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.