I just finished reading a piece on activist research, which got me thinking back to the fieldwork that I conducted last year. Activist research is where the lines between being critical and being involved get blurred. For example, is it possible to remain a detached, passive observer in a situation? Should the researcher attempt to advocate changes that they as an outsider feel are necessary? Can a researcher take sides in an issue, and yet write about it in neutral and objective terms? If a researcher does take a stand, the credibility of the researcher as a scientist is at stake.
Last year, I was studying the power dynamics in villages in North Karnataka. While in conversation with the high caste farmer (who also hosted me), I found it difficult to digest some of his views such as that people from a lower caste have less intelligence, they do not understand 'important' things, and it's better to leave them alone than include them in dialogues because they do not have anything important to contribute. I tried to just listen to this argument, but could not resist from pointing out that as the lower castes have never been given a chance, how could they even contribute to any dialogue in the village? However, this was me as an outsider aligning myself with the marginalized. This then reflected in all my dealings with the people in that village. I tried to distance myself from any biases that I may possess, but I could not but be astounded at the extent of subordination that people from the lower castes and the lower classes have to face.
As this farmer became aware about my views about the marginalized, he kept directing me to the rich and large farmers. He said there is no use talking to the lower castes, as they do not know the answers to the questions you are asking. The point was that I was not seeking answers. I needed to know whether the marginalized are aware, whether they know what was happening around them, did they seek a platform where they could talk freely without feeling constrained under the eyes of the powerful people of the village.
At one meeting with just the landless women of the village, the anger and the resentment of the women electrified the air. They spoke about exploitation at the hands of the large farmers who did not pay them the market rate for their labour, informal contracts of labour that saw them put in long working hours with meagre compensation in return. Whenever the ladies would speak about this, my host would scold them, and ask them not to trouble me by talking about irrelevant topics.
Without realizing it myself, I had subconsciously taken sides with the marginalized. Now too, the research for my dissertation will be taking a normative stand, advocating for greater involvement and participation of the marginalized in development programs. After reading the piece on activist research, and having taken classes last quarter on the role of science, I have realized that it is very difficult to separate one's biases from research. Everyone has a view, a bias, an opinion, which is very hard to shrug off. What makes a good researcher is that one should be aware of any opinions that they might have, which could influence their research. While researchers end up taking sides, it is also necessary to critically evaluate one's position and views so that the audience knows where you are coming from.
Last year, I was studying the power dynamics in villages in North Karnataka. While in conversation with the high caste farmer (who also hosted me), I found it difficult to digest some of his views such as that people from a lower caste have less intelligence, they do not understand 'important' things, and it's better to leave them alone than include them in dialogues because they do not have anything important to contribute. I tried to just listen to this argument, but could not resist from pointing out that as the lower castes have never been given a chance, how could they even contribute to any dialogue in the village? However, this was me as an outsider aligning myself with the marginalized. This then reflected in all my dealings with the people in that village. I tried to distance myself from any biases that I may possess, but I could not but be astounded at the extent of subordination that people from the lower castes and the lower classes have to face.
As this farmer became aware about my views about the marginalized, he kept directing me to the rich and large farmers. He said there is no use talking to the lower castes, as they do not know the answers to the questions you are asking. The point was that I was not seeking answers. I needed to know whether the marginalized are aware, whether they know what was happening around them, did they seek a platform where they could talk freely without feeling constrained under the eyes of the powerful people of the village.
At one meeting with just the landless women of the village, the anger and the resentment of the women electrified the air. They spoke about exploitation at the hands of the large farmers who did not pay them the market rate for their labour, informal contracts of labour that saw them put in long working hours with meagre compensation in return. Whenever the ladies would speak about this, my host would scold them, and ask them not to trouble me by talking about irrelevant topics.
 |
| The meeting with the landless women |
