Experiences and ethics of mindful reciprocity while conducting research in Sub-Saharan Africa

Abstract

Conducting research in much of the Global South often involves engagement with communities, groups and even field staff living and working in constrained material conditions. As researchers from the USA with field experience in East Africa, we consider in this paper various aspects of reciprocity, mutual benefit and ethical engagement between researcher, respondents, host communities, and staff. With a focus on three stakeholder groups, we explore the challenges and rewards of implementing an ethical exchange of information, gifts and mentorship as well as the nuances of negotiating and articulating responsibilities and expectations. We offer general guidance informed by personal experiences to elucidate these lessons, their impacts on the outcomes of the research, and the implicit ethics behind mindful reciprocity as academics. IntroductionWhile literature on the ethics of research is on the rise, this work tends to focus on the ethical obligations of researchers to participants during data collection and often neglects the ethical considerations of the researcher's presence in the field, of field staff and their relationship with participants, and responsibilities to participants after data collection. This article considers a thoughtful and compassionate sympatric relationship (hereafter mindful reciprocity) between the researcher, study communities and field staff. The intent is to advance our attentiveness to power imbalances that influence the quality of the data we collect and may serve as an opportunity for meaningful and beneficial exchange, as others have suggested (Massey, 2004;Robinson, 1999).We begin the paper with a discussion of 'mindful hiring' and the nuances of negotiating and articulating responsibilities and expectations. This requires attention to hierarchies of power in locations with staggering unemployment and our place within that system. Secondly, host communities are critical stakeholders in the processes of research. We share ways field staff 'gave back' to communities from our own experiences in the field. We close the paper by discussing the ethical and emotional challenges of working directly with respondents. The intensity of these challenges is evidenced through the profound relationships that emerge between both researchers and staff with respondents. Throughout, we provide examples of our own experience. In particular we explore how the practice of mindful reciprocity

Critical feminist reflexivity and the politics of whiteness in the ‘field’

“…Vibrant feminist geographic scholarship has enriched methodological thinking further, including recent work published in this journal (Chattopadhyay 2013;Nagar 2013;Fisher 2014;Kohl and McCutcheon, forthcoming). Feminist geographers working in the global south have valuably contributed to these debates, focusing on cultural and class-based difference and the uncomfortable victim/savior binary produced through (D)development discourse and practice (Rankin 2003;Butz and Besio 2004;Pearson and Paige 2012). In connection, some feminist geographers have situated contemporary research in a history of empire, advocating for postcolonial methodologies to redress lingering asymmetries of power (Besio 2003(Besio , 2010Robinson 2003;Raghuram and Madge 2006).…”

Laying the Groundwork: A Practical Guide for Ethical Research with Indigenous Communities

“…Relational accountability acknowledges the importance of relationships, as they exist through all aspects of the research, thereby requiring that researchers pay extra attention to these relationships throughout the entire process (see Kovach, 2009;Tobias et al, 2013;Wilson, 2008). Mindful reciprocity challenges researchers to participate in thoughtful and compassionate relationships with community collaborators (see Pearson & Paige, 2012;Tobias et al, 2013). Similarly, Marsh and colleagues have proposed six core principles of ethical health research with Indigenous communities (Marsh, Cote-Meek, Toulouse, Najavits, & Young, 2015), which include open and honest communication, inclusion, community connectedness, and the involvement of Elders, the Aboriginal advisory group, and the research committee.…”

Should I stay or should I go? Incorporating a commitment to fieldwork throughout an academic career

“…For many of us, and others who have written for this journal, Chambers' positive ideal-type reflects our trajectories in the field: starting out as Peace Corps volunteers (as two of us were) or PhD students conducting dissertation research (as all four of us did), we tend to spend less and less time on fieldwork as our careers and personal lives progress (see also Newhouse, 2012;Pearson & Paige, 2012). But such outcomes are neither linear nor deterministic.…”

“…The dominant view among these writers is that career advancement leads one away from the outward and downward orientation: one in which a researcher or practitioner is physically based in the field, in a role and with tasks that prioritize local needs and realities over those of outside organizations or institutions. By taking this opportunity to reflect on some of the opportunities and risks that we have faced as scholars of agricultural change in sub-Saharan Africa, we contribute to a literature that wrestles with the ethics and power dynamics embedded within fieldwork (Chambers, 1997;Fox, 2004;Pearson & Paige, 2012). In addition, we hope to personalize such conversations by reflecting on how a commitment to qualitative research methods and fieldwork can remain constant and dynamic, even amid changing professional and contextual demands.…”