ALMATY WORKSHOP

“What a great start of the three-day workshop in Almaty: breathing fresh mountain air, contemplating the mountains, trees, and stillness of nature, and enjoying the company of amazing people at the resort canteen”. These were my thoughts when the workshop officially started and I was so grateful to be with such fantastic people in such a fantastic place. For a moment, I even thought that it was not real, but this thought quickly dissipated when  Hikoyat said: “It is time to begin our workshop!” (Throughout the event, she ensured that everyone was aware of the timing and reprimanded us if we were late or oblivious of time).

​

The event organizers shared the genealogy of the USTA Mentorship programme, recalling the events, initiatives, and challenges that eventually led to the establishment and launch of this programme. I think it was important for mentees to learn that this workshop was the outcome of a passionate idea to increase the visibility of Central Asian scholarship and support emerging Central Asian scholars in writing and publishing.

​

USTA mentees specialize in different areas such as anthropology, sociology, political science, history, and education. My colleagues and I are currently writing articles that encompass diverse topics such as a representation of Kenessary Khan in Soviet films, the ritual of ‘making’ zheti shelpek in Kazakhstan, creating safe spaces for LGBTQ+ individuals after coming out, the portrayal of Kyrgyz and Uzbek women’s roles in the Soviet women periodicals, the impact of the newly accepted members (India and Pakistan) to the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, linguistic choices of Tajik bloggers on Instagram, extracurricular activities as predictors of student educational outcomes in Central Asia, and precarity of test developer positionality. It was inspiring to observe how we proudly presented articles we were working on. At the same, we discussed the challenges and uncertainties of writing and publishing.

The rest of the piece will be structured in chronological order capturing the key events and reflections of each day. You can read this piece as a diary.

​

Day 1

​

On the first day of the workshop, Dr Diana T. Kudaibergen discussed the topic of writing and publishing with confidence. Diana started the session by sharing her struggles in academic writing and publishing journey that resonated with the challenges we face as emerging scholars.

​

While the purpose of this session was highly instrumental to show us effective strategies and tools for developing an argument, creating a coherent piece of writing, and overcoming writer’s block, there was also a space for reflection about the dominant and rigid writing and publishing requirements that exist in academia. I think that the most important takeaway for me and my colleagues was the encouragement of critiquing ideas and coping with the fear of challenging well-established authors, theories, and concepts in a professional and respectful manner that can allow us to create and co-create new knowledge.

​

The afternoon session with Professor Madeline Reeves revolved around finding a journal where we could publish our articles. This session was a perfect transition from the previous session that began by critiquing the dominance of English-language publishing and highlighting the existence of systematic  biases in publishing. Professor Reeves guided us through the important questions that we should ask ourselves when looking for a potential journal. I also loved the idea of ‘hacking’ and critiquing the publishing system to change and transform it.

 

The last session led by Hikoyat Salimova and Dr Sofiya du Boulay started with a dance that invigorated and energized us. After proclaiming themselves as ‘uncertainty experts’, Hikoyat and Sofiya shared the pitfalls and barriers that they personally faced during their PhD studies. The session emphasized the importance of mental and physical well-being throughout doctoral studies or academic careers. They shared tips that helped them to overcome uncertain times and the times of crises. For instance, engagement in positive thinking and developing atomic habits such as sports and meditation can help us to cope with anxiety, fear, and stress. We were then divided into three groups and were assigned a situation from an academic life that we needed to perform. This exercise was a form of psychological therapy that allowed us to express our emotions, move our bodies, make strange sounds, and live through these experiences. We laughed a lot and enjoyed the artistic performances of our colleagues.

Finally, the session was concluded with reflections on the day and the key takeaways from each session. It was a truly remarkable day.

​

Day 2

​

The second day of USTA Mentorship started with Dr Diana T. Kudaibergen discussing the topic of crafting Central Asian theory. Diana started the session by demystifying the concept of ‘theory’ and outlined the foundational blocks that usually comprise a theory. She then proceeded to invite us to name Central Asian concepts or theories that we are familiar with. We shared the theory we used in our studies and articles, discussing how the theory was created and who the creators were. Diana then proceeded to discuss other ways of crafting a theory by bringing voices of the marginalized and silenced, writing from the position of the subject, and creating local words and concepts that define our social reality and everyday practice. This session sparked a lively discussion on decoloniality, Soviet legacy, and the idea of Soviet nostalgia among the older generation.

​

The next session was led by Dr Rano Turaeva on the decolonial methodologies. We discussed the background of the author of the book ‘Decolonizing Methodologies’ Linda  Tuhiwai Smith and the key concepts she discussed in some of the book chapters. This session was a continuation of the discussion on crafting own Central Asian theory. It was then discussed how oral tradition could be used as a decolonial method. The interesting highlight of the session and discussion was the idea of looking at your research in a way that it may colonize and disadvantage someone. I think after these two sessions we were inspired to craft our own Central Asian theory.

​

The afternoon session led by Professor Madeleine Reeves was on various techniques to develop the contribution in an article. The session began with an elevator pitch in which we had three questions and 30 seconds to answer the questions in pairs. We then briefly summarized the points of our colleague. It was exciting to talk about my research within the time limit and learn about my colleague’s research and her contribution. Professor Reeves built her session around the article written by Usmon Boron on Islamic traditions in Kyrgystan by identifying sections of the articles and devices employed to articulate the contribution of the study.  This exercise was very illustrative and very practical because we could navigate through the article and observe how the author wrote the contribution, what transition devices he used to move from one point to another, how he acknowledged the existing research and departed from them at the same time, and how the author grounded himself in a debate. Using this article as an example was very helpful to understand how to build an argument and highlight the contribution of the study.

 

Finally, the roundtable discussion was organized and it was open to anyone interested in academic publishing.  Dr Gulzat Botoeva and Dr Sofiya du Boulay moderated discussion and Professor Madeleine Reeves, Dr Diana Kudaibergen, and Dr Rano Turaeva shared their experiences of publishing a special issue in a journal. They also explained the whole process of publishing special issues, from calling for papers, submitting a proposal to a long-winded process of reviewing and editing the submissions, and encouraging contributing authors to proceed and submit their articles. Speakers also shared their experiences of publishing a book. There were a few interesting questions from the audience.

 

Day 3

 

In the morning, Diana T. Kudaibergen continued her session on crafting Central Asian theory. The gloomy weather that day in Almaty was juxtaposed with a creative activity we were immersed in. The session started with a free writing activity in which we needed to write about our research project and use sensory devices, images, and memories that could be associated with our project. It was a very creative task and I believe not an easy one because in academia we got accustomed to thinking rationality and present an argument logically; there is little space for creativity. Diana then discussed important aspects of the decolonial paradigm that could help researchers to craft their own theories. For instance, our methods should be practices of knowledge production rather than knowledge extraction; methods should be multilayered, complex, and intertwined; it is essential to write ‘with Central Asia’ rather than ‘on Central Asia’.

 

Dr Assel Tutumlu and Dr Gulzat Botoeva discussed the consistency of the argument and both of them were ‘wearing ‘hats of pragmatism and postpositivism (especially Dr Tutumlu) aiming to specifically address the questions of developing consistent argumentation in the articles we are working on. They showed us some practical examples and techniques that could help us sustain consistency in argumentation.

 

In the next session, Dr Rano Turaeva led the session on how to work with reviewers’ comments. She shared her experiences of addressing the comments to the reviewers followed by a practical task in which we needed to work with our draft articles. Again, this session was very practical and very engaging. I think we gained more confidence in responding to the reviewer’s comments without fear and apprehension.

 

Finally,  Professor Madeleine Reeves discussed the notion of citations that could be used as a mechanism of power. We discussed the purpose and use of h-index globally and locally. By practically analyzing citation practices in one of the articles, she illustrated how citations were used in terms of gender representation, language representation, and representation of Central Asian scholars. Another example illustrated mediocre citation practices in one of the books. In general, this session illustrated that citation practices can help to build knowledge and experiences and, at the same, time they can also erase certain names and localities.

 

So, this is a ‘brief’ summary of the three-day workshop with some of my reflections. We learnt a lot during these three days and were so happy to be in-person, to be physically in a conference room and have an opportunity to interact with each other.  

 

We built a fantastic community of scholars during these three days; we could reflect on our academic journeys and our experiences; we could ask questions during the sessions and we kept our discussions during the coffee breaks and meals at the canteen. We were so grateful and humbled by this unique opportunity to learn from top Central Asian scholars and refine and improve our understanding of writing and publishing, creating, and crafting.