Negotiating the responsibilities of collaborative undergraduate fieldcourses

Abstract

Undergraduate fieldcourses to destinations in the global South have received much critical scholarly and pedagogic attention. This article reflects on a third‐year Geography fieldcourse to Kenya, which aimed to collaborate with local partners in providing an immersive and co‐constitutive learning environment that transcended the politics of knowledge production defining the global South as a distanciated object of study. We shape our reflections on this fieldcourse through a conceptualisation of responsibility as a relational, inter‐subjective achievement borne out of negotiation and encounter. Focusing in particular on the trade‐offs that are required when taking into account different staff, students and partner organisations' positionalities, expectations and experiences, we argue that scholarship concerning the responsibilities of geographers' engagements with the global South needs to account for the emotional, embodied and affective challenges inherent in practising collaborative academic endeavour.

The ethics of (not) giving back

“…Arguments to ‘decolonise’ academic geography are well‐established among feminist, post‐colonial and de‐colonial scholars (see Griffiths, ; Wesner et al., ). These debates identify the need to overcome constructions of ‘the field’ – particularly within research relating to the global south – as being ‘a spatially and temporally discrete space’ occupied by ‘distanciated “objects” of research’ (Bhakta et al., , p. 284). These interventions have responded to the extractive tendencies – and histories – of research and knowledge production systems which have failed to treat communities respectfully, and where data have been ‘mined’ and exploited for ‘westernised theorising, intellectual interest and career advancement’ (Fisher, , p. 458; Madge, ; Robbins, ).…”

“…These interventions have responded to the extractive tendencies – and histories – of research and knowledge production systems which have failed to treat communities respectfully, and where data have been ‘mined’ and exploited for ‘westernised theorising, intellectual interest and career advancement’ (Fisher, , p. 458; Madge, ; Robbins, ). Recent contributions have gone further, arguing that research should not only avoid exploiting ‘other’ communities but should be collaborative, self‐reflexive of inscriptions of privilege, and contribute to liberatory projects (Bhakta et al., ; Fisher, ; Wesner et al., , p. 1).…”

“…A key concern for human geography fieldclass trips to the global south is to avoid these activities being a form of development tourism, a ‘safari of the poor’, with ‘rich outsiders looking at people and places in poor countries as objects and going away again without generally making meaningful direct contributions to poverty alleviation or development’ (Robson, , p. 337). Calls have followed for fieldclasses to be developed in collaboration with local communities to ensure local developmental benefits (Bhakta et al., ; Fisher, ). More generally, there is a growing demand for fieldclasses to ‘give back’.…”

“…As Bhakta et al. argue, fieldclasses not only facilitate cognitive learning but also provide students with an opportunity to ‘understand, interpersonally, the perspectives of those experiencing particular development challenges, rather than these being presented as abstract distanciated objects of learning and study’ (2015, p. 282). Such considerations relate to the importance of developing empathy and overcoming – or rejecting – processes of othering to provide the foundations for relationships and encounters based on mutual respect and self‐reflexivity which allow students to recognise and understand asymmetries of power and privilege that imbue fieldwork encounters.…”

“…Foundational to such efforts towards ensuring respectful and ethical interactions with community members is not only participation in local political rituals and processes (such as meeting with local community leaders before entering a field site) but also ensuring students understand the contextual importance, rationale and purpose of such processes (see Bhakta et al., ). In addition, such concerns should encompass concerns relating to the provision of appropriate financial compensation for time and services, as well as through appropriate engagements with and contributions to local economic circuits (be this through employing local guides, buying local produce and products, or paying for interviews).…”