- Convenors:
-
Patrícia Ferraz de Matos
(Universidade de Lisboa)
Panas Karampampas (Durham University)
Send message to Convenors
- Formats:
- Panel
- Network:
- Network Panel
Short Abstract
This panel examines how political and economic polarisation shapes anthropological knowledge production today, and the strategies anthropologists develop to sustain scientific authority, autonomy, and ethical responsibility in increasingly constrained research environments.
Long Abstract
This panel reflects on the conditions of anthropological knowledge production in a polarised world. Historically, academic inquiry has been reshaped by major disruptions — political ruptures, ideological contests, economic crises, and public health emergencies. Today, however, polarisation is intensifying within democratic contexts, accompanied by a rise in extremist rhetoric and growing public mistrust of expertise. These pressures are not only shaping what anthropologists are able to study but also how they justify, fund, and disseminate their work.
We seek analyses of how polarisation — whether emerging in the present or rooted in unresolved past conflicts (Barrera-González et al. 2017; Moore 1996) — influences anthropological research agendas, ethical choices, and institutional practices. Increasingly, knowledge production is governed by market-driven logics: audit cultures, competitive rankings, and funding schemes prioritise short-term societal applications and quantifiable economic returns (Shore & Wright 2015; Lamont 2019; Yan 2025). Securing resources has become more challenging, while far-right populism further politicises expertise and risks (Eriksen 2021).
This panel therefore asks:
• How do political and economic pressures shape the topics we can pursue and the partnerships we must engage in?
• What strategies do anthropologists employ to maintain autonomy, authority, and the long-term relevance of their work?
• How can translation — in both communicative and conceptual terms — help navigate ideological divides and counteract polarising forces?
We welcome ethnographic, historical, and reflexive contributions that critically unpack these tensions while outlining possibilities for sustaining anthropology’s future.