This article was downloaded by: [University of Connecticut]On: 07 October 2014, At: 19:07Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The Professional GeographerPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rtpg20

Getting Beyond the “God Trick”: TowardService ResearchAmy Trauger a & Jennifer Fluri ba University of Georgiab Dartmouth CollegePublished online: 13 Dec 2012.

To cite this article: Amy Trauger & Jennifer Fluri (2014) Getting Beyond the “God Trick”: TowardService Research, The Professional Geographer, 66:1, 32-40, DOI: 10.1080/00330124.2012.705738

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00330124.2012.705738

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Getting Beyond the “God Trick”: Toward Service Research

Amy TraugerUniversity of Georgia

Jennifer FluriDartmouth College

Recent calls for more discussion about “public geographies” highlight the need to understand the epistemologies and method-ologies that shape the production of public geographic knowledge. Feminist theory and participatory and activist researchmethodologies have been used to provide a framework for undertaking the work of the public through research and practice.While engaging in our own public geographies, however, we realized some epistemological and methodological tensions inthese frameworks. In this article we draw on Haraway’s (1988) critique of the “god trick” to interrogate these frameworks andpropose new ways of positioning ourselves within the research context, which we call “service” research. Key Words: activism,feminism, methodology, public geographies.

������� “�����”���,������������������������������������

���������, ��������������������������������������,��

������� ������������������� ����� (1988)� “�����”���������

�,���������� ��������—����� “��”������: ����, ����, ���, ����

��

Las peticiones que recientemente reclaman mas discusion sobre las “geografıas publicas” destacan la necesidad de entender lasepistemologıas y metodologıas que dan forma a la produccion del conocimiento geografico publico. La teorıa feminista y lasmetodologıas de investigacion participativa y activista han sido utilizadas a tıtulo de marco de entendimiento del trabajo delpublico a traves de la investigacion y la practica. Por nuestra parte, mientras nos involucrabamos con nuestras propias geografıaspublicas, nos dimos cuenta, sin embargo, de algunas tensiones epistemologicas y metodologicas de estos marcos. En este artıculonos apoyamos en la crıtica de Haraway (1988) sobre el “truco divino” para cuestionar estos marcos y proponer nuevas rutas quenos posicionen dentro del contexto investigativo, propuesta a la cual designamos como investigacion de “servicio.” Palabrasclave: activismo, feminismo, metodologıa, geografıas publicas.

T he place of geographers in the production ofknowledge within and outside of the academy

has been the subject of recent discussion and debatewithin the discipline of geography (Fuller and Askins2007; Kinpaisby 2008; Kindon and Elwood 2009). Inrelatively recent presidential addresses to their respec-tive organizations, both Massey (2001) and Lawson(2007) called on geographers to inform their work withthe public as researchers, teachers, and activists withalternative epistemologies and methodologies. Thesecalls for action from the leadership of the academiccommunity come after a little more than two decadesof geographers in both the United Kingdom and theUnited States writing about the relationship of geog-raphy to social change and exploring the need to makea difference beyond the world of discourse and ideas(McDowell 1992; Dorling and Shaw 2002; Heynen2006; Blomley 2008).

The calls for more “public geographies”1 highlightthe need to understand and address the production ofgeographic knowledge within the institutional struc-tures of the academy (James et al. 2004; Ward 2006;Fuller and Askins 2007; Lawson 2007). Generally, aca-

demics are expected to generate materials that fit eco-nomic modes of production within the increasinglyneoliberal university (Castree 2000; Cloke 2002; Pain2004; Fuller and Askins 2007; Lawson 2007; Kinpaisby2008). Attempts to integrate activism with research andproduce academic work that meets the needs of thepublic are often met with resistance within the univer-sity, largely due to the historical separation betweenknowing and doing in “science” (Haraway 1988; Hard-ing 1991). Systemic changes within institutions arethus needed to create a research and teaching systemthat sees “knowing” and “doing” as comparable andconnected rather than incongruous and dichotomous.

This article aims to explore how to implementthese changes by grounding research that engages withpublics in the epistemologies and methodologies of“service.” We draw on Haraway’s (1988) critique ofthe “god trick” to expose persistent tensions betweenknowing and doing that remain in the epistemologiesand methodologies of geographic research. Using in-sights from our own partial, and in many ways failed,engagements with feminist, activist, and participatorymethods, we propose ways of resolving these tensions

The Professional Geographer, 66(1) 2014, pages 32–40 C© Copyright 2014 by Association of American Geographers.Initial submission, September 2011; revised submissions, December 2011, January 2012; final acceptance, January 2012.

Published by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

9:07

07

Oct

ober

201

4

Getting Beyond the “God Trick”: Toward Service Research 33

through reciprocal learning, or what we call service re-search. Experimenting with service research has led usto new ways of thinking about research design, knowl-edge production, and the peer evaluation processes.

Feminist, Activist, and Participatory

Methodologies and the God Trick

Massey’s (2001) lecture revealed two epistemologicalproblems with simultaneously pursuing social changeand doing credible research. The first involves makingclaims to truth and reality through scientific practice,and the second regards the tensions between subjectsand objects in scientific method. Massey argued thata commitment to a particular position on “truth” hastraditionally been a result of having done the “cor-rect” scientific analysis. The correct scientific analysisrequires that the subject separate from the object ofresearch, in an ontological move that is intended topreserve objectivity. This process privileges the pro-duction of universal truths that generate from thevantage point of the scientific subject (researcher orscientist). Haraway (1988) referred to this epistemo-logical process as the “god trick” (581). The god trickis performed by the disembodied scientist who sees“everything from nowhere” and who turns the prod-ucts of knowledge production into a resource to beappropriated by the knower, in this case the scientist.

The god trick is an epistemology that uses the so-cial location of the researcher (that being external toand allegedly above the researched) to evaluate anddetermine what will become accepted knowledge.Haraway (1988) wrote that struggles over knowledgein the sciences are struggles with questions of “howto see?” and “where to see from?” (587). Feministmethodology has historically promoted approachesthat see research participants as both the object ofresearch and legitimate possessors and producers ofknowledge, or subjects (Moss 2002). These partici-pants often occupy marginalized or subjugated po-sitions in society, and thus Haraway (1988) urgedfeminist social scientists to “see from below” (584).Seeing from below and recognizing that research par-ticipants possess and construct knowledge throughoutthe research project requires that researchers adoptand grapple with a radically new subjectivity.

Feminist geographers have long argued that re-searcher subjectivity is always impacted by the experi-ence of being involved in the research process (Gibson-Graham 1994; Rose 1997; Moss 2002). Creating asocial location somewhere between subjectivity andobjectivity with research participants, or what is calledintersubjectivity, is a strategy promoted by feminist ge-ographers to subvert the god trick (McDowell 1999).Relocating the subjectivity of the researcher thus ex-pands traditional notions of objectivity in research andmakes an important claim to the partiality of knowl-edge. Disengaging with the binary structure of sub-jects and objects also acknowledges that knowledge canbe constructed through building affinity with researchparticipants. This strategy, however, is not without itsproblems.

For example, in an early piece on feminist researchmethods, Gilbert (1994) detailed the development andimplementation of a feminist and antiracist researchproject that explicitly sought to build intersubjectiv-ity with research participants. In this case, the re-search investigated how women of color with chil-dren built social networks to facilitate access to jobs,child care, and housing. Gilbert found that this pro-cess is fraught with difficulty, challenge, and contra-dictions, specifically related to her position relative tothe research participants, with whom she struggled tobuild affinity. Similarly, England (1994) found that at-tempts to shift the location of knowledge and powerto the researched are tremendously difficult and re-quire a self-critical reflexivity. England sought to in-vestigate the mutuality of space and identity for les-bian women in urban space but encountered ethicaland epistemological challenges to her ability to under-stand their social location and to truly build intersub-jective relations with those who might be “other” to theresearcher.

Haraway (1988), however, suggested that “theknowing self is partial in all its guises, never finished,whole, simply there and original; it is always con-structed and stitched together imperfectly, and there-fore able to join with another to see together withoutclaiming to be another” (586). Accepting that the sub-ject is incomplete and partial allows for an openinginto which a shared subjectivity can emerge. This join-ing of multiple partial selves with others in the researchprocess can yield a composite, yet limited, subjectivitythat produces a view from somewhere. This method-ology suggests that researcher subjectivity is not fixedor static, or in between researcher and researched, butis simply incomplete, open, and malleable. Finding aplace within the research project to allow for sharedsubjectivities to emerge then requires researchers torenegotiate their social locations of insider versus out-sider and, thus, their positions of power within thecommunities under investigation (Naples 2003).

Indeed, Fuller and Askins (2007) suggested that re-searchers need to “decolonize the self” to do the workof society as researchers and activists. The objective,scientific self that is created through affiliation withand reward from academic institutions impedes ac-cess to positions from which researchers can “see fromsomewhere” and especially from “below.” This under-scores the profound inequalities, in both social loca-tion and motivation, that exist often within and be-tween communities of practice (Rose 1997). As such,researchers cannot occupy any epistemological loca-tion within the research practice without being ac-countable for those positions. A shift in location, fromoutsider to insider, and back again is an act investedwith power and, according to Haraway (1988), mustbe facilitated by democratic processes, negotiated withothers, and guided by ethics.

For example, Cahill (2006) developed a participatoryresearch project focusing on the lives of young womenof color on the Lower East Side of Manhattan. The“Makes Me Mad” project was led by the women, whoshaped the research from the development of questions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

9:07

07

Oct

ober

201

4

34 Volume 66, Number 1, February 2014

to analysis of the results. The Fed-Up Honeys, as theycalled themselves, focused their efforts on understand-ing and overcoming stereotypes and communicatedtheir results through a Web site, a widely distributedresearch report, and a sticker campaign. Participatoryresearch moves beyond a simple statement of position-ality or a desire to build intersubjective social relationsto handing over the entire knowledge production pro-cess to the researched and allowing the research partic-ipants to identify what counts as legitimate knowledge.

Participatory research methods are increasingly im-plemented to destabilize power relations between re-searcher and the researched (Gatenby and Humphries2000). The primary distinction of participatory re-search is the shifting of the “location of power” to-ward research participants who direct the process andoutcomes of the research in multiple ways withoutdirection from the researcher (Cornwall and Jewkes1995; Pain 2004). This strategy carries with it no smallamount of risk, especially for tenure-track faculty whomust “contribute to the discipline” to attain tenure.But, as Haraway (1988) wrote, research is “about mu-tual and usually unequal structuring, about taking risksin a world where ‘we’ are permanently mortal, thatis, not in ‘final’ control” (596). Recognizing limits topower in the research process also, then, recognizesthat the research participants exercise agency of theknowledge production process (Haraway 1988).

Research that engages with activism to create socialchange also requires researchers to tackle risk, grap-ple with uncertainty, and abdicate control over theresearch process. Because of its explicit engagementwith power and social location in the research pro-cess (Kapoor 2002), feminist activists have adopted andadapted participatory action research (PAR) method-ologies as a way to work toward social change amongtraditionally marginalized groups, particularly women(Gatenby and Humphries 2000; McIntyre 2003). Ac-tion research is often intended to introduce social orinstitutional changes, resolution of problems, or thedevelopment of other skills in the community of prac-tice (Gibson-Graham 1994; Gatenby and Humphries2000; Mama 2000; Cahill 2004; Gonzalez, Lejano, andConner 2007).

For example, a team of geographers at Queen MaryUniversity of London worked with London Citizens,an organization dedicated to obtaining a living wagefor low-wage workers in London (Wills 2012). Theteam conducted research in partnership and collabo-ration with the organization and helped them to suc-cessfully raise the wages of thousands of workers. Theexperience has also led to the creation of a new Mastersin Community Organizing at Queen Mary, which aimsto equip students with the tools required for enactingsocial change. Another example of participatory worktoward social change is Pain’s (2003) work on chang-ing perceptions of crime and fear of urban homelesspopulations, although she acknowledged challenges inrealizing the goals of social change in the larger com-munity. Likewise, Nagar (Sangtin Writers and Na-gar 2006) identified unexpected outcomes and identity

politics within the community of practice in her workwith Indian women toward overcoming gender-baseddiscrimination.

Armed with feminist epistemologies and inspired bythose who had gone before us, we engaged in feminist,participatory, and activist research for our doctoral andpostdoctoral work. We both discovered the limitationsof these methods as we designed research with partic-ipants, collected data, and wrote narratives. We wereconstantly confronted with deep epistemological issuesregarding our positionality and struggled with ques-tions about knowledge for whom and for ultimatelywhat purpose. We both, in different ways, adapted ourresearch approaches to be more consistent with ourvalues and objectives in conducting research with thecommunities of practice with whom we chose to work.

Case Examples

The Pennsylvania Women’s Agricultural Network:Amy TraugerWAgN is a trademarked acronym for the Women’sAgricultural Network, a program begun by MaryPeabody, Extension Specialist in Community Re-sources and Economic Development for the Univer-sity of Vermont, in 1994. The Pennsylvania chapterof WAgN formed in 2003 as part of my dissertationproject and was largely a response to my prior re-search findings that revealed the social and geographicmarginalization of women farmers in rural commu-nities. WAgN recognizes the growing need to sup-port and educate women who are choosing agricul-ture as an occupation and works from the assumptionthat women are important agricultural stakeholders asfood producers. Women are generally seen as an un-derserved population, even in the generally more pro-gressive sustainable agriculture community. WAgN isan organization that seeks to rectify this marginaliza-tion by providing the support and resources that ex-isting agricultural organizations are not providing towomen. As the Pennsylvania group began to form,who constituted a real farmer in need of PennsylvaniaWAgN’s mission quickly became a source of heatedinternal debate, about which I was not a neutral ordisinterested participant.

I intended that my research with this group wouldenable me to provide an organizational service (callingand chairing meetings, organizing educational events,facilitating the growth of the organization) at the sametime that I gathered data. In many ways this is similar toa focus group, and research continued in this vein afterWAgN received funding from the U.S. Department ofAgriculture, which included a postdoctoral fellowshipto fund my work under the direction of PA-WAgN. Inthe first instance, however, my labor and organizationwas voluntary and thus more akin to community orpublic service, and I intended it to be such, as opposedto a participatory research project where participantsset the terms. I wanted to alleviate the isolation forthe women farmers about whom I had come to care,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

9:07

07

Oct

ober

201

4

Getting Beyond the “God Trick”: Toward Service Research 35

and I wanted to make a long-term structural changein the culture of agriculture. Although I never thoughtthis research and service would be devoid of problems,several epistemological issues, for which I was not pre-pared, presented themselves rather quickly to me.

The first issue regarded my position as researcher inrelation to others, as political factions opened withinthe group. I grappled with what it would mean for theorganization, of which I was a part, if I participatedin (and ultimately revealed) these cleavages aroundidentity. I was not in “final control” of how and whatknowledge was brought into existence, which surprisedme and revealed to me my own position of assumedpower within the group. I had to take responsibilityfor generating this knowledge with them and find away to position myself in relation to it and them sothat it emerged as shared knowledge. The second, andrelated, issue regarded my own agency. I did not antic-ipate that my own arguably biased agenda of empow-ering the women who I considered farmers would besubverted. In this situation, I became sensitive to thefact that I was only one voice among many. In manyways I had become enrolled in their project, ratherthan enrolling them in mine. Lastly, I struggled withhow to put my experience in the research narrative inan honest way that also conformed to some degree withthe expectations about writing up research results. Ul-timately, I learned that the research results are a seriesof narratives (of which this is one) that run throughtime and space and continue on with the sustainedlife of the organization. It also lives on in the empow-erment, education, and improvements in the lives ofwomen with whom this research was conducted. Inthe process, I found that research results are muchbroader and livelier than any manuscript and shouldinclude this organization that lives and thrives beyondthe initial research process.

Rubia: Jennifer FluriRubia is a small, nonprofit, nongovernmental organi-zation (NGO) located in the United States and con-ducting economic and social programs with a localpartner organization in Afghanistan. Rubia operateswith a cooperative model that allows their Afghanpartners relative autonomy to run programs in com-munities, while Rubia in the United States raises fundsand helps to market products produced by workers inAfghanistan. This is done through family enterprise,which enlists Afghan women’s embroidery work andthe management skills and support from men withinkinship and community networks.

I met the co-founder of Rubia, Rachel Lehr, at anAfghan women’s leadership conference in 2005. Af-ter discussing our own frustrations and disconnectionswith the misinformation and orientalist ways in whichAfghanistan was portrayed in the popular U.S. media(and best-selling book circuit), we embarked on col-laborative efforts to educate and share with public au-diences some realities of daily life in Afghanistan. Thispartnership was made possible by our respective loca-

tions in the United States and our regular research andwork travel to Afghanistan. We collaborated with theU.S. Rubia board and workers and associates of Ru-bia Afghanistan to combine academic approaches withpersonal experiences and community in Afghanistan(with whom Lehr had developed a close personal andprofessional relationship since the inception of Rubiain 1996).

As part of our collaboration, Rubia became oneof my research case studies on gender and eco-nomic development in Afghanistan. I also joined theboard of Rubia U.S. and provided assistance to RubiaAfghanistan while conducting research in Afghanistan.Lehr also works with my students though their coursework and specific projects related to geographies ofgender and development. By combining my researchand teaching with service to Rubia, and through col-laborations with Lehr, we work collaboratively on sev-eral interrelated projects. These include (1) counter-ing existing stereotypes and assumptions about Afghanwomen, men, and families; (2) critically examininggender and development ideologies and praxis in con-flict zones; and (3) considering how to improve andgrow Rubia’s activities in Afghanistan without fallinginto the pitfalls that have befallen other organizationswith similar missions.

Working with and educating individuals and groupswho wish to assist Afghan women remain our largest,continued, and unexpected challenges. Those whoseek to help women in Afghanistan often expressed themost vocal opposition to alternative narratives aboutAfghan women’s lives. These challenges also causedus to question our own methodological approachesand “goodwill” projects for Afghan women. We in-terrogated the use of strategic essentialism and ourown ability to complicate existing knowledge and pro-vide alternative ways of knowing and learning aboutAfghanistan. Our approach thus far has consisted ofpublic (library) and classroom lectures. This approachprovided alternative knowledges that were bound bylocational fixity (i.e., New Hampshire) and the tyrannyof this small-scale dissemination of information. Thus,we are currently seeking additional applications forpresenting (un)popular knowledges about Afghanistaninto the public through the use of video and Internettechnologies.

In addition to these methods, working with Rubiaboard members on the mission and direction of theorganization and the manner in which products wouldbe marketed and sold provided rich data for my re-search as examples of conflicting ideologies. Rubia’smarketing and selling techniques use strategic essen-tialism to tap into the benevolence of potential buy-ers (who are predominantly women). The enormouslyskewed public understanding of Afghan women’s de-privation has proven to be an effective method for in-creasing sales, which ultimately benefits the organiza-tion in Afghanistan and its female and male employees(Rubia U.S. is currently an all-volunteer organization).This confounded our attempts to avoid essentialist rep-resentations of Afghan women and men, however. It

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

9:07

07

Oct

ober

201

4

36 Volume 66, Number 1, February 2014

became evident from our collaborative work that coun-tering entrenched notions about women and genderin Afghanistan was much more difficult with individ-uals and groups that have a vested interest in helpingAfghanistan and Afghan women specifically.

A service research approach allowed me to iden-tify Rubia customers’ (and the general public’s)(mis)understandings (or partial knowledge) aboutAfghanistan while assisting Rubia in countering theseexisting stereotypes. In cooperation with the Rubiaboard, we developed a survey and interview struc-ture to conduct at Rubia Sales and with their existingnetwork of supporters and customers. The board willuse these data to develop products and market themwhile also reconsidering “sales” of Rubia items, as anopportunity for buyers (or potential buyers) to gain(un)popular information on the everyday lives of thewomen and men associated with Rubia in Afghanistan.In this way, I hoped to generate new knowledge aboutAfghan women and their lives (with U.S. and Afghanwomen) while assisting in fundraising for projects ina community in Afghanistan. The key aspect to thisproject is its continual flexibility, which is also in-formed and negotiated by service research successesand failures.

Toward Service Research

Service research is a framework that identifies researchparticipants as agents embedded in a landscape ofpower, within which the researcher is only one actor inthe production of knowledge. Taking this place in theresearch process enables us to engage in collaborativeprojects while acknowledging that we occupy partial,active, and subjective positions in the research. We areone actor with influence in the research, perhaps witha different set of (clearly communicated) imperativesthan other actors. Knowledge production becomes acollective and relational process, albeit fraught withconflict, unpredictability, and “indefiniteness” (Prawat1992), which make democratic or egalitarian processesand practices essential. Engaging in this way requiresus to be self-reflexive and critical, not only in our ac-tions but in our writing and publication of researchresults. We take inspiration for these changes in re-search practice from the established traditions of ser-vice learning within our institutions (Wellens et al.2006).

The epistemological underpinnings of service learn-ing include democratic engagement and volunteerismas ways to educate students about social problemsand their solutions (Sigmon 1979; Mohan 1995; Butin2003; Wellens et al. 2006). Writing in 1979, Sigmonargued that experiential education is an approach thatis premised on “reciprocal learning” and is based onthe idea that those who provide service and those whoreceive it are uniquely positioned to mutually learnfrom the experience. Service learning theory takes in-spiration from Freire’s (1970) insights that studentsexist as “men and women as beings in the process of

becoming—as unfinished, uncompleted beings in andwith a likewise unfinished reality” (65). An expecta-tion of service learning is that it will be “transforma-tional,” that the student and his or her classmates andteacher and maybe even the institution will be changedthrough the experience of service to the wider commu-nity (Cone and Harris 1996). Constructivist views ofknowledge production, popular since the 1960s, moveaway from “banking models” of teaching (Freire 1970)and allow teachers to view students and curriculum(i.e., subjects and objects) as ontologically connectedand therefore integrative, interactive, and indefinite(Prawat 1992; Dorsey 2001).

In what follows we outline some areas for changein research design, peer evaluation, and research re-sults that have been inspired by our engagements withservice research.

Service Research Starts from a Position of Inquiryinto Social Problems Experienced by Groups andIndividuals Outside the Academy in Which WeHave a Mutual StakeThe research process often starts with a literaturesearch and rarely with a community inventory. Al-though many activist scholars certainly respond toneeds expressed by a community, in many cases thequestions that are ultimately asked revolve aroundwhat is missing from the literature on any given sub-ject. This is largely driven by the institutional rewardsassociated with making “contributions to the disci-pline” and a competitive academic climate that rewardsthe cutting edge with funding, awards, and the like.With service learning, students are expected to un-dergo a personal transformation while engaging witha community of people in a reciprocal learning process.These transformations are often linked to larger scalesocial forces and social theories as part of the learn-ing process. We feel that service research can pursuethis same strategy while engaging in meaningful wayswith communities of practice to pursue goals of trans-formation, reciprocal learning, and collective action.This requires, however, reworking our social locationsvis-a-vis these communities and our institutions.

As academics and researchers, we occupy varyingpositions of power in relation to our students, the state,our employers, and research participants. Acknowl-edging these power differentials forces us to confrontissues of research ethics (see Badiou 2001; Allen 2008).Rather than taking a shaky moral high ground by mak-ing claims to justice on behalf of the marginalized, wesuggest taking a cue from Haraway (1988) to onto-logically position ourselves as part of the research. Asmany have pointed out before us, and we observedourselves, our presence in the lives of research partic-ipants changes the dynamic of our research regardlessof how we see ourselves in relation to them. We mighthave a slightly bigger picture, but we are still part of thecommunity of practice, and our research epistemologymust explicitly reflect these positions. Building inter-subjectivity is certainly part of this process, but we

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

9:07

07

Oct

ober

201

4

Getting Beyond the “God Trick”: Toward Service Research 37

found that engaging with research participants as anincomplete and partial subject is less problematic andmore feasible.

Rather than deny our subjectivity or take a posi-tion of advocacy, service research allows us to positionourselves as actors with a mutual stake in the researchoutcome. In both our cases, our research questionsemerged from our engagements with and investmentsin a community of practice, rather than from publishedliterature, per se. We used our position (at times out-sider, at times insider) to organize, educate, and oth-erwise provide a service (however mundane) to thepeople with whom we worked, in much the same wayas the other actors in the research process. Our in-vestment in the research outcomes was driven by theagreement we had with the research participants topartner with them in their own knowledge produc-tion, transformative experiences, and collective action.In taking this position, we both had to rely heavily onthe democratic principles and the practices and modesof knowledge and understanding within our respectivepartner organizations.

Service Research Requires the Inclusion ofDemocratic Practices in the Research and PeerEvaluation ProcessA prerequisite for conducting service research is rec-ognizing the agency of research participants. They areagents of change and exercise power over the produc-tion of knowledge; we do not impose knowledge onthem. The idea that we exercise more power over thesituation than they do can be delusional and dangerous.Denying that our research participants have agencynot only deludes us into convincing ourselves (how-ever uneasily) that for the purposes of making claimsto truth, somehow we are able to know something theydo not (or cannot). It can also let us assume that we havepower and control, when we do not or should not. Weshould not focus on how to preserve our objectivity oreven our subjectivity. We have both. We have neither.What we have is agency. Interestingly, the same is truefor the people with whom we do research.

Although feminist and participatory methods go along way toward recognizing, destabilizing, and re-locating power in research collectives, we argue thatthere is more work to do, particularly with regard toresearch design, outcomes, and narratives. We bothfound that requiring research participants who weresocially, economically, or politically marginalized toparticipate in a meaningful way with research designand implementation was hazardous for them or toodemanding on individuals already dealing with timepoverty. Ultimately we feel that participatory researchcan be unethical when it asks research participants toproduce knowledge for those of us who will bene-fit from it most, or what Haraway (1988) referred toas the “knower.” We advocate for a participatory re-search process, but we feel that providing a service fora community of practice can provide us with insightinto their needs and unanswered questions. How we

answer those questions should be collaborative but notdemanding and ultimately should meet the needs forknowledge within the community of practice.

Key to this change is integrating a democratic peerreview process of research practice and publicationthat recognizes the unique nature and contributionsof service research. The peer review of research thatwe envision would be akin to our institutional reviewboards but geared toward social science, qualitativemethodologies, and participatory methods in partic-ular. We also envision that this might be part of alarger effort within colleges and universities to pro-vide outreach mechanisms to the general public aswell as research publics. We would also welcome, fol-lowing democratic principles, checks and balances onthe power that we do have, in the form of collabora-tive, multidirectional, and nonhierarchical evaluationsof our service, activism, or participation in researchsubjects’ lives. We advocate for the use of power thatis productive and more akin to leadership and men-toring along the lines of common cause, respect, andmutuality (Sharp et al. 2000). The increasing inter-est among many academics in working with CampusCompact presents another avenue for exploring thisconcept and method more broadly (Heffernan 2001).

Research Results Might Include Relationships,Knowledge, and Organizations That Persist Beyondthe Research ProcessAs stated earlier, we strongly advocate for the inte-gration of knowing and doing in the research process.If we epistemologically reframe the research process,then we need to redefine how we present our researchresults. Undertaking research through service funda-mentally changes the nature of the research process,and fitting research “results” into the metanarrativebox can be difficult, if not impossible. What to write inand write out of the narrative remains a vexing questionin activist, participatory, and feminist methodologies,both ethically and pragmatically. It is also epistemo-logically impossible to preserve the participatory na-ture of PAR-inspired research when an author mustbe named (and that author credited with that publi-cation for tenure or promotion). As Haraway (1988)pointed out, social science borrows heavily from thephysical science tradition when it comes to “proving”knowledge production, and we think it is necessary torethink the categories that posit certain or privileged“results” as necessary for rigorous social science re-search. In this vein, we advocate for the acceptance ofresearch products in alternative forms as legitimate ev-idence of research and knowledge production. Clearlythis will require interrogating what constitutes knowl-edge and where and how it is extended to others, aswell as changing authorship conventions. The SangtinWriters and Nagar (2006) illustrated an example ofhow to extend authorship to the collective that we ad-vocate, but there needs to be much more discussionabout authorship in participatory or service researchprojects.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

9:07

07

Oct

ober

201

4

38 Volume 66, Number 1, February 2014

Haraway (1988) argues that “seeing from below”does not mean that marginalized positions are notwithout critique. Likewise, our own experience of theresearch process should not be without critique. Wefeel that writing out mistakes edits knowledge andreplicates the (un)equal position of researcher knowl-edge and the god trick. We also recognize the difficul-ties associated with this type of work and the ethicalslippery slopes we dread as scholars and activists. Assuch, we advocate for a stronger place for self-reflexiveaccounts of knowledge production in our academicnarratives, much like students who keep journals aspart of their assessments in service learning projects.Gilbert (1994), England (1994), and Sangtin Writersand Nagar (2006), among others, have pioneered atradition of self-reflexive writing on the research pro-cess, but we would like to see this welcomed in anynarrative of the research, perhaps as part of a meth-ods section. We also advocate for the development ofacademic journals, the selection of journal editors andtenure and promotion criteria that find this subjectivematerial relevant, and appropriate forms of knowledgeproduction.

The lack of remuneration attached to service in-cludes a lack of expectation and subsequently fewerlimits by our institutions (with some exceptions) overthe type and duration of service work, although thisis likely to change if rewards (e.g., tenure, promotion)are attached to service research. We see service re-search as an integrated method for combining servicewith research and teaching and to expand the existingspace and latitude to conduct service-based projectswithout jeopardizing our respective positions with theacademy. In both our individual cases as researcherswe became involved with or pioneered organizationsthat exist beyond the life span of the research process.The relationships forged between researcher and re-searched persist as we seek to blur the lines that keepbinaries in place. As one actor invested in a particu-lar set of research outcomes with others, we feel thatthese relationships do not compromise our objectivity.Rather, they are vital to the transformative process towhich we are committed over the long term, and theirexistence should be counted toward our accomplish-ments as scholars within our institutional structures.

Concluding Thoughts

The challenges we encountered while engaging withthe epistemological and theoretical frames of feministtheory and participatory practice in activist researchopened up a new methodological space for what wehave come to call service research. In this frame, wehave found that research participants are actors andagents in their own movements for social change andthus often enroll us as researchers in their projects.Our singular voices became one of many voices in ourresearch projects, and we adapted our methods to in-clude democratic practices and principles that reflectedour mutual stake in the research outcomes. Thus, our

agendas as researchers were subsumed by the largeragenda of the organization, which was much more in-clusive, contradictory, and productive than we imag-ined. Reconfiguring our epistemological position inrelation to how the research evolved and developedwas essential for proceeding with our work. We arguethat placing ourselves within the research as one ac-tor, dedicating ourselves to learning from the aims andobjectives of the community of practice, and retoolingresearch results to meet the needs of that communityare critical steps in resolving tensions that perpetuatethe god trick in many of the epistemological frames ofcontemporary public geographies.

We both carry out research that is not explicitly“service” or, for that matter, activist, feminist, or par-ticipatory, so we want to underscore that this is not anormative position about all research. It might not beappropriate to do service kinds of research with everycommunity of practice and, as with service learningprojects, it is critical to collaboratively identify thosecommunities for whom service research will work best.We believe that service orientations in both teachingand research allow us to work with the public whilemaintaining our institutional affiliations as academics.This is not to say that there is no place for resistanceto the positions we are often forced to adopt as func-tionaries of our institutions; we also argue for an epis-temological position that enables us to do public workwithin the systems of academia to the greatest degreepossible. We seek to create change from within theinstitution by reworking accepted or established aca-demic traditions.

We see this closely connected to and inspired inmany ways by service learning. Service learning takesits inspiration from the idea that engagement and prac-tice enhance education. Learning by doing is an ap-proach that can inform research as well, by creatingknowledge through action. We submit that engage-ments with research participants are not seamless, arenot always egalitarian or democratic, and do not alwaysyield the results or service outputs we intend or hopefor. Many of these interactions are fraught with debateand disagreement, which we realize can also be pro-ductive (although not always easy) methods for criticalself-reflection. We also realize that many of the mis-steps or failures of research also provide rich data andenhance rather than detract from the production anddissemination of knowledge. Service research is both aprocess and a goal; it is a research paradigm focused onintegrating knowing and doing to the greatest degreepossible, and it emerged through dialogue, debate, andcritical self-reflection. We welcome continued com-ment, discussion, and debate on this approach and itspotential applications. �

Note

1 Public geography refers to a set of practices and ideas thatexplicitly or implicitly seeks to contribute to public policyor the public good. Ward (2006) made a distinction be-tween policy and goods and, consequently, the two kinds of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

9:07

07

Oct

ober

201

4

Getting Beyond the “God Trick”: Toward Service Research 39

geographical knowledges used in the production of policyversus the generation of public goods. Policy geographiesare concrete, are pragmatic, find legitimacy through effec-tiveness, are generally applicable to society, and contributeto policy. Public geographies are reflexive, are based onconsensus, find legitimacy through relevance, are specificto groups, and expand public dialogue. Activist research isresearch related or dedicated to social change movements,and we use public geography and activist research inter-changeably, albeit somewhat problematically here, for thesake of brevity.

Literature Cited

Allen, A. 2008. The politics of ourselves: Power, autonomy, andgender in contemporary critical theory. New York: ColumbiaUniversity Press.

Badiou, A. 2001. Ethics: An essay on the understanding of evil.London: Verso.

Blomley, N. 2008. The spaces of critical geography. Progressin Human Geography 32 (2): 285–93.

Butin, D. 2003. Of what use is it? Multiple conceptualizationsof service learning within education. Teachers College Record105:1674–92.

Cahill, C. 2004. Defying gravity: Raising consciousnessthrough collective research. Children’s Geographies 2 (2):273–86.

———. 2006. “At risk”? The Fed Up Honeys re-presentthe gentrification of the Lower East Side. Women’s StudiesQuarterly 34 (1–2): 334–63.

Castree, N. 2000. Commentary: What kind of critical geog-raphy for what kind of politics? Environment and PlanningA 32:2091–95.

Cloke, P. 2002. Deliver us from evil? Prospects for living eth-ically and acting politically in human geography. Progressin Human Geography 26:587–604.

Cone, D., and S. Harris. 1996. Service-learning practice: De-veloping a theoretical framework. Michigan Journal of Com-munity Service Learning 3:31–43.

Cornwall, A., and R. Jewkes. 1995. What is participatoryresearch? Social Science and Medicine 41:1667–76.

Dorling, D., and M. Shaw. 2002. Geographies of the agenda:Public policy, the discipline and its (re)“turns.” Progress inHuman Geography 26:629–46.

Dorsey, B. 2001. Linking theories of service-learning andundergraduate geography education. Journal of Geography100 (3): 124–32.

England, K. 1994. Getting personal: Reflexivity, positional-ity, and feminist research. Professional Geographer 46 (1):80–89.

Freire, P. 1970. Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: SeaburyPress.

Fuller, D., and K. Askins. 2007. The discomforting rise of“public geographies”: A “public” conversation. Antipode39:579–601.

Gatenby, B., and M. Humphries. 2000. Feminist participa-tory action research: Methodological and ethical issues.Women’s Studies International Forum 23:89–105.

Gibson-Graham, J. K. 1994. Stuffed if I know!: Reflections onpost-modern feminist research. Gender, Place and Culture1:205–24.

Gilbert, M. R. 1994. The politics of location: Doing femi-nist research at “home.” The Professional Geographer 46 (1):90–96.

Gonzalez, E. R., G. V. Lejano, and R. Conner. 2007. Partic-ipatory action research for environmental health: Encoun-

tering Freire in the urban barrio. Journal of Urban Affairs29:77–100.

Haraway, D. 1988. Situated knowledges: The science ques-tion in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective.Feminist Studies 14:575–99.

Harding, S. 1991. Whose science? Whose knowledge? Thinkingfrom women’s lives. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Heffernan, K. 2001. Fundamentals of service-learning course con-struction. Providence, RI: Campus Compact.

Heynen, N. 2006. “But it’s alright ma, it’s life and life only”:Radicalism as survival. Antipode 38:916–29.

James, A., M. Gray, R. Martin, and P. Plummer. 2004. Com-mentary: (Expanding) the role of geography in public pol-icy. Environment and Planning A 36:1901–05.

Kapoor, I. 2002. The devil’s in the theory: A critical assess-ment of Robert Chambers’ work on participatory develop-ment. Third World Quarterly 23:101–17.

Kindon, S., and S. Elwood. 2009. Introduction: More thanmethods—Reflections on participatory action research ingeographic teaching, learning and research. Journal of Ge-ography in Higher Education 33:19–32.

Kinpaisby, M. 2008. Taking stock of particpatory geogra-phies: Envisioning the communiversity. Transactions of theInstitute of British Geographers 33:292–99.

Lawson, V. 2007. Presidential address: Geographies of careand responsibility. Annals of the Association of American Ge-ographers 97:1–11.

Mama, A. 2000. Strengthening civil society: Participatory ac-tion research in a militarised state. Development in Practice10:59–70.

Massey, D. 2001. Geography on the agenda. Progress in Hu-man Geography 25:5–17.

McDowell, L. 1992. Doing gender: Feminism, feministsand research methods in human geography. Transac-tions of the Institute of British Geographers 17 (4): 399–416.

———. 1999. Gender, identity and place: Understanding feministgeographies. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

McIntyre, A. 2003. Through the eyes of women: Photovoiceand participatory research as tools for reimagining place.Gender, Place and Culture 10:47–66.

Mohan, J. 1995. Thinking local: Service-learning, educa-tion for citizenship and geography. Journal of Geographyin Higher Education 19 (2): 129–42.

Moss, P., ed. 2002. Feminist geography in practice: Research andmethods. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Naples, N. 2003. Feminism and method: Ethnography, dis-course analysis and activist research. London and New York:Routledge.

Pain, R. 2003. Youth, age and the representation of fear.Capital and Class 60:151–71.

———. 2004. Social geography: Participatory research.Progress in Human Geography 28:652–63.

Prawat, R. 1992. Teachers’ beliefs about teaching and learn-ing: A constructivist perspective. American Journal of Edu-cation 100:354–95.

Rose, G. 1997. Situating knowledges: Positioning reflexiv-ities and other tactics. Progress in Human Geography 21:305–20.

Sangtin Writers and Nagar, R. 2006. Playing with fire: Feministthought and activism through seven lives in India. Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press.

Sharp, J., P. Routledge, C. Philo, and R. Padison, eds. 2000.Entanglements of power: Geographies of domination and resis-tance. London and New York: Routledge.

Sigmon, R. 1979. Service-learning: Three principles.Synergist:9–11.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

9:07

07

Oct

ober

201

4

40 Volume 66, Number 1, February 2014

Ward, K. 2006. Geography and public policy: Towards publicgeographies. Progress in Human Geography 30:495–503.

Wellens, J., A. Berardi, B. Chalkey, B. Chambers, R. Healy, J.Monk, and J. Vender. 2006. Teaching geography for socialtransformation. Journal of Geography in Higher Education30:117–31.

Wills, J. 2012. The geography of community and politicalorganization in London today. Political Geography 31 (2):114–26.

AMY TRAUGER is an Assistant Professor in the Depart-ment of Geography at the University of Georgia, Athens,

GA 30602. E-mail: atrauger@uga.edu. Her research interestsinclude gender and sustainability, food sovereignty, culturaleconomy, and sustainable livelihoods.

JENNIFER FLURI is an Associate Professor in the Depart-ment of Geography and Women’s and Gender Studies Pro-gram at Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH 03755. E-mail:jennifer.fluri@dartmouth.edu. Her research interests includethe gender politics and geopolitics of international aid anddevelopment, security, and scale in postconflict zones andtransitional economies.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

9:07

07

Oct

ober

201

4