sutton074

The landscape in Breukelen might look nice and innocent. But. There is always already politics. And this is what we talked about during the last walking seminar: There is always already politics. So much of it and in so many versions. State politics. Policy. Party politics. Intellectual politics. Politics embedded in the questions asked, the money flowing, the passions fostered, the ways in which some things are framed as ‘problems’, the ways in which some things (and not others) are performed as ‘real’. And then there is research. Let’s say: yours. Where is it situated, against which kinds of practices that might be called ‘political’? Where do you want it to move? What do you want to move with it? What are the twisty and thorny roads going here and there – that might take you in ‘bad’ directions? What can you do, practically, to make your work stand out more as ‘political’ or rather less; what to make it be more or less ‘political’; and in relation to which kind of ‘politics’? (Maybe...

Breukelen turns out to be the adequate place for walking in winter, when it has a lot of wind (like three weeks ago) or when it is cold (like last week). Three weeks ago we discussed questions arising from the relation of 'the researcher' and 'observing in the field'. - which field(s) do you go to in order to do your research? how do you get it contact with your field? - how do you present yourself? and what do you answer if your informants ask for "the results" of your project? -and, for those of who are further on in their trajectory: have you had informants reading your texts? what happens? what is there to learn from their reactions? - which problems arise during field work? what do your informants tell you? what do they show you without telling? what do they keep secret? what shifts between interviews and observations? - how do you handle such problems? - and what do the problems you encounter teach you about your research object/topic? Last week the discuss...

Amsterdam is covered in snow. The walking seminar last Thursday, thus, turned into a journey through a winter wonderland. While wandering through the white Vondelpark, some of us acted as supervisors for their walking partner whereas others discussed the following questions: - How to read academic literatures? - What to take on board, what to leave out? - What to spell out, what to skip? - What to engage with? argue with? praise? build on? - How to write about and with the work of others? - How does liking or disliking specific literatures help or hinder you in your own work?

The next walking seminars will take place on the following days: 2 December (Please not that this is a Thursday.) 21 January and 18 February

Last Friday we were walking and talking again. With the weather we weren't very lucky. It was raining heavily and the path from Baarn to Hollandsche Rading was changing between deep puddles, less deep puddles and mud. Despite these conditions we had a lot to talk about. Malte from Oxford had furnished us the following questions: Storying: what is it to tell a story? – What stories do you tell in your papers, presentations and talks? What work do they do? And what counts as a story anyway? – How do you tell your stories? Do you think about this at all? What techniques, styles, strategies and narrative devices do you use? What works for you, what doesn’t? – Where do you get your stories from? Is there a difference between your own and others’ stories? Whose stories are they? – What makes a ‘good’ story—and what a ‘bad’ one? What are examples of storying that you particularly appreciate? What do you like about them and what can we learn from them? – How useful/difficult/inspiring/pro...

The Amsterdam Walking Seminar has become multiple. Malte Ziewitz is organising monthly walk-talks in the surroundings of the Oxford. The first walk-talk took place under perfect conditions, as Malte writes, on the 22nd October. The next one will be on the 19th November. Cheers from Amsterdam to Oxford!

Walking is moving. There might be a plan in the beginning, for example to go along this particular path marked on the map; to discuss this specific topic along these questions. But once one starts walking, things might turn out quite differently. This is what happened last week. We had a plan, a list of questions to discuss. But in the end, we supervised each others work: What are you working on at the moment? Where are you? What are your problems? And plans?