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.
CITATION STYLE
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
Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.