不同的咖啡边界:基伍湖地区、刚果和卢旺达的劳动力和土地动员(1918-1960/62)

Guy Bud
{"title":"不同的咖啡边界:基伍湖地区、刚果和卢旺达的劳动力和土地动员(1918-1960/62)","authors":"Guy Bud","doi":"10.1080/00083968.2023.2165610","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"someone to tow us out of some unholy mud. Here, Biruk looks at the logistics of doing fieldwork in a place like Malawi, including the vehicles necessary to undertake research, return visits, visits to check data, and the frustration of an informant changing answers mid-stream. In a neat play on the term “imposter syndrome,” experienced by many (but not exclusively) women academics, Biruk describes how people would assume the identity of a potential informant in order to extract some notional benefit from the survey process. Chapter 5 is surprisingly poignant, as it points to the afterlives of collected data, when that data is necessary for the construction of evidence-based policy (168). In this chapter, Biruk shows how some data comes to be understood as empirical fact, while other data is too wild and messy to make it in the “clean” world of policy formulation. She also examines how even empirical data that survey teams have struggled to collect can be trumped by the aggregated (and sometimes erroneous) knowledge of local experts. The conclusion circles back to the profound ambivalence that researchers like Biruk experience in relation to their work, as well as all the disappointment felt by researchers who see their recommendations, based on field data, rejected or not acted upon swiftly enough. The book is very readable. Biruk explains her concepts well, and alternates between what she experienced in the field, with vignettes based on field experience; first-person accounts from office and field-based researchers; and a discussion of survey participants. This style of writing helps to break up some of the denser theoretical text, including references to the conceptualization of the field as contingent, colonially formed, and a more complex space than many who “do” fieldwork like to imagine. It also interrogates the politics of knowledge production, which elevate “knowledge” produced by funded researchers in the North above that produced by Malawian-based researchers, whose low levels of remuneration mean that a daily subsistence allowance (a per diem) often exceeds a monthly salary. Over the last two years, since the advent of Covid and large Covid-focused research projects, the issues she highlights have only become more stark.","PeriodicalId":9481,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Journal of African Studies / Revue canadienne des études africaines","volume":"45 1","pages":"494 - 496"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Dissimilar Coffee Frontiers: Mobilizing Labor and Land in the Lake Kivu Region, Congo and Rwanda (1918–1960/62)\",\"authors\":\"Guy Bud\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/00083968.2023.2165610\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"someone to tow us out of some unholy mud. Here, Biruk looks at the logistics of doing fieldwork in a place like Malawi, including the vehicles necessary to undertake research, return visits, visits to check data, and the frustration of an informant changing answers mid-stream. In a neat play on the term “imposter syndrome,” experienced by many (but not exclusively) women academics, Biruk describes how people would assume the identity of a potential informant in order to extract some notional benefit from the survey process. Chapter 5 is surprisingly poignant, as it points to the afterlives of collected data, when that data is necessary for the construction of evidence-based policy (168). In this chapter, Biruk shows how some data comes to be understood as empirical fact, while other data is too wild and messy to make it in the “clean” world of policy formulation. She also examines how even empirical data that survey teams have struggled to collect can be trumped by the aggregated (and sometimes erroneous) knowledge of local experts. The conclusion circles back to the profound ambivalence that researchers like Biruk experience in relation to their work, as well as all the disappointment felt by researchers who see their recommendations, based on field data, rejected or not acted upon swiftly enough. The book is very readable. Biruk explains her concepts well, and alternates between what she experienced in the field, with vignettes based on field experience; first-person accounts from office and field-based researchers; and a discussion of survey participants. This style of writing helps to break up some of the denser theoretical text, including references to the conceptualization of the field as contingent, colonially formed, and a more complex space than many who “do” fieldwork like to imagine. It also interrogates the politics of knowledge production, which elevate “knowledge” produced by funded researchers in the North above that produced by Malawian-based researchers, whose low levels of remuneration mean that a daily subsistence allowance (a per diem) often exceeds a monthly salary. Over the last two years, since the advent of Covid and large Covid-focused research projects, the issues she highlights have only become more stark.\",\"PeriodicalId\":9481,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Canadian Journal of African Studies / Revue canadienne des études africaines\",\"volume\":\"45 1\",\"pages\":\"494 - 496\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Canadian Journal of African Studies / Revue canadienne des études africaines\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/00083968.2023.2165610\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Canadian Journal of African Studies / Revue canadienne des études africaines","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00083968.2023.2165610","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

有人把我们从肮脏的泥潭里拖出来。在这里,Biruk研究了在马拉维这样的地方进行实地调查的后勤工作,包括进行研究所需的交通工具、回访、检查数据的访问,以及中途线人改变答案的挫败感。许多(但不完全是)女性学者都有过“冒名顶替综合症”(imposter syndrome)的经历,在这一术语的巧妙运用中,Biruk描述了人们如何冒充潜在告密者的身份,以便从调查过程中获得一些名义上的好处。第五章出人意料地尖锐,因为它指出了收集数据的后果,而这些数据对于构建基于证据的政策是必要的(168)。在本章中,Biruk展示了一些数据是如何被理解为经验事实的,而另一些数据则过于杂乱,无法在政策制定的“干净”世界中使用。她还研究了即使是调查小组努力收集的经验数据,也可能被当地专家的汇总(有时是错误的)知识所压倒。结论又回到了像Biruk这样的研究人员在他们的工作中所经历的深刻的矛盾心理,以及那些看到他们基于实地数据的建议被拒绝或没有足够迅速地采取行动的研究人员所感到的失望。这本书很好读。Biruk很好地解释了她的概念,并在她在现场的经历和基于现场经验的小插曲之间交替进行;来自办公室和实地研究人员的第一人称叙述;以及调查参与者的讨论。这种写作风格有助于打破一些密集的理论文本,包括将领域概念化为偶然的,殖民地形成的,以及比许多“做”田野工作的人喜欢想象的更复杂的空间。它还质疑了知识生产的政治,这种政治将北方受资助的研究人员生产的“知识”提升到高于马拉维研究人员生产的“知识”,而马拉维研究人员的低薪酬水平意味着每日生活津贴(a / diem)往往超过月薪。在过去两年中,自Covid和大型Covid研究项目出现以来,她强调的问题变得更加突出。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Dissimilar Coffee Frontiers: Mobilizing Labor and Land in the Lake Kivu Region, Congo and Rwanda (1918–1960/62)
someone to tow us out of some unholy mud. Here, Biruk looks at the logistics of doing fieldwork in a place like Malawi, including the vehicles necessary to undertake research, return visits, visits to check data, and the frustration of an informant changing answers mid-stream. In a neat play on the term “imposter syndrome,” experienced by many (but not exclusively) women academics, Biruk describes how people would assume the identity of a potential informant in order to extract some notional benefit from the survey process. Chapter 5 is surprisingly poignant, as it points to the afterlives of collected data, when that data is necessary for the construction of evidence-based policy (168). In this chapter, Biruk shows how some data comes to be understood as empirical fact, while other data is too wild and messy to make it in the “clean” world of policy formulation. She also examines how even empirical data that survey teams have struggled to collect can be trumped by the aggregated (and sometimes erroneous) knowledge of local experts. The conclusion circles back to the profound ambivalence that researchers like Biruk experience in relation to their work, as well as all the disappointment felt by researchers who see their recommendations, based on field data, rejected or not acted upon swiftly enough. The book is very readable. Biruk explains her concepts well, and alternates between what she experienced in the field, with vignettes based on field experience; first-person accounts from office and field-based researchers; and a discussion of survey participants. This style of writing helps to break up some of the denser theoretical text, including references to the conceptualization of the field as contingent, colonially formed, and a more complex space than many who “do” fieldwork like to imagine. It also interrogates the politics of knowledge production, which elevate “knowledge” produced by funded researchers in the North above that produced by Malawian-based researchers, whose low levels of remuneration mean that a daily subsistence allowance (a per diem) often exceeds a monthly salary. Over the last two years, since the advent of Covid and large Covid-focused research projects, the issues she highlights have only become more stark.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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