Collaborative Research...So many questions, so little time.

"Typical challenges at this phase of research could be analyzing qualitative data, participant observation, and/or synthesizing findings in collaborative research."

To a certain extent, we struggle with all three of these issues, but I would weight the last most heavily. Ruben and I have collected an immense amount of rich qualititative data, and although David Biale's "dialectical relationship" between minority communities and the outside environment has provided a framework through which to interpret and analyze this information, synthesizing this data will certainly be difficult. While we have a working thesis, we are struggling to merge three elements of our project-- information on the Jewish community in Amsterdam, data collected on and from the Amsterdam Muslim community, and our own experiences (in relation to gender, the concept of insider/outsider, etc.)--into a cohesive narrative. My question concerns the "personal appendix" recommended by Mirjam and Jessica-- because Ruben and I have had such different and at times almost opposite experiences in terms of access and reception in these communities, how should we organize our impressions and responses? I feel like our reactions to the project experience enrich the paper and can be used as primary evidence to support our thesis, but how can we organize a section in our opinions sometimes contradict one another? I guess this is the quintessential question in collaborative research.

Lectures, Research, Adventures: Week 1-2

On Wednesday we first heard from Atef Hamdy about the six steps to extremism. The organization of his project was inspiring-- his original taxonomy makes me wonder what kind of creative, novel thesis Ruben and I can write. We then went to Aya Sofia and meet a new research contact, Harun Yildirim. He is the president of the Muslim Student Association of the Netherlands, and he talked about the struggles of second-generation Moroccan and Turkish immigrants to assimilate into Dutch culture and how these people are marginalized. I was surprised by the welcome we recieved, and the fact that event the bare-headed women were allowed to watch the male 2:00 prayer. After having visited other mosques, I am even more convinced that Aya Sofia is exceptionally open-armed.

Thursday we went to the Jewish Historical museum--this was a moving experience. While I was aware of the extent to which the Holocaust devastated the Dutch Jewish community, seeing pictures of Jewish life pre and post 1941 superimposed suffering individuals on my cloudy conception of WWII. Ruben and I went to the Resistance Museum, and that made me wonder about myself-- what action would I have taken under Nazi occupation? While I would like to believe I would be a resistance fighter, I wonder if the harsh reality of the situation would crush my idealism. I don't know whether I'm selfless and brave enough.

On Thursday night my purple bike was stolen, I walked out to find the lock had been somehow sodered off and the plastic part had been beaten with a crowbar, they left the tools lying around. I think thieves seized their opporunity during this big storm we had, nobody heard anything over the thunder. I console myself by thinking that it's part of the Amsterdam experience, but the reality is that I should have bought a heavy lock.

Saturday was the gay pride parade...I think in this case a picture is worth 1,000 words--inagine two hours of this:



On Monday we went to the Bilmermeer, which was a planned development in the 1970s made to be a revolution in urban/suburban planning but because of poor design, intimidating architecture, and a complex social context (Surinamese independence and the influx of migrants) became a sort of housing project. It was an eerie place, these ENORMOUS tenement buildings all in rows out in the middle of nowhere. We heard
an incredibly sad story about an El Al flight that crashed into one of the apartment complexes in the early 1990s, apparently there were so many unregistered illegal immigrants the death toll could have been anywhere from the 35 reported to hundreds people. Others in the area developed symptoms of sickness (perhaps radiation poisoning?) and the Israeli government still won't tell anyone what was in the plane. Scientists don't believe the substance was any kind of nuclear material, but I find it a little firghtening.

This week has been independent research. While I won't detail the logistics of who we've met, where we've been, and what data we've collected in these posts (see Ruben's "tracing our journey" posts, or if you're interested I have a long word document of contacts and information), I will have several posts about my own reactions to these communities. It has been a foreign experience for me.

Lectures, Excursions, Memorable Facts: Week 1

Lecture on sex work in Amsterdam... Miriam says new Christian conservative government is unsuccessfully trying to replace the Red Light District with high-end clothing botiques. Talk to guy on street about this, he confirms the story and is appalled by the plan. He thinks that legalization is the only way to ensure prostitutes have rights and advocates, and the if the Netherlands criminalizes prostitution sex workers will continue operations but will not be gauranteed the same health and safety. I agree. However, he says that he doesn't think the Red Light District will ever be shut down because most of Amsterdam is too secular and liberal, and he and most of his friends intend to "cause a fuss" if prostitution is criminalized.

Which brings up another interesting point about the Netherlands governments--apparently all political parties are too small to form a single government, so any administration is necessarily a coalition. Currently those parties in power are the Christian Democrats, some social something party, and the Christian Conservatives. Apparently the Christian Democrats tried to sign the Socialist party on board but they refused becuase of ideological divisions, so they were stuck with the Christian Conservatives who have apparently become very unpopular here (according to Street Guy).

The Dutch people have been very kind and friendly. When Ruben and I were lost in Amstelveen, a man bought us train tickets (the electronic machines were only in Dutch) and a young girl took two transfers back into the city with us even though she lived in Amstelveen. An incredibly altruistic man biked us back to Dam Square even though he lived over twenty minutes back in the way we came. It was really touching how kind and compassionate everyone was, and an experience I will never forget.

I have noticed that people have been especially kind to me, and I think part of that doesn't have to do with the fact I support the tourism industry but rather centers around my blonde hair and blue eyes. I was originally surprised because there are supposed to be so many blondes here, but I think they are a dying breed as Amsterdam becomes more diverse and little blonde kids bring up nostalgic memories.

Human Subjects Exemption Paperwork

Purpose/Driving Questions: What is the role of religious, charismatic leadership (as delineated by sociologist Pierre Bourdieu) in encouraging particular behaviors within a congregation and forms of engagement with the larger social and political community? How do spiritual leaders mobilize their constituencies outside the bounds of the church, synagogue, or mosque? What are the roles of religious institutions and faith systems more generally in initiating/developing broader social processes?

Specific Research Question: How are various urban religious spaces in Amsterdam—namely mosques, synagogues, and churches—used, both physically and discursively, to address the issues of their respective communities and to negotiate between religious unity and metropolitan diversity?

Human Subjects Component: We qualify for an exemption under two categories: two and four. Part of our methodology includes analyzing and dissecting the materials an organization makes available for public consumption. We define “available for public consumption” as materials that is likely to be read by the external community (i.e. pamphlets, brochures, web material, and literature geared towards citizens outside the congregation) or distributed widely through various public venues. Thus, we qualify under category four.

We also intend to interview spiritual and administrative leaders in three institutions: a church, a synagogue, and a mosque. We will essentially be asking the principal leaders of these organizations the following questions:

Please briefly tell us about your congregation in terms of your:
-denomination
-history
-social community
-What activities/groups are open to members?
-community involvement

How has your location in an urban area shaped your congregation?

What do you feel is the biggest challenge posed to your community?
-How do you advise those in your congregation to approach it?

How do you define community?
-internally
-externally

We feel that these questions are broad and fair. We have been careful to design interview questions that are neither pointed nor loaded with our biases and misconceptions. Considering that the role of many spiritual leaders is to inform the larger community about their religion and congregation, we do not feel we are violating their rights as citizens nor do we feel we are asking unusual or uncomfortable questions.

Because we are not tape-recording these interviews (we plan to take careful notes) and we plan to conceal the true identity of the leaders and institutions (Pastor John Doe of Church X) in any publications or presentations of our research, we believe we qualify for an exemption under category two. We considered the possibility that these leaders could be indirectly traced if we released the denomination of the church, so we either a) will ensure that there a multiple [Lutheran] churches within the Amsterdam city limits and that our specific institutions is not easily identifiable or b) if we choose to study an institution that is easily recognizable, we will not release the denomination. We do not intend to publish any identifying characteristics (exact location, one-of-a-kind or otherwise extremely identifiable architecture, or anything unique to the organization or leader) and will maintain confidentiality and ensure the privacy of those involved.

Public Scholarship

"What if campus-based artists and humanists—connoisseurs of metaphor—took ourselves more literally? What if we took the question of democratizing the canon literally enough to enter in the joint discovery of literary knowledge with non-academics? What if we took the passion for public spaces literally enough to collaborate with municipal partners on site design? What if we took our interest in gender and genre literally enough to work with high-school girls active in the poetry slam movement?"

-Ellison

I realize that I will be offending most if not all the class when I say this, but I feel like Ellison touches on a crucial point-- knowledge and insight written by academics for academics is not necessarily the most desirable form of scholarship. I feel like many of the readings we've had so far have been just that-- theoretical, slightly esoteric, difficult to metabolize, and quite frankly not very useful outside of an academic context--because as a citizen, I'm not sure I would a) be able to understand the tactics presented, or b) be able to apply them. Exceptions include Bal, Barthes, and a few others. As Domke so rightly pointed out, the role of an academic is to study relevant social, historical, literary political, economic, biological, [etc.] phenomena to serve the public good. I am more impressed by the scholars who can take complex concepts and theories, express and explain them in the societal vernacular, and educate and mobilize the general public than I am by academics who write long, esoteric treatises dealing with a highly specific and complex theory and never make their insight available to the general public. I am not eschewing the research of those passionate about researching a single poem or a single space, but I believe there are ways in which a scholar can make their experience and thought process relevant to today's world--after all, every event, text, and process has implications for society.

"Public scholarship and hope go hand in hand. When scholars highlight opportunities for social change, we offer hope. When scholars help people to negotiate systems in ways that more fully honor their humanity, we offer hope. When scholars provide tools that allow people to take greater control over personal and cultural choices, we offer hope. And when scholars drop our detachment and adopt an ethic of engagement, we offer hope. It is this emphasis—on the belief that together we can build a better world, a more perfect union of humanity—that drives me toward public scholarship."

-Domke

Domke is brilliant-- this is what frustrates me most about the academic world. What is the use of studying a phenomenon if the research is not intended to somehow improve the world? I feel like we've gotten trapped in a cycle of Marx-like "knowledge-fetishism," where instead of doggedly focusing on commodities as the object of desire we have focused on knowledge-- or perhaps the production of knowledge-- for the sake of knowledge. I have been presenting my own research at the Honors Research Colloquium, URP symposium, a conference, and several other venues these past few weeks, and I have been frustrated by the lack of "big-picture" thinking. Yes, I would agree that it's interesting to know that the color of a flower's stemen impacts its chance of being pollinated, but what implications does this have for agriculture? Even for our gardens-- can we change the color of the stemen and grow more flowers, meaning we don't need to use toxic fertilizers? Yes, it's interesting that a hit to the olfactory lobe affects cognitive processes, but does this change what we know about brain damage? It seems that many of the presenters to which I directed these questions hadn't considered the larger community, and I think that's a flaw in the academic system-- after all, what good is unapplied knowledge? Domke points out that research should be done collaboratively with the public in order to improve the world.

In terms of our project, I think that Ruben and I were very careful to choose a subject that has ripples throughout the world and we consistently focus on those implications for society. However, as to how best communicate something so senstitive to the public...Well, that's difficult. We have publicly accessible blogs, we could create something to post on youtube, we could write an article for a press source, I'm not sure how we would be able to impart the importance of this research to the larger community without offending someone.

Formulating a Question, Conceptualizing a Framework, Designing our Methodology

Driving Questions: What is the role of charismatic leadership (a la Bordieu) and specific institutions or organizations in encouraging particular behaviors and forms of engagement with the larger social and political community? How do spiritual leaders and institutions mobilize their constituencies outside the bounds of the [church, synagogue, mosque]? What are the role of religious institutions and faith systems more generally in initiating/developing broader social movements?

Specific Research Question: How do specific religious institutions (we are in the process of identifying one mosque, one church, one synagogue) encourage engagement with the Amsterdam community? What behaviors do they validate and promote (both in terms of interacting with people of different faiths and in terms of more secular Amsterdamian social behaviors like prostitution, pot, etc)?

Framework: Honestly, I don't feel like any of the frameworks fit our research project exactly (our specific church/synagogue/mosque is not necessarily a synecdoche for the larger religious organization as my peers have so clearly and correctly pointed out...) However, I feel like cultural tradition/memory can be shaped to our project is in the sense that these behaviors are deeply ingrained in and socialized into the congregations. Thinking about cultural tradition and memory in a Mieke Bal sense, she addresses ethnocentrism and ingrained cultural biases/attitudes through this framework. We are tackling a somewhat parallel issue-- ingrained behaviors and attitudes encouraged by the institution. In terms of Zwarte Piet, we would be studying the continuing drivers behind this tradition rather than its implications for society.

Methodology: Close reading and participant observation. We will close read interviews with spiritual leaders, bulletins, public materials, etc. and interpret the significance of not only the content but particular word choices and structural elements. We will observe sermons and services through our active and full participation (a la Ziesel) in them. I feel like the "secret outsider" position is unethical and marginal participation (simply sitting in a service and not engaging with the sermon and rituals [singing hymns, saying prayers, etc] does not allow us to understand the significance of the behaviors).

Telling, Showing, Showing Off and Extrapolating from Mieke Bal

In Telling, Showing, Showing off, Mieke Bal argues that racism and ethnocentrism are inherent in the layout of the American Museum. Western hegemony manifests itself in the manner in which the displays are organized--exhibits of "other" peoples and animals are shafted under and behind those from other cultures. While Mieke explicitly states that by accepting this layout as natural and refusing to engage in self-critical discourse the museum "has turned its luck into a lack," I wonder how the museum SHOULD be organized-- by remedying the juxtapostion of animals and foreign peoples, by facilitating "self-reflection" (thinking about the African peoples exhibit in particular), and by carefully evaluating underlying assumptions (for example, "the idea that wider political entities would be better than small scale political organization remains unargued"). In essence, my question is what do these theoretical concepts (self-criticism throughout the showing process rather than showing-off, careful assesment of all presumptions) look like in concrete form?

Thinking about the previous article "Telling, Showing, Showing Off" and the importance of integrating exhibits with self-criticism, I wonder if perhaps it is not better to continue the tradition of Zwarte Piet in the manner Mieke Bal has begun-- to question its underlying assumptions but still continue the practice itself. To showcase the ugliness of the tradition and yet still mark its place in Dutch society...I have been thinking about James E Young's work on Holocaust memorials (my original research project) and how these monuments or practices refresh collective memory and in fact deter a repeat event.