Click the star to add/remove an item to/from your individual schedule.
You need to be logged in to avail of this functionality.
Log in
- Convenors:
-
Lauren Hossack
(Elphinstone Institute, University of Aberdeen)
Helen Nohgwe Yogo (Institute of Sociology, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz University of Hannover)
Send message to Convenors
- Format:
- Workshop
Short Abstract:
Early career scholars confront unwriting in a variety of ways when researching and inhabiting academia. Short talks from mid-career academics will reflect on some of these, with space to discuss experiences, exchange advice, and contribute to building a strong international Young Scholars’ network.
Description:
As the next generation of folklorists and ethnologists, we confront concepts of 'unwriting' in many ways, for instance in reshaping methodologies or disciplinary frameworks or in amplifying marginal and underrepresented practices. As early career researchers, we are often positioned precariously within academia, confronted with structures of power that may not support us as scholars or as individuals. As we look to our individual and collective futures, what can we learn from colleagues who have confronted these scripts before? How can we support each other in writing the futures of our fields?
This event will feature short talks from mid-career academics, followed by space for attendees to discuss experiences, exchange advice, and contribute to building a strong international Young Scholars network. All who identify as young scholars, new researchers, early career researchers, postgraduates, postdoctoral researchers or anything in between are invited to join.
Accepted contributions:
Session 1Contribution long abstract:
As a early-career researcher, I frequently found myself working on projects where power structures and public institutions were deeply interested in the type of knowledge I could generate as an anthropologist, to the extent of materially supporting the conditions of possibility of the research itself. From an ethical and epistemological perspective, this fact presents a number of challenges, whilst being indicative of the fact that our disciplines have matured to the point where they are valued in the public setting. One of the most significant ways to innovate and push the limits of our discipline is undoubtedly the potential for transdisciplinary collaborations and activities to give rise to experimental forms of research. However, it can also mean that our status as researchers is being undermined, especially if we are young and/or precarious. In this regard, under what circumstances are we prepared to form partnerships with actors with whom we or our interlocutors have an unequal power dynamic? How can we all work together to address these emerging trends in our fields?
Contribution short abstract:
Tired of jumping through bureaucratic hoops and facing endless journal rejections, I challenge the academic hierarchy that prioritizes prestige over lived experience. Let’s rethink what truly defines scholarly value—innovation, authenticity, and field-based insight—not just journal rankings.
Contribution long abstract:
As early-career researchers, we often find ourselves navigating the labyrinth of academic publishing, where gatekeepers, both visible and invisible, scrutinize our work through the lens of institutional prestige. My own experiences with editorial and desk rejections highlight a deep tension between innovation and conformity. Despite my research aligning well with thematic expectations, it often fails to meet the rigid standards of prestigious journals. This raises the question: why are ideas grounded in lived experience, particularly those emerging from fieldwork, marginalized in favor of theories and concepts that may be removed from the reality on the ground? How did pioneers like Marcel Mauss, Victor Turner, and Johannes Fabian and more to name challenge dominant norms and gain recognition, while newer voices continue to struggle against the weight of academic tradition?
In the Indian academic landscape, the UGC's rigid categorization of journals has exacerbated this issue, placing an undue emphasis on the prestige of publication venues. The value of extensive fieldwork, rich with lived experience, is often sidelined in favor of theoretical rigor that may be less grounded in reality. This bureaucratic approach to journal rankings, determined by administrative bodies with little to no academic field experience, undermines the diversity and richness of scholarly contributions. This discussion challenges the academic status quo, advocating for a more inclusive and flexible framework that values authenticity, innovation, and lived experience as key indicators of scholarly merit—no matter the prestige of the journal.