At a recent
lunch seminar in our department, we, (Martina Caretta, Natasha Webster, and Brian Kuns) prepared a presentation
about how we do fieldwork abroad in our department, with the intent of having a
self-critical dialogue with colleagues. Ethnographically flavored fieldwork is
an important tool in the Human Geography method tool kit, though it certainly is not
as prevalent in Human Geography as in Anthropology, and it is even less
reflected upon in Human Geography than it is in Anthropology. Fully a third of
current and former PhD students in our department (going back 16 years) have
done fieldwork outside Sweden. If you count those who have done extended
fieldwork inside Sweden, one can only come to the conclusion that we are an
empirical department, and indeed this is one of our strengths. But we have not
been so good in recent years in reflecting on this experience. The three of us,
then, sent out a questionnaire to current and former PhD students in our
department who have done field work abroad asking them to reflect on our
fieldwork experiences.
The
responses were interesting, to say the least, and we identified the following
themes to focus on: (1) how much time we spend in the field and why; (2) what
are the obstacles and challenges we meet while in the field and; (3) what
issues or challenges end up coming home with us from the field. A brief summary
of these points is given in the following bullets:
·
On
average we spend half a year doing field work abroad with some spending a year
and others spending about a month. The standard in Anthropology is of course
one year in the field, which anthropologists say is needed to achieve the kind
of ‘thick description’ of social relations they aspire to. Our research is not
necessarily as inductive as Anthropology tends to be so we do not need to spend
as much time in the field – at least that is what Human Geographers would cite
as one reason why we do not (need to) spend a year in the field. At the same
time, we tend to defer to Anthropology –as the fieldwork experts – in terms of
our training in fieldwork methods and in terms of reflecting on fieldwork in
general.
·
It
was all in the course of a “normal” fieldwork that PhD students in our
department experienced various logistical difficulties, problems with housing,
and, perhaps most important, difficulties adapting fieldwork plans to
unexpected events. In other words, it is a regular experience that fieldwork
plans do not survive first contact with reality. This could be weather related
delays, problems getting access to interview subjects, etc… Problems with
housing and logistics can be overcome, but it is more problematic to have concerns
about the data one has gathered.
·
Another
very serious issue concerned how common it was that PhD students in our
department either were witness to unpleasant events and/or were concerned about
their own safety at one point or another. Fieldwork still tends to be seen as
the Male solo adventure, and the culture in our department (and most likely not
just here) is to remain silent about these issues.
The
discussion was very interesting and we got a lot of interesting comments from
colleagues. Among other things we do not in fact want to reify notions of the
“brave, adventurous geographer” venturing far abroad. Important fieldwork
happens here in Sweden and can entail some of the same problems and risks.
In any case
we will be working further on these questions so we hope to report more about
this in the near future.
