Ethnography and the Decentering of the Knowledge Agenda
This article is featured in the IMISCOE PhD Blog Series’ Special Issue on Methods (external link) (Autumn 2022).
Ethnography and the Decentering of the Knowledge Agenda
One day in Methodology class I delivered a presentation on ‘Observing Participants in their Context’, widely known as Ethnography. Like any well-meaning presenter/peddler of ideas, that wish their audience to engage with the topic of their presentation, I asked my audience whether they would consider using ethnography as a methodological tool in their study. This led to a lively open discussion. Some participants saw the act of observation as a practical skillset in conducting research, labelling it as common sense. Others viewed it as strategic tool, in learning about specific contexts, and uncovering motivation as ‘people don’t do as they say’ (Charmaz and Mitchell 2001). However, one rejected the option, on the grounds that Ethnography is plagued by the coloniser’s gaze, as for instance, early anthropology is. This is shown through the antiquated ethnographic accounts of systemic record keeping, so these ‘new’ lands and people become subjects (Pachirat 2017) to the pursuit of knowledge, and power. Empires accomplished their goals because apart from colonising places and bodies to extend their influence, it was colonising the subjects’ mind that provided a lasting outcome.
After all, knowledge production has usually aligned with the norms established by a hegemony of disciplines and institutions. We are now at a juncture where dominant worldviews are no longer the only worldviews, although like any expression of the status quo they are constructed in a way that they are harder to resist (Strega 2005). The term ‘decenter’ is an actionable concept, a transitive verb. I prefer using the term in my projects because it enables questioning and offers a non-dominant/ mainstream/ westernised/ ‘Global North’ perspective. It is a way of undoing, of ‘writing back’ (Burney 2012). But while it is a reaction to the normative coloniser, I think that the process of decentering as the best way to move forward without assuming that power is balanced in the peripheries, or subscribing to the ‘us vs them’ divide commonly used by demagogues to fashion political legitimacy. This is not always the case, as demonstrated by a resurging penchant for populist movements in both the developed and developing world (Forsdick et al. 2020; Moosavi 2020) and the rise of a post truth regime (Waisbord 2018). On the contrary, sometimes it is the practices themselves, the scholarship tradition that needs to be decolonised.
How could we decolonise ethnography, and turn it into a tool towards decentering knowledge? One way is to seek perspectives alternative to the conventional knowledge sources. By considering local scholarship and engaging with our participants as partners we open our study to nuances and localised knowledge (Takayama et al 2016; Thomas 2018). However, this is harder to practise than it reads. I have spoken with researchers in my university and beyond who work on projects that commit to the decolonisation of knowledge as part of their primary research agenda. Some recalled how tough it was to access substantial literature written by non-western, local scholars, even in their mother tongue. Another way is to engage with stakeholders in the research process through Participant Action Research (PAR). Some of us may have come across research projects that engage with non-academic collaborators: community leaders, migrant individuals, migrant groups and so on (Spitzer 2022; Tungohan et al 2015; Spitzer and Piper 2014). Encouraging our research participants’ ’voice’ is a way to enhance their engagement with the process and can be vital in a researcher’s ‘truth claims’ (Checkland and Holwell 1998). Finally, another way can be a change in the research-focus, for instance study ‘power centres’, instead of those they affect, or what ethnographers call ‘study up’ rather than ‘study down’ (Nader 1972).
How could a student from a developing country and former colony, who studies migrations, mobilities, and trans- nationalism, reconcile with this methodology?
I am still in my journey towards extending decolonisation through practice, in how I think, and how I write. I envision this process as a meaningful synthesis wherein one can transform knowledge production, through consciousness and tenacity to promote change.
In addressing the need for including more voices, more work needs to be done. One way is through one’s engagement with local scholarship and communities, although slow and incremental. Another way is committing to engage with communities, along with their local knowledge producers in establishing a sustainable relationship with sites and partners in the research process. We can contribute to enhancing both capability and confidence building in communities by using our positionalities as academics and allies of the community. We can advocate for better, diversified tools in learning about, and producing knowledge. This ambitious task can become feasible subject to the aforementioned tenacity and creativity. If that happens, knowledge can become dispersed, localised, nuanced, and richer; decentered, pluralised, and flourishing.
