Interview with ASA Chair: Simone
Abram
What are you working on at the moment?
My most recent research has been exploring the world of energy systems and the way they are imagined by technical experts. I participated in the National Centre for Energy Systems Integration, with a brief to analyse how the centre worked, and what ethical implications might be entailed in the work of energy system modelling. I’m working now with another large research centre on socially-inclusive energy transitions, based at the university of Oslo, and I’m working with several superb research scholars who are doing various fieldwork projects.
How do you do ethnography of imaginary worlds?
Actually ethnographers have always tried to document imagined worlds, classically in the worlds of witchcraft, magic or religion. But all worlds have imagined elements, and everyone has imaginaries that help to order their understanding of how the world is or how it should or could be. Memory has also been linked with imaginative thinking. My research has really always been organised by imaginaries – first around how the past is imagined and recreated, and then how the future is imagined and then put to work. My most recent work has been about the way that engineers model possible worlds using computational techniques. It’s probably been one of the most challenging topics I’ve worked on, and the one where I have least ability to participate in the work that people do. Over the years, I’ve done research with many people whose core work activities are largely individualised, whether that’s policy makers drafting reports or engineers making calculations. While it’s pretty much impossible to participate in these activities directly (other than by learning to do it oneself, and then that is still a step removed), people doing this kind of work always do it for a common purpose, and always share their ideas and explanations at some point. So, much of my field research has been in professional or public meetings where ideas are discussed, procedures debated, or disputes aired. And in these meetings, I have increasingly participated as a peer in an interdisciplinary group, studying neither ‘up’ nor ‘down’. I don’t really see it as so different from other kinds of anthropological fieldwork, but it does challenge some common tropes, such as the idea that ‘fieldwork must be 12 months’, or ‘you must live with the people you study’. Neither make any sense if the world at stake is not seasonal and if the people you’re interested in don’t live together either. A year is an arbitrary limit, perhaps just long enough to start to get to know people, but not really so long in the scheme of a lifetime.
You mentioned doing fieldwork with other researchers. How does that work?
If you’re in an academic post, it’s pretty rare to get enough time to do fieldwork in the normal scheme of things. Either you wait until you are lucky enough to get research leave (at which point you probably need to write), or you do short bursts of field research. But doing ethnography on your own is only one way to research, and group projects or collaborative projects can be equally rewarding. I’ve done joint fieldwork, and I’ve been the ‘anchor’ researcher raising funding for other scholars to do field research to inform shared theorising. There’s a long history of group fieldwork in Anthropology, it’s just often overshadowed by the ‘Malinowskian’ image of the heroic individual researcher. Joint fieldwork can be a real joy – I worked with Marianne Lien recently sharing and sharing out fieldwork trips, and we had so many interesting discussions interpreting our findings and figuring out how we wanted to write about it. On the other hand, it is also exciting to set up a project idea and see where someone else takes it, usually way beyond what you imagined. It can be very generative to have a small group who really understand each other’s research context and ideas.
What’s your role on the ASA committee and why did you decide to volunteer some of your time to the association?
Some years ago I was asked to join the committee to liaise between ASA networks, and then the secretary post came up at short notice, and I moved into that role. It seemed to me our associations bring us clear benefits, and that someone has to do the work of running them. It may also be an idea I inherited from my father, who was involved with the Institute of Electrical Engineers for many years. The idea of service is somewhat unfashionable now, but as someone who has also spent many years studying local government, I still think it is valuable. When the chair of the association became available, I could see an opportunity to try to bring the ASA up to date, to bring it to a wider audience and to ensure it carries on as an important association for social anthropology. As it happened, it became my role to ensure the ASA survives the pandemic. I think we’ll be fine on that front now, but I hope we can soon get going with some of the many exciting plans we have in the coming months.What are you working on at the moment? My most recent research has been exploring the world of energy systems and the way they are imagined by technical experts. I participated in the National Centre for Energy Systems Integration, with a brief to analyse how the centre worked, and what ethical implications might be entailed in the work of energy system modelling. I’m working now with another large research centre on socially-inclusive energy transitions, based at the university of Oslo, and I’m working with several superb research scholars who are doing various fieldwork projects.
How do you do ethnography of imaginary worlds?
Actually ethnographers have always tried to document imagined worlds, classically in the worlds of witchcraft, magic or religion. But all worlds have imagined elements, and everyone has imaginaries that help to order their understanding of how the world is or how it should or could be. Memory has also been linked with imaginative thinking. My research has really always been organised by imaginaries – first around how the past is imagined and recreated, and then how the future is imagined and then put to work. My most recent work has been about the way that engineers model possible worlds using computational techniques. It’s probably been one of the most challenging topics I’ve worked on, and the one where I have least ability to participate in the work that people do. Over the years, I’ve done research with many people whose core work activities are largely individualised, whether that’s policy makers drafting reports or engineers making calculations. While it’s pretty much impossible to participate in these activities directly (other than by learning to do it oneself, and then that is still a step removed), people doing this kind of work always do it for a common purpose, and always share their ideas and explanations at some point. So, much of my field research has been in professional or public meetings where ideas are discussed, procedures debated, or disputes aired. And in these meetings, I have increasingly participated as a peer in an interdisciplinary group, studying neither ‘up’ nor ‘down’. I don’t really see it as so different from other kinds of anthropological fieldwork, but it does challenge some common tropes, such as the idea that ‘fieldwork must be 12 months’, or ‘you must live with the people you study’. Neither make any sense if the world at stake is not seasonal and if the people you’re interested in don’t live together either. A year is an arbitrary limit, perhaps just long enough to start to get to know people, but not really so long in the scheme of a lifetime.
You mentioned doing fieldwork with other researchers. How does that work?
If you’re in an academic post, it’s pretty rare to get enough time to do fieldwork in the normal scheme of things. Either you wait until you are lucky enough to get research leave (at which point you probably need to write), or you do short bursts of field research. But doing ethnography on your own is only one way to research, and group projects or collaborative projects can be equally rewarding. I’ve done joint fieldwork, and I’ve been the ‘anchor’ researcher raising funding for other scholars to do field research to inform shared theorising. There’s a long history of group fieldwork in Anthropology, it’s just often overshadowed by the ‘Malinowskian’ image of the heroic individual researcher. Joint fieldwork can be a real joy – I worked with Marianne Lien recently sharing and sharing out fieldwork trips, and we had so many interesting discussions interpreting our findings and figuring out how we wanted to write about it. On the other hand, it is also exciting to set up a project idea and see where someone else takes it, usually way beyond what you imagined. It can be very generative to have a small group who really understand each other’s research context and ideas.


What’s your role on the ASA committee and why did you decide to volunteer some of your time to the association?
Some years ago I was asked to join the committee to liaise between ASA networks, and then the secretary post came up at short notice, and I moved into that role. It seemed to me our associations bring us clear benefits, and that someone has to do the work of running them. It may also be an idea I inherited from my father, who was involved with the Institute of Electrical Engineers for many years. The idea of service is somewhat unfashionable now, but as someone who has also spent many years studying local government, I still think it is valuable. When the chair of the association became available, I could see an opportunity to try to bring the ASA up to date, to bring it to a wider audience and to ensure it carries on as an important association for social anthropology. As it happened, it became my role to ensure the ASA survives the pandemic. I think we’ll be fine on that front now, but I hope we can soon get going with some of the many exciting plans we have in the coming months.