Norwegian Network on the Anthropology of Mobilities (NAM)
RCN application no.: ES495887 NAM
Institusjonsforankrede strategiske prosjekter i sosialantropologi (ISP-ANTRO)
Søknadstype 1: Nasjonal satsning på disiplinutvikling – samarbeidsprosjekter
This proposal addresses one of the major conclusions of the evaluation of Norwegian social and
cultural anthropological research (RCN 2011), namely that Norwegian anthropology has a strong
legacy in solid ethnographical work and analysis, but lacks ambitions and commitment to
international developments of anthropological theory and methods. The institutions and researchers
behind this application meet this challenge by proposing a Norwegian Network on the Anthropology
of Mobilities linking up with an emergent trend in international anthropology as well as in the social
sciences in general to put a stronger theoretical emphasis on ‘mobility’. This turn is particularly
marked in migration studies. Hence, the proposed collaboration springs out from a shared research
interest in and critical concerns with the current state of migration studies within anthropology.
Scope, relevance and rationale
Mobility is often approached in terms of the meaning we ascribe to this notion from our own cultural
perceptions. Taking these perceptions for granted we introduce a bias, and voice concerns, more
related to labour migration, refugeeism and tourism than to intrinsic features of the societies
analysed. These forms of mobility are then, associated with either economic and political crisis or
also, pleasure and extravagance – movements that are either forced by circumstances or freely
chosen, but still by our societies never conceived as constitutive processes (Larsen 2003).
Approaching forms of mobility practiced and understood by others may also engender concerns
grounded in our own values and worries, ascribing to different communities and societies the same
perceptions and logics of movements that we have more or less internalised from our own
understanding of society and socio-cultural continuity. Saying this, our aim is not to suggest a retreat
to relativism as such in order to understand the reasons and consequences of various concepts and
forms of mobility. We do suggest, however, that we engage in comparison on the basis of debating
with our ‘others’ the meaning of mobility. We should approach forms of movement according to how
it relates to the constitution of various forms of societies and different ways of being in, and relating
to, the world, despite the claim that the world of today is one of globalised processes equally shaping
life as well as its’ meaning for people in all its various centres and peripheries.
The turn to ‘mobility’ have potentially vast implication for the development of fundamental concepts
within the discipline of anthropology. However, it is not our intention to engage with the whole field
of research on human mobility, but focus on a limited set of issues we find pivotal to unpack and
question the legitimacy and tacit assumptions in ‘sedentarist metaphysics’ (Malikki 1992, Cresswell
2006) currently underpinning among other fields of studies, migration research. The aim of this
project is to generate new theoretical and methodological perspective on the interconnections
1
between geographical mobility, time, and social mobility. This implies a broad notion of mobility so
as to discover continuities and suggest tentative patterns.
The evaluation report is attentive to how migration studies in within Norwegian anthropological
research tend to be subsumed as one among the two major types of applied anthropology in
Norway; that is migration and development both engaged with, currently politically identified social
problems and issues. In this regard it should be noticed that the main aim of the collaborating
institutions is to bring our individually produced ethnographies on movement in time and space into
dialogue with each other at higher level of abstractions in a context of mobility for the purpose of
generating new theoretical and methodological perspectives, focusing on the following three major
problems:
How to conceptualize contemporary human mobility in anthropological theory?
In what manner could anthropological methodology develop so as to ensure complex
ethnographies incorporating temporal and spatial movement?
To what extent may a focus on mobility contest the temporal and spatial norms of
contemporary migration studies?
The collaborative institutions in this project are Norwegian Social Research (NOVA), Department of
Ethnography at Museum of Cultural History, University of Oslo (UiO), and Department of Social
Anthropology, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) all of which have
comprehensive research records on diverse forms of human mobility.
Through annual workshops, the collaborating institutions will expand their academic exchange in
theorizing anthropologically diverse forms of social organization where geographical movement is
perceived as constitutive of society and significant cultural dimensions, within a close-knit network of
international and national colleagues, focusing in particular on the incorporation of younger
researchers who also share an interest in theorizing mobility. To meet the major challenge of
Norwegian social and cultural anthropological research, i.e. to procure and institutionalise
knowledge of generating theory and increase international publications through establishing new
patterns of inter-institutional, inter-generational, and international collaborations (RCN 2011) are
thus at the core of the project. The project falls under the topic of Global Social Inequalities in the
call, and project activities are planned for a period of four years (2013 - 2016) with a total budgets of
NOK 3.646.750 of which we apply RCN for NOK 2.012.000.
Theorising mobility anthropologically
This research collaboration is motivated by, both an interest in the increasing number of people
finding themselves in situations where they see no alternative but to leave their home areas, as well
as a wish to explore understandings of and practices related to mobility from a perspective where
being on the move is perceived as a significant dimension of livelihood systems. Saying this, we are
not implying that the importance of mobility has been ignored in anthropological studies. On the
contrary, discussions of social and cultural change have often focused on mobility, but usually in
terms of migration either as labour migration (Mitchell 1956, Pottier 1988, Ferguson 1990) or also,
forced migration and refugeeism (Bascom 1998, Indra 1999, Black & Koser 1999). Moreover, mobile
2
communities, in particular nomadic communities, have provided ethnographic material on the basis
of which significant theoretical perspectives on social organization have been formulated (e.g.
Bohannan 1954, Lienhardt 1966 and 1961, Evans-Prichard 1969 and 1951). Still, and maybe ironically
so, mobility has until recently often been portrayed as a sign of societies or, also, social systems in
crises. Mobility of people within and between state boundaries or even across continental
boundaries has mostly been approached in terms of examining the problems created in the wake of
movements either with regard to the society people are moving from or for the societies people
move to. Mobility is thus seen as being a sign of social and cultural disruption and disorder or, even,
‘acculturation’ to use an outdated term – an understanding which is intricately entangled in the
ideologically constructed nature of the Nation State and its emphasis on closed social and cultural
entities associated with the territorial boundaries of the nation state (Daley 2001). In the case of
pastoral communities, dominant notions of modernisation mean, for instance, that mobile livestock
keeping is considered to be a historically bound tradition that should be corrected (Wilson 1995).
Governments and their policy makers continue to consider sedentarisation of transhumance and
nomadic populations as a laudable development goal and, hence, the kind of alternative livelihood
that should be adaptable to and indeed desirable for strengthening the vision and the hold of the
nation state (Wilson 1995, Harir 1994, Fratkin 1999, Manger 2001). However, settlement and the
reorganisation of society that follows – of its practices, ideas and relationships – affect not only the
system of production but also people’s life-worlds.
Still, various forms of mobility are essential to an understanding of societies (Clifford 1992), as the
term mobility itself refers to all kinds of movement such as, for instance, pastoralism, nomadism,
trade, travel, migration and refugeeism (de Bruijn et al. 2001). A focus on mobility as a normal aspect
of life, contrasts more hegemonic understandings, that emphasize the importance of staying in
one(s) place both with regard to, identity formation and socio-cultural continuity. An aim of the
collaboration is to explore mobility as a characteristic and genuine feature of certain societies, a
feature inherent in processes through which social organizations and structures are reproduced and
perceived continuity ensured. Hence, the idea of being mobile and practices of mobility are in certain
ethnographic contexts perceived as crucial.
Mobility and transnationalism
In the assessment of the research quality of the various research themes in Norwegian anthropology
the panel’s evaluation is that much of the migration research in Norway rests on “a set of tacit
assumptions about ‘proper Norway’ as a relatively undifferentiated social/moral unit” (NCR 2011:72).
The proposed collaboration will respond to this critique by encouraging a shift from perspectives on
issues of identity and belonging that emphasize processes of incorporation and integration – that is
majority perspectives – to a focus on processes reproducing transnational belonging and identity.
Studies of transnationalism now constitute a well-established and burgeoning field. Though there are
different approaches and definitions of these phenomena, uniting most is a critique of the
methodological nationalism (Wimmer and Glick Schiller 2002) challenging exactly the
homeland/host-country divide in earlier studies of migration. This new wave of migration studies has
also stressed the necessity of studying across status categories and migration histories by including
refugees, labor migrants, reunified families, business people and so on within the same overall
3
grouping (e.g. Crisp 1999). In one of the founding texts of this field Glick Sciller et al. (1992:1-2)
defines the concept ‘transnationalism’ in the following way:
We have defined transnationalism as the process by which immigrants build social fields that
link together their country of origin and their country of settlement. […] Transmigrants
develop and maintain multiple relations – familial, economic, social, organizational, religious,
and political – that span borders. Transmigrants take actions, make decisions, and feel
concerns, and develop identities within social networks that connect them to two or more
societies simultaneously.
A recent concept that has emerged within this field of study is partial-belonging. One of the
strengths of this concept is that it challenges the applicability of the term diaspora in understanding
the complexity of identity and belonging in transnational contexts. More generally, diaspora-studies
constitute a sub-field within the literature on transnationalism. The term ‘diaspora’ is used in most
academic works with reference to the spatial dispersal of a people from an existing or imaginary
homeland, maintaining a sense of collectivity over an extended period of time (e.g. van Hear 1998).
However, in spite of – or, indeed, because of – these analytical advantages, a resulting problem is
that the concepts of transnationalism and diaspora may have become too successful. According to
Brubaker, the concept of diaspora has lost its analytical power, being applied to “any and every
nameable population category that is to some extent dispersed in space” (2005: 3). Brubaker and
others thus criticize the imprecision and flexibility of transnationality and diaspora as almost allencompassing categories. Another often-voiced criticism concerns homogenizing and generalizing
descriptions of diaspora groups, not least in relation to the omission of attention to issues of gender,
ethnicity and social class (Anthias 1998, Brah 1996). An early, rather sweeping critique was presented
by Floya Anthias, who claims that applications of the diaspora concept have had a tendency to
reinforce absolutist notions of ‘origin’ and ‘true belonging’ (1998: 577), ignoring internal
differentiation within diasporic groups and relying on very crude ideas of belonging. Instead of using
the concept as a description of a particular form of displacement, Anthias argues that what is crucial
is its self-referential aspect: “a diaspora is a particular type of ethnic category, one that exists across
the boundaries of nation states rather than within them” (Anthias 1998: 571). Yet, according to
Kibreab (1999) there can be no de-territorialized identity in a territorialized space.
Axel has made a similar proposition when suggesting that diaspora “may be understood more
productively as a globally mobile category of identification” (Axel 2004: 26), thereby shifting the
focus to questions of who claims to be the subject of diasporas and the conditions for such
identifications. A possible analytical solution to the threat of conceptual dilution, which we endorse,
lies in Levitt’s and Glick Schiller’s conceptualization of society and social membership as a series of
interconnections between social fields in Bourdieu’s sense – that is as interlocking networks of social
relationships structured by power through which ideas, practices and resources are unequally
exchanged. Within such fields one should distinguish between ways of being, referring to “actual
social relationships and practices that individuals engage in rather than to the identities associated
with their action” and ways of belonging, referring to “practices that signal or enact an identity which
demonstrates a conscious connection to a particular group” (Levitt and Glick Schiller 2004: 1010).
This means that individuals can engage in cross-border practices without identifying as transnational
4
and the other way around. In this picture we see diaspora as positioned on the ways-of-belonging
side.
Within this approach an exploration of conceptualizations, perceptions and practices of mobility will
be of great interest. In recent decades, the concept of mobility has attracted much anthropological
attention as analysts have attempted to distance themselves from the previously dominant bounded
and ‘sedentary’ view of culture and formulated critique attacking the idea that the nation-state, with
its underlying notion of one people, one state, one territory is the natural evolutionary endpoint of
human history. With the rise of this tendency, based on the historical fact that forms of mobility are
one of the dominant characteristics of human history, scholars have frequently pointed out the
arbitrariness of geo-political boundaries. Parkin (2001) has suggested, spatial tropes are a ‘useful
fiction’ and more analytical attention has been focused on wide-ranging social institutions that cross
borders and boundaries instead of reifying them (Lewis and Wigan 1997).
These points have added relevance as we now supposedly live in an age of globalization were capital,
goods, peoples and culture pass through increasingly porous borders and multinational institutions
usurp some of the former functions of the nation-state. However, borders, boundaries, custom
houses, immigration services and a vast array of different policies and institutions of nationalization
and integration are powerful social institutions that shape and reshape the practices, beliefs and
world views of those who fall under their sway (see for example Simpson 2006). Furthermore, these
processes tend to temporally direct social reproduction towards a variety of ‘imaginations of the
future’ (Cañás Bottos 2008) with differing degrees of implicitness-explicitness. While forms of
mobility may be a constant in human history, the social construction of spatiality that is travelled
through and how this is viewed by the structures of power is deeply dependent on the specific
historical and more broadly temporal context that includes the past, the present, and the future.
Temporalities of mobility
Turning to time in approaching human mobility, we seek to develop perspectives and methods that
are sensitive to the fact that human lives unfold over time and that human mobility incorporates
temporal as well as spatial dimensions. The strengths of anthropological methodology is precisely its
interest in and capacity to discover the time perspectives within which social agents themselves
frame their acts, lives and selves (Hirsch and Stewart 2005). In a similar manner we suggest that
much research on human mobility is over-determined by an interest in the marginality of people on
the move in favour of sensitivity to their perspective on mobility.
Linking mobility and historicity we are not simply concerned with different forms of human
migration, but with how movement becomes culturally and socially meaningful. Investigating the
manners in which human movement and sedentarisation as well as the scholarly and political
discourses circumscribing these processes, the aim is to generate new perspectives on the power and
potentiality of social, cultural and geographical boundaries. The significance of focusing on the
temporality in relation to mobility is that it allows firstly to understand and subsequently to analyse
how putative boundaries between ‘places’ and ‘spaces’ could be permeable in different ways, that
challenge the very idea of society and culture as predominantly sedentarised and bounded.
5
Turning to time in exploring human mobility, we also explores historicities of mobility as these are
continually produced by people who move and/or have moved in different parts of the world and
within contexts of mobility that are differently constituted. We shall examine historicities of mobility
by engaging ethnographically diverse explorations of modes in which people on the move actualize
the past in the present with the future in mind.
Social mobility
In order to understand historical, contemporary and emerging forms of social organization, an
exploration of the relationship between spatial and social mobility is crucial. Still the ways in which
spatial movement pertains to upward and downward social mobility is one kind of problematic that
needs to be theoretically and analytically addressed in new ways. The link between, for instance,
social mobility and migration has been widely researched in sociology, anthropology and other
disciplines, but how different practices of spatial mobilities are interlinked with different prospects
for social mobility (upwards and downwards) has not yet been researched in any systematic and
comparative way. What is empirically well established, however, is that what often motivates
physical movement inside the national borders as well as across is an expectation of a better life for
oneself and one’s family; most significant for one’s children. Wars, deportations, persecution,
trafficking, and ecological breakdowns represent significant factors initiating migration which often
can, but not automatically, lead to downward mobility at least for the first generation.
In many countries, and not only in the west, the social mobility of immigrants – or the lack thereof –
is a source of ‘official worry’. This means that, in diagnosing the complex local situations created by
present-day global interconnections, researchers must take into account not only the level of
individual success but also what lies outside the spotlight of comparison, in the life-world left behind
– or brought from one place to the other – in the process of migration. This awareness seems to be
more present in American sociology through comparative projects, for instance, measuring the
performance of different immigrant groups in recent years applying the concept of social capital for
this purpose. According to Alejandro Portes (1998), what he calls the heuristic power of ‘social
capital’ comes from two sources: firstly, it focuses attention on the positive consequences of social
organization; secondly, it places these positive consequences in the framework of a broader
discussion of capital and calls attention to how such non-monetary forms of investment can be
important sources of power and influence (ibid.: 2).
Portes’ and Rumbaut’s book Legacies. The story of the immigrant second generation (Portes and
Rumbaut 2001), and their common and separate writings more generally, are among the most
theoretically refined application of social capital theory on immigration issues available. We believe it
contains elements that can be used for comparative purposes far beyond the US. Particularly
commendable is the fact that this perspective deals not only with the positive but also with the
negative effects of social capital. Important to note is that variation should not be assumed a result
of differences at the national level alone, but also of the size, composition and complexity of the
localized minority in question (Fuglerud and Engebrigtsen 2006).
6
In general, our method is to combine existing research on various forms of mobility and our diverse
and individually produced ethnographies of societies in various parts of the world where differently
motivated geographical movement is perceived as part of a wider social complexity. Moreover, to
put them into dialogue with each other for the purpose of probing more systematically into the
theoretical implications of a turn to ‘mobility; re-questioning and re-thinking relationship between
space, time and livelihoods. We believe this is a viable path along which we can contribute to unpack
and question the legitimacy of tacit assumptions inherit in sedentarist metaphysics underpinning
migration research. As such, the collaborating institutions aim not only to contribute to reconfigure
and renew anthropological migration studies nationally and internationally, but also to contribute to
an alternative theoretical base from which cultural critique of popular and political discourses on
mobile ways of life, immigration and integration can be launched. Although mobility and migration
may be caused by or even, cause ruptures in societies, migration is not necessarily, as de Bujin et al.
suggest (2001), a result of a social system in crises. And, in cases where migration is caused by
ecological, political and economic ruptures, its consequences may be different than in situation
where mobility is part of the normal flow of life. It is not the fact of migrating as such that is seen as
the cause of social, political and economic changes, but circumstances that made the effects of
otherwise normal movements, abnormal.
An important inspiration for this project refers precisely to the broader discussion of how to
conceptualize and methodologically grasp society and processes and movements that inter-connect
such entities or fluid constellations beyond and despite the existence of the state. As a way forward
to produce and procure generalized knowledge about and institutionalize generation of theory as a
habitual practice within Norwegian anthropological research, the evaluation panel advice that
anthropological institutions in Norway critically assess the efficiency of their current forms of
academic exchange, and brake out of their more parochial identities and habits of cooperation in
order to create new patterns of inter-institutional and inter-generational collaborations in research
(NRC 2011). The alliances and collaboration between the particular institutions proposed here are
novel in the history of Norwegian anthropology, and we regard the collaboration as a mutual
learning process in which we can capitalize on each other’s complementary strengths. In addition, it
should be noted that this collaboration stems from preliminary meetings, and has the potential to
form strong links of research and development between the sector of independent research
institutes for the applied sciences and the higher education sector.
Collaborating institutions and management of the project
Norwegian Social Research – NOVA
NOVA is a research institute under the auspices of the Norwegian Ministry of Education and
Research. The aim of the institute is to develop knowledge and understanding of social conditions
and processes of change. Research at NOVA focuses on issues of life-course events, level of living
conditions and aspects of life-quality as well as on programmes and services provided by the welfare
system. NOVA´s strategic position can be characterized as follows: "A research environment with
emphasis on a broad-based social science approach combined with a life-course perspective."
The institute has a particular responsibility for
7
carrying out research on social problems, public services and transfer schemes
carrying out and developing research on the family, children and young people and the
conditions under which they grow up
carrying out and developing research, pilot and development programmes with particular
emphasis on vulnerable groups and child welfare services
carrying out and developing gerontological research and related research, including
gerontology as an interdisciplinary science
Participants from NOVA will be Research Director Ada I. Engebrigtsen, and Senior Researcher Viggo
Vestel.
Department of Ethnography, Museum of Cultural History, University of Oslo (UiO)
The Department of Ethnography, Museum of Cultural History has its origin in the Ethnographic
Museum founded in 1857. In 1999 the joint organization of the Ethnographic Museum with the
Department of Social Anthropology, UiO, lasting since 1989, ended with the establishment of
Museum of Cultural History. This represented the joining of the Ethnographic Museum with the two
archaeological museums of The Mint Cabinet and the Museum of Antiquities. Today the Museum of
Cultural History is organized as a faculty within the University of Oslo with the Director of the
museum in the role of Dean. The organization comprises seven departments of greatly varying size
employing a regular staff of more than 150 permanent staff. The Ethnographic Department is the
smallest of these departments, having a regular staff of 4 social anthropologists and 2 store keepers.
The department at the moment has two PhD-scholars and two postdoctoral research fellows. The
permanent staff-members have been recruited on the basis of regional ethnographic competence,
and do research mainly within their separate regions. Participants from this Department will be
Professor Kjersti Larsen, Professor Øivind Fuglerud, and Associate Professor Arne A. Perminow.
Department of Social Anthropology, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU)
The Department of Social Anthropology at NTNU was established in 1975 as a part of College of
General Sciences (AVH), originally an in-service teachers’ training college. In 1996, the College
merged with Norwegian Technical College (NTH) forming the Norwegian University of Science and
Technology. The Department of Anthropology became one of twelve departments of the Faculty of
Social Sciences and Technology Management. The Faculty have a research and teaching profile that
uniquely combines a wide range of subjects in social sciences, humanities, technology and natural
sciences. The Department offers undergraduate, graduate and post-graduates programs in Social
Anthropology and host an interdisciplinary undergraduate programme in African Studies. In terms of
student enrolment, the Department has the past decade become the second largest teaching
department of anthropology in Norway with an annual total of more than 400 students at
undergraduate and graduate levels. Currently, the Department comprises 12 permanent staff
members, 11 PhD scholars, and 2 postdoctoral research fellows. Participants from this department
are Professor Carla-Dahl Jørgensen, Associate Professor Jan Ketil Simonsen, Associate Professor
Lorenzo Cañás Bottos, and Post-doctoral Research Fellow Jason Sumish.
8
Organization, management and coordination
The collaborative project will be hosted by NOVA. NOVA is an eligible institution well provided for
research management and dissemination. Project leader will be Research Director Ada I.
Engebrigtsen who heads the NOVA research group on immigration and minorities and who has
extensive experience in collaborative research and publication. Project leader will be responsible for
project management and administration, including overseeing research and dissemination coordination. NOVA will also host the project website.
The participant researchers from the three collaborating institutions constitute the core of the
network and are responsible the planning, coordination and implementation of network activities,
and for network results.
Objectives of the collaboration
The major objectives of the three collaborating institutions are: a) to facilitate and coordinate
meeting points for putting into creative play diverse forms of theorizing mobility anthropologically;
b) to put our claims to theoretical development and innovation under the scrutiny of international
expertise, and; c) build viable relations of research among younger colleagues to ensure future
research and development of social theory incorporating processes of mobility as constitutive of
society.
The above objectives respond to the major recommendation from the evaluation (NCR 2011) to
procure and institutionalise generalised knowledge about generating theory in order to increase
international visibility of Norwegian social and cultural anthropological research, and to build new
collaborative relations of research to attain this goal. This major objective can be verified by the
following secondary objectives:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
International publications in journal and books
Organization of three national research workshops
Participation at major international anthropological conferences
Organization of one international expert conference
High degree of participation by younger anthropologists in network activities
Submission of applications for research
Incorporation of the subject of mobility in course curricula at teaching departments
Network website that promote interest in the anthropology of mobilities
Network activities
Network activities are systematically designed to facilitate discussions and publications of
anthropological theory and methods on mobility, facilitate international exposure, and facilitate
Norwegian anthropological research on mobility beyond the duration of the project.
9
Network project group meetings
Network activities will be planned, coordinated and facilitated by a network project group that
comprises the members from the three collaborating institutions. Project meetings will be organised
in a frequency of one meeting per semester throughout the entire project period of four years. The
project group meetings will comprise the following two major components: 1) Exchange on current
issues and developments within the focal themes of the network in order to stimulate and add value
to network activities, and; 2) Strategic session in which network activities are planned, coordinated,
and network objectives are assessed. The project group meetings the fourth year will entirely be
devoted a concluding international conference and ensuing publications.
Annual national workshops
An annual research workshop will be the main tool to bring our individually produced ethnographies
on migration into fruitful dialogue which each other in order to re-read, re-question and rethink our
ethnographies at higher level of abstraction in a context of human mobility. The core members of the
network will organize three national research workshops, focusing on each sub-theme successively.
The research workshop will be the key meeting place of network members, and particular emphasis
will be placed on recruiting as presenters young anthropologists, including junior researchers at
NOVA and post-graduate students from the two partner institutions. Three international experts will
be invited to each workshop as complementary speakers to network speakers and for the purpose of
exposing the network’s theoretical debates to external criticism and review. In this regard, it should
be noted that NTNU has recently recruited Professor Michael Herzfeld of Harvard University as an
external advisor. The Department of Anthropology at Harvard is currently redirecting strategically
their research agenda towards ‘mobility’, and Professor Herzfeld will mentor research on mobility at
the NTNU Department and participate in the annual workshops. The workshops will be arranged at
NTNU in 2013, at NOVA in 2014, and at Department of Ethnography in 2015. The workshops will last
for two days, and comprise the following four components: a) Key address on the currents of
theoretical development on ‘mobility’ within the sub-theme, b) Research session in which network
members present papers for publication; c) Summaries and debates on further directions for joint
theoretical and conceptual development based on the papers presented, and; d) Strategic network
meeting to discuss publications, participation at international conferences, and submission of
applications for research funding within the network.
International expert conference
The project will close with an international expert conference in June 2016 on the theoretical
development on mobility within the discipline. The conference functions on the same principles as
the annual workshops. However, it is open to external international presenters for the purpose of
facilitating further internationalization of the network’s theoretical discussions on mobility. The
conference will be limited to a total of 30 participants, international and national presenters
included. The conference will last for two days and comprise the following four components: 1) Key
10
note speeches on current research agendas in the theoretical and methodological development of
the conceptual framework of mobility; 2) Three parallel research sessions for the presentation of
papers, 3) Panel debate between key note speakers and session convenors on future directions in
theorizing mobility anthropologically, and; 4) Strategic meeting of network project group and
international affiliated members concerning publications from the conference.
Participation in international conferences
The project will organised one joint session with network members at one major international
conference, either at the biennial EASA or the annual AAA. Comparatively to the annual workshops
and the concluding conference, organising a session open to external international scholars will
advance the theoretical discussion of mobility within the network, and facilitate internationalization
of Norwegian social and cultural anthropological research.
Publications
To encourage and facilitate international publications for network members will be key activity of the
network project group. The annual research workshops serve as the most important arena for
discussing drafts for journal articles, and will as such contribute to publications from network
members. Moreover, as a meeting place for core and affiliated network members, the workshops will
promote and facilitate joint research and publications. The network aim at publishing in
anthropological journals at level 2, but also in specialised journals on migration in which the turn to
mobility is debated. Of this latter category, we would like to mention: The interdisciplinary
International Migration Review, which focuses on all forms of migrations with an emphasis on
sociological, demographical, and economic analysis; the recently influential Diaspora focusing on
cultural analysis; the well-established Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies focusing on migration,
ethnicity and discrimination with frequent contributions from anthropology; Race and Class, focusing
on nationalism, post-colonialism, and issues of race; Ethnic and Racial Studies focusing on ethnicity,
nationalism, and new forms of antagonism; Nomadic Peoples, focusing on mobility and the current
circumstances and future possibilities of peripatetic and pastoral populations, and; the influential
journal of the Centre of Refugee Studies at Oxford, Journal of Refugee Studies. Also, we envision
publication of one or two anthologies from the concluding conference. Contract with an international
academic publisher will be put in place before the conference, and the project will allocate funds for
editing costs. The aim of the collaborating institutions is to publish a total of 18 articles and book
chapters (2 per researcher in the core network group).
Development of proposals for research
To ensure continuity of research on mobility, the network project group will encourage and facilitate
submission of joint application for research funding from one or two of the collaborating institutions,
and / or the institutions of other members in the networks. Calls from NCR will be the primary target;
we envision, however, that an application will be sent from one or two institutions in the network to
11
ECR, more particular in response to SSH.2013.3.1-1 Addressing European governance of transnational
mobility: Assessing forms of temporary migration, ERC 7th framework program, theme 8.
Network website
A network website will be instrumental in recruiting affiliated network members and promoting a
shared identity and cooperation among network members. It will be an important tool for promoting
interests in the anthropology of mobilities and for the dissemination of network research activities
and results. The web page will have the following sections: a) presentation of network; b) brief
presentations of network members; c) information about network membership; d) presentation of
network activities; e) presentation of selected research projects and publications, and f) links to
other network and relevant international conferences. The editorial responsibility will be shared
between the project leader and an appointed core network member.
Teaching and other dissemination activities
To ensure the flow of information on the international theoretical and methodological currents and
developments within in the anthropology of mobilities, the collaborating partners will also encourage
and invite networks members to hold guest lectures and deliver seminar papers at each other’s
institutions. Moreover, as the only regular teaching Department among the collaborating
institutions, NTNU take on an additional task to incorporate ‘mobility’ into course curricula.
References
Anthias, F. (1998) ‘Evaluating “Diaspora”: Beyond Ethnicity?’, Sociology, (32)4: 557-580.
Axel, B. K. (2004) ‘The Context of Diaspora, Cultural Anthropology, (19)1: 1-20.
Bascom, J. (1998) Loosing Place: Refugee Populations and Rural Transformation in East Africa. New
York: Berghan Books.
Black, R. & Khalid K. (1999) The End of the Refugee Cycle? Refugee Repatriation and Reconstruction,
New York: Berghan Books.
Bohannan, P. (1954) ‘The Migration and Expansion of the Tiv’, Africa XXVI: 2-16.
Brah, A. (1996) Cartographies of Diaspora. Contesting Identities. London & New York: Routledge.
Brubaker, R. S. (2005) ‟The ”Diaspora” Diaspora‟, Ethnic and Racial Studies, vol. 28, no. 1: 1 – 19
Cañás Bottos, L. (2008) Old Colony Mennonites in Argentina and Bolivia Nation making, Religious
Conflict and Imagination of the Future. In Religion in the Americas Series No 7, edited by Henri
Gooren. Leiden, Boston Brill Academic Publishers.
12
Castels, S. and Miller M. (2003) The Age of Migration: International Population Movements in the
Modern World. Basingstoke: Palgrave McMillan
Clifford, J. (1992) ‘Travelling Cultures’, in L. Grossberg, C. Nelson & P.A. Treichler (eds.) Cultural
Studies, New York: Routledge, pp. 96-116.
Cresswell, T. (2006) On the move: Mobility in the modern Western World. New York: Taylor and
Francis Group.
Crisp, J. (1999) ‘Policy challenges of the new diasporas: migrant networks and their impacts on
asylum flows and regimes’, New Issues in Refugee Research, 7: 1-8.
Crul, M. and H. Vemulen (eds.) (2003) ‘The future of the second generation: the integration of
migrant youth in six European contries’. Special issue of International Migration Review, 37 (4) 965 –
1144
Daley, P. (2001) ‘Population Displacement and the Humaniterian Aid Regime: The Experience of
Refugees in East Africa’, in M. de Bruijn, R.van Dijk & D. Fovken (eds.) Mobile Africa, Leiden: Brill.
de Bruijn, M., R. van Dijk & D. Foeken (2001) Mobile Africa: Changing Patterns of Movement in Africa
and Beyond, Leiden: Brill.
Evans-Prichard, E.E. (1951) Kinship and Marriage among the Nuer, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Evans-Prichard, E.E. (1969) The Nuer: A Description of the Modes of Livelihood and Political
Institutions of a Nilotic People, New York: Oxford University Press.
Ferguson, J. (1990) ‘Mobile workers, modernist narratives: a critique of the historiography of
transition on the Zambian copperbelt [part one]’ Journal of Southern African Studies, Volume 16,
Issue 3, pp. 385-412
Ferguson, J. (1990) ‘Mobile workers, modernist narratives: a critique of the historiography of
transition on the Zambian copperbelt [part two]’ Journal of Southern African Studies, Volume 16,
Issue 4, pp. 603-621
Fratkin, E. (1999) ‘East African Pastoralism in Transition: Masaai, Boran, and Rendille cases’. African
Studies Review 3(44) 1- 25.
Fuglerud, Ø. and Engebrigtsen, A. (2006) ‘Culture, networks and social capital: Tamil and Somali
immigrants in Norway’, Ethnic and Racial Studies Vol. 29 No. 6 November 2006: 1118 – 1134
Glick Schiller, N., L. Basch og C. Szanton Blanc (1992) Towards a transnational Perspective on
Migration: Race, class, Ethnicity, and Nationalism Reconsidered. Annals of the New York Academy of
Sciences: New York
Haller, W. and Landolt, P. (2005) ‘The transnational dimensions of identity formation: Adult children
of immigrants in Miami’, Ethnic and Racial Studies Vol. 28 No. 6: 1182 – 1214
13
Harir, S. (1994) ‘Recycling the Past in the Sudan. An Overview of Political Decay’. In S. Harir and T.
Tvedt (eds). Short-Cut to Decay: The Case of the Sudan. Motala: Scandinavian Institute of African
Studies.
Harir, S. (1994) ‘“Arab Belt” versus “African Belt”: Ethno-Political Conflict in Dar Fur and the Regional
Cultural Factors’. In S. Harir and T. Tvedt (eds.) Short-Cut to Decay: The Case of the Sudan. Motala:
Scandinavian Institute of African Studies.
Hirsch, E. & C. Stewart (eds.) (2005) ‘Ethnographies of historicity’, Special Issue of History and
Anthropology, 16, pp. 261-274.
Indra, D. (eds.) (1999) Engendering Forced Migration, Oxford: Berghahn.
Kibreab, G. (1999) ‘Revisiting the Debate on People, Place, Identity and Displacement’, Journal of
Refugee Studies 12 (4) 384 – 410.
Larsen, K. 2003. ‘Mobility, Identity and Belonging: The case of the Hawawir, Northern Sudan’. In N.
Shanmugarathnam, R. Lund and K. A. Stølen (eds). In the Maze of Displacement. Oslo:
Høyskoleforlaget.
Levitt, P. and Glick Schiller, N. (2004) ‘Conceptualizing Simultaneity: A Transnational Social Field
Perspective on Society’, The International Migration Review 38 (3) 1002 – 1039
Lewis, M.W. and K. E. Wigan (1997) The Myth of Continents: A Critique of Metageography. Berkeley
and London: University of California Press.
Lienhardt, G. (1966) Social Anthropology, London: Oxford University Press.
Lienhardt, G. (1961) Divinity and Experience: The Religion of the Dinka, Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Malkki, L. (1992) ‘National Geographic: The Rooting of Peoples and the Territorialization of National
Identity among Scholars and Refugees’, Cultural Anthropology, Vol. 7, No. 1, Space, Identity, and the
Politics of Difference, pp. 24-44.
Manger, L. (2001) ‘Pastoralist-State relationships among the Hadendowa Beja of Eastern Sudan’.
Nomadic Peoples 2(5) 21-48.
Michell, J.C. (1956) The Kalela Dance, Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Parkin, R. (2001) Perilous Transactions and other Papers in Indian and General Anthropology,
Sikshasandhan: Bhubaneswar
Portes, A. (1995) ‘Children of immigrants: Segmented assimilation and its determinants’ in A. Portes
(ed.) The economic sociology of immigration: Essays on networks, ethnicity, and entrepeneurship.
New York: Russel Sage Foundation
Portes, A. (ed.) (1996) The new second generation. New York: Russel Sage Foundation
Portes, A. (1998) ‘Social Capital: its origins and applications in modern sociology’, Annual Review of
Sociology, 24: 1 – 24
14
Portes, A. and Rumbaut, R. G. (2001) Legacies: The Story of the Immigrant Second Generation.
Berkely CA: University of California Press
Portes, A. and Rumbaut, R. G. (2005) „Introduction: The Seecond Generation and the Children of
Immigrants Longitudinal Study‟, Ethnic and Racial Study Vol. 28 No. 6: 983 – 999
Portes, A. and Sensenbrenner, J. (1993) „Embeddedness and immigration: Notes on the social
determinants of economic action‟, American Journal of Sociology, vol. 98, no. 6, pp. 1320_50
Pottier, J. (1988) Migrants no More: settlement and survival in Mambwe villages, Manchester
University Press.
RCN – The Research Council of Norway (2011) Social and cultural anthropological research in Norway
– an evaluation.
Sheller, M. and J. Urry (2006) ‘The new mobilities paradigm’, Environment and Planning A 2006,
volume 38, pages 207 – 226
Simpson, E. (2006) Muslim Society and the Western Indian Ocean: The Seafarers of Kachchh. London
and New York: Routledge.
Van Hear, N. (1998) New Diasporas. The Mass Exodus, Dispersal and Regroup of Migrant
Communities. Seattle: University of Washington press
Wilson, W. (1995) ‘The Fulani Model of Sustainable Agriculture: Situating Fulbe Nomadism in a
Systemic View of Pastoralism and Farming’. Nomadic Peoples 36/37 (1995) 35-52.
Wimmer, A. and Glick Schiller N. (2002) ‘Methodological nationalism and beyond; nation-state
building, migration and the social sciences’, Global Networks, 2(4) 301 – 34
15