Friendship as a scientific method

Abstract

Friendships formed in the course of scientific research are common and should be foregrounded in discussions of how the sciences are done. Inspired by the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge, I propose a ‘symmetrical’ analysis of friendships in both the social and natural sciences as a way of comparing knowledge-making practices. The research question that derives from this approach is: How are friendships with and between subjects generative of new forms of scientific knowledge and new types of relating? I provide an answer based on my experience of befriending a group of dendroclimatologists to whom I referred metaphorically as ‘my chimps’ in an analogy with the primatologist Jane Goodall’s affectionate relation with her research subjects. In my case, befriending dendroclimatologists involved cultivating a curiosity about each other’s research and worlds through different means. As a result, my work also came to matter to them and we produced it collaboratively. The instrumentalisation of friendships for the purpose of achieving a certain control and agreement with subjects and beings is, I argue, a normal aspect of knowledge formation, and should not be seen as unethical. If anything, befriending subjects promotes better research ethics as it generates a form of mutuality based on partial relatedness, constructive dissent and playfulness, rather than hybridity, totalising consensus and domination. Overall, my argument about friendship as a method in science seeks to criticise the ideal that isolation and indifference are at the heart of the way scientific knowledge, both social and natural, is and should be made.

‘Civil skepticism’ and the social construction of knowledge: A case in dendroclimatology

“…I worked one day per week for a year as a volunteer technician, accessed Rob and Miloš’ presentation slides and article drafts, and attended a workshop in St Andrews in April 2013 and a conference in Australia in January 2014. I developed friendships that became essential for securing these researchers’ consent and trust and generating sociological knowledge (Ramírez-i-Ollé, 2018a). I use the real names of those who have granted me permission.…”

More Than “Crumbs”: Emotional Entanglements and Situated Ethical Strategies in Qualitative Research

“…logics of taste and rationality.” Echoing this perspective, several feminist researches have suggested that developing relationships with participants allows scholars to establish a better understanding of a participants’ identity, their performative attempts to display who they are and to interpret the complexities, contradictions, and shifts in participants’ behaviors and narratives (Alcázar Campos, 2014; Tillmann-Healy, 2003). Some scholars advocate for recognizing and befriending participants as a research strategy as the “the instrumentalization of friendships for the purposes of achieving a certain control and agreement with the beings implicated in the research should be seen as a normal constituent of knowledge-making, and not as inherently problematic or unethical” (Ramírez-i-Ollé, 2019, p. 312). In developing friendship as a method, for example, Coffey (1999) departs from this standpoint to argue that the “friendships can help to clarify the inherent tensions of the fieldwork experience and sharpen our abilities for critical reflection [.…”

“…To describe the complex and nonlinear ways in which researchers and participants relate to each other during research, Strathern (1991) uses the metaphor of “partial connections.” This concept emphasizes the importance of establishing a relationship of empathy and mutual trust with participants, while also recognizing and valuing the limited nature of this connection. As Ramírez-i-Ollé (2019, p. 313) argues, “if it is true that knowledge is always produced in relationship between a knower and a known, it is also true that this connection does not reduce the two parties to a homogeneous whole.” Although we are used to considering partial connections when it comes to researchers and acknowledging that, during the research, researchers do not have to totally agree with what participants think and do, less attention has been paid to safeguarding participants’ opportunities for dissent. While co-production and co-writing can be considered best practices in this light (Loveless et al, 2019; Harding, 2020), it is not always easy and possible to involve research participants in the time- and energy-consuming activities of data collection, analysis, and writing.…”

“…As rare moments of (apparent) power balance between the researcher and the researched, they allow the latter to express dissent that can (re)orient the research while it is happening (Bondi, 2003; Loveless et al, 2019). If used in these terms, intimately gained information can help researchers to consider and mediate between their “freedom to produce an account of the subjects’ culture that is sensitive to but also distinct from, and perhaps critical of, indigenous accounts” and “the protection of the autonomy, well-being and dignity of subjects” (Ramírez-i-Ollé, 2019, p. 312).…”

On staying: Extended temporalities, relationships and practices in community engaged scholarship

“…For instance, we recently turned down the opportunity to work with a major media organisation, because the project focus was more likely to feed misrepresentations of youth as ‘risk’ than it was to produce positive community outcomes. Collaborative friendships have proven ethically efficacious in this regard, because relational transparency and mutual understandings of intention have offered a constructive basis from which to understand and to act (Ramírez-i-Ollé, 2019). In some instances this has meant choosing not to pursue research invitations.…”