Chapter 3 Methodology
3.4 Ethical considerations
Doing fieldwork in a poor community is an ethical challenge. It is a challenge not only because of personal issues that the researcher may have when entering the field, such as a lack of experience or doubts as to how to approach the subject. It is also a challenge to avoid becoming an ‘academic tourist’ or inadvertently converting the research into so-called ‘rape research’ (Lather, 1988, Mowforth & Mount, 1998, cited in Scheyvens & Storey, 2003). This can happen unintentionally, and it is thus of crucial importance that the whole research project is carefully thought through regarding the effects it will have for the research subjects. Researchers who are doing fieldwork will almost always be confronted with some ethical dilemmas which will have to be solved in an unbiased manner.
One important issue that needs to be dealt with is the power imbalance between the researcher and the ‘researched’. Escobar (1995, cited in Scheyvens & Storey, 2003) argues that there is a development discourse among researchers which serves to legitimise the voice of western researchers at the expense of listening to the voice of more marginalised people. The western researchers are automatically entitled to have their say, and as a result of their educated background they hold a credibility which cannot always be justified. This is a central argument both within the field of post-development and post-colonialism. To solve this dilemma, it is important to think about how we as researchers can contribute to the empowerment of marginalised groups, and if it is possible to incorporate their voices in a just and equal manner.
Escobar’s insights speak to the purpose of this research which is to give the farm dwellers a voice and an opportunity to tell their side of the story. During the relocation process the farm dwellers were up against the land owner, who clearly represented the party with the most power. In the mediation between the farm dwellers, the landowner, their lawyers and the DLA, the farm dwellers were once again the weakest party. They had few resources and
little knowledge of the justice system or about their options and rights regarding the relocation. They were thus not able to set the agenda or to incorporate themes that were important to them in the discussions. This thesis, it is hoped, will give the farm dwellers the opportunity to be heard and to bring forth outstanding issues relating to the relocation process in itself or to their life situation.
A second issue relates to whether the community concerned will receive any benefits from the research at all (Scheyvens & Storey, 2003). Conducting fieldwork simply to boost one’s own career should be questioned, as should research that borders on the exploitative. It should be self evident that the community involved should be consulted beforehand, and the researcher must have their permission to conduct the research when they are involved.
In this case, it is difficult to foresee whether the farm dwellers will receive any benefits from the thesis. It is a goal that anyone who reads this thesis will obtain a better understanding of the material, social and to some degree the psychological consequences they face during and after relocation. The thesis will be given to AFRA who works daily with farm dwellers who are being threatened with evictions. While AFRA already has an extensive knowledge of the situation of farm dwellers in South Africa, this thesis will hopefully widen their knowledge and thus assist them in their work with farm dwellers.
The ethical dilemmas mentioned above, have sparked a discussion as to whether western people should be conducting field work in the ‘Third World’ at all (Scheyvens & Storey, 2003). Currently, academic research is very much a one-way conversation, where western people travel to the Third World, but there is little activity the other way around. This can easily lead to a patronising dialogue, where the researchers represent the West and thus contribute to legitimising the view of the West as the ‘expert’, while reproducing patterns of domination in the shape of an academic imperialism. As a result, some academics have gone to the extreme and abandoned development research altogether (Scheyvens & Storey, 2003). Their argument rests on the fact that they have no social claim on the research areas in question, and thus there is no credible claim that they have the right to research the
‘others’. A less radical stance that a few academics have adopted is to privilege the voices of those from the Third World. However, this stance is criticised by what some perceive to be a romanticising of Third World knowledge (Shevyens & Storey, 2003). While it is important to
think about one’s positionality, it is not necessarily always true that a woman is better at doing research on other women, or that a poor person is better equipped to conduct research on other poor people.
Can it be justified to do research in marginalised communities? There is a danger with the radical stances that propose to abstain from this type of research. Rather than protecting marginalised groups from intrusions by researchers, it has the potential to work against its own case. Being in a privileged position, as most researchers are, should come with a responsibility to work against the relations of privilege that are skewed against people in the
‘developing’ world in general, and marginalised people in particular (Scheyvens & Storey, 2003). To abandon research in marginalised communities altogether does not help the people who are in that situation. It can rather be regarded as the shedding of responsibility on behalf of the academic world. Moreover, assertions that the relationship between the communities and the researchers is exploitative, rest on an assumption that the people in these communities have no power (Scheyvens & Storey, 2003). While there is clearly a power imbalance in the relationship, the individuals and communities often exercise their power in forms of ‘research resistance’. This can take the shape of withholding or altering information, and through the use of the vernacular language as a means of communicating
‘around’ the researcher (Sheyvens & Storey, 2003).
Cross-cultural research has the potential to increase the understanding of different cultures, environments, genders and social positioning (Scheyvens & Storey, 2003). Rather than focusing on the negative aspects of doing field work, Scheyvens & Storey (2003) argue that it would be more fruitful to emphasise the positive sides. This is not to say that the negative sides should not be discussed, but that both researchers and the individuals and communities that are being ‘researched’ will gain more than they lose from the activity.
Firstly, doing research in marginalised communities can counter ethnocentrism and broaden the understanding and acceptance of new cultures. Secondly, the material gathered can reveal issues that could not be uncovered using different methods where one does not have to enter the field. Thirdly, being in a new location can open people’s eyes to new perspectives that would otherwise have remained ‘hidden’.