Search

The Notre-Dame de Paris fire offers anthropologists in the field of critical heritage studies a rich opportunity for fieldwork and conceptual innovation. This paper examines the social repercussions of a monument's destruction, ranging from emotional responses and public involvement to local and global consequences. The paper also includes the project lines of a broader comparative survey on reactions to the destruction of cultural heritage. A team of social scientists created a comparative grid in order to describe and analyze a series of case studies: Notre-Dame de Paris (France, fire in 2019), the National Museum (Brazil, fire in 2018), Notre-Dame de la Merci (France, fire in 2017), and Coventry Cathedral (UK, bombed in 1940 during WWII). The comparative grid is as follows: - Practices and Reactions: Emotion and Mobilization Regimes Heritage disasters provoke a wide range of privately and collectively expressed reactions that frame these events as a social construction. How do citizens and institutions navigate the outpouring of emotion elicited by the destruction of a monument? - Consequences: The Nature of Heritage Items and Their Social Impact Laypersons and authorities assign different meanings to heritage items according to their cultural and political significance and material and intangible features. How does such representations of a ravaged monument influence its reconstruction process and future relevance? - The Social Fabrication of Memory and Narrative The destruction of a heritage object rapidly triggers a series of narratives, including legal documents and authorities' statements, that constitute a textual memory of the disaster. What standards define catastrophe narratives, and what do their retellings of the event reveal or obscure? - Heritage in Crisis: Catastrophe as Social Construction of Heritage Fragility Heritage is by nature fragile and requires continuous preservation. How does the destruction of monuments galvanize collective representations of the endangerment of heritage? - Temporality and Spatiality: Catastrophe as an Event in Time and Space Although the destruction event is often short-lived and localized, it reveals enduring values and concepts of past and future, as well as geographic place. How are temporality and spatiality reimagined after the loss of a heritage object? - The Right to Heritage: Reconstruction, Citizenship, and Cultural Policies Although often conceptualized as isolated events, the destruction of heritage objects is deeply embedded in their economic, cultural, and social context. What do the destruction and reconstruction of heritage reveal about power dynamics and economic inequalities? - The Limits of Reflexivity: Researchers as Actors Facing the Politics of Mourning As researchers, balancing personal commitment with heritage and ethical scientific inquiry is crucial to sound analysis and to the validity of research results. How should scholars simultaneously manage the experience of and the study of emotional responses such as rage or grief? This paper illustrates these points using vignettes from selected case studies. The project is part of the working group EMOBI, a broader ethnographic project on collective emotions and mobilization following the Paris cathedral fire (social sciences working group of Chantier Scientifique Notre-Dame , supported by the CNRS and the Ministry of Culture). The goal is to provide a comparative study of the stakes and repercussions of devastated heritage. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper compares publication practices among social scientists from northeastern Mexico who were trained within the country or abroad. It focus critically on late regional scientific development (2000-2020) under the influence of a national academic evaluation scheme strongly aligned to the global publication system. A quantitative analysis was carried out on a selection of self-reported scientific production by a sample of researchers. It was found that both profiles have assimilated the hegemonic publication criteria. Also, that those trained abroad generally have better performances (some linked to their social capital). But, nonetheless, regional collaborations that could contribute to a sustainable local scientific practice are moderately more frequent in locally trained researchers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Research integrity is understood in terms of academic and professional integrity. • Honesty, responsibility, and respectfulness are important researcher values. • Limited presence of research ethics committees. • Human participant research ethics is an individual responsibility. Central Asian (CA) countries have been actively developing their research and knowledge production systems. However, inconsistent alignment with international research ethics norms creates challenges for researchers in CA to equally participate in global knowledge production. Based on quantitative survey responses of 296 social science researchers from Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and Kyrgyzstan, this paper explores social scientists' understandings of international principles and practices of human participant research ethics. The findings show that CA social science researchers focus on a broad understanding of research integrity, focused on academic and professional integrity. The respondents highlighted the importance of individual researcher values such as honesty, responsibility, and respectfulness. With only 35 % of the respondents reporting the existence of a research ethics committee (REC) at their institutions, most respondents believe that human participant research ethics are an individual rather than an institutional responsibility in Central Asia. This study has implications for developing research and policy in other post-Soviet and emerging research contexts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is great diversity in the methods, terms, and empirical focuses employed by social and natural scientists working on agroecological transitions. The upshot is that whilst various researchers may nominally be putting their shoulder to the same agroecological wheel, the impact of their combined efforts is not what it might be. The aim of this article is to assist in the co-ordination and collaboration of disparate research activities and actors. It does so by offering the readers of this journal a user-friendly guide to someof the terms being used by social scientists (particularly human geographers and anthropologists) in their work on pests, diseases, crop protections and agroecological transitions. Such a document is of particular use as the terms and concepts employed by social scientists are equipped to generate analysis with explicit political insight in a way that those used by natural scientists may not be. The concepts and theories of social scientists foreground the commonalities that cut across case studies which might otherwise seem separated by a reservoir of context specificity. Tooled with these terms of analysis, the promise of agroecology rightly becomes something with far reaching political and justice consequences. These terms are presented across five areas: the ontological, the epistemological, the methodological, the historical, and the aesthetic. Given the range of social, ecological, cultural, and economic barriers involved in effecting an agroecological transition, it is vital that different researchers are conversant in each other's language. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]