing research access a 2013-2014 ethnographic study in two schools to examine immigrant and transnational youth experiences of schooling, and how these experiences may work to produce notions of difference, identity, and belonging.

(9) Travis Wright: Trauma and learning: Towards a trauma-informed pedagogy


(Participant list/short bios: google-doc (under construction)

Marcar el enlace permanente.

Deja una respuesta

Tu dirección de correo electrónico no será publicada. Los campos obligatorios están marcados con *