-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
/
Copy pathc5768ajgalg.html
2 lines (2 loc) · 14.5 KB
/
c5768ajgalg.html
1
2
<div>. Multiple case studies are reviewed throughout this essay as illustrations of both these research goals, and of the wide variety of research structures defining themselves as collaborative. This methodology is then examined in regards to its applied and practical potential, and the impacts and benefits that this format offers to subject communities that prior research formats could not. This essay aims to offer a synopsis of collaborative methodology, and to prove its applicability and potential benefits to future anthropological research.</div><div> In modern North American anthropology, efforts to decolonize the field approach the issue of unequal power structures and seek to create methodological structures that shift power dynamics in favour of the subjects. Canada in particular boasts a long, and indeed, defining history of anthropologists establishing themselves as advocates to minority communities. Often regarding indigenous populations, anthropology played a large role in collecting information regarding colonial education systems and reservation resource access. Communication of the needs and concerns of these communities to the provincial and federal governments used anthropologists as mediators and translators. Those in the discipline spoke on behalf of these communities.</div><div> While this particular aspect of the discipline’s history may be seen by many as encouraging, collaborative anthropology argues against the perpetuation of unequal power dynamics between the anthropologists and the communities they work with. Fluehr-Lobban argues that this collaborative methodology exists in opposition to many colonial influences on earlier anthropological works (Fluehr-Lobban 2008). Establishing the anthropologist as the genuine source of information regarding these cultures not only encourages biased or incomplete research, but perpetuates the removal of autonomy from minority or oppressed populations. Collaborative anthropology allows these communities to speak on their own behalf, to have their voices heard in academia, and to establish research formats and project outcomes that benefit their communities instead of solely impacting the academic sphere (Fluehr-Lobban 2008). Aiding this goal is the ease in which collaborative methodology fits with an a-theoretical research approach. Strongly linked to its developments in Boasian anthropology, collaborative methods encourage the collection of research void of an overarching theme through which the anthropologist interprets the information. Crucially, these theories are almost purely etic, and often do not align with the communities own understanding of their culture. Collaborative methodology, while collecting information vastly different than Boas’ topics of focus, nevertheless presents information ‘as it is’, often interpreted or explained only through the voices of the participants themselves. This ensures that the anthropologist does not speak for the communities, or position themselves as the expert; rather, they are bearing witness to the experiences and beliefs of the participating communities. </div><div> While the discipline of anthropology has long encouraged ‘collaborative methodologies—generally to ensure more ‘genuine’ research—modern iterations of this method take a more deliberate approach to collaboration, applying it to every aspect of anthropological research. As this particular methodology is very much a recent idea, the exact framework varies from project to project, with vastly different manifestations of collaborative anthropology stemming from varying research goals, community needs, and inspirations. All collaborative anthropologies, however, can be said to incorporate this methodology in order to ensure a more complete and nuanced research outcome (Bani 1998, Fluehr-Lobban 2008). This essay focuses mainly on collaborative methods involving both the anthropologist and the individuals and communities involved in the research.</div><div> The origins of collaborative methodologies stem from a late 20th century shift in the anthropological field that saw the rise of feminist anthropology, anticolonial scholarship, and interpretive anthropology (Kennedy, 1995, p.26). Feminist anthropology in particular aimed to open direct communication between researchers and subjects at every stage in anthropological projects (Kennedy 1995). Stemming from second-wave feminism, it worked to “elicit voices, narratives, and perspectives of the historically suppressed” (Fleuhr-Lobban, 2008, p.177)—a parallel goal to collaborative anthropology, though perhaps focusing on a more narrow range of subjects. Alongside this focus on highlighting the voices of the subjects was a desire to redefine “subjects” as “participants”, softening the hierarchical structures defining past anthropological work (Fleuhr-Lobban, 2008). The final push towards collaborative work was the academic desire to more immediately serve the needs of the ‘subject’ communities (Lassiter, 2005). In his article <i>Collaborative Ethnography and Public Anthropology</i>, Lassiter argues that this particular point is what will revitalize and renew North American anthropology by allowing it to have a more direct and positive impact in society (2005, p.83).</div><div> In modern anthropology, our colonial history and its impacts on academic methodologies are being confronted more than ever. Our discipline has become more multicultural, with younger anthropologists influenced by feminist theory and interpretive anthropology. We must adapt our research methodologies in order to acknowledge this important transition. In many ways, collaborative anthropology is a methodological response to a theoretical shift. In her reflections on past collaborative work, Elizabeth Kennedy states that “we are at a point in history where making connections across boundaries […] are extremely important in scholarship” (1995, p.31). This statement remains equally as valid twenty years later, and indeed, collaborative strategies have only become more popular.</div><div> In <i>Collaborative Anthropology as Twenty-first-Century Ethical Anthropology</i>, Fluehr-Lobban argues that collaborative anthropology is ethically preferable to other forms of research (2008). She also argues for superior outcomes as this methodology draws on multiple perspectives, allowing for a more nuanced conclusion; the final research is not produced entirely by a single anthropologist, and so the opportunity for one’s personal biases to influence the research is lessened significantly (Fleuhr-Lobban, 2008). Furthermore, the knowlege base of the subject is more fully incorporated into the research, instead of the anthropologist alone deciding what information is relevant. </div><div> Collaborative anthropology does not question the relevance of professional anthropologists; rather, it allows for more open communication and collaboration between the anthropologist and the subjects. The role that the anthropologist plays in research creation shifts slightly, though their professional and academic skill set is still highly valuable to the research. For instance, Blaikie and Calum’s article, <i>Coproducing Efficacious Medicines</i>, details a collaborative ethnographic research event focusing on medicinal practitioners from India, Tibet, and Nepal (2015). The event was set up as a workshop allowing these practitioners to explain and demonstrate their craft alongside anthropologists who had been working in these communities for decades (Blaikie, 2015). </div><div> Another example illustrating this balance is Margaret Rodman’s book <i>Working Together in Vanuatu: Research Histories, Collaborations, Projects and Reflections</i>, which drew on research gathered in a workshop in Vanuatu, in the Pacific Islands (2011). The book was a collection of reports written during this workshop and included not only the work of three anthropologists but the reports of eleven field-workers and ten house-girls. The research highlighted the girl’s experiences with their employers in a way that captured more nuance and detail then would have been possible without the collaborative format, and the very different information offered by the anthropologists and the workers and house girls provided a more complete understanding of gender and race in Vanuatu (Rodman 2011).</div><div> In Bani, Mary, and Anita Herle’s article, <i>Collaborative Projects on Torres Strait Collections</i>, the Cambridge University Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology worked with cultural representatives from the Torres Strait in order to create a more complete and nuanced exhibition (1998). Collaborative methodology, in this project, also worked to restore cultural authority to the studied communities even after the original ethnographic project had long been completed; the final exhibition was a centennial event based on the 1898 Cambridge expedition to the Torres Straight (Bani 1998). The adoption of a collaborative methodology in the second exhibition of this research project proves the improved ethnographic outcome. As Fluehr-Lobban states in her article, “not only is collaborative research ethical, and thus morally preferable to historical models of research, but it is better research because its methodology emphasizes multiple, polyphonic perspectives, which will leave a richer heritage of ethnography” (p. 175, 2008). </div><div> Collaborative methodology also aims to provide applied, practical, and positive outcomes for the subject communities, as opposed to resulting in a collection of research benefitting only the academic sphere. Collaboration depends on mutual respect and constant communication between participants. Two main themes emerge from this goal. First, the subjects are involved with designing the format and desired outcome of the research, establishing early in the process what they seek to gain from the project—for instance, an accessible copy of all research. The second theme is more directly beneficial: collaborative anthropology is a popular methodology in development or restoration projects, as it allows for professional input without allowing the anthropologist to speak over the communities themselves.</div><div> An ideal example of this second theme can be seen in Ruby Zarriga’s article, <i>Restorative Justice in Papua New Guinea: a Collaborative Effort </i>(2010)<i>.</i> Zarriga details the process of community development and restoration in Papua New Guinea from the perspective of the Department of National Planning. Collaborative methods are emphasized, with multiple perspectives lending to decision making, and the communities themselves are pulled into this process in order to create change that genuinely improves their lives (Zarriga 2010). Zarriga lists the five base elements of her collaborative methodology as self-determination, fitting the community pace, participation, starting where people are, and training local leadership (2010, p.118; <i>see Appendix A, Fig.1</i>). This project, and the neatly outlined elements that Zarriga provides, suggests one template for future collaborative work in the field.</div><div> In conclusion, collaborative methodology offers a format catering to the decolonization of the anthropological discipline. Acknowledging the flaws in historical modes of research, collaborative methodology seeks to address these issues by formatting its research structure in order to highlight the voices of those in the subject communities. Hierarchical structures are softened, the communities benefit from the research project, and the final result is a more nuanced and complete understanding of whatever topic the anthropologist choses to study. This methodology shows great potential in its applicability to future anthropological work. Already, the base of successful research projects incorporating this methodology is very encouraging, and offers illustrations of possible collaborative formats that could easily be adopted in future projects. </div><div> </div><div>Bibliography</div><div>Barbeau, M. “The Subject, Method, and Scope of this Inquiry”. <i>Readings for a History of </i> <i>Anthropological Theory</i>, 1922. pp. 202-217.</div><div>Blaikie, Calum, et al. “Coproducing Efficacious Medicines: Collaborative Event Ethnography with Himalayan and Tibetan Sowa Rigpa Practitioners.” <i>Current Anthropology</i>, vol. 56, no. 2, 2015, pp. 178–204.</div><div>Fluehr-Lobban, C. "Collaborative Anthropology as Twenty-first-Century Ethical Anthropology." <i>Collaborative Anthropologies</i>, vol. 1 no. 1, 2008, pp. 175-182.</div><div>Herle, B., M., and A.. “Collaborative Projects on Torres Strait Collections.” <i>Journal of Museum Ethnography</i>, no. 10, 1998, pp. 115–120.</div><div> Kennedy, E. “In Pursuit of Connection: Reflections on Collaborative Work.” <i>American Anthropologist</i>, vol. 97, no. 1, 1995, pp. 26–33. </div><div>Lassiter, L. E. (2005) “Collaborative Ethnography and Public Anthropology”, <i>Current Anthropology</i> 46, no. 1 (February 2005): pp. 83-106.</div><div>Lassiter, L. E. (2008), “Moving Past Anthropology and doing Collaborative Research”, <i>NAPA Bulletin</i>, 29: 70–86. doi:10.1111/j.1556-4797.2008.00006.x</div><div>Malinowski, B. (1922). “Introduction: the subject, method and scope of this inquiry”. <i>Readings for a History of </i> <i>Anthropological Theory</i></div><div>Rodman, Margaret, et al. “Women Fieldworkers’ Collaborative Research: On the History of House-Girls in Vanuatu.” <i>Working Together in Vanuatu: Research Histories, Collaborations, Projects and Reflections</i>, edited by John Taylor and Nick Thieberger, ANU Press, 2011, pp. 99–114.</div><div>Tylor, E. B. (1958). “Primitive culture”. New York: Harper.</div><div>Zarriga, Ruby, et al. “Restorative Justice in Papua New Guinea: a Collaborative Effort.” <i>A Kind of Mending: Restorative Justice in the Pacific Islands</i>, edited by Sinclair Dinnen, ANU Press, 2010, pp. 115–122.</div><div>
</div>