KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Alternatif Politika / 2018 / Cilt: 10 - Sayı: 1

THE CLASH OF DEFINITIONS1: A CRITICAL REVIEW OF FIELD AND FIELDWORK IN ETHNOMUSICOLOGY

TANIMLARIN ÇATIŞMASI: ETNOMÜZİKOLOJİDE ALAN VE ALAN ÇALIŞMASININ ELEŞTİREL BİR İNCELEMESİ

Ferhat ARSLAN
Sayfa
1–21
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Through analyzing the established terminology and closely related identity politics, this paper critically reviews ethnomusicological fieldwork and the positioning of its actors.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Over the last century, the concept of fieldwork and its implementation in ethnographic disciplines such as anthropology and ethnomusicology have undergone various changes.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Following certain political, cultural and social trends, fieldwork is now considered more than a simple data collection method.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Through analyzing the established terminology and closely related identity politics, this paper critically reviews ethnomusicological fieldwork and the positioning of its actors.
🔬Tür:Literatür & Derleme Çalışması
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri

Özet

Over the last century, the concept of fieldwork and its implementation in ethnographic disciplines such as anthropology and ethnomusicology have undergone various changes. Following certain political, cultural and social trends, fieldwork is now considered more than a simple data collection method. The positioning of the field, which was mainly in the direction of east and characteristically exotic, gradually loses its validity. Today, geographically and mentally shifting characteristics of the field concept leads the discovery of new horizons and forces researchers to correct their approaches. Through analyzing the established terminology and closely related identity politics, this paper critically reviews ethnomusicological fieldwork and the positioning of its actors.

Abstract

Geçtiğimiz yüzyıl boyunca alan çalışması kavramı ve bu kavramın antropoloji ve etnomüzikoloji gibi etnografik disiplinlerdeki uygulanışı çeşitli değişiklikler geçirmiştir. Belli siyasi, kültürel ve sosyal eğilimleri takiben, alan çalışması artık basit bir veri toplama yönteminden daha fazlası olarak kabul edilmektedir. Alanın özellikle doğu yönündeki ve karakteristik olarak egzotik konumlandırılması geçerliliğini giderek kaybetmektedir. Günümüzde alan kavramının coğrafi ve zihinsel olarak değişen özellikleri yeni ufuklar keşfedilmesine neden olmuş ve araştırmacıların yaklaşımlarını gözden geçirmelerini zorunlu kılmıştır. Bu yazı, yerleşik terminolojiyi ve yakından ilişkili kimlik politikalarını analiz ederek etnomüzikolojide alan çalışmasını ve aktörlerinin konumlandırılmasını eleştirel olarak incelemektedir.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

ARSLAN, F. (2018). THE CLASH OF DEFINITIONS1: A CRITICAL REVIEW OF FIELD AND FIELDWORK IN ETHNOMUSICOLOGY. Alternatif Politika, Cilt: 10 - Sayı: 1, 1–21. https://ajindex.com/articles/188243

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (13)

  1. Amit, Vered (2000), Constructing the Field: Ethnographic Fieldwork in the Contemporary World (London, New York: Routledge). Astuti, Rita (2017), “On keeping up the tension between fieldwork and ethnography”, Journal of Ethnographic Theory, 7 (1): 9-14.
  2. Barrett, StanleyR. (1976), “The Use of Models in Anthropological Fieldwork”, Journal of Anthropological Research, 32 (2): 161-181.
  3. Barz, Gregory and Cooley, Timothy J. (1997, 2008), Shadows in the Field: New Perspectives for Fieldwork in Ethnomusicology (New York: Oxford University Press) Berger, Roger A. (1993), “From Text to (Field)Work and Back Again: Theorizing a Post(Modern)-Ethnography”, Anthropological Quarterly, 66 (4):174-186.
  4. Caputo, Virginia (2000), “At ‘home’ and ‘away’. Reconfiguring the field for late twentieth-century anthropology”, Vered Amit (Ed.),Constructing the Field: Ethnographic Fieldwork in the Contemporary World (London, New York: Routledge): 19-31.
  5. Chase, Gilbert (1958), “A Dialectical Approach to Music History”, Ethnomusicology, 2 (1): 1-9.
  6. Chiener, Chou (2002), “Experience and Fieldwork: A Native Researcher’s View”, Ethnomusicology, 46 (3): 456-486.
  7. Dasilva, Fabio, Blasi, Anthony and Dees, David (1984), The Sociology of Music (Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press). Eriksen, Thomas H. and Nielsen, Finn S. (2001), A History of Anthropology (London: Pluto Press). Fahim, Hussein and Helmer, Katherine (1980), “Indigenous Anthropology in Non-Western Countries: A Further Elaboration”, Current Anthropology, 21 (5): 644-663.
  8. Freeman, L.C. and Merriam Alan P. (1956), “Statistical Classification in Anthropology: An Application to Ethnomusicology”, American Anthropologist,58 (3): 464-472.
  9. Girtler, Roland (2001), Methoden der Feldforschung (Wien, Köln, Weimar: Böhlau). Godina, V. Vesna (2003), “Anthropological Fieldwork at the Beginning of the 21st Century and Location of Knowledge”, Anthropos,98 (2): 473-487.
  10. Goffman, Erving (1959), Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (New York: Doubleday Anchor). Herskovitz, Melville J. (1954),“Some Problems of Method in Ethnography”, Robert F. Spencer (Ed.),Method and Perspective in Anthropology (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press): 3-24.
  11. Hood, Mantle (1957),“Training and Research Methods in Ethnomusicology”, Ethnomusicology Newsletter, (11): 2-8.
  12. Ingold, Tim (2017), “Anthropology contra ethnography”, Journal of Ethnographic Theory, 7 (1): 21-26.
  13. Kiser, Edgar and Linton, April (2002), “The Hinges of History: State-Making and Revolt in Early Mode