Call for Papers: AIDS in Culture IV

Aids in Culture IV: Explorations in the Cultural History of AIDS
México City
December 9-13, 2008
Abstract Submission Deadline: September 25, 2008 (deadline extended)

AIDS is not simply an illness or a biomedical phenomenon. The conference cycle "AIDS in Culture" organised by Enkidu Magazine in Mexico City and the International Society for Cultural History and Cultural Studies (CHiCS) in cooperation with CNDH (The National Human Rights Commission in Mexico) seeks to examine cultural responses to AIDS in different cultures and societies across a wide range of perspectives.

The conference will explore the processes by which AIDS is constructed as a cultural phenomenon and how different societies in their encounters with AIDS attempt to create meaning in health, illness and disease. The conference aims at bringing together academics working in all relevant disciplines as well as activists, artists and other professionals, and promoting innovative multidisciplinary and multicultural exchange and dialogue.

Among the themes of interest are the following:

• AIDS and Cultural Texts: Power and Representation.
• Representations of AIDS in art, movies, music, poetry, religion and literature from the 1980s until today.
• Silences and taboos in discourses on HIV/AIDS.
• Aesthetic responses to the challenge. Rituals, customs, and fetishism.
• Cultural practices that influence the spread of HIV/AIDS
• AIDS and collective and individual identities: Race, Class, Gender etc
• AIDS and Politics, Lobbying and Activism: Power, Representation and Activism.
• Constructions and reconstructions of AIDS in political, faith and ideology based discourse, legal issues and policy making throughout the world: Who has the authority to speak and who is silenced?
• AIDS and theory: Cultural Studies, Queer Studies, Religious Studies, History, Anthropology, Sociology, Literary Studies and all related disciplines. How do we theorize and analyse experiences and the meaning of illness?
• The ,significance' of AIDS for individuals and communities; the cultural factors influencing our perceptions of health and illness experiences.
• AIDS and psychosocial affects and effects. Cultures of silence.
• Indigenous knowledge and responses to AIDS
• Stories and Histories about AIDS
• AIDS and Oral History
  

Papers will be considered on related themes and topics from a wide range of perspectives. Interdisciplinary perspectives are especially welcome since all these topics in themselves stretch across several disciplines: history, literary studies, linguistics, psychology, political sciences, pedagogy, ethnology, anthropology, sociology...

Graduate and postgraduate students are encouraged to attend and present papers. Selected papers from the conference will also this year be published in book form.

Submission guidelines can be found here.

CEAUSSIC's Ethics Casebook: Call for Abstracts (Update)

As previously mentioned, the Ad Hoc Commission on the Engagement of Anthropology with the US Security and Intelligence Communities (CEAUSSIC) has issued a call for abstracts for its forthcoming ethics casebook. Please go here for a sample abstract or here for a sample narrative.

All submissions may be emailed to CEAUSSIC@aaanet.org

Questions and concerns about the casebook may be directed to the Ad Hoc Commission's chair, Dr. Rob Albro, at albro@american.edu or 202-885-1546.

Obama Addresses Science

In an effort to inject science back into the political dialogue, Science Debate 2008 has provided a list of 14 questions to be answered by Presidential nominees. John McCain has yet to respond, but Barack Obama's responses can be found here.

A teaser on scientific integrity:
"Scientific and technological information is of growing importance to a range of issues. I [Barack Obama] believe such information must be expert and uncolored by ideology.

I will restore the basic principle that government decisions should be based on the best- available, scientifically-valid evidence and not on the ideological predispositions of agency officials or political appointees. More broadly, I am committed to creating a transparent and connected democracy, using cutting-edge technologies to provide a new level of transparency, accountability, and participation for America’s citizens. Policies must be determined using a process that builds on the long tradition of open debate that has characterized progress in science, including review by individuals who might bring new information or contrasting views. I have already established an impressive team of science advisors, including several Nobel Laureates, who are helping me to shape a robust science agenda for my administration."

Gender Equity in the Social Sciences

As reported by Inside Higher Ed, a report [pdf] detailing the status of women within the social sciences was released by the University of Washington's Center for Innovation and Research in Graduate Education. The report draws upon surveys of faculty members in anthropology, communications, geography, history, political science, and sociology. The authors found that despite women having a relatively equal start in academia as their male counterparts, gaps remain in the awarding of tenure and the balance of work-family life.

A survey [pdf] conducted by the Committee on the Status of Women in Anthropology (COSWA) during the month of May displayed similar findings. COSWA found that female anthropologists have a less positive experience of their work environment and bear a greater burden of familial responsibilities. For additional information, visit the COSWA webpage and see the May AN article "Gender Disparities Remain: COSWA's Academic Climate Report" (49[5]:22).

Pulse of the Planet #3

Melissa Checker's "Carbon Offsets: More Harm Than Good?" is the next installment of CounterPunch's "Pulse of the Planet" series. The series is derived from conference papers delivered at the "Pulse of the Planet" panel during AAA's 2008 annual meeting. In her op-ed, Checker describes the flaws of the carbon offset industry, ranging from its funding to implementation. She also suggests a number of alternatives: changing consumptive behavior, improving government regulation and policing of industrial emissions, preparing vulnerable populations for climate change, and using renewable energy and "green" goods and services.

Prior Pulse of the Planet Articles:
"The Human Right to Eat" ~ Joan P. Mencher
"Dam Legacies, Damned Futures" ~ Barbara Rose Johnston

Six Research Positions Open in Portugal

The Center for Social Studies at the University of Coimbra, Portugal is offering six research positions for those holding a PhD in the social and human sciences for over three years. The positions aim to develop the following research areas:

1) Architecture and urbanism
2) Cities and urban cultures
3) Citizenship and social policies
4) Migration studies
5) Labor relations, social inequalities and trade unionism
6) Peace studies
7) Cultural and religious diversity in Southern Europe

The application deadline is Sept. 30, 2008. For more information, please click here [pdf].

Race & Medicine

Alan Goodman, former AAA President and professor of biological anthropology at Hampshire College, was featured in Newsweek's Lab Notes blog last week. The blog post emphasizes the ways that race influences medical practice and treatment, and the implications this can have for a patient's health.

Racial Paranoia: The Unintended Consequences of Political Correctness

Savage Minds linked to an article in the Philadelphia Inquirer featuring UPenn anthropologist John L. Jackson Jr. He describes his first non-academic book, Racial Paranoia: The Unintended Consequences of Political Correctness, and how racial fears underlie many of our everyday (inter)actions.

It is refreshing to see Jackson and several other anthropologists stepping into the public sphere. For more of Jackson, visit his AnthroMan blog and the Chronicle's Brainstorm blog.

Annual Meeting Registration

Registration is now open for AAA's 2008 Annual Meeting in San Francisco, California. The meetings will be held from Wednesday, November 19 until Sunday, November 23 at the San Francisco Hilton and Towers. Click here for additional information and to register. A preliminary program(pdf) is also available for download.

Call for Abstracts: Suburban Diversity

The National Center for Suburban Studies at Hofstra University is hosting a conference on the phenomenon of suburban diversity. They have issued a call for abstracts, which should be submitted prior to Jan. 31, 2009.

Topics might include, but are not limited to:
* Racial and ethnic suburban enclaves, past and present
* International migration to the suburbs
* White supremacy, structural/institutional racism, and white privilege in the suburbs
* Changing patterns of suburban class segregation
* Environmental justice movements in the suburbs
* Women's leadership in suburban social movements
* New forms of suburban social and political organization
* Affordable housing and suburban gentrification
* Inequality and suburban schools
* Control of public space and a 'right to the suburb'
* Age and inclusion in the suburbs
* Sexuality, queer identity, and suburban politics
* Representations of diverse suburbs in the visual and performing arts
* International/comparative analyses of suburban diversity
* New suburban populations and suburban religious life

Click here for additional details.

Ethics Casebook - Call for Abstracts

The Ad Hoc Commission on the Engagement of Anthropology with the US Security and Intelligence Communities (CEAUSSIC) has issued a call for abstracts. Please go here for a sample abstract or here for a sample narrative. An online submission portal is forthcoming.

CEAUSSIC is asking our colleagues in anthropology and related disciplines for summaries of illustrative cases that explore intersections among the ethical, methodological, and theoretical aspects of work in, around, and for the national security state, including public and private institutions, in and outside academia. We seek narrative cases from all of anthropology’s fields, including archaeology, biological/physical anthropology, ethnology, and linguistic anthropology; from emerging and established areas of practice and research within these fields.

Process. The casebook submission process will occur in two phases: submission of a short summary abstract for CEAUSSIC review, due by December 31, 2008; followed by submission of a longer case narrative for selected cases, due by May 15, 2009. A more detailed timetable is included below.

In the first round of submissions, CEAUSSIC will review abstracts and select a subset that meets the following criteria:

1. The potential for exploring complex and emerging intersections among methodology, practice, ethics, and theory in anthropology, across all fields and forms of practice;

2. The case’s relevance to present-day issues in anthropology’s intersection with national security problems, across all four fields of the discipline and all forms of practice;

3. The potential for provoking educational and productive debate and discussion among anthropologists;

4. The potential for provoking debate about social science research ethics in a wider community beyond anthropology, including other disciplines and institutions;

5. The quality of the narrative, as demonstrated in a well-written abstract

Content. Case abstracts should briefly describe the context, the individuals and institutions involved, type of activity, the time period during which the situation is occurring or took place, and the ethical problems, themes, and issues that the case raises. Rather than offering opinions, solutions, or analysis, we would like a descriptive narrative that richly evokes the context and complexities of a moment of engagement in which moral, political, methodological, and/or ethical issues become salient.

We strongly encourage our colleagues to submit cases referring to real-life situations encountered in the course of work, but we are willing to consider realistic hypothetical cases that raise provocative questions about ethics, politics, morality, theory and methods, and that have practical implications for anthropologists engaged in all forms of practice, across all fields of the discipline. Cases do not have to originate in national security problems, but should have some relevance to current debates about anthropological ethics and practice vis-à-vis public and private institutions of power, including national security institutions. Cases that bring an international perspective to these problems are encouraged, particularly from anthropologists outside the United States. Cases that originate outside anthropology are welcome as well, as long as they provoke issues that are relevant to current anthropological discussions and debates.

Please note that CEAUSSIC is primarily a review and research panel and does not engage in ethics investigations. Therefore, this is not a place to raise specific allegations of misconduct or to accuse other researchers of illegal or unethical behavior. Allegations of significant ethics violations should be raised with your home institution, funding agencies, and/or AAA leadership, as you feel appropriate.

Format. Each preliminary submission should include the case title, the author’s name and contact information, and a 200-250 word abstract that summarizes the key points of the case, and explicitly states how the case pertains to questions of anthropological ethics. An example of a preliminary submission is included at the end of this call.

CEAUSSIC will contact authors whose case abstracts meet the initial criteria, and ask them to provide a longer submission for panel discussion and eventual publication in the casebook. If your abstract is chosen for further consideration, we will ask you to submit a more elaborated case narrative of between 1500 and 3000 words in length. A sample second-round narrative is attached at the end of this call.

Submission process. You may submit your case abstract electronically by emailing it to CEAUSSIC@aaanet.org . Alternatively, you may mail a paper copy of your abstract to the following address:

ATTN: Dr. Robert Albro
School of International Service
American University
4400 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20016

Privacy and Confidentiality. CEAUSSIC is extremely concerned about maintaining the privacy and confidentiality of all individuals involved in the cases. As they are being reviewed, all cases will be held in strictest confidence for consideration and discussion of CEAUSSIC and its guests only. However, we ask that you indicate if the story is hypothetical or fictional (or some combination thereof), and indicate where you have used real names, events and places in your story, so that we can take appropriate safeguards to maintain confidentiality and anonymity. We also ask that you also respect the confidentiality and anonymity of your colleagues and informants: for example, please not disclose sensitive information unless such information is germane to your case. If your case is selected for publication, CEAUSSIC will contact you to anonymize any identifying elements in the story, to protect privacy and confidentiality of the individuals and institutions involved in the event.

Review. CEAUSSIC will select a subset of the case submissions for discussion and review. Cases will be chosen for quality of their narrative, the case’s relevance to present-day issues in anthropological research and practice, and the complexity and nuance of the ethical issues that the case raises. CEAUSSIC will recruit appropriate subfield representatives and a professional research ethicist to assist in the review of the cases. The selected cases will be annotated with a set of discussion questions and a summary of the review committee’s comments; these annotated cases will provide the basis for a final casebook manuscript.

Important Dates.

• Case abstracts final submission due to CEAUSSIC by 31 December 2008.
• We will review all submissions, select the discussion cases, and notify authors of the status of their case submission by 15 February 2009.
• The full case review will take place during May 2009.
• Once the review is complete, we will select and post a subset of these cases on the CEAUSSSIC website. In addition, CEAUSSIC will maintain updates on its AAA webpage as the project progresses.
• We expect to have a final manuscript for publication submission by December 2009.

Contact. Question and concerns may be directed to the Ad Hoc Commission's Chair, Dr. Rob Albro, at albro@american.edu or (202)885-1546.

Minerva - NSF/DoD Joint Solicitation

NSF recently signed a memorandum of understanding with the DoD, allowing collaboration between the two agencies, and has just announced a joint solicitation for proposals in the tune of $8 million. The stated goals of the program are “1) to develop the DoD’s social and human science intellectual capital in order to enhance its ability to address future challenges; 2) to enhance the DoD’s engagement with the social science community; and 3) to deepen the understanding of the social and behavioral dimensions of national security issues.”

Although we are pleased with NSF's involvement in Minerva, additional clarification is needed about the extent of DoD's role in the selection and review process. AAA is also concerned that only a portion of Minerva funding is being routed through NSF.

Share your thoughts on Minerva in our comment section below.

Links:

AAA letter regarding Minerva [pdf]

"Military's Social Science Grants Raise Alarm" ~ Washington Post

"When Professors Go to War" ~ Hugh Gusterson

"Pentagon Shift on 'Minerva'" ~ Inside Higher Ed

"Anthropology Association Urges Government to Tread Cautiously With 'Minerva' Project" ~ The Chronicle of Higher Education

"Academics Target Pentagon's Social Science Project" ~ Wired's Danger Room,

"AAA Issues Statement on Minerva" ~ Savage Minds

DoD Defense Bloggers Roundtable Regarding Minerva [pdf]

Hugh Gusterson, "When Professors go to War"

Hugh Gusterson, professor of anthropology at George Mason University, was featured in Foreign Policy this month. In his article, “When Professors go to War,” he describes the potential ramifications of a Pentagon-funded Minerva Project. Given anthropology’s lean to the left and lingering frustration about the (mis)use of social science research in Vietnam, many anthropologists, Gusterson argues, are unlikely to participate in Minerva. Opting out of Minerva compromises the Pentagon’s reported mission of sponsoring research from across the political spectrum. Gusterson writes, “The Pentagon will have the false comfort of believing that it has harnessed the best and the brightest minds, when in fact it will have only received a very limited slice of what the ivory tower has to offer­--academics who have no problem taking Pentagon funds. Social scientists call this ‘selection bias,’ and it can lead to dangerous analytical errors.” The solution is simple: fund through agencies that have experience supervising social science research, such as the NSF or NIH.

In a letter to the Office of Management and Budget, Defense Secretary William Gates, and the House and Senate Armed Services and Budget Committees, AAA urged to have NSF oversee the funding process. It appears some progress has been made. NSF recently signed a memorandum of understanding with the DoD, allowing collaboration between the two agencies. However, this does not mean NSF will be reviewing Minerva proposals, and additional efforts are needed to facilitate joint solicitations.

AAA Responds to Laptop Searches

The Fourth Amendment requires that federal authorities have a warrant to conduct a search and seizure of personal property. Routine border searches have long been considered exempt from this law, and “reasonable suspicion” is required to conduct non-routine and invasive searches. This recently changed when the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that federal officials—namely, Custom and Border agents—can randomly search and seize electronic information stored on laptop computers, cameras, cell phones, MP3 players, and other devices without “reasonable suspicion.”

This poses obvious risks to anthropologists and their research participants. AAA President Setha Low issued a letter urging Homeland Security to reevaluate its policy. In the meantime (and as standard practice), we advise social scientists to code all identifiable information (names, locations, etc.), delete information that could used to identify or harm participants, encrypt any sensitive data, and/or store their research in a secure online database.

AAA is not alone in its response. The Electronic Frontier Foundation, Asian Law Caucus, Muslim Advocates, and Association of Corporate Travel Executives have also protested electronic searches. According to the NYTimes, Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) also expressed concern about the actions of the US Customs and Border Protection Agency during a Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing on the subject.

Have a specific concern or suggestion? Leave a comment.

John Jackson Jr., "Anthropology: The Softest Social Science?"

John Jackson Jr., associate professor of communication and anthropology at UPenn, had an interesting post on The Chronicle Review's blog yesterday. In his post, "Anthropology: The Softest Social Science?," Jackson expresses concern about anthropology's presence and standing in the public realm and the credibility that is all too easily ascribed to quantitative disciplines.

If you enjoy Jackson's humor and insights, visit his blog--AnthroMan--and leave a comment.

Call for Papers, "Death and the Fieldworker: Dealing with Loss in Ethnographic Research"

Anthropologists and other social scientists who conduct ethnographic fieldwork are invited to submit an essay for consideration in a new edited volume on death in the context of fieldwork. Essays will explore the meanings, ramifications, and challenges of death and dying within three broad contexts. First, what is the relationship of investigators with their research communities when there is a death? With death, it seems, community life and individual relationships destabilize. As ethnographers, we are not immune to feeling the stress and grief of losing close friends and collaborators in the field. Second, what is the relative importance of some deaths (juvenile, human, ideological, linguistic, etc) over others within a community? The death of an individual represents more than just the passing of the life of that person. It can also mean that the sum total of cultural knowledge carried by that individual and enacted through her or his social relationships dies as well. Ethnographers and communities feel the impact of the loss of such culture bearers, albeit in different ways, as the loss of cultural knowledge or community potential. Finally, how do communities and researchers learn the management of unexpected or endemic mortality and chronic sorrow? Fieldwork partly becomes a process by which we learn from those around us different ways of coping. These may not be ways we fully adopt, but they certainly inform a greater understanding, or epistemology, of death and continual loss.

Essays should be ethnographically driven, theoretically grounded, and humanistically compelling. Interested authors should submit a 500 word abstract and curriculum vitae by e-mail attachment to Jon Wolseth (jwolseth@gmail. com) and Samantha Solimeo (Samantha@solimeo. com) no later than August 22nd, 2008

Secrecy on the Rise

Federal policy dictates that "fundamental" research should remain unclassified. However, according to a report released by the Council on Government Relations and the Association of American Universities, federal agencies appear to be incorporating more restrictive clauses into research grants and contracts. The report found 180 instances of restrictive language at 20 research institutions in 2007, a substantial increase from the 138 found in a 2003-2004 survey. The majority of restrictions are from the Defense Department, but other agencies have also made use of them. Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Pentagon officials, called upon the DoD, as well as other agencies, to back off the restrictive language. Gates has ensured universities that research funded by the Minerva Project will remain unclassified. But we still advise all scholars to look for secrecy clauses prior to accepting any grants or contracts.

Please comment below if you've encountered these clauses before and have any advice for our readers.

China Blacklists Scholars

Inside Higher Ed reported that scholars have been blacklisted from China following their contribution to a book, Xinjiang: China's Muslim Borderland, on the country’s western province. Although the number of blacklisted scholars appears to be rather small, the potential effect on the academic community could prove to be quite large. Many hesitate to discuss issues related to Tibet, Taiwan, Tiananmen, and the Falun Gong, and the blacklist is likely to expand this self-censorship, particularly among younger scholars. Academics are also concerned that speaking about these issues could endanger their relations with Chinese scholars, universities, and research institutions. Anthropologists who conduct fieldwork in the People’s Republic are well aware of the intricacies of Chinese bureaucracy, and we trust their ability to discuss sensitive topics in an appropriate manner. But for those of you who are new to Sino studies, please contact the AAA so we can put you in touch with members who have the necessary experience to guide you.

Minerva & NSF

The Pentagon has launched a program called the Minerva Research Initiative that would fund university-based social scientists to study topics of interest to the Department of Defense, such as the Chinese military and religious fundamentalism. The AAA expressed its concerns about Minerva in a letter to Washington, and urged the Pentagon to coordinate with the National Science Foundation and other agencies that have extensive experience in peer-review and are familiar with the ethical standards and concerns of our discipline. The Pentagon was apparently listening. Pentagon officials signed an agreement with NSF last week enabling the two agencies to collaborate on approving Minerva-funded social science research. Still, there are concerns within the discipline that research will only be used when it supports the Pentagon’s agenda. AAA will continue to follow Minerva closely and will issue updates on this blog.

If you feel strongly about the program, please feel free to comment below.

AAA Backs Global AIDS Legislation

AAA addressed a letter to Senate majority leader Harry Reid, requesting that he urge his fellow Senators to reject any amendments to the Global AIDS Bill that would decrease funds for the treatment and prevention of HIV/AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis. The bill was expected to pass the Senate floor prior to the G-8 Summit, but several Republicans stopped the bill in its tracks. These Senators are retaining their holds on the bill because of concerns over its $50 billion dollar price tag and its family-planning and prevention programs.