Click the star to add/remove an item to/from your individual schedule.
You need to be logged in to avail of this functionality.
Log in
- Convenors:
-
Paloma Gay y Blasco
(University of St Andrews)
Mattia Fumanti (University of St Andrews)
Send message to Convenors
- Stream:
- Who Speaks and for Whom?
- Sessions:
- Monday 29 March, -
Time zone: Europe/London
Short Abstract:
The panel will assess the strengths and weaknesses of collaborative research as an outlook and a set of diverse practices in anthropology. We will explore the potential and the limits of collaboration, what it can and cannot deliver for the world and for the discipline.
Long Abstract:
Collaboration, the process through which anthropologists and locals interlocutors share in the design, implementation and dissemination of research, is currently emerging strongly as a transformative drive in anthropology. Across the humanities and social sciences, collaborative research aims to make academic work accountable and relevant to the communities under study, enhancing its importance and impact. And yet, collaboration is not without its challenges and pitfalls. Our aim is to assess critically the strengths and weaknesses of collaboration both as an outlook and a set of diverse practices. We will explore the potential and the limits of collaboration, what it can and cannot deliver for the world and for anthropology. We will debate the place of collaborative research in the future of the discipline, exploring what collaborative entanglements reveal about the conflicting responsibilities of anthropologists. Specifically, we are looking for contributions that investigate critically the assumption that collaborative work is a more accountable and egalitarian way of knowing and representing the Other. We seek to examine the personal, disciplinary and institutional constraints and expectations that shape and limit collaborative work. Lastly, we look for contributions that assess the status of the various kinds of outputs that collaborative work produces, and their relevances and uses. Both textual and non-textual contributions are welcome.
Accepted papers:
Session 1 Monday 29 March, 2021, -Paper short abstract:
The paper is based on the experience of unplanned collaborative ethnography. It concerns limitations resulting from the subject of research (protests, politics and economics related to the development of road infrastructures and local industrial zones) and the expected and forced cooperations.
Paper long abstract:
The paper is (auto) reflective and relates to my personal experiences refering to the situation of a forced collaboration with my research partners. For several years, I have been conducting research on socio-economic changes resulting from the construction of large road infrastructures. By the way, I look at the local industrial investments (development of industrial zones, wind farms, livestock farms or sand and gravel mines). I conduct these research in small local small-town and rural communities in Poland (mainly Western). I work with local environmental activists, politicians, entrepreneurs, media representatives, expert-scientists, officials, foresters and regular locales.
Collaboration with such different research partners requires from me not only social nuance and finding myself in the network of interconnections, but also strongly influences the course of the research process and its effects. My academic activities are largely limited and controlled. Free and creative interpretation becomes almost impossible – is subject to negotiations and compromises.
Therefore, I would like to open a discussion: a. on the limits of compromise resulting from collaborative ethnography; b. on how to set limits our research partners; c. on how to scientifically work with empirical material, which is overwhelmingly sensitive, personal and sometimes on the verge of legality.
Paper short abstract:
Reflecting on the production of Broken Gods, a film that documents the growing participation of India’s indigenous groups in state sponsored projects of conversion to Hinduism, this paper reflects on the limits of collaborating with communities in troubled times.
Paper long abstract:
This paper reflects on the limits of collaborating with communities in troubled times. Between 2017-19, I was involved in the production of Broken Gods, a film that documents the growing participation of India’s indigenous groups in state sponsored projects of cultural erasure and conversion to Hinduism. The film was envisaged as a collaboration with indigenous activist and filmmaker Dakxin Bajranje Chhara, and with indigenous communities from the western India region. However, such collaboration became problematic due to different levels of indigeneity at work; and to contrasting religious-political affiliations. Collaborative techniques such as feedback resulted in challenging censorship claims that could only be resolved by reclaiming the importance of critique. This paper will address two interlinked dilemmas linked to the theme of responsibility and who speaks for whom. The first is an ethico-political question: what does it mean to collaborate with marginal indigenous communities whose members are aligned with powerful right-wing projects? Who speaks for whom and what are our responsibilities as researchers? The second is an aesthetic-representational one: while visual anthropology has embraced experimentation and reflexivity as canons for assessing good films, and especially good practice, how do we engage with indigenous or activists’ concern with truth?
Paper short abstract:
By examining an international five-party transdisciplinary research partnership, we discuss the challenges of co-existing multilateral representations of “the Other” that affect project outcomes and redefine research responsibility in collaborative efforts.
Paper long abstract:
In 2019 we started the “Green Health” project, funded by the Darwin Initiative, whose main objective is to conduct a collaborative, transdisciplinary (TD) process for building a framework for implementing the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Nagoya Protocol in Guatemala. By co-researching the medical ethnobotany of the Maya Q’eqchi’ alongside Ajilonel traditional healers, Councils of Elders, anthropologists, chemists, an SME, policy experts and government officials, the project looks to build a precedent for successful collaborations based on equitable access and benefit sharing that move away from the usual colonial approaches seen in drug discovery stemming from indigenous peoples’ knowledge. One of the fundamentals of a TD process is equal participation and representation in all steps of the research and its application, yet the challenges of bringing together disparate values, expectations, cultural backgrounds, and knowledge systems, amidst pre-existing power differentials, is a complex one. The role of the anthropologists in creating intelligible socio-epistemic bridges that aid in trust-building and mutual learning has been key to the project, laying the groundwork for a reflexive process that is often uncomfortable but necessary, in order to keep an accountable and responsible approach to applied research. This paper offers a reflection on the experiences and challenges of this project as a gate to address larger questions about what constitutes a truly intercultural, respectful and responsible research partnership in a global collaborative context, and to examine how accounting for all partners’ perspectives builds complex projections of mutual representation affecting project outcomes.