Contribution short abstract:

The present work aims to contribute to the discussion on the anthropology of education through a self-reflective exercise in Faculty of Education of the University of Brasília, Brasil.

Contribution long abstract:

The anthropology of education is still a field in formation in Brazil, it occupies a smaller place in the agenda of Brazilian anthropology, despite its recent advances, there are also hierarchies in this field (Oliveira 2021). The present work aims to contribute to the discussion on the anthropology of education through a self-reflexive exercise, starting from a particular case in this area over the last 25 years at the Faculty of Education of the University of Brasília, Brazil. Our objective is to reflect on the possible articulations of Anthropology with Education as a field that articulates different knowledge and research traditions, but also as a field that articulates the different collectives and their practices that make up the diversity of Brazilian society such as minorities represented by indigenous peoples, communities traditional and other poor and peripheral segments in large urban centers with an intersectional approach. In the last decade there has been a great demand from undergraduate courses for Anthropology references. The inclusion of this discipline in the programs of most courses has become required due to its theoretical potential, which necessarily involves understanding the Other, considering their values and their culture. It is in this scenario that Anthropology is inserted and everything indicates that, more and more, its practitioners, particularly teachers, will be asked for contributions to the understanding of what has become its legacy: the study of humans and respect for differences.

Contribution short abstract:

Moving from an educational anthropology department where I felt like the ugly duckling, to a design department where I was called "the anthropologist," I began to claim my disciplinary identity and found value in dusty theories when presenting them as new ideas in a different disciplinary context.

Contribution long abstract:

Nathaniel Hawthorne wrote: "Human nature will not flourish, any more than a potato, if it be planted and replanted, for too long a series of generations, in the same worn-out soil. My children have had other birthplaces, and, so far as their fortunes may be within my control, shall strike their roots into unaccustomed earth."

Likewise, theories, ideas, and methods that have become naturalized or taken for granted can find new life in foreign settings. At home in my anthropology department, I was insecure in my identity as an anthropologist. My research was remarkable only because it ventured beyond the more familiar territory of studying institutions and formal education, and because it involved experimental methods from other fields.

When I began my PhD in a design department, I was defined not by my empirical interests, but by my disciplinary grounding in anthropology. During my Master’s education, I had rejected most of the seminal works of famed anthropologists as being outdated and too far from the contemporary subjects I was studying. A surprising turn came when a design team at a large health devices manufacturing company asked for help in bringing these anthropological concepts and theories into the analysis of their user data. My PhD work ultimately involved embedding classic anthropological ideas, like gift relations and reciprocity theories of kinship, into material objects to be used as elicitation tools for developing more nuanced understandings of user experiences, helping the diverse team to work transdisciplinarily.

Contribution short abstract:

I will discuss my experiences as an educational anthropologist working in a political science department. Specifically, I'll highlight the continuous boundary work needed to advocate for the relevance of anthropological analysis and methodological toolbox in the face of social science hierarchies.

Contribution long abstract:

In my current role, I am often the sole educational anthropologist navigating research on policy, academia, and related areas. This position prompts a fundamental question: What defines me as an anthropologist while I engage with various empirical fields and frequently publish in sociological outlets? My research extends beyond the confines of traditional education studies, and I often question whether my work aligns with the expectations of anthropological outlets.

Working as an anthropologist of higher education in the current academic landscape requires continuous boundary work, navigational work, and disciplinary shapeshifting. My research is primarily defined by my methodological toolbox and as an educational anthropologist, my training encompasses ethnographic methods and fostering an anthropological perspective, consistently making the familiar unfamiliar. However, within the social sciences, hierarchies exist. Interdisciplinary work often values disciplines and epistemic approaches that can decontextualise knowledge for a broader audience and demonstrate social impact (Fishberg and Kropp, forthcoming). This preference can be at odds with the highly contextual nature of anthropological work.

In this roundtable discussion, I aim to discuss this boundary work and explore how I adapt to disciplinary boundaries and approaches that may not always align with my own. Specifically, I would like to discuss the continuous and pragmatic boundary work required to advocate for the relevance and value of anthropological analysis in the face of social science hierarchies.