"Side by Side or Facing One Another": Writing and Collaborative Ethnography in Comparative Perspective

Field, Les W.

doi:10.1353/cla.0.0011

Cited by 16 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…It is important to manage expectations from the start. Some projects have collaborative components at the onset, whereas others utilize this framework in the implementation of research methods, and more rarely, collaborate on analysis and the writing of research products, such as the review of individual chapters by focus groups, which encompass editorial boards appointed by the community (Lobo et al 2002, Lassiter 2005, Field 2008). In the Numic case, collaboration entailed relinquishing a level of control to the Indigenous communities, which became challenging when contract obligations necessitated the researcher to submit final products acceptable to the funder for project payment.…”

Section: Collaborative Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quantitative, qualitative, and collaborative methods: approaching indigenous ecological knowledge heterogeneity

Spoon¹

2014

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. I discuss the use of quantitative, qualitative, and collaborative methods to document and operationalize Indigenous ecological knowledge, using case studies from the Nepalese Himalaya and Great Basin. Both case studies applied results to natural and cultural resource management and interpretation for the public. These approaches attempt to reposition the interview subjects to serve as active contributors to the research and its outcomes. I argue that the study of any body of Indigenous knowledge requires a contextspecific methodology and mutually agreed upon processes and outcomes. In the Nepalese Himalaya, I utilized linked quantitative and qualitative methods to understand how tourism influenced Sherpa place-based spiritual concepts, species, and landscape knowledge inside Sagarmatha (Mount Everest) National Park and Buffer Zone. In this method, Sherpa collaborated in the development of the research questions, the design, and in the review of results. The research in the Great Basin employed collaborative qualitative methods to document Numic (Southern Paiute and Western Shoshone) ecological knowledge of federal lands within their ancestral territory and attempted to piece together fragmented and contested histories of place. In this method, Numic peoples collaborated on the development of research questions and design; however they also conducted most of the interviews. In both cases, I selected particular suites of methods depending on the context and created forums for the translation of this information to applied outcomes. The methods were also improved and innovated through praxis.

show abstract

Section: Collaborative Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quantitative, qualitative, and collaborative methods: approaching indigenous ecological knowledge heterogeneity

Spoon¹

2014

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Indeed, the theoretical foundation for this work predates the collaborative economy to the theorization of culture itself as the dialogical invention of subject and object (Field ; Strathern ; Tedlock and Mannheim ; Wagner ). If “culture” is understood in Wagner's terms as the “field”—the intellectual premise for research—and also as dialogical effect of anthropologists’ collaboration with their interlocutors, then, in retrospect, it has always been collaboration—the transformation of social relations into analytical relations (Strathern )—not culture, or theories of debt, that is our great disciplinary contribution…”

Section: The Collaborative Economymentioning

confidence: 99%

Market Collaboration: Finance, Culture, and Ethnography after Neoliberalism

Riles

2013

American Anthropologist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the wake of the disasters of March 2011, financial regulators and financial‐risk management experts in Japan expressed little hope that much could be done nor did they take great interest in defining possible policy interventions. This curious response to regulatory crisis coincided with a new fascination with culturalist explanations of financial markets, on the one hand, and a resort to what I term “data politics”—a politics of intensified data collection—on the other. In this article, I analyze these developments as being exemplary of a new regulatory moment characterized by a loss of faith in both free market regulation and state‐led planning, as well as in expert tools. I consider what might be the contribution of the anthropology of financial markets and ultimately argue for what I term a “collaborative economy” as a way to retool both financial and anthropological expertise. 概要 2011年3月の震災を受けて、日本の金融規制当局や金融リスク管理の専門家は、打つ手は限られているという見方を示し、政策的介入の可能性の提案についても、あまり強い関心を示さなかった。規制における危機に対するこうした興味深い反応は、一方では金融市場に関する文化的理解に対する新たな関心の高まりと、もう一方では本稿で「データ政治 (data politics)」と呼ぶ、集中的なデータ収集をめぐる政治への流れと、重なる側面がある。こうした展開は、規制の新しい形の典型例であり、その背景には、自由市場における規制や国家主導の政策に対する失望感や、専門家の技術に対する諦めがある。本稿は、金融市場に関する文化人類学的研究がもたらす貢献について考察し、本稿で「共同経済 (collaborative economy)」と呼ぶ新しい経済の形を通して、金融および文化人類学の双方における専門知識の再編を提唱する。[「大きすぎてつぶせない」、リスク、債権、金融、コラボレーション、日本]

show abstract

“…An ethnography that makes collaboration an explicit and deliberate part of both fieldwork and the broader processes of research, interpretation, and writing is not just about producing more dialogically centered and multivocal texts (Clifford and Marcus 1986). Because it also seeks to encourage more ethically responsible practices, verifications of findings, and reciprocal analysis—among a great many other things (see, e.g., Field 2008)—collaborative ethnographic projects have potential to destabilize and extend academically situated discourses beyond conventional boundaries (see Rappaport 2008), and push toward more publicly (and even more locally) accessible scholarship (see Lassiter 2005b). Importantly, as in participatory action research (see, e.g., Wali 2006), such “collaborative engagements” have the potential to extend the purposes and processes of collaboratively based researches into collaboratively based actions or activisms.…”

Section: Collaborative Ethnography As Collaborative Engagement: On Comentioning

confidence: 99%

From Collaborative Ethnography to Collaborative Pedagogy: Reflections on the Other Side of Middletown Project and Community–University Research Partnerships

Campbell

Lassiter

2010

Anthropology & Edu Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Here we reflect on the collaborative research, engagement, and pedagogical relationships and processes that gave rise to The Other Side of Middletown, a collaborative ethnography written by a team of faculty, students, and community participants. We offer background on the project; discuss how collaborative researches engendered community-based engagements and collaborative pedagogies; and conclude by suggesting that those collaborative pedagogies that work between communities and universities both expand and complicate recent calls for democratic civic engagement. [collaborative ethnography, participatory research, collaborative pedagogy, community-university partnerships, democratic civic engagement]In 2003, we had the unique and unusual opportunity to cofacilitate a team of faculty, students, and community members in a collaborative ethnographic partnership. Our group took up the limited treatment of African American experience in Robert and Helen Lynd's well-known works on Muncie, famously dubbed "Middletown" (see Lynd and Lynd 1929, 1937), and in the Middletown literature that had materialized since then. The project was designed as a collaborative ethnography, in which student teams worked alongside teams of community advisors to research and write the text's individual chapters. Faculty and project organizers worked with these student-advisor teams to facilitate larger community engagements, including community forums in which groups of community consultants responded to, discussed, and participated in the shaping and reshaping of the collaborative research and writing as it unfolded. Several collectively produced artifacts came out of this work, including The Other Side of Middletown (Lassiter et al. 2004).There was, of course, much more to our collaboration. We detail processes and products in The Other Side of Middletown, and elsewhere describe the broader history and practice in which such kinds of collaborative ethnography are situated (see, e.g., Lassiter and Campbell 2010). In this article, we explore one aspect of our collective experience: the relationship of collaborative ethnography to modes of collaborative engagement and, especially, collaborative pedagogies-processes by which faculty, students, and members of local communities work as an enlarged community of colearners, coresearchers, and, ultimately, cocitizens.Although several years have passed since we finished the project, it looms large as one of the most transformative experiences we have had in our careers as ethnographers, as teacher-scholars, and as community development workers. We thus want to reflect here on the project, the text, and, most especially, the larger potentials of a collaborative ethnographic pedagogy. We begin with background for the Other Side of Middletown project;

show abstract

"Side by Side or Facing One Another": Writing and Collaborative Ethnography in Comparative Perspective

Cited by 16 publications

References 12 publications

Quantitative, qualitative, and collaborative methods: approaching indigenous ecological knowledge heterogeneity

Quantitative, qualitative, and collaborative methods: approaching indigenous ecological knowledge heterogeneity

Market Collaboration: Finance, Culture, and Ethnography after Neoliberalism

From Collaborative Ethnography to Collaborative Pedagogy: Reflections on the Other Side of Middletown Project and Community–University Research Partnerships

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About