An on-going argument is that research is either concerned with policy-orientated commitments or giving voice to research subjects/participants. Michael Crang claims that this is a “false opposition of committed, ‘real world’ versus ‘inaccessible’, theoretical research”
(2005:231). Empowerment, he asserts, does not always have to come from the giving of voice; “silences can also point to significant moments of resistance, both in society and to the process of research” (ibid). For example, the ≠Khomani’s mistrust of new researchers is indicative of their position as an over-researched, alienated, marginalised ‘resource’ (cf.
Tomaselli 2012; Grant 2011). The Platfontein community have begun to show similar signs.
After an agreeable two-year working relationship with members of the community, I returned
25 The researcher/tourist duality is not unlike that of the growing anthro-tourist trend; a form of travel that incorporates anthropology, tourism and backpacking. An anthro-tourist is a traveller “who makes the conscious effort to learn about the culture in which he or she is traveling” (anthrotourist.com). Backpacking is the choice of the traveller with a flexible itinerary who inadvertently makes contact with the local people on a deeper level than the average tourist; utilising the local public transport, living in and frequenting places other than the traditional tourist places of interest. Present-day travellers looking for a more holistic travel experience are opting for anthro-tourism.
43
in the third year to community members (not my regular respondents) who exuded a palpable displeasure at the presence of myself and two other researchers. That same year I conducted an interview with a community member working for a non-profit organisation who reluctantly answered my questions with both eyes fixed firmly on his computer screen. On that trip I asked to take a photograph of a printed cloth hanging on a fence to dry;26 after a long conferral between neighbours, the tones of which did not sound pleasant, I was informed that I could not take the photograph. The elderly woman who made the final decision sat rigidly in profile having not once made eye contact with me. Proficiency in Khwedam was not required to understand that what she had said was not pleasant: I was unwelcome.
Disheartened, I retreated out of her yard (Fieldnotes, June 2010). To return to Crang’s argument, further research suggests that any hostility and mistrust towards researchers may be seen, not as a barrier to overcome, but rather as “an instructive part of the research process” (Mountz, Miyares, Wright et al. 2003:39).
This research relied on relationships built over time between the research cohort and subject community. I have worked with members of the community since 2008; recurring visits to the community for my Masters dissertation were well received by the community members with whom I worked. This was made possible by the relationship of trust and mutual respect already established by my colleague Thomas Hart who began his research in Platfontein in 2006 and had become a familiar face by the time he introduced new researchers to community members. A few of Thomas’ own informants became translators and key informants to new researchers thus ensuring a continuity of partnerships. Sponsors and key informants are integral to the research process. A sponsor is able to validate researchers and allow them entry into the subject group while key informants allow researchers to pose difficult questions, gain clarity, and stay generally informed (Gillham, 2008).
Trust and acceptance are also facilitated by an endeavour of reciprocity on the part of researchers. Our researcher group send their completed dissertations, theses and other publications to subject communities. Photographs taken the previous year are also sent together with other promised items (see Grant 2011 for more on the significance of a show of trustworthiness on the part of the researcher). In on-going work with the ≠Khomani San in
26 The design on the cloth was reminiscent of abstract artworks (made by Platfontein artists) I had come across during my previous research.
44
the upper Northern Cape, for many years Keyan Tomaselli had been acknowledged as the research leader. His successor was Julie Grant who had conducted her doctoral research within the community and is working for an NGO among the ≠Khomani. In Platfontein Thomas Hart took on that role. The presence of a research leader assists in establishing long- term relationships within communities and offers communities involved a sense of continuity and research commitment (Tomaselli et al. 2008). The research relationship with the Platfontein community, however, is still in its infancy when compared to long-standing relationships with other subject communities fostered by the larger project. In order for the relationship to grow and develop it is imperative that a research presence remains and that completed writings are returned to community members/key informants along with photographs and certain other audio/visual records.
A methodological concern “is how to write an analysis of a situation and a people who have come to take us seriously but who may not appreciate our analysis, our critique, and our logic” (Tomaselli, et al. 2008:361). The working relationship with SASI and the management at Wildebeest Kuil formed prior to my entering into the project posed its own set of challenges. It became necessary to balance possible negative views held about these constituents by the Platfontein community, logistic failures which may show them in a bad light, and the research relationship already fostered. Tomaselli, Dyll and Michael Francis describe this complex research space as such:
[We are seen] both as insiders and outsiders and as purchasers (of information, crafts and skills). We are givers (of donated goods) and sometimes accused of being exploiters (of knowledge). We are also seen as heroes and villains, and as reporters, we evaluate the said in terms of the more usually unsaid. This is not an easy set of relations through which to negotiate. (2008:351)
Diplomacy in research is a necessary requirement. The case is one of a constant striving between the emotional involvement of participation and the detachment of observation.
During a field trip to Platfontein in September 2012 I became the victim of an attempted car hijacking. I did not involve the police, but instead held a meeting with community leaders to inform them of what had occurred. They expressed shock at receiving this news and assured me that this was the first time such a crime had been committed in Platfontein and to their
45
knowledge crime and violence was perpetuated laterally within the community (Fieldnotes, September 2012). The dangerous situation in which I found myself while conducting fieldwork has added a level of lived reality to my data. Certainly, there is little like first-hand experience to bring such lessons “into sharp focus” (Gillham, 2008:54). Later on, in a therapy session, I learned that the way in which I handled the situation and my calm reaction to the knife-wielding attacker (having never before experienced such immediate violence) was partly due to a strong desire to protect the community. The incident was a reminder of the challenge endemic to self-reflexive examinations of participant observation in which there remains a continuous “strain to try to sympathize with others and at the same time strive for scientific objectivity” (Paul, 1953:69).
The optimum goal is for the researcher to strike a balance between immersion and neutrality (Jacobs, 2006). This is the well-worn subjectivity/objectivity debate in its form within the field. A balance must therefore be attained between polemic categories which include emic and etic perspectives, ideographic and nomothetic interests, descriptive and explanatory aims, inductive and deductive reasoning, tacit and explicit sorts of cultural knowledge, and subjective and objective aspects of actions to name a few (McCall, 2006). Carl Ratner (2002) purports that the subjectivity of the researcher acts as a guide through which to grasp an objective reality. Further, it is a reflexive research process, born out of subjectivism, which leads the researcher to “reflect on the values and objectives” they bring to the research “and how these affect the research project” (2002:np). Thus in the process of questioning one’s own subjectivity, distorting values and misinterpretations can be replaced. In this way the researcher’s subjectivity is a tool purposed to comprehend the world as it exists and objectively understand research subject/participants’ experiences and feelings. The interplay between objectivism and subjectivism here is thus a syncretic working together rather than in contradiction to each other. The thesis endeavours to strike such a balance.