Indigenous Ethnography

Borda (PAR proponent) notes advances since the 1970s: "Main techniques include the critical recovery of history and local culture, and a change of style of communication to make it easy for anyone in the communities to understand the problems being dealt with, thus combining academic erudition with common experience, which induces changes even in the personality of the activist researcher."

Bornstein comments on integration into families in the field as an "anthropological ideal", noting that most researchers may be "adopted" by host families but that this membership is only temporary. Note also that Kosack--who adopted a child from the research community--distinguishes between "research relationships" and "human relationships" (Bornstein2004:28; see also Bornstein2007). Bornstein further points out that the AAA Code of Ethics explicitly refers to such relationships, in contrast to the implicit code of ethical conduct governing family: "Anthropological researchers who have developed close and enduring relationships (i.e. covenantal relationships) with either individual persons providing information or with hosts must adhere to the obligations of openness and informed consent, while carefully and respectfully negotiating the limits of the relationship". See also Briggs1986, who was adopted into an Inuit family, but had difficulty living up to expectations. Bornstein suggests that we see family as the "social and affective context within which ethnographic work is conducted", but which is often glossed over in accounts themselves. She points out that reflexive modes of knowledge, as offered by feminist and experiential ethnographies, can help to reinscribe knowledge in this context. (Note also the articles in Recapturing Anthropology etc. on the problem of authoritative representation.) (Experiential ethnographies: Cesara1982; Poewe1996)

It seems to me that Abu-Lughod's discussion of "halfie" anthropologists (and the similar articles on indigenous anthropology) raise a number of issues that are pertinent to my own situation: ongoing membership in a group, defined in terms other than the research project, creates opportunities for access by virtue of the expectation of active participation in social networks; at the same time, it implies commitments to act in the interests of the group, on an ongoing basis, which require an important level of discretion. I am comfortable with these terms, and in fact recognize that many anthropologists also would be inclined to position themselves in an advocacy role (see AAA principles of ethics) or as cultural brokers--although some have argued that this partiality can limit the anthropologist's capacity to report uncomfortable truths, such as the social factors contributing to the production or concealment of illness (Scheper-Hughes) or to study the multiple sides of a conflict. At the same time, I think that it is meaningful for me as an anthropological researcher to have a role in the events and relationships I study (see the articles in After Writing Culture on authors who become part of the action); anthropological research, by virtue of its social nature, cannot be neutral. To me while it may be unethical to ignore suffering, it is also unethical to discuss inequalities in (discursive) sites that are separate--or even concealed--from subjects (as Scheper-Hughes did in Ireland).

My proposed research aims substantively to contend with everyday experiences and how decisions concerning pastoral resource use are shaped by positioned understandings. Under the heading of "resources" I think it is useful to consider both natural and cultural properties (everything is transformed by humans to a certain degree, if only by the act of extraction).

From my initial ethnographic field research in Mongolia, I made the following observations. First, I found it awkward to have meaningful discussions with herders that we did not know particularly well. I took advantage of our friendship with the former sum veterinarian, who had a large base of contacts among local herders and was well-respected, to gain introductions to a number of families. I identified myself as a researcher and asked some fairly open-ended questions regarding resource use, ecological degradation, marketing, and similar issues, based on a list of general topics I had prepared in advance. This survey provided a very useful sense of the ways in which residents of Yeroo perceive natural resources and conflicts over their use, but I also recognize that what people said to me--as a stranger, in response to direct questions--was only the beginning of the story.

Second, I found that participant observation in activities organized or sponsored by development organizations and local government provided useful access to discussions, perspectives, etc.--which was interesting because I was both inside and outside, and had a professional perspective to contribute. This led to an understanding of different ways in which knowledge/subjects were constituted. Access to such collectivities is somewhat easier than access to kin or economic groups, since membership is short-term and often unrelated to place- or kin-based identities, and indeed encompasses "outsiders". At the same time, I think there is a need for focus on how these groupings interact with xot ails.

Kinship: Schneider's critiques of kinship(Schneider1980, Schneider1984), recent works have reconfigured the topic through an analysis of 'cultures of relatedness' (Carsten2000; Franklin&McKinnon2001).

There are 0 attachment(s) stored for this page.