A Decolonial Feminist Politics of Fieldwork: Centering Community, Reflexivity, and Loving Accountability

IF 3.1 1区 社会学 Q1 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Alba Rosa Boer Cueva, Keshab Giri, Caitlin Hamilton, Laura J Shepherd
{"title":"A Decolonial Feminist Politics of Fieldwork: Centering Community, Reflexivity, and Loving Accountability","authors":"Alba Rosa Boer Cueva, Keshab Giri, Caitlin Hamilton, Laura J Shepherd","doi":"10.1093/isr/viae003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"International studies scholarship has benefitted from insights from anthropology, peace and conflict studies, geography, and other disciplines to craft a thoughtful set of reflections and considerations for researchers to take with them “into the field” when they embark on “fieldwork.” In this essay, we map out a history of critical approaches to fieldwork, starting with the encounters that initially encouraged reflection on the positionality of the researcher and the power dynamics of research. Building on decolonial feminist scholarship, we show how a commitment to reflexive practice “in the field” has developed further, through a reflection on the self as a researcher and on “the field” as a construct. This ethical and political commitment prompts a rethinking of key concepts in fieldwork (and research more generally), including those of “the researcher,” “the research participant” (or “population”), “expertise,” and what constitutes “data” and “knowledge.” We argue that a preferable approach to critical fieldwork is grounded in feminist and decolonial, anti-racist, anti-capitalist politics. This approach is committed not just to reflecting critically on “the field” and the interactions of the researcher within it but also to challenging the divisions, exclusions, and structures of oppression that sustain the separations between “here” and “there,” “researcher” and “researched,” and “knower\" and “known.”","PeriodicalId":54206,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Review","volume":"53 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Studies Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viae003","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

International studies scholarship has benefitted from insights from anthropology, peace and conflict studies, geography, and other disciplines to craft a thoughtful set of reflections and considerations for researchers to take with them “into the field” when they embark on “fieldwork.” In this essay, we map out a history of critical approaches to fieldwork, starting with the encounters that initially encouraged reflection on the positionality of the researcher and the power dynamics of research. Building on decolonial feminist scholarship, we show how a commitment to reflexive practice “in the field” has developed further, through a reflection on the self as a researcher and on “the field” as a construct. This ethical and political commitment prompts a rethinking of key concepts in fieldwork (and research more generally), including those of “the researcher,” “the research participant” (or “population”), “expertise,” and what constitutes “data” and “knowledge.” We argue that a preferable approach to critical fieldwork is grounded in feminist and decolonial, anti-racist, anti-capitalist politics. This approach is committed not just to reflecting critically on “the field” and the interactions of the researcher within it but also to challenging the divisions, exclusions, and structures of oppression that sustain the separations between “here” and “there,” “researcher” and “researched,” and “knower" and “known.”
田野工作的非殖民女权主义政治学:以社区为中心、反思性和爱心问责
国际研究学术从人类学、和平与冲突研究、地理学和其他学科的见解中获益匪浅,为研究人员在开展 "田野工作 "时 "进入田野 "提供了一套深思熟虑的思考和考虑。在这篇文章中,我们描绘了田野工作批判方法的历史,从最初鼓励反思研究者的立场和研究的权力动态的遭遇开始。在非殖民地女权主义学术研究的基础上,我们展示了 "实地 "反思性实践的承诺是如何通过对作为研究者的自我和作为一种建构的 "实地 "的反思而得到进一步发展的。这种伦理和政治承诺促使我们重新思考田野工作(以及更广泛意义上的研究)中的关键概念,包括 "研究者"、"研究参与者"(或 "人群")、"专业知识 "以及 "数据 "和 "知识 "的构成要素。我们认为,批判性田野工作的可取方法是以女权主义和非殖民主义、反种族主义、反资本主义政治为基础的。这种方法不仅致力于批判性地反思 "田野 "和研究者在田野中的互动,而且致力于挑战维持 "这里 "和 "那里"、"研究者 "和 "被研究者"、"认识者 "和 "被认识者 "之间的分隔、排斥和压迫结构。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.70
自引率
9.10%
发文量
62
期刊介绍: The International Studies Review (ISR) provides a window on current trends and research in international studies worldwide. Published four times a year, ISR is intended to help: (a) scholars engage in the kind of dialogue and debate that will shape the field of international studies in the future, (b) graduate and undergraduate students understand major issues in international studies and identify promising opportunities for research, and (c) educators keep up with new ideas and research. To achieve these objectives, ISR includes analytical essays, reviews of new books, and a forum in each issue. Essays integrate scholarship, clarify debates, provide new perspectives on research, identify new directions for the field, and present insights into scholarship in various parts of the world.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信