Paper short abstract:

Critical paper on 'land grab' literature and researcher overreach in assessments of resource conflict and valuation.

Paper long abstract:

Social scientists labelling conservation projects in developing countries as 'land grabbing' tend to focus on livelihood shifts, economic changes, dislocation from land and changed human-environment relations. Such research often depicts local people as a unified, victimized, and powerless group, losing out in resource conflicts. Conservationists simultaneously argue that biodiversity is under severe threat, portraying local groups as the main threat to 'world heritage' due to slash and burn practices. Such stereotypical images of local people do a disservice to both these groups and the cause of science. It might be useful to ask ourselves whether some commentators haven't made undue concessions to ideology and political correctness in the rush to jump on the land-grab bandwagon or to meet the pressures of 'publish or perish'. Are we, as researchers, vigilantly investigating data that contradicts our own preconceptions? Rather than comfort our positions, perhaps a brief recollection of the Popper falsification theory might be in order, i.e., an examination of data that goes directly against our own assumptions.

The author proposes an analytical model to analyze conceptual similarities and differences between and within stakeholder groups in land projects. Just as local 'communities' are composed of people with varied social realities, economies, political relations, knowledge and perceptions, so are other stakeholder groups. Researchers are not immune to such realities. The subjectivity and epistemological rooting of the researcher impact on what he or she sees in the field and what is eventually reported in research publications.

Paper Download (880 KB)