Logo UAB
2020/2021

Comparative Research

Code: 43149 ECTS Credits: 12
Degree Type Year Semester
4313769 Anthropology: Advanced Research and Social Intervention OT 0 A
The proposed teaching and assessment methodology that appear in the guide may be subject to changes as a result of the restrictions to face-to-face class attendance imposed by the health authorities.

Contact

Name:
Jorge Grau Rebollo
Email:
Jordi.Grau@uab.cat

Use of Languages

Principal working language:
spanish (spa)

Teachers

Aurora González Echevarria
Anna Maria Piella Vila
Montserrat Ventura Oller
José Luis Molina González
Maria Montserrat Clua Fainé
Virginia Fons Renaudón
Josep Lluís Mateo Dieste

Prerequisites

There are no previous requirements.

Objectives and Contextualisation

This module is part of the specialization E1 "Ethnographic and Transcultural Research" and it comprises both semesters.

Goals:

  • To understand the dialectics between particularism and comparison that reflects the development of the history of Anthropology
  • To identify the most relevant theoretical debates concerning the concepts of personhood, body and identity, both from the perspective of a group (collective ethnic identities) as from the person’s viewpoint, in order to apply them to specific ethnographic studies and delimited comparisons.
  • To be familiar with the classical theories of kinship, as well as the proposed alternatives, both particularist and comparative.
  • To understand how to apply ethnographic research in different research areas.
  • To critically and historicallyanalyze the concept of identity in relation to national belonging within contemporary nation-states.
  • To get relevant knowledge about the field of multi-disciplined ethnography in transnational fields.

Competences

  • Carry out ground-breaking, flexible research in anthropology by applying theories and methodologies and using appropriate data collection and analysis techniques.
  • Communicate and justify conclusions clearly and unambiguously to both specialised and non-specialised audiences.
  • Defend arguments clearly, precisely and appropriately within the context, and at the same time value the contributions made by other people.
  • Integrate knowledge and use it to make judgements in complex situations, with incomplete information, while keeping in mind social and ethical responsibilities.
  • Make cross-cultural comparisons using the various procedures in anthropology.
  • Solve problems in new or little-known situations within broader (or multidisciplinary) contexts related to the field of study.
  • Systematically link up concepts, and theories within the discipline so as to analyse specific ethnographic contexts.
  • Use information and communication technologies efficiently to acquire, create and spread knowledge.

Learning Outcomes

  1. Apply the knowledge acquired to problem-solving in particular ethnographic contexts.
  2. Choose comparable units of analysis in cross-cultural research.
  3. Choose the most appropriate form of comparison for the investigation of a social and cultural problem.
  4. Defend arguments clearly, precisely and appropriately within the context, and at the same time value the contributions made by other people.
  5. Identify important elements in institutional documents and/or scientific texts that help to formulate judgments and reflect on social and ethical responsibilities in anthropology.
  6. Identify the forms of cross-cultural comparison used in the formulation and development of anthropological theories.
  7. Integrate primary and secondary ethnographic data from varying sources.
  8. Present conclusions and intervention proposals in the context of research
  9. Show mastery of the dialectic between particularity and universality in the themata that appear in different societies in relation to the concepts of body, person and identity.
  10. Systematically link up concepts, and theories within the discipline that fit in with the specific ethnographic research context.
  11. Understand and use information and communication technologies in accordance with the ethnographic context chosen for study and/or intervention.

Content

The module is divided into 5 blocks.

1. Identity, personhood and group in Africa, America and Australia.
 
2. Kinship and ethnographic research.
 
3. Multisituated ethnographies in transnational fields.

4. Identities, nationality and citizenship rights.

5. Moroccan migrations in Europe: between two shores.

 

Methodology

  • Lectures and master classes
  • Reading and analysis of academic articles / reports.
  • Analysis of ethnographic and audiovisual documentation.
  • Presentation / oral expositions
  • Personal study
  • Tutoring
  • Essay preparation and writing.

Activities

Title Hours ECTS Learning Outcomes
Type: Directed      
Analysis of ethnographic and audiovisual documentation. 7 0.28 6, 11
Lectures and master classes 68 2.72 3, 6, 10
Personal study 60 2.4 6, 7
Type: Supervised      
Analysis of academic articles / reports. 36 1.44 1
Presentation / oral expositions 15 0.6 4, 7
Tutoring 24 0.96 5
Type: Autonomous      
Essay preparation and writing 40 1.6 1, 7
Reading and analysis of academic articles / reports 50 2 3, 6, 2

Assessment

This section of the Study Guide contains all information related to the process of evaluation of the module.

Assessment of the module:

In order to pass the module, the following aspects must be considered:

  • Regular assistance and participation: First, to ensure that the expected learning results are obtained, we consider it fundamental that students regularly attend lectures and participate actively in them. For this reason, students are required to assist at least 80% of each course ("block"). Furthermore, the extent to which they participate in presentations, discussions, training sessions is evaluated. This participation is considered in the final grade for each course.
  • Continued assessment of the blocks: Second, each course or block proposes one or multiple activities that allow a continued assessment of the learning process. The activities can vary from a written test to a presentation in class, computer lab assignments, a review of a few articles or chapters, or a short essay, among others. Jointly, the evaluations for the different courses that make up the module (30%) and the participation in these courses (20%) constitute 50% of the final grade of the module. The deadlines for these activities are indicated by the lecturers.
  • Evaluation of the final paper for the module: Last, the grade obtained on a final paper constitutes the remaining 50% of the final grade for the module. In the case of the modules that make up the specializations (in particular, E1.1, E1.2, E2.1, E2.2 and E3.1), each student selects the course that is of major interest for his or her master thesis, from the set of courses that make up the module. The evaluation will be based on this course. The evaluation can consist of a larger essay of approximately 3,000 / 4,000 words, possibly in the format of an article, a review of a state of the art of aspecific theme, or a paper that addresses a specific issue in the discipline on the basis of readings recommended by the lecturer of the course that the student has chosen for evaluation. The deadline for the submission of the final paper is the 27 April 2020. 

It is essential to respect the deadlines.

Each lecturer determines the way in which papers are to be submitted (through the Campus Virtual, by e-mail or in printed form, in the mailbox of the lecturer). The lecturers communicate the results of the evaluation through the established ways and establish a period of consultation before they communicate the grades to the coordinator of the module. The student can request a tutorial with their lecturers throughout the course if they wish to clarify some point of the contents of the course.

In general, not submitting the documents that are to be evaluated results in the qualification "Not assessable". In exceptional, well justified cases, the Committee of the Master Program may propose an alternative procedure for the evaluation.

General criteria

Assessment is understood as a continued process throughout the term.

The qualifications are made on a scale from 0-10 with one decimal. To pass the subject, a minimum final grade of 5.0 is needed, as a result of the assessment procedure explained above. Once the subject is passed, it cannot be subjected to a new evaluation.

The programming of assessment activities cannot be modified unless an exceptional and well justified reason exists for this, in which case a new program is proposed during the term.

When a student performs an irregularity that can lead to a significant variation of the qualification of an assessable activity, the activity will be qualified with a 0, independently of the disciplinary process that might follow. In the  case that various irregularities in the assessable activities are found within the same module, the qualification of the module will be 0.

The qualification "not assessable" in the final records of evaluation implies the exhaustion of rights inherent in the enrolment to the module, although the "not assessable" module will not figure in the academic transcript.

In the event that the student commits any irregularity that could lead to a significant variation in the grade of an assessment act, this assessment act will be graded with 0, regardless of the disciplinary process that may be instructed. In the event of several irregularities in the evaluation acts of the same module, the final grade for this subject will be 0.

In the event that the evaluation activities cannot be done in situ, their format will be adapted (maintaining their weighting) to the possibilities offered by the UAB’s virtual tools. Homework, activities and participation in class will be done through forums, wikis and / or discussions of exercises through Teams, ensuring that all students can access

Assessment Activities

Title Weighting Hours ECTS Learning Outcomes
Attendance and active participation in the classroom 20% 0 0 9, 3, 6
Essay writing 50% 0 0 1, 8, 7, 11, 2
Submission of reports / short essays 30% 0 0 1, 4, 5, 7, 10

Bibliography

Broad listy of references. Detailed blog listings will be available at the module's Moodle.

 

AADD (2006). Qu’est-ce qu’un corps?. Afrique de l’Ouest / Europe Occidentale / Nouvelle Guinée / Amazonie, Paris: Musée du Quai Branly / Flammarion.

ANDERSON I. (1997). « I, the ‘hybrid’ Aborigine : film and representation », Australian Aboriginal Studies, 1, pp.4-14.

APARICIO T. 
(1989).“Entrevista a Peter Yu: portavoz aborigen”. IWGIA International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs. Boletín. Vol.9 Núms. 1/2, pp. 17-28

BARTH F.  (1976 [1969]). “Introducción” in F. Barth (ed) Los grupos étnicos y sus fronteras, México: F.C.E., pp.9-49.

BASTIDE R. (1993 [1971]). “Le principe d’individuation (contribution à une philosophie africaine)”. En: Dieterlen G. (ed.) La notion de personne en Afrique noire. Paris: Éditions L’Harmattan: 34-43.

BERKES F., COLDING J. & FOLKE, C. (2000). “Rediscovery of traditional ecological knowledge as adaptive management”. Ecological Applications 10 (5) : 1251-62.

BOURGOIS, P. & SCHONBERG, J. (2009). Righteous Dopefield. California series in Public Anthropology. University of California Press. 

BRADSHAW T. K. (2006). Theories of Poverty and Anti-Poverty Programs in Community Development, Working Paper No. 06-05 February. Rural Poverty Research Center. University of Missouri. Columbia

CARRITHERS M.; COLLINS S.; LUKES S. (eds) (1985). The Category of the Person. Anthropology, Philosophy, History, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

DESCOLA Ph. (2004). “Las cosmologías indígenas de la Amazonía” in A. Surrallés y P. García Hierro (eds) Tierra adentro. Territorio indígena y percepción del entorno, Copenhague: IWGIA, doc.Nº39, pp.25-35.

DESCOLA Ph. & PALSON G. (1996). Nature and society: anthropological perspectives. Londres: Routledge. 

DESMOND M. (2012). “Disposable ties and the urban poor”, American Journal of Sociology, 117 (5): 1295–133.

DESMOND M. (2016). Evicted: Poverty and Profit in the American City. New York: Crown.

DOMINGUEZ S. & WATKINS C. (2003). “Creating Networks for Survival and Mobility: Social Capital Among African-American and Latin-American Low-Income Mothers”, Social Problems, 50 (1): 111-135.

DOVE M. R. & CARPENTER C. (2008). Environmental Anthropology. A historical reader. Singapur: Ed. Blackwell.

DUMONT L. (1975). Introducción a dos teorías de antropologia social. Barcelona: Anagrama. Parte 3 (p 91-139).

EDIN K. J. & SHAEFER H. L. (2015). $2.00 a day. Living on almost nothing in America. Boston, New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. 

ELLISON N. & MARTÍNEZ MAURI M. (coords.) (2009). Paisajes, espacios y territorios. Reelaboraciones simbólicas y reconstrucciones identitarias en América Latina, Quito: Abya-Yala.

ESTEBAN M. L.(2004). Antropología del cuerpo. Género, itinerarios corporales, identidad y cambio, Barcelona: Ediciones Bellaterra.

FONS V. (2005). “Concepto de persona en África central”. Oráfrica. Revista de Oralidad Africana. Ceiba (Laboratorio de Recursos Orales), 1, pp. 21-38.

FONSECA C. (2004). "Pautas de maternidad compartida en grupos populares de Brasil", en Diana Marre yJoan Bestard (eds.), La adopción y el acogimiento. Presente y perspectivas. Estudis d'Antropologia Social i Cultural, 13. Universidad de Barcelona, pp: 91-116.

FRERER K. & VU C. M. (2007). “An Anthropological View of Poverty”, Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 16:1-2, 73-86.

GLASSER I. (1988). More than Bread. Ethnography of a Soup Kitchen. The University of Alabama Press. Tuscaloosa and London. 

GODELIER M. & PANOFF M. (1998). « Introduction ». En: La production du corps. Paris: Editions des Archives Contemporaines, pp.xi-xxv.

GÓMEZ-BAGGETHUN E. & REYES-GARCÍA V. (2013). Reinterpreting change in traditional ecological knowledge. Human Ecology 41 (4) : 643-647.

GONZÁLEZ ECHEVARRÍA et al. (2010). “Sobre la definición de los dominios transculturales. La Antropología del Parentesco como teoría sociocultural de la procreación”, Alteridades, 20 (39), pp. 93-106.

González Echevarría, Aurora; Grau Rebollo, Jorge; Valdés Gázquez, María (Eds). (2020). Cultura, Parentesco y Parentalidad. GRAFO, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB). 326 pages.

GUTIÉRREZ ESTÉVEZ M. (2003). “Representaciones míticas y juegos de lenguaje” Indiana (Ibero-Amerikanisches Institut) Vol. 19-20 Páginas: 89-99.

HÉRITIER F. (1996). “La vinculación a la estirpe. Reflexiones sobre los nuevos modos de procreación”, en F. Héritier, Masculino / Femenino. El pensamiento de la diferencia. Barcelona: Ariel, pp: 249-272.

KUHN C. E. (2005). "The causes and consequences of concentrated urban poverty", Community and Economic Development Occasional Papers. Community and Economic Development Program, School for Planning, Design and Construction, Michigan State University.

LA FONTAINE J.S. (1985). "Person and individual: some anthropological reflections" in M. Carrithers et al. (eds) The category of the person, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 123-140.

LEWIS O. (1965). The children of Sanchez. Harmondworth: Penguin Books.

LIEBOW E. (1967). Tally’s Corner: A study of Negro Streetcorner Men. Oxford, UK: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.

MARTÍNEZ MAURI M. (2015). "Navegantes, autoridades indígenas y turistas en Panamá. Los efectos del turismo sobre el control territorial de las áreas marítimas del pueblo guna". Letras Verdes, 18: 4-26

MELHUUS M. (2010). “Hijos sin madres, padres desconocidos y otros problemas de filiación. Hechos reprouctivos e imaginaciones procreativas en Noruega. La historia oficial – y algo más”, en V. Fons, A. Piella y M. Valdés (eds.) Procreación, crianza y género. Aproximaciones antropológicas a la parentalidad. Barcelona: PPU, pp: 27-42.

MOLINIÉ A. (1999). “Introducción”, en Molinié, A. (ed.) Celebrando el cuerpo de Dios. Lima: PUCP, pp. 7-28.

NEWMAN K. (1999). Falling from Grace. Downward Mobility in the Age of Affluence. CUP. 

ORTIZ RESCANIERE A. (2006). “Introducción”. En: Ortiz Rescaniere (ed.): Mitologías amerindias. Enciclopedia iberoamericana de las religiones. Nº 5. Madrid: Trotta.

PIELLA VILA A. (2004). ‘Identitats i ciutadania. Els pobles indígenes d’Austràlia’. Quaderns de l’Institut Català d’Antropologia. Sèrie monogràfics núm. 20 Nacions vs. Estats. Pp. 217-238.

ROSS C., MIROWSKY J. & RAJULTON S. (2010). “Powerlessness and the Amplification of Thread: Neighboorhood Disadvantage, Disorder and Mistrust”. American Sociological Review, 66: 568-91.

ROWNTREE B. S. (1901). Poverty: A Study of Town Life. London: Macmillan.

SMALL M. L., HARDING D. J., & LAM M. (2016). “Reconsidering culture and poverty”. ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 629(1): 6-27.

TAYLOR D. (2012). Performance. Buenos Aires: Asunto Impreso.

VENKATESH S. A. (2006). Off the Books. The Underground Economy of the Urban Poor. Harvard University Press. 

VENTURA I OLLER, M. (1994). "Etnicitat i racisme", Revista d'Etnologia de Catalunya, núm. 5, Juliol, pp.116-133.

VENTURA I OLLER, M. (2006). “El cuerpo, marcador de la condición humana. El caso Tsachila del Ecuador” in MuñozGonzalez, B. y J. López García (eds) Cuerpo y medicina. Textos y contextos culturales, Cáceres: Cicon Ediciones : 257-268.

VENTURA I OLLER, M. (ed) (2010). Fronteras y mestizajes, Bellaterra: Publicacions d’Antropologia Cultural, UAB.

VIVEIROS DE CASTRO E. (2004). “Perspectivismo y multinaturalismo en la América indígena”. En: A. Surrallés y P. García Hierro (eds) Tierra adentro. Territorio indígena y percepción del entorno, Copenhague: IWGIA, doc.Nº39, pp.37-80.

VIVEIROS DE CASTRO E. (1996). Images of Nature and Society in Amazonian Ethnology. Annual Review of Anthropology 25:179-200.