6Chai and Conversation: Crafting Field Identities and Archaeological Practice in South Asia

Raczek, Teresa P.; Sugandhi, Namita

doi:10.1111/apaa.12125

Cited by 4 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 56 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Facilitate reflective discussions where meaning, significance and underlying insights can be explored Exercise patience and allow comprehension to evolve overtime. Adapt, refine or broaden research concepts or designs to ensure that approaches resonate with the complexity and specificity of the local environment Fiji case study Anthony-Stevens and Matsaw ( 2019 ), Castleden et al ( 2017 ), Day et al ( 2020 ), Ebersöhn and Malan-Van Rooyen ( 2018 ), Frias-Navarro and Montoya-Restrepo ( 2020 ), Lipscombe et al ( 2021 ), Matson et al ( 2021 ), Raczek and Sugandhi ( 2020 ), Silva et al ( 2020 ), Sylvester et al ( 2020 ), Tilley ( 2017 ), van Meijl ( 2019 ) …”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Engage in the co-construction of research directions and agenda Collaborate in the collection of data, contextualization of insights and the development of research narratives Build trust through mutual respect and openness Build upon each other’s perspectives with empathy and understanding Be willing to adapt and collaborate Fiji case study Adams et al ( 2017 ), Anthony-Stevens and Matsaw ( 2019 ), Cameron et al ( 2021 ), Castleden et al ( 2017 ), Chambers ( 2007 ), Ebersöhn and Malan-Van Rooyen ( 2018 ), Hart et al ( 2017 ), Hopkins et al ( 2019 ), Lipscombe et al ( 2021 ), Matson et al ( 2021 ), Raczek and Sugandhi ( 2020 ), Wilson et al ( 2020 ) …”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Anthony-Stevens and Matsaw ( 2019 ), Castleden et al ( 2017 ), Ebersöhn and Malan-Van Rooyen ( 2018 ), Hopkins et al ( 2019 ), LaVallie and Sasakamoose ( 2021 ), Lipscombe et al ( 2021 ), Matson et al ( 2021 ), Mazzetti and Blenkinsopp ( 2012 ), Pham and Gothberg ( 2020 ), Raczek and Sugandhi ( 2020 ), Rai and Khawas ( 2019 ), Silva et al ( 2020 ), Tilley ( 2017 ), van Meijl ( 2019 ), Wilson et al ( 2020 )…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

An organizing framework to break down Western-centric views of knowledge in North–South research

Turner,

Rogers,

Kneebone

et al. 2024

Sustain Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Global challenges, such as climate change, persistent poverty, and food insecurity are complex problems. These societal, environmental, and economic challenges cross scientific disciplines, communities, and geographies, requiring interdisciplinary, North–South solutions. Nevertheless, prevailing sustainability science responses are Western-centric. Some seminal studies have attempted to understand and engage with diverse knowledge systems. These include decolonial and Indigenous methodologies, such as “Two-Eyed Seeing”, which emphasizes the importance of using both Western and Indigenous knowledge to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the world, and participatory action research, which highlights the importance of involving participants in the research process and promoting social change through collaborative effort. However, apart from in-country research collaborations with traditional Indigenous knowledge, most North–South studies overlook the role or influence of Western-centric views and therefore fail to recognize and incorporate diverse worldviews and knowledge systems. This may, in part, reflect the tendency to categorize research into disciplinary silos, but more likely is the unintentional, yet prevalent, view that Western science is “objective and neutral.” As more scholars from multiple disciplines and geographies focus on interdisciplinary North–South research, it is critical that researchers reflect on dominant research approaches and knowledge production. Studies can co-construct, reproduce, or control the forms of knowledge generated—whether intentional or unintentional. This paper presents an organizing framework to help researchers navigate, understand, and engage with diverse forms of knowledge in undertaking North–South research. The framework draws on empirical observations from the authors’ interdisciplinary research and from empirical cross-cultural literature. It comprises three contextual levels of influence, featuring guiding principles and subsequent practical actions researchers can use to navigate the complexities of knowledge co-construction in North–South research.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

An organizing framework to break down Western-centric views of knowledge in North–South research

Turner,

Rogers,

Kneebone

et al. 2024

Sustain Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Lupu 2020; Rizvi 2020; Surface-Evans & Jones 2020) and foster shared understandings between archaeologists and communities with incommensurate worldviews (e.g. Arthur 2020; Raczek & Sugandhi 2020; Sloan 2020). Similarly, in a journal special issue on community archaeology in the African Diaspora, Jeffrey Burnett (2022) discusses how he synthesised Black feminist frameworks and CBPR approaches to foster radical solidarity with the community of Oak Bluffs in Massachusetts.…”

Section: Trends In Collaborative Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

The future of archaeology is (still) community collaboration

Montgomery

Fryer

2023

Antiquity

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this contribution to our periodic ‘Archaeological Futures’ series, Lindsay M. Montgomery and Tiffany C. Fryer reflect on the reshaping of archaeological praxis in the Americas through recent developments in collaborative community-engaged research. Over the past 20 years, new theoretical and methodological approaches informed by decolonisation and Black feminism have shifted power dynamics within the discipline. The authors review this growing body of research, highlighting trends in collaborative archaeological research and discussing some of the ongoing challenges and tensions. They argue that this collaborative paradigm marks a new future for archaeology in the Americas, which will increasingly centre on topics of importance to Black and Indigenous scholars and descendant communities.

show abstract

“…But consensus need not be understood as the most constructive output of dialogue (Tringham, 2018, 61), nor can it always be trusted as the most honest outcome. Sometimes potential participants will appear to speak assent and agreement to the terms of a heritage project, but they may be harboring discomfort and dissent and be unable to express those feelings because of the politics at play (Raczek and Sugandhi, 2020). Moreover, since participatory research methods began gaining traction in heritage fields, practitioners have voiced resonant unease about the ways participation can lead to a lack of consensus between participants and researchers (e.g., Crooke, 2010; Logan, 2012, 236).…”

Section: Heritage As Liberationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Heritage as liberation

Fryer¹

2023

American Anthropologist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Why aren't archaeologists engaging in more substantive heritage work, and how might we do so? This article offers a conceptual framework for mobilizing our praxis toward the achievement of collective emancipation—what I am calling heritage as liberation. Heritage as liberation provides a mechanism for reckoning. It asks us to reevaluate our motivations and more clearly articulate what we stand for as archaeologists and heritage practitioners. I offer reflections on recent attempts by archaeologists to organize toward a just future, sketch what I think a practice of heritage as liberation offers that agenda, and then analyze the Equal Justice Initiative's (EJI) heritage work as an example of what is possible when we practice heritage as liberation. I close the article with thoughts on where archaeology stands in attempts to repair and redress past wrongs and on the range of contexts that might see an emancipatory heritage praxis enacted.

show abstract

6Chai and Conversation: Crafting Field Identities and Archaeological Practice in South Asia

Cited by 4 publications

References 56 publications

An organizing framework to break down Western-centric views of knowledge in North–South research

An organizing framework to break down Western-centric views of knowledge in North–South research

The future of archaeology is (still) community collaboration

Heritage as liberation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About