Bulletin: Higher Education and Student Life

Articles

Theses

New Article: Dominguez, On Anthropology in Israel

Dominguez, Virginia R. “On Anthropology in Israel.” American Anthropologist 118.1 (2016): 142-158 (with responses).

 

URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/aman.12506

 

Extract

The following subsection includes responses to three questions I formulated and sent to all living past heads of the Israel Anthropological Association. Marked with asterisks below are the past and living IAA heads who responded to my request, but I nonetheless include the full list of past heads (called chairs until relatively recently but now called presidents). Nineteen colleagues have served the IAA in that capacity since the founding of the association in 1973; nine of them responded to my three questions, and those answers appear in this special World Anthropology subsection.

My questions were as follows:

  • (1)What kind of work do you associate with Israeli anthropology—Now? Twenty to thirty years ago? Fifty to sixty years ago?
  • (2)What do you find most challenging in Israeli anthropology or as an anthropologist in Israel?
  • (3)What do you find most praiseworthy and productive in (the practice of) anthropology in Israel?

Responses by Henry Abramovitch, Tel Aviv University; Nurit Bird-David, University of Haifa; Harvey E. Goldberg, Hebrew University of Jerusalem; André Levy, Ben-Gurion University; Dan Rabinowitz, Tel Aviv University; Amalia Sa’ar, University of Haifa; Moshe Shokeid, Tel Aviv University; Alex Weingrod, Ben-Gurion University; Meira Weiss, Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

 

 

 

New Article: Sherrard, American Biblical Archeologists’ Responses to the Six-Day War

Sherrard, Brooke. “Mystical Unification or Ethnic Domination? American Biblical Archeologists’ Responses to the Six-Day War.” Journal of the Bible and its Reception 3.1 (2016): 109-33.

 

URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/jbr-2016-1002

 

Abstract

After the Six-Day War, members of the American Schools of Oriental Research experienced conflict over how and whether to maintain the organization’s policy on political neutrality. This article argues that ASOR members who supported Israel framed their views as theological, lauding the war for achieving a mystical unification of Jerusalem, while members who opposed the war’s outcome responded that appeals to theology and neutrality were being deployed to justify one ethnic group’s domination over another. I present two main examples, George Ernest Wright and Paul Lapp, and connect their scholarly views on objectivity versus relativism to their political views on the conflict. Wright, a biblical theologian, argued the Old Testament was an objective record of a religion revealed by God to the Israelites and defended the slaughter of Canaanites in terms that echoed justifications for Palestinian displacement. Conversely Lapp, who read the Old Testament as a polemical text, overtly connected his perspectivalism to his pro-Palestinian politics. In 1968 Wright clashed with ASOR residents, including Lapp, who protested Israeli plans to reroute a parade through recently captured areas of East Jerusalem. A reading of the correspondence record created after the protest analyzes the political implications of these differing scholarly positions.

 

 

 

Policy Paper: Göbel, The Israeli Lobby for Research and Innovation in the European Union

Göbel, Benedict. “The Israeli Lobby for Research and Innovation in the European Union. An Example of Efficient Cooperation in the European Neighbourhood?” Bruges Political Research Papers 49/2015 (2016).

 

URL: https://www.coleurope.eu/system/files_force/research-paper/wp49_gobel.pdf (PDF)

 

Abstract
Israel figures among the world-leaders in R&D expenditure and has a high-performing scientific community. Since the 1990s it has been associated with the Scientific Policy of the European Union via the European Research Framework Programmes (FP). The cooperation between Israel and the EU in this domain has gradually increased and benefits the scientific communities on both sides. In 2014 the association of Israel to the latest and biggest European FP ever adopted (Horizon 2020) was renewed for the fourth time. Based on all the scientific evidence provided, the elaboration of a European Research Policy can be identified as a highly regulated domain, offering relevant ‘channels of influence’. These channels offer Israel the opportunity to act within the Research Policy system. Being a member of several formal EU bodies in charge of implementing EU Research Policy, Israel is able to introduce its positions effectively. This is accompanied by an outstanding level of activity by Israel in linking concrete EU Research Policy measures to the Israeli Scientific Community at the national level. To carry out this task, Israel relies on an effective organization, which remodels the provided EU structures: European ‘National Contact Points’ (NCPs) are concentrated within the ‘Europe Israel R&D Directorate’ (ISERD). ISERD connects efficiently all the relevant actors, forums and phases of EU-Israeli Research Policy. ISERD can be recognized as being at the heart of Israel’s research cooperation with the EU.

 

 

 

New Article: Shalhoub-Kevorkian & Roer-Strier, Counter-Hegemonic Qualitative Research: Insights from an Israeli/Palestinian Research Team

Shalhoub-Kevorkian, Nadera and Dorit Roer-Strier. “Context-Informed, Counter-Hegemonic Qualitative Research: Insights from an Israeli/Palestinian Research Team Studying Loss.” Qualitative Social Work (early view; online first).

 

URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1473325015595545

 

Abstract

Theorizing social work qualitative methodologies have always been closely related to the context of the studied subjects. This paper offers the framework of context-informed, counter-hegemonic qualitative research for theorizing research in conflict zones. Based on a case study of a group of Jewish and Palestinian social work researchers who examined together the effect of the loss of home on families during an ongoing political conflict, this paper explores the impact of participating in a research team on the researcher’s perceptions and study of otherness and otherization in the context of asymmetries of power. Analysis of the group dynamics discovered: (1) a growing ability to see and acknowledge the other, accompanied by a growing willingness to be attentive; (2) a growing ability to empathically listen to and hear the experiences of suffering of the other; (3) overcoming silencing by allowing voices of dissent, pain and resilience; and (4) creating a liminal space of “safe haven” for the researchers. The paper explores the development of context-informed group reflexivity leading to emancipatory consciousness and academic activism.