Search results

In 1984 the number of photographs taken by people in the U.K. broke the 1 million mark and 75% of all households had a camera. By the end of the millennium (1999) people in Britain spent over 1 billion on cameras, film and processing and the number of photographs taken had exceeded 3 billion.¹ There is little doubt that most people are familiar with cameras, and the majority will be engaged in forms of photographic practice as amateurs, that is as a “pastime” or hobby or as an adjunct to events, activities and leisure in their everyday lives.

In Mesoamerica, the processes of making and using hand-woven cloth are well known ritual and mundane practices often regarded as markers of primordial identity and clear indications of deep historical continuities with the pre-Columbian past. This chapter analyzes a set of commemorative wall hangings from Tecpán, Guatemala from the perspective of ritual economy to argue that ritual weaving persists in contemporary Mesoamerica within global economic contexts. The Tecpán textiles contain multiple significations that, in addition to indicating cultural continuities and community identity, symbolically link hamlets to the municipality, represent development projects completed, and symbolize the connections these hamlets have to the broader global economy. This analysis of weaving and cloth is contextualized within the cultural and economic conditions of Tecpán in order to discuss the interrelationship between the ritual and the mundane, as well as what hand-woven cloth means to contemporary Maya weavers.

This chapter investigates sidewalk sociability and neighborhood use, by focusing on the regular encounter of a group of retired men to play cards on their neighborhood’s main street. Direct and ethnographic observations were used on one Lisbon suburban working and lower middle-classes residential district.

Sidewalk card-playing is understood as “focused gathering” (Goffman, 1971a) and this concept discloses the social organization of a public gaming held encounter and the specific rules created to regulate interactions between players and their audience. The sidewalk sociability effects produced by card-playing are interpreted as originating from “triangulation stimuli” (Lofland, 1998; Whyte, 2002) and “sociability pillar” construction (Charmés, 2006).

Card-playing encounters are discussed in detail as a practical and symbolical neighborhood-use (Blokland, 2003) enacted by an elder-men peer-group. Research underscores the relationship between the elderly peer-group members’ practices and the neighborhood’s public space appropriation, their public characters’ attributes (Jacobs, 1972) and behavior, and social construction of a sidewalk small social place. Among aged peer-group members, sidewalk card-playing accounts for an increase in social and psychological benefits, ranging from social contacts to memories self-expression, derived either from the gaming situation or from its pervasive sociability.

Machiavelli's dictums in The Prince (1977) instigated the modern discourse on power. Arguing that “there's such a difference between the way we really live and the way we ought to live that the man who neglects the real to study the ideal will learn to accomplish his ruin, not his salvation” (Machiavelli, 1977, p. 44), his approach is a realist one. In this text, Machiavelli (1977, p. 3) endeavors to “discuss the rule of princes” and to “lay down principles for them.” Taking his lead, Foucault (1978, p. 97) argued that “if it is true that Machiavelli was among the few…who conceived the power of the Prince in terms of force relationships, perhaps we need to go one step further, do without the persona of the Prince, and decipher mechanisms on the basis of a strategy that is immanent in force relationships.” He believed that we should “investigate…how mechanisms of power have been able to function…how these mechanisms…have begun to become economically advantageous and politically useful…in a given context for specific reasons,” and, therefore, “we should…base our analysis of power on the study of the techniques and tactics of domination” (Foucault, 1980, pp. 100–102). Conceptualizing such techniques and tactics as the “art of governance”, Foucault (1991), examined power as strategies geared toward managing civic populations through shaping people's dispositions and behaviors.

As Comaroff and Comaroff argue, in their discussion of the intersection of ethnographical research and historical perspectives, social change is a dynamic process in which existing social and political tensions, local and global, are played out, with an uncertain outcome. Change is often about how competing groups come to power (Comaroff & Comaroff, 1992). Consumer researchers have already applied this perspective on class, consumption, and change in places as widespread as Niger and the US, but not to Eastern Europe.

As academics, quantitative and/or qualitative methods are at the heart of the research we conduct and the insights we seek to share with the world. However, this does not always translate into impactful engagement for the stakeholders and communities we engage with, despite the evidence that indicates the potential to do so. One of the critical ways that academics can generate impact is through community and stakeholder engagement – developing networks and external partnerships that work collaboratively to generate change. Research indicates that more participatory methods of engagement where stakeholders can co-create solutions have the greatest transformational potential for impact. The key to differentiating meaningful and impactful stakeholder engagement from distinct concepts such as communication or consultation is understanding the level of influence the stakeholder will have on the decision. This chapter provides a practical guide for academics to build their practice in impactful engagement throughout their career through eight simple steps. Using the International Association for Public Participation (IAP2) spectrum of public participation, an example of how engagement methods can be selected to build impactful engagement skills throughout the academic career is illustrated. Impactful engagement has the capacity to bring diverse voices and perspectives together to shape decisions and change, and in so doing, create greater impact.

Purpose – Trust and justice are generally considered distinct but closely related constructs. Individual perceptions of procedural justice and trustworthiness have been shown to reciprocally influence one another, each independently promoting trust (Colquitt & Mueller, 2007). We consider instances where these may instead diverge: how intentional efforts to build trust may unintentionally erode justice, and how the use of fair procedures may reduce trust.

Approach – We argue that the anomalous divergences between trust and justice are evident only when simultaneously considering judgments at two levels: the interpersonal level (i.e., within dyads inside the team) and the team level (i.e., shared perceptions of all team members).

Implications for research and practice – The unintended effects described in this chapter describe a “dark side” to a number of taken-for-granted practices in organizational life (favor-paying, punishment processes, and approaches to redress). We expect that this chapter should promote new research using the team context to bridge the trust and justice literatures, and provoke a careful reconsideration among practitioners of these approaches.

Originality – We propose three previously overlooked disjunctures between trust and justice. First, we show how procedurally unfair approaches to allocating favors may be beneficial in building dyadic trust between team members. Next, we describe how fair (open and transparent) group processes for punishing perpetrators may erode trust by skewing group members’ perceptions of the prevalence of trust violations. Finally, we describe how the most effective forms of redress at the interpersonal level may provoke perceptions of injustice at the team level.

This chapter analyzes a specific form of contemporary art, the one that is created and exhibited in the community, conceived and visualized outside of the art market and independent of the agenda of creative industries and art galleries. The motivation, purpose and meaning of such art practices, for both the artists and the community, are discussed and examples of community art projects are analyzed in order to understand how art became, in this first quarter of the twenty-first century, such a valued collective asset, so accessible and present in the daily life of the common man. Two Portuguese case studies have been chosen as illustrations: the first one is a funding programme of projects focussed on artistic practices for inclusion (the PARTIS programme, by the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation) and the second is a self-financed and self-curated artistic collective, Pescada n^º 5.