Mobility

Anthropology ◽  
2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roger Norum

Broadly speaking, mobility refers to the socio-cultural processes surrounding movement. As a focus of anthropological research, mobility engages with the notion that human social worlds are in multiple states and forms of circulating spatial and temporal flux, and, as such, are variously implicated in trajectories of movement between and among human actors, physical objects and intangible information, ideas and capital. Mobility studies emerged out of the celebration of postmodernism and globalization, and their concomitant links to global flows of people and things in contexts of both migration and transnationalism. New forms of human interaction and engagement amid sea changes in the capacity for people, things, and representations to move fast and far have led to new intellectual theorizations, perspectives, approaches, and provocations, denoting mobility as a new point of departure for contemporary analyses of the social world in the 21st century. Since the early 2000s, scholars have worked to develop the theoretical underpinnings of a “new mobilities” paradigm which would, in turn, lead to a “mobility turn” in the social sciences and beyond. The paradigm challenges a number of assumptions within the social sciences including the static, bounded concepts of culture and society as a unit of analysis, the assumed center-periphery nature of movement of peoples from developing to developed areas of the world, and the close association of mobility with freedom (and immobility with oppression). Studies of mobility go far beyond researching mere movement, and now even comparatively sedentary concepts such as society and nation are being upended with interlinked, shifting, and mobile things, ideas, and individuals. Mobility research has been characteristically cross-disciplinary, finding traction early on in the fields of sociology and geography before being taken up by the theoretical considerations and ethnographic research of social and cultural anthropologists (though of course studying movement—of both humans and non-humans—was nothing new for anthropologists). Scholarship across distinct strands of mobility research has fostered dialogue among otherwise spatting social science fields, and scholars from other disciplines, such as cultural and migration studies, tourism and transport studies, media studies, and Science and Technology Studies (STS) have also made important contributions to literature on mobility that is either anthropological in focus or approach, or heavily used by anthropologists in their mobility scholarship. Because research into mobility comprises such a wide range of area specializations, theoretical interests, and methodological approaches, however, exactly what constitutes mobility research can mean different things to different scholars in different disciplines—from research on communities of people who physically move for their jobs (e.g., commuters, expatriates, or seasonal agricultural workers) to studies of societal systems, infrastructures, and regimes such as vehicular transport or border control. And, as expected, the normative categories established by a number of scholars of mobility to study the field have themselves received no small amount of critique from anthropologists for their privileging certain types of mobile movement and deprecating others. This bibliography outlines the scope of literature on mobility that is particularly anthropological in its approach, method, and object, while also considering some of the seminal works in sociology and geography that have both influenced anthropological thinking on mobility and proven foundational to the development of the “mobility turn” in the social sciences more generally. There is inherently overlap between some of the sections set up here (e.g., Migration and Labor and Work), but they have been structured via these categories more to facilitate reader accessibility than to set up any hard and fast distinctions for how the scholarship discussed in this article should be framed or understood.

2016 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 82-93
Author(s):  
Gugulethu Shamaine Nkala ◽  
Rodreck David

Knowledge presented by Oral History (OH) is unique in that it shares the tacit perspective, thoughts, opinions and understanding of the interviewee in its primary form. While teachers, lecturers and other education specialists have at their disposal a wide range of primary, secondary and tertiary sources upon which to relate and share or impart knowledge, OH presents a rich source of information that can improve the learning and knowledge impartation experience. The uniqueness of OH is presented in the following advantages of its use: it allows one to learn about the perspectives of individuals who might not otherwise appear in the historical record; it allows one to compensate for the digital age; one can learn different kinds of information; it provides historical actors with an opportunity to tell their own stories in their own words; and it offers a rich opportunity for human interaction. This article discusses the placement of oral history in the classroom set-up by investigating its use as a source of learning material presented by the National Archives of Zimbabwe to students in the Department of Records and Archives Management at the National University of Science and Technology (NUST). Interviews and a group discussion were used to gather data from an archivist at the National Archives of Zimbabwe, lecturers and students in the Department of Records and Archives Management at NUST, respectively. These groups were approached on the usability, uniqueness and other characteristics that support this type of knowledge about OH in a tertiary learning experience. The findings indicate several qualities that reflect the richness of OH as a teaching source material in a classroom set-up. It further points to weak areas that may be addressed where the source is considered a viable strategy for knowledge sharing and learning. The researchers present a possible model that can be used to champion the use of this rich knowledge source in classroom education at this university and in similar set-ups. 


The social sciences have seen a substantial increase in comparative and multisited ethnographic projects over the last three decades, yet field research often remains associated with small-scale, in-depth, and singular case studies. The growth of comparative ethnography underscores the need to carefully consider the process, logics, and consequences of comparison. This need is intensified by the fact that ethnography has long encompassed a wide range of traditions with different approaches toward comparative social science. At present, researchers seeking to design comparative field projects have many studies to emulate but few scholarly works detailing the process of comparison in divergent ethnographic approaches. Beyond the Case addresses this by showing how practitioners in contemporary iterations of traditions such as phenomenology, the extended case method, grounded theory, positivism, and interpretivism approach this in their works. It connects the long history of comparative (and anti-comparative) ethnographic approaches to their contemporary uses. Each chapter allows influential scholars to 1) unpack the methodological logics that shape how they use comparison; 2) connect these precepts to the concrete techniques they employ; and 3) articulate the utility of their approach. By honing in on how ethnographers render sites or cases analytically commensurable and comparable, these contributions offer a new lens for examining the assumptions, payoffs, and potential drawbacks of different forms of comparative ethnography. Beyond the Case provides a resource that allows both new and experienced ethnographers to critically evaluate the intellectual merits of various approaches and to strengthen their own research in the process.


Author(s):  
Thomas Spear

The difficulties of exploring African history, especially for earlier periods, have spurred the development of a wide range of methodologies and approaches, such that Wyatt McGaffey once termed it “the decathlon of the social sciences.” Historians have long utilized archaeology, ethnography, historical linguistics, and oral traditions, but are only beginning to explore the possibilities of genetics or many of the new techniques used by archaeology and other sciences. And as digital sources—from historical documents and statistics to cartographic, climatic, demographic, and environmental modeling—proliferate, so do the problems in using them. The Oxford Encyclopedia of African Historiography: Methods and Sources discusses these sources and methods, and examines how these developments have influenced the scholarship that historians produce. Such methods continue to evolve, demanding that historians develop basic understandings of them. Thus, the Encyclopedia builds a theoretical foundation for the field, expanding the ways that Africa can be studied, and recovering the histories of the continent that often appear outside of the documentary record.


Author(s):  
Frank Serafini

Visual literacy was originally defined as a set of visual competencies or cognitive skills and strategies one needs to make sense of visual images. These visual competencies were seen as universal cognitive abilities that were used for understanding visual images regardless of the contexts of production, reception, and dissemination. More contemporary definitions suggest visual literacy is a contextualized, social practice as much as an individualized, cognitively based set of competencies. Visual literacy is more aptly defined as a process of generating meanings in transaction with multimodal ensembles that include written text, visual images, and design elements from a variety of perspectives to meet the requirements of particular social contexts. Theories of visual literacy and associated research and pedagogy draw from a wide range of disciplines including art history, semiotics, media and cultural studies, communication studies, visual ethnography and anthropology, social semiotics, new literacies studies, cognitive psychology, and critical theory. Understanding the various theories, research methodologies, and pedagogical approaches to visual literacy requires an investigation into how the various paradigm shifts that have occurred in the social sciences have affected this field of study. Cognitive, linguistic, sociocultural, multimodal, and postmodern “turns” in the social sciences each bring different theories, perspectives, and approaches to the field of visual literacy. Visual literacy now incorporates sociocultural, semiotic, critical, and multimodal perspectives to understand the meaning potential of the visual and verbal ensembles encountered in social environments.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claus Reis

The social integration of refugees and other immigrants depends on the development of their chances of participating in society and on making them more proficient in doing so, a strategy which requires the corresponding alignment and coordination of local social services. This handbook practically uses the results of a large research project. It shows how to build up networks of professionals and volunteers and to establish case management as a concept and method in order to coordinate individually oriented services. The handbook presents a theoretical foundation, but also practical concepts and useful instruments with which to implement them. It will appeal to those who work in the context of local social and migration policy, as well as academics and teachers in the field of social sciences.


Author(s):  
N. S. Babich

The author analyzes implicit epistemological assumptions of the modern systematic reviews of scientific literatures that usually are left unconsidered or problematized. The foundations for building the image of scientific communication as representative, clearly cut and easily analyzed reflection of efficient search for and spread of truth which approaching is characterized by increased explorers’ consent. Generalization of this communication brings the evidential effect to advance argument in scientific discussions. However, a series of conditions for adequate conversion and «migration» of published conclusions into the conclusions of systematic review has to be provided to preserve evidential effect in summarizing analysis. The essential components of systematic reviewing methodology comprise: setting the task of obtaining quantified results; selection criteria for unambiguous correspondence between the model of process under scientific investigation and totality of publications; representative observation of relevant publications and making conclusions based on comparative evidential effect of research and consent level achieved. The systematic reviews compliant with the above requirements make them a powerful instrument of evidence in the social sciences, biology and medicine.


Communication ◽  
2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kim Hoffman ◽  
Javier Ponce-Terashima

Focus groups are a research method using multi-person interviews to generate qualitative data from participants’ interaction. The purpose is to induce conversation between participants to answer questions relevant to the study goals. In contrast to one-on-one interviews that are also widely used in qualitative research, the source of the data is in the “interaction” between participants, including similarities and differences between their experiences, opinions, and perceptions. This helps researchers understand not just what the participants think about a topic, but also why they think that way. Focus groups can cover a wide range of topics that are skillfully “moderated” by the researcher. The earliest known focus groups can be traced to Bogardus in 1926 and Robert Merton and Paul Lazarsfeld in 1941 but did not take hold as a qualitative method in the social sciences for another twenty-five years. Since then, a significant body of knowledge has been created; since the late 20th century, more than twenty-five thousand peer-reviewed, published articles using focus groups have been published. This article will focus on uses within the realm of published scholarly research although focus groups are routinely used within the field of market and consumer research, and additional gray literature may be found in other sources.


2018 ◽  
Vol 30 (11) ◽  
pp. 3412-3422 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sara Dolnicar

Purpose Survey research has developed to become the default empirical approach to answering research questions in the field of hospitality (and many other fields of research within the social sciences). This paper aims to reflect on the use of survey research in hospitality and offers recommendations for improvement. Design/methodology/approach First, known dangers to validity associated with survey research are discussed. Next, a sample of studies recently published in leading hospitality journals is assessed in view of these known dangers. Finally, recommendations are offered for editors, reviewers, readers and authors to mitigate the risk of drawing invalid conclusions based on survey research. Findings Survey research is very common in hospitality research and is used to investigate a wide range of research questions and constructs under study. The nature of constructs studied, the answer scales used and the nature of the samples point to a substantial risk to the validity of conclusions drawn. Practical implications A number of risk mitigation measures are proposed that can help authors minimise the risks to validity arising from known dangers associated with survey research. These same risk mitigation measures can be used by editors and reviewers in the assessment of manuscripts and by readers to evaluate the validity of conclusions drawn in already published work. Originality/value The value of this study lies in reflecting from a distance on how the survey research is conducted in the social sciences in general and in hospitality research in specific. The paper reveals that some routine approaches particularly prone to undermining the validity of conclusions may have been adopted and offers a few suggestions how this risk can be mitigated.


2020 ◽  
pp. 146879412097597
Author(s):  
Nicole Vitellone ◽  
Michael Mair ◽  
Ciara Kierans

In a number of linked articles and monographs over the last decade (e.g. Love, 2010, 2013, 2015, 2016, 2017), literary scholar and critic Heather Love has called for a descriptive (re)turn in the humanities, repeatedly taking up examples of descriptive methods in the social sciences as exemplifying what that (re)turn might look like and achieve. Those of us working as sociologists, anthropologists, science and technology studies scholars and researchers in allied social science fields thus find ourselves reflected back in Love’s work, encountering our own research practices in an unfamiliar light through it. In a period where our established methods and analytical priorities are subject to challenges on many fronts from within our own disciplines, it is hard not be struck by Love’s provocative invocation of the social sciences as interlocutors and see in it an invitation to contribute to the debate she has sought to initiate by revisiting our own approaches to the problem of description. Inspired by Love’s intervention, the eight papers that form this Special Issue demonstrate that by re-engaging with description we stand to learn a great deal. While the articles themselves are topically distinct and geographically varied, they are all based on empirical research and written to facilitate a reorientation to the role of description in our research practices. What exactly is going on when we describe an ancient papyrus as present or missing, a machine as intelligent, noise as music, a disease as undiagnosable, a death as good or bad, deserved or undeserved, care as appropriate or inappropriate, policies as failing or effective? As the papers show, these are important questions to ask. By asking them, we find ourselves in positions to better understand what goes into ‘indexing and making visible forms of material and social reality’ (Love, 2013: 412) as well as what is involved, more troublingly, in erasing, making invisible and dematerialising those realities or even, indeed, in uncovering those erasures and the means by which they were effected. As this special issue underlines, thinking with Love by thinking with descriptions is a rewarding exercise precisely because it opens these matters up to view. We hope others take up Love’s invitation to re-engage with description for that very reason.


Research Methods in the Social Sciences features chapters that cover a wide range of concepts, methods, and theories. Each chapter begins with an introduction to a method, using real-world examples from a wide range of academic disciplines, before discussing the benefits and limitations of the approach, its current status in academic practice, and finally providing tips and advice on when and how to apply the method in research. The text covers both well-established concepts and emerging ideas, such as big data and network analysis, for qualitative and quantitative research methods.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document