The "us" and "them" in research: can we get around it?
It is mid-day, Friday. The conference is well underway and most venues are packed to capacity. I have found myself seated on the floor in the back corner of room 210, along with many other delegates. We are all straining in our efforts to not miss a moment in the current plenary session, "New Feminist Poststructural Analytics and Practices." Each presenter makes statements that generate a series of head nods and murmurs of agreement amongst the attending crowd. Laurel Richardson is speaking, explaining the notion of altered books, when she says "The boundaries that bind us". Her presentation connects directly with that question I, and so many of my colleagues, are frequently confronted by: "othering".
In spite of the continued debate, statements such as "you speak of 'us'and 'them'", "you draw a distinction between the researcher and the participant", "why do you make these distinctions?", and "how do you address these distinctions in your work?" continue to be heard at various events, including QI2006. This theme continued to emerge with regards to fieldwork as well as issues related to ethics, research agendas and publications.
This also begs the question, should we as researchers strive to eliminate this discourse of "us and them", removing the boundaries that may exist between the research community and those with whom research is conducted,especially if we are working with communities of which we ourselves are not of members? As controversial as it sounds, I am then left with the concern: "Should we be attempting to remove the divide?" Ethically, can we really transgress boundaries entrenched in power structures, for example, of the north and south?Does the maintenance of marginalization and its associated stereotypes not lie in the discourse we attach to our own discussions about the people with whom we conduct research? By removing the "us and them" divide, do we not find ourselves treading in the contentious realm of homogenization that fails to recognize the uniqueness of individual communities around the globe, as well as their personal characteristics, resources and needs?
Our mere presence in certain communities as researchers implies our privilege. And the reality is that even if we, as researchers were to spend the remainder of our professional lives working with certain communities, we will never be a part of those communities, we will forever remain outsiders to their experiences. Our education and salaried positions ensure that. In short, we would never have had to survive the harsh realities that so many research participants are confronted with daily. Would it then not be farcical,pretentious and even insulting to the experiences of those with whom we do research to not recognize the boundaries between us? Understanding "their"experiences means taking responsibility for "our" own privileges.
Listening to Patti Lather, I am struck by her use of Gayatri Spivak's words,encouraging us to be empirical without being blind to either homogenization or marginalization. The wisdom of yin and yang I suppose, where we balance the realities of "others" that keep us different, against the urge to judge those differences against a yardstick comprised of our own, often western,realities, where others will be "found wanting" (Banks, 1989, p. 66;Smith, 1999). Patti Lather continues, talking of Eve Sedgewick's proposal to engage with a generous model of critical theory that is "giving,pleasurable, generous and compassionate" as opposed to that "paranoid model" which is so often "exposing, suspicious and disenchanted". This ties in with an acknowledgement of "difference" that celebrates this "difference" rather than judging it, where difference is often used as a means of maintaining and often enhancing marginalization. As Patti Lather concludes, we should be "doing difference differently" in our research. Banks (1998, p. 9) too, argues that:
... new ethnographic approaches are historically grounded and politically aware, recognizing the colonial or neo-colonial underpinnings of the relationship between anthropologist and anthropological subject, recognizing the agency of the anthropological subject and their right as well as their ability to enter into a discourse about the construction of their lives.
Much of what we currently read and speak of involves "moving agency from the researcher to the participant", where the communities engaged in research are free to be "self-defining" (Smith, 2005, p. 86). This too was echoed at QI2006, with presenters arguing that as researchers we are so often "the bridge between the power elite and those who have little power". To me this again asks that we acknowledge and be cognizant of our positioning in this dialogue – allowing a space for marginalized voices to be heard, and to be heard by the right people in the right places. This also asks of us as researchers to explore alternative ways of conducting research that brings this voice, and the agenda it has identified, to the forefront (Liebenberg, 2005),altering the entrenched "gaze" (Smith, 2005, p. 86) of the researcher,to a conduit of knowledge development and transfer.
Although no answers were touched on at this event, and I certainly see no resolution to the debate, these discussions serve their purpose in that they continue to challenge our conduct as researchers. As a product of "the rainbow nation" I find myself balanced precariously on the north south divide. But this positioning allows me to consider the beauty of that "rainbow"or "mosaic" in contrast with the "melting pot" of other countries and communities. I am reminded of my classmate Vuyo when she stood up in class one day and stated, "If you do not acknowledge my heritage as a Black woman of Zulu descent, raised in a Xhosa community by a Methodist minister, how can you understand who I am?"
Linda LiebenbergSaint Mary's University, Halifax, Canada
