The arrogance of ethnography: Managing anthropological research knowledge

S. Holcombe
{"title":"The arrogance of ethnography: Managing anthropological research knowledge","authors":"S. Holcombe","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2239499","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The ethnographic method is a core feature of anthropological practice. This locally intensive research enables insight into local praxis and culturally relative practices that would otherwise not be possible. Indeed, empathetic engagement is only possible in this close and intimate encounter. However, this paper argues that this method can also provide the practitioner with a false sense of his or her own knowing and expertise and, indeed, with arrogance. And the boundaries between the anthropologist as knowledge sink — cultural translator and interpreter — and the knowledge of the local knowledge owners can become opaque. Globalisation and the knowledge ‘commons’, exemplified by Google, also highlight the increasing complexities in this area of the governance and ownership of knowledge. Our stronghold of working in remote areas and/or with marginalised groups places us at the forefront of negotiating the multiple new technological knowledge spaces that are opening up in the form of Indigenous websites and knowledge centres in these areas. Anthropology is not immune from the increasing awareness of the limitations and risks of the intellectual property regime for protecting or managing Indigenous knowledge. The relevance of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in opening up a ‘rights-based’ discourse, especially in the area of knowledge ownership, brings these issues to the fore. For anthropology to remain relevant, we have to engage locally with these global discourses. This paper begins to traverse some of this ground.","PeriodicalId":45231,"journal":{"name":"Australian Aboriginal Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2010-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"13","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian Aboriginal Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2239499","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 13

Abstract

The ethnographic method is a core feature of anthropological practice. This locally intensive research enables insight into local praxis and culturally relative practices that would otherwise not be possible. Indeed, empathetic engagement is only possible in this close and intimate encounter. However, this paper argues that this method can also provide the practitioner with a false sense of his or her own knowing and expertise and, indeed, with arrogance. And the boundaries between the anthropologist as knowledge sink — cultural translator and interpreter — and the knowledge of the local knowledge owners can become opaque. Globalisation and the knowledge ‘commons’, exemplified by Google, also highlight the increasing complexities in this area of the governance and ownership of knowledge. Our stronghold of working in remote areas and/or with marginalised groups places us at the forefront of negotiating the multiple new technological knowledge spaces that are opening up in the form of Indigenous websites and knowledge centres in these areas. Anthropology is not immune from the increasing awareness of the limitations and risks of the intellectual property regime for protecting or managing Indigenous knowledge. The relevance of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in opening up a ‘rights-based’ discourse, especially in the area of knowledge ownership, brings these issues to the fore. For anthropology to remain relevant, we have to engage locally with these global discourses. This paper begins to traverse some of this ground.
民族志的傲慢:管理人类学研究知识
民族志方法是人类学实践的一个核心特征。这种地方性的深入研究使我们能够深入了解当地的实践和与文化相关的实践,否则这是不可能的。事实上,只有在这种亲密的接触中,移情参与才有可能。然而,本文认为,这种方法也会给从业者提供一种他或她自己的知识和专业知识的错误感觉,实际上,傲慢。作为知识沉没者的人类学家——文化翻译者和解释者——与当地知识所有者的知识之间的界限可能变得模糊。以b谷歌为例的全球化和知识“公地”也凸显了这一领域的治理和知识所有权日益复杂。我们在偏远地区和/或边缘群体工作的据点,使我们处于谈判的最前沿,这些新技术知识空间以这些地区的土著网站和知识中心的形式开放。人们越来越意识到知识产权制度在保护或管理土著知识方面的局限性和风险,人类学也不能幸免。《土著人民权利宣言》在开辟“以权利为基础”的话语方面的相关性,特别是在知识所有权领域,使这些问题脱颖而出。为了使人类学保持相关性,我们必须在当地参与这些全球话语。本文开始探讨这方面的一些问题。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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