Assembling Partial Perspectives: Thoughts on the Anthropology of Bureaucracy

Hoag, Colin

doi:10.1111/j.1555-2934.2011.01140.x

Cited by 162 publications

(83 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Cuando el foco está puesto en las políticas y prácticas cotidianas de la burocracia, es muy probable que éstas se presenten como cuerpos racionales y eficientes, por ejemplo en el relato de los actores acerca de sus quehaceres, o en la descripción de las rutinas guionadas que indican su accionar (Hoag, 2011: 81-2). Al mismo tiempo, para la observadora externa (y también quizás para la mirada crítica de algunos nativos), aquellos cuerpos resultan opacos, inescrutables y carentes de racionalidad (Hoag, 2011). Esta doble perspectiva, señala Hoag, implica el riesgo de anteponer al análisis nuestros ideales acerca del funcionamiento de la burocracia.…”

Section: Duplicidadunclassified

¿Qué ves cuando me ves? Perspectivas, escalas y contexto en los estudios del derecho

Barrera¹

2015

Estudios Sociales

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Duplicidadunclassified

¿Qué ves cuando me ves? Perspectivas, escalas y contexto en los estudios del derecho

Barrera¹

2015

Estudios Sociales

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…This is especially important as the state remains ‘the unthought principle of the greater part of our thoughts, including those on the state’ (Bourdieu : 173). Knowledge production is at the heart of both bureaucratic practices and representations, contributing to performing the ‘state’ into being (Sharma and Gupta ), or as Hoag puts it: ‘producing knowledge – reams and reams of it indeed – is what bureaucracies do best’ (2011: 81).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Negotiating research in the shadow of migration control: access, knowledge and cognitive authority

Rosset

Achermann

2019

Soc Anthropol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article recounts the failure to gain access to the Swiss asylum agency's ‘country of origin information’ (COI) unit and how it negatively impacted access to similar research sites in Europe. As producers of indispensable expert knowledge, these units play an important instrumental and symbolic role in asylum procedures and policies. Interpreted as a situated case of knowledge control, rather than a general resistance to research within the institution, the denial of access reveals how the intended research challenged gatekeepers’ idealised construction of COI – both as a type of knowledge and as a field of practice. The negotiation about access gradually shifted to other topics, such as the researcher's competence, the field's situation and the nature of legitimate knowledge – all related to politics of expertise and the COI units’ legitimising functions in the wider migration apparatus. The negotiation became a competition over cognitive authority and the monopoly of legitimate knowledge production about the field. By black‐boxing country information, the gatekeepers fostered the illegibility of bureaucratic processes and the legibility of the state as discourse. Analysing the 30‐month negotiation process also reveals the difficulties to seize the contours of the state when encountering transnational bureaucratic fields.

show abstract

“…Anthropology has a long history with studying implementation in government programs and is no stranger to the study of bureaucracy (Hoag 2011;Hull 2012;Pressman and Wildavsky 1984;Zabusky 1995). There also are plenty of accounts of similar problems and efforts to solve them in other sectors in which practicing or applied anthropologists work in conjunction with large institutions and bureaucracy, such as medical anthropology, international health, and development (Inhorn and Wentzell 2012;Nolan 2002).…”

Section: Conclusion: Next Steps For the Literature Of Practice And Fomentioning

confidence: 99%

Field Report: Implementing a Social Science Capability in a Marine Corps Organization

Fosher¹

2018

jba

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 2010 the Marine Corps started a small, experimental capability, the Translational Research Group (TRG), to help the organization more effectively integrate social science and scientists into decision-making. In contrast to other recent military social science programs, TRG focuses inward, on Marines and Marine Corps organizations. The group houses fieldwork-focused social scientists within a military organization so they can understand the problem-framing context and implementation processes, but provides significantly greater academic freedom and protection from over-tasking than is the norm in military research settings. Researchers conduct independently designed projects, support curriculum development, and provide social science advice to a broad scope of military organizations. Although leadership support for the group has been strong, there have been significant impediments to fully institutionalizing the capability. This field report provides an outline of the background and design of the group and examines some of the key challenges encountered during implementation.

show abstract

Assembling Partial Perspectives: Thoughts on the Anthropology of Bureaucracy

Cited by 162 publications

References 37 publications

¿Qué ves cuando me ves? Perspectivas, escalas y contexto en los estudios del derecho

¿Qué ves cuando me ves? Perspectivas, escalas y contexto en los estudios del derecho

Negotiating research in the shadow of migration control: access, knowledge and cognitive authority

Field Report: Implementing a Social Science Capability in a Marine Corps Organization

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About