Analyze

I think the field campus was a great success and showed how it differs from or compliments traditional formats (conferences, workshops, lectures...). The schedule was deliberately intense, but I am glad we could keep up a good pace throughout the three days. However, I agree that shared time to reflect on what we saw and heard each would have been helpful. A lot of this happened in the cars and at the two accommodations, but more collective time would be great for a future campus. On our way back, we discussed several ways to structure such discussions, for example by picking up one of the twelve analytic questions or making an inventory of (types of) people we encountered in the field. I am also interested in what people with experience in doing ethnography thought about showing up at sites in a group vs. being the lone fieldworker, and how that shifted the way you asked questions or interacted with the sites.

In that regard, I found it particularly helpful to meet participants in advance during the Zoom calls and learn about their skills/interests.  The group interview with Tony West was also a great way to prepare not only for the first day but to get a sense of St. Louis as a place. We should definitely think about similar modes to prepare for New Orleans. Also, since I was involved with setting up the final exhibition a GCADD, I am looking forward to discussing more what the exhibit at 4S could look like and what those of you with a background in the arts think about it.

For me personally, I think the campus was a valuable exercise in learning to think on my feet. Also, if one of the goals of the field campus was to “generate more data than the investigator is aware of at the time of collection,” as Marilyn Strathern has said of ethnography, I’d call it an assured success. The schedule, subject matter, and activities were notably intense, and certainly didn’t leave much room (or energy) for rigorous analysis in situ. So it seems to me that the ultimate value of the field campus is still in the process of production, as we all continue to process, discuss, and relate the significance of our experiences and interactions to our own research sites and areas of expertise over the course of the following months.

Perhaps this was simply a matter of being fresh energized, but I think Day 1 was the most productive and enjoyable. I also think this had to do with the way it was structured; e.g. beginning with Tony's primer, folllowed by the tours, and finally the panel discussion, the day just built up nicely. It also gave us an approachable sampling of the ways a coherent set of anthropocenic sites and practices had been differentially uncovered, recovered, or (more or less figuratively) covered up by diverse stakeholders. And we were given time to critically (if also (mostly) cordially) engage each set of stakeholders as a group, bringing in our own unique insights, questions, and interests.

I really enjoyed the first day’s higher degree of shared attention and designated time for Q&A and discussion. That’s not to say I think every event should be a group tour. Self-guided exploration is useful too, and I realize that part of the idea of splitting up was to facilitate smaller collaborations on diverse group projects. Still, perhaps setting aside a few sessions for group-wide Q&A with stakeholders each day would create that small bit of noise and contingency that helps generate creativity.

The immersion into various spaces within St. Louis was incredibly insightful for rapid learning about the area's past, present, and imagined futures. What I think might have strengthened the field campus as a learning/thinking space would be to have slightly more structure in terms of explicitly creating shared analytical space--for instance, being more consistent with interrogating the space with the 12 scale questions (perhaps different groups could be assigned to paying special attention to a subset of those and then we could come together as a large group or as shuffled groups, i.e. a member from each subset) to discuss. Along those lines as well, I think creating specific times for reflecting and debriefing, either after a site visit or two or at the end of each day, would be an effective way to help translate massive amounts of observational data (so many of us listening/observing in each place!) into meaningful shared insights.

For future field schools I also think it would be important to think about accessibility, not just in terms of content (which is also an important question, since it seems we want to engage with folks across disciplines and beyond academia) but also in terms of format, so as to anticipate and/or be prepared to adjust to the needs of potential participants.

Feedback: I wish I had had more time to talk to other participants, to digest and process our experiences. Most interesting/productive components: museum visits, interactive experiences with other participants, group projects. Suggestions: Somehow not cramming so much information into so little time! It was a bit like drinking from a fire hydrant without a moment to catch my breath. I don't know if that can be done, though, I wouldn't want to sacrifice any of the experiences. 

• I was most interested in the time spent at GCADD. I loved learning about that space, it's history, and the participants working to build it up. 
• I came out of the field campus extremely exhaused. Personally I love this feeling. There is something extremely comforting to me about having a brain exploding with new ideas and a body too tired to do anything with it. I do have concerns about how experiences like the field campus, and the exhaustive toll they take, may limit the audience who chooses to participate. I wonder if future field campuses might think a little more about how make the experience more accessible to participants with different physical or mental health needs. 
• While I enjoyed the breadth of perspectives that participated in this experience, I think the campus could benefit with the inclusion of more scientists. At Weldon Spring, I really wish we had an engineer in our group to talk about building a site like that. Even if it might be difficult to get subject area experts, just a few ecologists or engineers in the room could have added depth to our conversations.