Rethinking power and reciprocity in the "Field"

0Citations
Citations of this article
2Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

This chapter explores how the distinction(s) implied by the term "fieldwork'", gives rise to false and misleading dichotomies that are not so useful to any decolonial migration praxis that tries to undo the bureaucratic damage of hegemonic ideas about research ethics. It argues that the dichotomies of "home" and the "field" conjured by this term negate an intermediate space between these two extremes in which social relationships, kinship ties and social value define the possible extent of the risk of migration research to further marginalise or protect migrants. The opposing possibilities arise from the interaction of these social attributes to the extent that they mediate a definition of ethical responsibility that is meaningful in particular contexts. This lends, in turn, a novel meaning to power and reciprocity that necessitates a paradigm shift in the kinds of ethics procedures as well as considerations in partnerships on migration studies that presume that power relationships are evened out when research is undertaken by African researchers working in African academic institutions.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Vanyoro, K. (2023). Rethinking power and reciprocity in the “Field.” In The Palgrave Handbook of South-South Migration and Inequality (pp. 105–123). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-39814-8_6

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free