Advertisement

Studying Through: People and Places

  • Niels Nagelhus Schia
Chapter
Part of the Rethinking Peace and Conflict Studies book series (RCS)

Abstract

I embarked on this project by going to Liberia to study aspects of the peacebuilding process in the country. Failing to find what I was looking for on that trip, I realized it would be necessary to trace connections of the activities I studied in Liberia to other places, such as Oslo and Manhattan. When I arrived at those places and started further enquiries, I realized that the answers were not to be found there either, and that I would have to return to Liberia. In each place I visited, divergent perceptions emerged about the kind of knowledge production on peacebuilding and perceptions of national ownership that I sought to trace. Tracing these connections provided me with greater knowledge of peacebuilding as a field. As I searched for the local in the global, and the global in the local, peacebuilding became a dimension for comparison—as climate change, NGOs or neoliberalism can serve as dimensions for comparison. I began to get a grasp on peacebuilding by following and tracing connections to the empirical questions I had initially sought to investigate in Liberia. This, I would argue, is also one of the main strengths of this project. Because it is ethnographically driven, I have adjusted the methodological approach accordingly. This has involved following the connections patiently and thoroughly across various different localities, as findings at one place led me to new enquiries at new places.

Following the context of selected UN peacebuilding processes and being involved with the practitioners who work on these processes led me to focus on the internal dynamics in the UN, seeing these as especially important for understanding the rationality behind its outputs and thus for better understanding the organization itself. This approach provided certain kinds of data that led me further to a way of understanding the UN through a perspective on its constitutive elements. My inductive empirical fieldwork led me to places around the world in search of answers to my questions about peacebuilding—only to direct me to new sites elsewhere. In the UN Security Council, the overarching frameworks for the rest of the activities were being produced. In the bureaucracy at UN headquarters, these overarching frameworks were being merged with the actualities and realities of the field. And out in the field, realities met politics and became activities on the ground. Combining these methods and findings with the use of anthropological perspectives on organizations and sovereignty as an analytical approach made it possible to explore peacebuilding as systems of global governance and political transition without losing the perspective of how they are practiced on an everyday basis by individuals in real life.

References

  1. Abeles, Marc. 1993. Political Anthropology of a Transnational Institution: The European Parliament. French Politics & Society 11 (1): 1–19.Google Scholar
  2. Abram, Simone. 2003. Anthropologies in Policies, Anthropologies in Places: Reflections on Fieldwork ‘in’ Documents and Policies. In Globalisation: Studies in Anthropology, ed. Thomas Hylland Eriksen, 138–157. London: Pluto Press.Google Scholar
  3. Barth, Fredrik. 1959. Political Leadership among the Swat Pathans. University of London: Athlone Press.Google Scholar
  4. ———. 1993. Balinese Worlds. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  5. da Costa, Diana Felix, and John Karlsrud. 2012a. UN Local Peacebuilding and Transition in Haiti. In Security in Practice 4. Oslo: NUPI.Google Scholar
  6. ———. 2012b. Moving Towards Local-level Peacebuilding? In Security in Practice 5. Oslo: NUPI.Google Scholar
  7. Douglas, Mary. 1986. How Institutions Think. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Eriksen, Thomas Hylland. 2013. Radcliffe-Brown, A.R. In Theory in Social and Cultural Anthropology: An Encyclopedia, ed. Jon R. McGee and Richard L. Warms, 678–682. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  9. Falzon, Mark-Anthony. 2009. Multi-Sited Ethnography: Theory, Praxis and Locality in Contemporary Research. Burlington, VT: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  10. Fenno, Richard F. 1973. Congressmen in Committees: A Comparative View. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
  11. ———. 1988. The Making of a Senator: Dan Quayle. Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
  12. ———. 1992. When Incumbency Fails. The Senate Career of Mark Andrew. Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
  13. Frazer, James. 1993[1890]. The Golden Bough. Ware (Herts): Wordsworth Press.Google Scholar
  14. Garsten, Christina, and Anette Nyqvist, eds. 2013a. Organisational Anthropology: Doing Ethnography in and among Complex Organisations. London: Pluto Press.Google Scholar
  15. ———. 2013b. Entries: Engaging Organisational Worlds. In Organisational Anthropology, ed. Christina Garsten and Anette Nyqvist, 1–26. London: Pluto Press.Google Scholar
  16. Gonzalez, Roberto J., and Rachael Stryker. 2014. Introduction: On Studying Up, Down, and Sideways: What’s at Stake? In Up Down, and Sideways—Anthropologists Trace the Pathways of Power, ed. Rachael Stryker and Roberto J. Gonzalez. New York: Berghahn Books.Google Scholar
  17. Grønhaug, Reidar. 1972. Scale and Social Organization. Scale as a Variable in the Analysis. Reflections Based on Field Material from Herat, Northwest Afghanistan. New York: Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research.Google Scholar
  18. Gupta, Akhil, and James Ferguson. 1997. Anthropological Locations: Boundaries and Grounds of a Field Science. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  19. Gusterson, Hugh. 1996. Nuclear Rites: A Weapons Laboratory at the End of the Cold War. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  20. ———. 1997. Studying Up Revisited. PoLAR: Political and Legal Anthropology Review 20 (1): 114–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hannerz, Ulf. 2003. Several Sites in One. In Globalisation: Studies in Anthropology, ed. T.H. Eriksen, 18–38. London: Pluto.Google Scholar
  22. ———. 2006. Studying Down, Up, Sideways, Through, Backwards, Forwards, Away and at Home: Reflections on the Field Worries of an Expansive Discipline. In Locating the Field: Space, Place and Context in Anthropology, ed. Simon Coleman and Peter Collins, 23–41. Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar
  23. Hansen, Guttorm. 1984. Der er det godt å sitte: Hverdag på Løvebakken gjennom hundre års parlamentarisme [On Daily Life at the Norwegian Parliament]. Oslo: Aschehoug.Google Scholar
  24. Hart, Keith. 2003. Epilogue. In Globalisation: Studies in Anthropology, ed. T.H. Eriksen, 217–228. London: Pluto.Google Scholar
  25. Hastrup, Kirsten. 2013. Scales of Attention in Fieldwork: Global Connections and Local Concerns in the Arctic. Ethnography 14 (2): 145–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Helland, Leif, and Bjørn Erik Rasch. 1998. Stortingets fagkomiteer. Forholdet mellom popularitet, arbeidsmengde og komitestørrelse. Norsk statsvitenskaplige tidsskrift 14 (3): 219–252.Google Scholar
  27. Herzfeld, Michael. 1992. The Social Production of Indifference: Exploring the Symbolic Roots of Western Bureaucracy. New York: Berg.Google Scholar
  28. Kiely, Ray. 1999. The Last Refuge of the Noble Savage? A Critical Assessment of Post-Development Theory. European Journal of Development Research 11: 30–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Latour, Bruno. 2005. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor–Network Theory. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Leach, Edmund. 1954. Political Systems of Highland Burma: A Study in Kachin Social Structure. London: Athlone Press.Google Scholar
  31. Malinowski, Bronislaw. 1984[1922]. Argonauts of the Western Pacific. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.Google Scholar
  32. Marcus, George E., and Michael M.J. Fischer. 1999. Anthropology as Cultural Critique: An Experimental Moment in the Human Sciences. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  33. Nader, Laura. 1972. Up the Anthropologist – Perspectives Gained from Studying Up. In Reinventing Anthropology, ed. Del Hymes. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  34. ———. 1980. The Vertical Slice: Hierarchies and Children. In Hierarchy and Society, ed. G.M. Brittan and R. Cohen. Philadelphia, PA: Institute for the Study of Human Issues.Google Scholar
  35. Neumann, Hannah, and Niels Nagelhus Schia. 2012. Contextualizing Peacebuilding Activities to Local Circumstances: Liberian Case-study Field Report. Security in Practice 6. Oslo: NUPI.Google Scholar
  36. Nustad, Knut. 2003. Gavens Makt [The Power of the Gift]. Oslo: Pax Forlag.Google Scholar
  37. Nyqvist, Anette. 2013. Access to All Stages? Studying Through Policy in a Culture of Accessibility. In Organisational Anthropology – Doing Ethnography in and among Complex Organisations, ed. Christina Garsten and Anette Nyqvist, 91–119. London: Pluto Press.Google Scholar
  38. Olsen, Johan P. 2007. Europe in Search of Political Order. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  39. ———. 2010. Governing through Institution Building: Institutional Theory and Recent European Experiments in Democratic Organization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Radcliffe-Brown, Alfred Reginald. 1957. A Natural Science of Society. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.Google Scholar
  41. Rasch, Bjørn Erik, and Hilmar Rommetvedt. 1999. Makt og demokrati i norsk parlamentsforskning [Power and Democracy in Norwegian Parliament Research]. Oslo: Makt- og demokratiutredningens rapportserie.Google Scholar
  42. Reinhold, Susan. 1994. Local Conflict and Ideological Struggle: “Positive Images” and Section 28. D.Phil. Thesis, University of Sussex.Google Scholar
  43. Robertson, Roland. 1995. Glocalization: Time–Space and Homogeneity–Heterogeneity. In Global Modernities, ed. Mike Featherstone, Scott M. Lash, and Roland Robertson, 25–45. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Schia, Niels Nagelhus. 2013. Being Part of the Parade: ‘Going Native’ in the United Nations Security Council. Political and Legal Anthropology Review (PoLAR) 36 (1): 138–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Scott, James C. 1998. Seeing Like a State. How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Shore, Cris. 2005. The State of the State in Europe, or, What is the European Union that Anthropologists Should be Mindful of It. In State Formation: Anthropological Perspectives, ed. C. Krohn-Hansen and K. Nustad, 234–255. London: Pluto Press.Google Scholar
  47. Shore, Cris, and Susan Wright. 1997. Anthropology of Policy: Critical Perspectives on Governance and Power. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  48. Spencer, Herbert. 1867. The Principles of Biology. London: William and Norgate.Google Scholar
  49. Tylor, Edward. 2010[1871]. Primitive Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Wadel, Cato. 1991. Feltarbeid i egen kultur [Doing Fieldwork in Your Own Culture]. Flekkefjord: Hegland Trykkeri.Google Scholar
  51. Wolf, Eric. 1982. Europe and the People without History. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  52. Wright, Susan, and Sue Reinhold. 2011. ‘Studying Through’: A Strategy for Studying Political Transformation. Or Sex, Lies and British Politics. In Policy Worlds, ed. Cris Shore, Susan Wright, and Davide Pero, 86–104. New York: Berghahn.Google Scholar
  53. Zabusky, Stacia E. 1995. Launching Europe: An Ethnography of European Cooperation in Space Science. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Niels Nagelhus Schia
    • 1
  1. 1.NUPIOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations