Paper short abstract:

This paper is a critical reflection on the competing imaginaries of ‘scientific’ knowledge in a multi-country, multi-partner sexual health research intervention. What were the tensions between the project’s hard science disciplines and the practices of an ethnographer, and what were the options for strategic positioning in such circumstances?

Paper long abstract:

Between 2010 and 2014 I worked as the on-the-ground ‘qualitative researcher’ for an adolescent sexual and reproductive health (ASRH) intervention in Latin America. Funded by the European Commission, the project drew together teams of obstetrician-gynaecologists, epidemiologists, community health nurses, psychologists, public health educators, statisticians and… two anthropologists. Having already produced an account of the qualitative results in academic publications and EC work package reports, this paper is a more personal reflection of how my position as the embedded anthropologist was variously interpreted and given meaning by consortium colleagues and project participants. Through an analysis of field notes, meeting minutes, participatory ethnographic research and public presentations of Proyecto CERCA’s work, I will explore competing imaginaries of ‘scientific’ knowledge – what were participants understandings of how ‘scientific’ knowledge is produced? What was the relationship between the project’s hard science disciplines and the practices of an ethnographer? I ask: what are the options for strategic positioning in such circumstances? When trained to understand research as process, and the processes of research as constituting new socialities, how does the anthropologist meaningfully participate in an outcome-focussed endeavour?