Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T18:12:21.203Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Experiments in interdisciplinarity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 February 2005

MARILYN STRATHERN
MARILYN STRATHERN
Affiliation:
Department of Social Anthropology, University of Cambridge, Free School Lane, Cambridge CB2 3RF (UK) [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

A social anthropologist venturing into an interdisciplinary field at the University of Cambridge describes some of the hazards of equipping herself with ethnographic skills. The ethnographic object is the Cambridge Genetics Knowledge Park, a government-funded enterprise intended to create ‘knowledge [about human genetics]…validated through the critical appraisal of research findings, ethical, legal and social analysis and the inclusion of a consumer perspective’. It is deeply concerned with law, norms and society. The author will attempt to explain the indirection of her approach to studying this phenomenon – through an activity (a seminar series) organised off-site, focused on means (interdisciplinarity) not ends, and raising an apparently extraneous topic (forms of ownership) for discussion.

Une anthropologue sociale qui s'aventure dans un champ interdisciplinaire à l'université de Cambridge décrit quelques uns des risques qu'il y a à s'équiper de compétences ethnographiques. L'objet ethnographique est le Genetics Knowledge Park de Cambridge, une entreprise financée par le gouvernement qui vise à créer du ‘savoir [à propos de la génétique humaine]…s'appuyant sur l'évaluation critique de résultats de recherche, sur des analyses éthiques, légales et sociales, et sur l'inclusion d'une perspective de consommateur’. Le parc s'intéresse de près aux lois, aux normes et à la société. L'auteur essaiera d'expliquer le manque de direction de son approche dans l'étude de ce phénomène – à travers une activité (une série de séminaires) organisés hors du site, se concentrant sur les moyens (interdisciplinaires) et non les fins, et soulevant un sujet de discussion apparemment inhabituel (les formes de propriété).

Eine Sozialanthropologin, die sich in das interdisziplinäre Feld an der Universität von Cambridge vorwagt, beschreibt einige Hindernisse beim sich Aneignen ethnographische Fähigkeiten. Das ethnographische Studienobjekt ist der Cambridge Genetics Knowledge Park, ein finanziell von der Regierung getragenes Projekt mit dem Ziel, ‘der Wissensfindung [zur Humangenetik]…die durch kritische Beurteilung der Forschungsergebnisse sowie durch ethische, rechtliche und soziale Analyse, unter Einbezug einer Konsumentenperspektive, Gültigkeit schafft’. Rechtliche, normierende als auch gesellschaftliche Aspekte spielen eine schwerwiegende Rolle. Mittels einer anderwärts organisierten Initiative (einer Seminarserie), die sich auf Mittel (Interdisziplinarität) und nicht auf den Zweck konzentriert und ein scheinbar unwesentliches Thema (Besitzformen) in Diskussion stellt, macht die Autorin den Versuch, ihre sie auf Umwege führende Annäherung an das zu untersuchende Phänomen darzulegen.

Una antropóloga social inmersa en un campo interdisciplinario en la Universidad de Cambridge describe algunos de los peligros en la adquisición de habilidades etnográficas. El objeto etnográfico es el Parque de Conocimiento Genético de Cambridge, una empresa financiada por el gobierno cuyo objetivo es crear ‘conocimiento [sobre genética humana]…validado por medio de la recepción crítica de los resultados de investigación, un análisis ético, legal y social y la incorporación de una perspectiva del consumidor’. Una profunda preocupación por la ley, las normas y la sociedad. La autora intenta explicar el desvío en su perspectiva de estudio – a través de una actividad (una serie de seminarios) organizada extramuros, enfocada sobre los medios (interdisciplinareidad) y no los fines, y proponiendo un tema aparentemente extraño (tipos de propiedad) a discusión.

Type
Special section: Three lectures on the future of anthropology in Europe
Information
Social Anthropology , Volume 13 , Issue 1 , February 2005 , pp. 75 - 90
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2005

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

The paper published here is the spoken and thus truncated version of Marilyn Strathern, ‘Social property. An interdisciplinary experiment’, in POLAR. Political and Legal Anthropology Review, 27 (2004): 23–56© by the American Anthropological Association. All rights reserved. This is a component of a Goldsmiths/Cambridge collaborative project with Andrew Barry and Georgina Born, called ‘Interdisciplinarity and society. A critical comparative study’, conducted under the wider auspices of the ESRC's ‘Science in society’ programme. Among those who I must thank are Monica Konrad for her perceptive comments on the text and for on-going conversations, David Leitner for the materials he kindly provided, Alison Stewart from the CGKP who keeps me grounded, Benedicta Rousseau, Ann Kelly and Samuelle Carlson for their observations and commentary, and Maryon McDonald, Cori Hayden, Monica Bonaccorso and members of the CBA [Comparative Studies of Biotechnology and Accountability] research group in the Department of Social Anthropology in Cambridge. Duncan Simpson should be thanked again. The Cambridge 2004 Social Property Seminar is a joint venture with my colleague James Leach. Inspiration for the topic of ‘ownership’ came from Bronac Ferran, director of Interdisciplinary Arts, Arts Council England. Ron Zimmern (director of Cambridge University's Institute of Public Health, and founder-director of the CGKP) provided an impetus with his interest in the combinations of funding, employment and secondment that make up each research node. The models for the IDW come from experimental associations between creative artists and scientists supported by an unusual collaboration between the British Arts and Humanities Research Board and the Arts Council England, and from industrial design. Here the genius belongs to Alan Blackwell, from the Cambridge Computer Laboratory, co-founder of Crucible. The work of Helga Nowotny (2001) (Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zurich) and her colleagues has laid out some of the conditions of modern knowledge production that is the starting point for the exercise. Final thanks to colleagues at Cornell and Princeton Universities who read earlier versions.