PDF issue available for purchase
Print issue available for purchase
ISSN: 0967-201X (print) • ISSN: 1752-2285 (online) • 3 issues per year
Many anthropologists will be required to gain ethics approval in order to begin their research. Prior to commencing, though, it is not always possible to predict what will happen in the field, or how you as the researcher will react, much less to incorporate all possible safeguards in an ethics application. My research was conducted at a special education needs college with the aim of discovering the sense of self of students with intellectual disabilities. I underwent a lengthy and complicated ethics approval process and gained associated external approvals. As my research evolved in the field, I became interested in strands of enquiry that without care could have potentially breached my ethics guidelines. New questions could suggest to staff that I was doing something other than stipulated in their consent documents. The ethics approval process can help refine the research methodology and analysis; however, it cannot prepare us for the moral conundrums that arise in the field.
In this article, we describe experiences with dialogue evenings within a research collaboration on long-term care and dementia in the Netherlands. What started as a conventional process of ‘reporting back’ to interlocutors transformed over the course of two years into learning and knowing together. We argue that learning took place in three different articulations. First, participants learnt to expand their notion of knowledge. Second, they learnt to relate differently to each other and, therewith, to dementia. And third, participants learnt how to generate knowledge with each other. We further argue that these processes did not happen continuously, but in moments. We suggest that a framework of collaborative moments can be helpful for research projects that are not set up collaboratively from the start. Furthermore, we point to the work required to facilitate these moments.
While anthropology students may receive general instruction in the debates and critiques surrounding public and/or engaged anthropology, attention to the growing intersection between participatory action research (PAR) and anthropology is often overlooked. I contend that to think of PAR as a complementary approach to conventional anthropological fieldwork (i.e. interviews, participation observation, and focus groups) is problematic in that it runs counterintuitive to the former's transformative logic. Drawing from my work co-leading a radio-based partnership project with urban Inuit organisations in Montreal and Ottawa, I repurpose Sol Tax's ‘action anthropology’ to discuss an attitudinal shift that our team's use of PAR has provoked, reconceptualising the aims and practice of our ethnographic enquiry in the process. I consider the effects of this shift for anthropological training and pedagogy in PAR projects and propose the use of ‘training-in-character’ as an organising principle for the supervision of student research.
This article presents an analysis of different aspects of the migration process of a large group of people in Argentina, who originally come from the rural uplands (Jujuy Province) but who currently dwell in a lowlands peri-urban area (Buenos Aires Metropolitan Area). In particular, it presents some of the results of a long-term research project on food practices deployed in both geographical zones, which are united by a considerable migrant flow that intensified during the last three decades. From an anthropological perspective, it analyses the features of the nutritional transition of this social group regard to changes in its food knowledge and cultural heritage. It suggests that this qualitative factor can contribute to a better understanding of the health issues that have been faced by this group.