11 June 1999, Institute of Commonwealth Studies, London.
The one day workshop was organised by research students from the E@TM group at the School of Oriental Studies, London, in consultation with the organisers of the 1998 Marett Conference in Oxford. 1 (for more information on E@TM and its activities see appendix-2). The workshop brought together 25 MPhil/PhD students from the following institutions: Cambridge, Edinburgh, Goldsmiths, Kent, Manchester, SOAS and UCL. Several members of staff from SOAS anthropology department also took part as observers and participants. Following the Marett model, invitations were sent to HoDs of all anthropology departments in the UK, asking them to nominate up to two student representatives. The delegates were also asked to acquaint themselves with the ESRC Consultation Remit and current ESRC Research Training Guidelines (1998 ed).
Aims
The workshop was motivated by the need expressed by participants at the Marett conference for a continued involvement of students in the evaluation of teaching and learning in their subject area, and the expansion of opportunities of student-student networking opportunities that would support this endeavour. Thus the workshop was intended to:
* provide a forum for the exchange of research training experience, including that of the on-going projects initiated in 1997 through HEFCE funding among MPhil/PhD students in anthropology or related disciplines. 2
* draft a response to the 1999 ESRC Consultation exercise from a student perspective.
Organisation of the day
The workshop was divided into a number of sessions each facilitated by a different member of E@TM, and included an introduction by E@TM members to E@TM and the aims of the workshop; group discussion of the ëbest and worst pedagogical practicesí in various institutions; Kit Davis (SOAS) on her experience of different training programmes in research anthropology; group discussion on designing the ëideal training programmeí and presentations; Stuart Thompson (SOAS) on the ESRC Remit, followed by group discussion; Stella Mascarenhas-Keyes on professional training courses; and a summary of the day by a member of E@TM.
The workshop was followed by a subsidised meal for all participants.
Achievements
The workshop was felt to have been very useful by participants, who provided feedback to the organisers on the day and in subsequent exchanges with some members of E@TM. In particular, it proved successful in the following areas:
* sharing experiences of research training in different institutions through discussion and the circulation by participants of their respective departmentís course outlines;
* providing an opportunity for informal networking during and after the workshop;
* identifying research training requirements and suggesting very specific ways to enhance existing programmes in the institutions represented;
* drafting a student response to the ESRC Research Training Consultation. This document was sent to the ESRC Training Board. It is attached in appendix-2. At the request of participants, the workshop recommendations will also be forwarded to each departmentís HoDs of social anthropology departments across the UK.
* encouraging greater student awareness of the institutional context of anthropological research training, as it elucidated the role of bodies such as HEFCE, ESRC and the NNTLA; the impact of documents such as the Harris and Dearing reports on anthropological research practice.
Concluding remarks
In line with past efforts such as the Marett conference and also student led seminars such as E@TM, the workshop sought to expand the space for student involvement in their own professional formation.
The bulk of the suggestions made on the day echoed many points made the previous yearís Marett Conference, 3 but this workshop laid more emphasis on the issues of transparency and openness in departmental practice. In particular, participants called for enhanced levels of information on and enforceability of student rights with regards to existing training programmes and the ways in which these are delivered.
Overall, it was felt that the workshop, despite being more modest in its aims and achievements than the Marett Conference, had provided a worthwhile opportunity for research students to engage with debates over student provision and contribute to the shaping of anthropological research training.
Notes
1 The Marett Conference was a project funded by the National Network for Teaching and Learning Anthropology, and was held in Oxford in March 1998, with the aim of discussing all aspects of post-graduate course provision and research training. A series of recommendations and suggestions for good practice came out of the meeting, a full report of which can be found on the Oxford departmental website at www.rsl.ox.ac.uk/isca/marfly.html. back
2 Researchers with an interest in ethnographic methods at the Institute of Education, London, were also invited but were unable to attend. back
3 As during the Marett Conference, there was a strong feeling that training in field research methods was less than adequate and that too little was done to cater for the needs of students not wishing to pursue an academic career. back