Abstract

The official review of research carried out in British universities in 2014 required departments to present case studies documenting the “impact” (“reach and significance”) of their research beyond the academy. Despite misgivings, anthropology departments presented detailed studies across a range of sub-fields of the discipline which were judged to have demonstrated “productive engagement with publics, users and policy makers”. Some of the studies illustrated a contribution to one field, what Bourdieu called the “judicial field”, which has become increasingly significant for anthropologists across Europe and North America, especially where ethnic, cultural and religious minorities are concerned. The paper examines a number of situations of this kind (including interventions in tribunals assessing the claims of asylum seekers) where anthropologists acting as cultural interpreters or mediators have had to interact with the law and with lawyers and others whose disciplinary mindsets may be very different from their own. While this may be very productive, it also poses numerous dilemmas, not least of which is whether those whom anthropologists seek to address (the powers-that-be) actually listen to what they have to say.

Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.