in other worlds: on the politics of research by 'first world' geographers in the...

In Other Worlds: On the Politics of Research by 'First World' Geographers in the 'ThirdWorld'Author(s): James Derrick SidawaySource: Area, Vol. 24, No. 4 (Dec., 1992), pp. 403-408Published by: The Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers)Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20003184 .

Accessed: 17/06/2014 15:02

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

The Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers) is collaborating with JSTOR todigitize, preserve and extend access to Area.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 62.122.72.154 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 15:02:36 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=rgs

http://www.jstor.org/stable/20003184?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


403

Observations

In other worlds: on the politics of research by ' First World ' geographers in the ' Third World "

James Derrick Sidaway, Department of Geography, University of Reading, Whiteknights, PO Box 227, Reading, RG6 2AB

'Travel is usually thought of as a displacement in space. This is an inadequate conception. A journey occurs simultaneously in space, in time and in the social hierarchy ' (Levi-Strauss 1989, 104).

'We, these outsiders have much in common. . . People like us live in all countries of the world, belong to all nationalities, and work in all disciplines and professions.

We are a class' (Chambers 1983, 3).

This article is about the ethics of the practice of conducting research by foreigners from ' advanced ' capitalist societies in the (mostly ex-colonial) global periphery referred to in shorthand as the ' Third World '. The general history of modern social science research in the Third World is the history of colonial social science. Human geography is no exception. In fact, a glance at the history of the discipline shows that geography vies with anthropology as the science of colonialism (Driver 1992; Farmer 1983).

This is not the place for an examination of the complex relations between geography and imperialism. Furthermore, times and spaces have changed, as has the discipline.

Yet the problem of unequal relations between foreign scholars, indigenous scholars and the societies under study remain (O'Hanlon and Washbrook 1992). In turn, the issue often remains ignored. It is easy, though incorrect, to assume that the problems of research by ' First World ' academics in ' Third World ' contexts can be reduced to those experienced by the researcher.

We may live in an interconnected world, in an age of intense space-time com pression. However, the consequences of this are experienced unevenly. The phenom ena of British geographers travelling thousands of miles and therefore into new social hierarchies is part of this. When, as so often in journeys to the Third World, we move towards the top of a social hierarchy in a society that we often do not well understand, the results can be problematic. In his account of arrival in Brazil from France, Levi Strauss (1989, 105) notes how from being (relatively) poor he had become (relatively) rich:

' Not only does a journey transport us over enormous distances, it also causes us to move a few degrees up or down in the social scale. It displaces us physically and also-for better or for worse-takes us out of our class context, so that the colour



404 Observations

and flavour of certain places cannot be dissociated from the always unexpected social level on which we find ourselves in experiencing them. '

One could add that as well as shifting class context our place in the wider social world in cultural, racial and gender contexts will be altered. If this were not problematic enough, there are also the other broad political considerations of the uses of the research.

For example, for many years the dominant approach in development geography was adapted from modernisation theory. In turn, modernisation theory arose, at least in part, from a political project born out of Cold War politics and reactions to decolonisa tion and Third World revolution (Cammack 1988). It could be argued that geography is often placed along with this, albeit sometimes unwittingly. This point is hardly

original, but worth restating; research is part of the social world that it studies. That social world is profoundly uneven and contradictory.

Furthermore, information that the researcher previously took for granted as' knowl edge ' about the society under research often turns out to be unreliable if not obviously false. This of course is true of research in general. However, the process of acquiring inside knowledge of a foreign environment to enrich the researchers' previous ' exter nal ' knowledge is often fraught with difficulty, as indicated in the anthropological and ethnographic literature on this issue (Hammersley and Atkinson 1983). In so far as it considers such themes, the burgeoning literature on writing and representation in anthropology which has now been widely noticed by geographers (Barnes and Duncan 1992; Crang 1992) ought to be essential reading for those who are to engage in overseas fieldwork.

However, whilst vital, this literature too easily treats problems of cultural translation and cultural difference primarily as problems of writing; as in the title and cover illustration of Clifford and Marcus' (1984) collection on ' Writing Culture '. It may be that increasing awareness of these issues has begun to create a much overdue crisis of representation in ' development geography ' from which a greater critical self awareness of the discursive strategies and methodologies of the subdiscipline will emerge. However, the latter issues of the social context, conditions and consequences of the overseas fieldwork per se have been neglected. This continues, despite the increased recognition of the politics of writing and despite the existence of a considerable liter ature on the praxis of cross-national research in sociology (Hamnett et al 1984; Kohn 1989). At the same time, circumstantial evidence suggests that few ESRC funded post graduates who undertake research in the Third World receive any training concerning these issues (despite having to ' suffer' training courses in questionnaire design etc

which are often largely irrelevant to subsequent research (Renouf 1989)). Most are therefore forced to learn, 'on the spot' when these complex ethical and practical difficulties (almost) invariably surface.

The question of the direction and uses of the research is central to these problem atics. Writing about the immediate post-war era when there was a major expansion of research in the Third World, Hursh-Cesar and Roy (1976, 8) noted that:

'The typical research project in a developing nation in the 1950-1960 period consisted of ' data-mining ' by the sojourning social scientist. He (sic) came to the host country, gathered his data, and went home to complete his analysis. This ' safari ' research expedition left no lasting imprint on the host country's research capability. If anything, the visitor left disappointed hosts who expected useful research results, correction of social problems, or even joint publications '.



Observations 405

How much has changed? In an important study of the relationships between foreign 'expertise' and one of the most beleaguered states and societies in the world, Hanlon (1991, 202) notes that:

'Consultant's reports have a veneer of independence and objectivity, but in fact help to build the empires of the people who commission them. Mutual self interest rules. It is interesting that when donors actually want answers, for example to help in project design, they tend to hire Mozambican consultants who know the background and language. But when they want reinforcement, they hire consultants from their own country.

A few consultants are good and provide useful expert advice; sometimes a skilled outsider can stand back and see things which are not obvious to the insider immersed in a mass of detail. For much of the time, however, consulting is a racket'.

In defence it might be argued that academics do transcend this. However, Hanlon thinks not:

' A related group of people actually do carry out studies, often involving extensive field work. These people are either PhD students or researchers carrying out socio-economic or anthropological surveys as part of projects. Sometimes they produce genuinely new and interesting material. But the original data and docu

mentation are taken back to the home country; sometimes a single copy of the thesis or report will be sent back to Mozambique and sometimes not even that. Just as in the colonial era, even knowledge is removed from Mozambique'.

He goes on to note how that prior to 1984, the Mozambican authorities required that foreign research be conducted and led by the University in Maputo. There are at least two sides to this issue however, and Hanlon does not consider how political constraints in Mozambique imposed certain limitations on the kinds of questions and operating assumptions for pre-1984 research in the country (Geffray 1988; Vines 1991; White 1985). Yet:

'Now researchers come and go at will as part of aid projects; often the university does not even know they are there. Increasingly academics from the North look to Third World countries as a subject for research and journal articles, which will generate them grants and contracts.... There seems to be a whole new science of ' disasterology ' and the emergency has drawn a whole flock of researchers' (Hanlon 1991, 202).

Indeed, a Mozambican historian has claimed that foreign academics have been attracted to the Mozambican crisis principally for the opportunity to advance avant garde theses irrespective of the actual situation and the political consequences of their writing (Serra 1990).

What then can British (or other 'Northern') social scientists do? Should we take heed of the criticisms and therefore abandon overseas field research? Perhaps the ideal answer is for us to be involved in collaborative and mutually co-operative research led by the host country but this is not always possible. Politics, logistics and resources often dictate otherwise. In some cases, regimes that have never imbibed a spirit of glasnost



406 Observations

may deny permission altogether. In other cases the approaches of researchers who are nationals of the country concerned may be philosophically or methodology inappropriate. To assume that ' insiders ' automatically have a more sophisticated and appropriate approach to understanding social reality in' their ' society is to fall into the fallacy of Third Worldism, and a potentially reactionary relativism (Halliday 1987).

However, there are no simple answers. Consider, for example, the question of should geographers allow the lack of a research visa or local collaboration to prevent them from carrying out research? In an earlier debate in this journal, the response to a suggestion that in ' certain circumstances ' geographers should ' judiciously ignore, avoid or circumvent the rules' (Porteous 1988, 72), was that:

' breaking rules because they are inconvenient simply reflects the sentiments of those that donned pith helmet and ventured forth carrying the bible and the rum bottle' (Crittenden 1988, 373).

These issues have parallels in the long debate concerning the academic boycott of South Africa and the role of international links in the ' decolonisation ' of Southern African geography (Rogerson and Parnell 1989). Whatever the truth here, even in the case of approved collaborative research, the issue of unequal relations between ' insiders ' and ' outsiders ' and between the ' researchers ' and the ' researched ' often remains. A continual awareness of these issues is critical.

Perhaps keeping in mind a few basic guidelines is in order. Whilst the variety of research conditions and power relations make generalisation difficult, a few working principles are proposed here. In the first place, the researcher should, as far as possible, avoid actions that violate fundamental ethical standards and cultural understandings. The ' researched ' should also be informed of the general purposes and the funding of the investigation. That the research must not generate the risk of harm, seems obvious. Even here though, things are by no means clear cut. What if research is, as if (justifiably) fashionable, supposedly in the interests of the poor and oppressed? Would it not therefore be of (at least) potential 'harm' to their oppressors? Lest we tie ourselves into a meaningless knot of relativism, some seemingly less contentious guidelines follow:

Make no false promises. More often than not, foreigners are at least seen as being relatively privileged. More often than not they are. Particularly when the outsider is perceived as relatively powerful/rich (or even not), it is surprisingly easy for her/ him to be drawn into commitments and promises that one may not be in a position to fulfil.

Beware of unintended consequences of actions. Admittedly this is easier said than done. However it ought to be possible to cultivate a certain awareness.

Share the results of the research. This is, of course, greatly facilitated by partici pation in collaborative work. It also means considering outlets beyond the

margins of academic journals and ' professional' conferences.

Finally, the merits of research should be put into perspective. Thinking through the issue of the politics of research itself is one (often salutary) way of doing this. It is also likely to improve the quality of the research (Chambers 1983). Research in/of' other' cultures and societies can be worthwhile. In part this is because, at its best, it offers a



Observations 407

counter to universalistic and ethnocentric views. It is the enemy of parochialism and essential to the vitality of geography (Johnston 1984; Potter and Unwin 1988). This vitality would be enhanced in a world where Third World geographers came in large numbers to conduct research of 'exotic' and 'different' European and North American societies. Though such a development is currently unlikely given global power structures (let alone those of the discipline).

Meanwhile, research in, and of, the (contemporary) periphery2 of the world system may pose challenges to frameworks and assumptions developed in the core (Bloomstrom and Hettne 1984; Gilbert 1987a, 1987b; Sidaway 1990; Slater 1989), whilst helping us to ' view the world as one ' (King 1990a, 1990b). Writing of his work in Africa, Watts (1991, 1 1) notes that his,

'. . . focus on Africa reflects in part a belief that certain realities at the periphery of world capitalism can throw the phantom objectivity of that system into stark relief '.

Earlier in the same article he notes that' Living in a global economy necessarily blurs the distinction between ' here ' and ' there' ' (Watts 1991, 10). Perhaps we can now aim to make overseas research part of the blurring of the distinction between (or to use the jargon of social theory, the ' deconstruction ' of) ' us ' and ' them '.

Notes 1 This article records some of the themes discussed in a session on post-graduate research methods of the

'Wessex Consortium 'at the School of Advanced Urban Studies, Bristol, 19 December 1991. I am grateful

for the comments of the participants, in particular Michelle Lowe, as well as to the other organisers of the

postgraduate training course of which it was a part. The author would like to stress that it is a personal

account. My thanks to the participants in the workshop for reinforcing this point and its consequences. I

would also like to thank Alan Gilbert and the referee for constructive critique and suggestions. The title of

the article is taken from Spivak's (1987) book; ' In other worlds: essays in cultural politics'. One reader

suggested another title taken from the cover of Bristow's (1991) book, on the history of masculinity in

British imperial ideology, entitled ' Empire boys'. This, she claimed, would illustrate simultaneously the saliance of the colonial legacy and the gendered nature of the issues considered.

2 Much the same point could be made of the study of marginalised/peripheralised groups in the' core '. The

experience of being a ' stranger ' is not restricted to those doing research in ' another' society. Indeed the

very meaning of the term 'Third World' requires careful consideration. This is not only because of the

ambiguous (and frequently negative) connotations of the term, but also the consequence of global political

and economic reconfigurations. Specifically, the selective 'First Worldisation' of the Third World and 'Third Worldisation ' of parts of the First World and of what was formerly known as the Second World.

References Barnes T S and Duncan J S (1992) (eds) Writing worlds: discourse, text and metaphor in the representation of

language (Routledge, London) Bloomstrom M and Hettne B (1984) Development theory in transition: the dependency debate and beyond (Zed,

London) Bristow J (1991) Empire boys: adventures in a mans world (Harper Collins, London)

Cammack P (1988) ' Dependency and the politics of development ' in P F Leeson and M M Minogue (eds)

Perspectives on development (Manchester University Press, Manchester), 89-125 Chambers R (1983) Rural development, putting the lastfirst (Longman, London)

Clifford J and Marcus G E (eds) (1984) Writing culture: the poetics and politics ofethnography (University of

California Press, Berkeley)

Crang P (1992) 'The politics of polyphony: reconfigurations in geographical authority' Environment and

Planning D: Society and Space, forthcoming Crittenden R (1988) 'Breaking the rules: geography goes " gung-ho" 'Area 20, 372-3

Driver F (1992) 'Geography's Empire: histories of geographical empire' Environment and Planning D:

Society and Space 10, 23-40



408 Observations

Farmer B H (1983) 'British geographers overseas, 1933-1983' Transactions of the Institute of British

Geographers 8, 70-9

Geffray C (1988) 'Fragments d'un discours du pouvoir (1975-1985): du bon usage d'une reconnaissance

scientifique ' Politique Africaine 29, 71-86

Gilbert A (1987a) ' Research policy and review 15. From Little Englanders into Big Englanders: thoughts on

the relevance of relevant research ' Environment and Planning A 19, 143-51

Gilbert A (1987b) 'Current issues in research on Latin America' Bulletin Latin American Research 6,

197-207 Halliday F (1987) ' The Middle East in international perspective, problems of analysis ' in Bush D, Coates D

and Johnston G (eds) The world order, socialist perspectives (Polity Press, Cambridge), 201-20

Hammersley M and Atkinson P (1983) Ethnography, principles in practice (Tavistock, London)

Hamnett M P, Porter D J, Singh A and Kumar K (1984) Ethics, politics, and international social science

research; from critique to praxis (University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu)

Hanlon J (1991) Mozambique. Who calls the shots? (James Currey, London)

Hursh-Cesar G and Roy P (1976) Third World surveys: survey research in developing nations (Macmillan, New

Delhi) Johnston R (1984) ' The world is our oyster' Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 9, 443-59

King A (1990a) Urbanism, colonialism and the world-economy (Routledge, London)

King A (1990b) Global cities, post-imperialism and the internationalisation of London (Routledge, London) Kohn M L (1989) (ed) Cross-national research in sociology (Sage, New York)

Levi-Strauss C (1989) Tristes Tropiques (Picador, London) O'Hanlon R and Washbrook D (1992)' After orientalism, culture, criticism and politics in the Third World'

Comparative Studies in Society and History 34, 141-67

Porteous J D (1988) ' No excuses, Belinda ' Area 20, 72

Potter R and Unwin T (1988) ' Developing areas research in British geography 1982-1987 ' Area 20, 121-6

RenoufJ (1989) ' An alternative PhD ' Area 21, 13-26

Rogerson C M and Parnell S M (1989) 'Fostered by the laager: apartheid human geography in the 1980s'

Area 21, 87-92

Serra C (1988) Domingo (Maputo), 30/9/90

Sidaway J D (1990) 'Post-Fordism, post-modernity and the Third World' Area 22, 301-3 Slater D (1989) 'Peripheral capitalism and the regional problematic' in Peet R and Thrift N (eds) New

models in geography, volume two (Unwin Hyman, London), 267-94

Spivak G C (1987) In other worlds: essays in cultural politics (Methuen, New York and London)

Vines A (1991) Renamo: terrorism in Mozambique (James Currey, London)

Watts M (1991) 'Mapping meaning, denoting difference, imagining identity: dialectical images and

postmodern geographies' Geografiska Annaler 73B, 7-16 White L (1985)' Review article: the revolutions ten years on 'Journal ofSouthern African Studies 11, 320-32.



in other worlds: on the politics of research by 'first world' geographers in the...

Documents