Professional Documents
Culture Documents
INTERDISCIPLINARITY:
METHODOLOGICAL
APPROACHES
http://gjss.org
Graduate Journal of Social Science June 2010, Vol. 7, Issue 1
Editors:
gjss.editors@lse.ac.uk
Copy-Editor:
Caroline Wamala, Lule University, SE
Web-Editor:
Robert Kulpa, Birkbeck College, London, UK
Financial Officer:
Lia Kinane, Lancaster Univeristy, UK
All the content and downloads are published under Creative Commons license Site Meter
Contributors 4
Book Reviews
Hilde Jakobsen
International focus group research: a handbook for
the health and social sciences, by Monique M. Hennink. 73
Agata Ignaciuk
Medicina, historia y gnero. 130 aos de investigacin feminista,
by Teresa Ortiz Gmez. 78
Franois Briatte
Ways of Knowing. Competing Methodologies in Social and Political
Research, by Jonathon W. Moses and Torbjrn Knutsen, 87
CONTRIBUTORS
Gwendolyn Beetham is a PhD candidate at the Gender Institute
(LSE), where her project seeks to unpack understandings of gen-
der equality in contemporary international development discourse.
Gwendolyn has been a contributing author to the Gender and Poverty
Handbook (Edward Elgar), The Womens Movement Today: An
Encyclopedia of Third Wave Feminism (Greenwood Press), Gender
& Development Journal (Oxfam), and a special edition editor for The
Scholar & Feminist Online. email: G.A.Beetham@lse.ac.uk
I n t e r / Tr a n s / P o s t - D i s c i p l i n a r i t y :
Explorations of Encounters Across
Disciplines
What is needed are respectful engagements with different disciplin-
ary practices, not ... portrayals that make caricatures of another dis-
cipline from some position outside it.
- Karen Barad, Meeting the Universe Halfway
ences into lessons learned that and their functions in the formation
would be valuable in embarking on of subjectivities mak[ing] visible
any project that seeks to take inter- and put[ting] into crisis the struc-
disciplinarity seriously. Among other tural links between the disciplining
aspects necessary for engagement of knowledge and larger social ar-
across disciplines, Bruusgaard et al rangements [citing Hennessy 1993:
cite the acknowledgement and ac- 12]. Similarly, Bruusgaard et als
ceptance of differences from the understanding of transdiscipinarity
outset as crucial to an interdisci- is that it transcends the traditional
plinary effort built on mutual trust boundaries of interdisciplinarity by
and respect. This trust and respect putting the humanities into a natu-
is called for by Karen Barad (see the ral, social and health sciences con-
opening quote to this editorial), and text and vice versa. And, while the
is akin to that called for by Donna authors close by noting that such
Haraway, in her concept of situated an element was not present in their
knowledges (1988) and her more own project, they agree that this is
recently- elaborated practice of dif- something that they aspire to in fu-
fraction (1997; 2008). ture cross-disciplinary interactions.
These authors are important to Working in the tradition of
mention here not only for their dedi- Haraway and other feminist sci-
cation to engaging across disciplines ence scholars (notably Londa
with mutual trust and respect, but Schiebinger), Rachel ODonnells
because they are both dedicated to essay Imperial Plants: Modern
broadening interdisciplinary work Science, Plant Classification and
beyond the traditional focus in the European Voyages of Discovery
social sciences and humanities and offers an interdisciplinary review
into the natural sciences, something of literature on botanical classifica-
that Bruusgaard et al note was lack- tion and European colonialism. In
ing in their own engagement, as all so doing, ODonnell explores the
project team members were from ways in which science, nature, and
the humanities and social sciences. gender were co-constituted during
Barad (2007: 93) offers transdis- the height of European colonialism.
ciplinarity as a possible avenue to ODonnells review makes clear
achieve a more profound interac- that, in exposing the connections
tion between disciplines, suggesting between politics and science, what
that unlike multidisciplinary or inter- is at stake is nothing less than the
disciplinary approaches, a transdis- power to create knowledge (and who
ciplinary approach does not merely has it and who does not). Further,
draw from an array of disciplines ODonnell argues that recognizing
but rather inquires into the histories such connections is not only histori-
of the organization of knowledges cally important, but critical in light of
Editorial 11
Like the members of the SSHRC York, and the other members of the
team, we hope this issue of the Spring 2010 feminist theory read-
GJSS takes us further along on our ing group of which she was a part,
voyage toward this goal. We also and whose discussions of Donna
want to acknowledge that there is Haraways and Karen Barads work
no clear path on this road, and that led to many fruitful and animated
we might not even want to move to- conversations on ways in which the
ward yet another category even hard and soft sciences can bet-
one as seemingly flexible as trans- ter intra-act with one another. Both
disciplinarity. Ultimately, however, Melissa and Gwendolyn thank the
we are eager to continue toward a London School of Economics, not
place where all interactions across only for being a wonderful institution-
disciplines have as their base mu- al home, but for offering institutional
tual trust and respect. We open this support for the journal by hosting
issue, then, with the words of Gloria the editorial email account and pro-
Anzalda, one border-crosser who viding many other small but impor-
has inspired us both: tant day-to-day necessities. Last,
but certainly not least, we thank our
Caminante, no hay puentes, former editor, Mia Liinason for her
se hacen puentes al andar. guidance during our initial time as
editors here at the GJSS. We are
(Voyager, there are no inspired by the work of Mia and the
bridges, one builds them as other GJSS members who have
one walks). come before us and we hope that
we can continue on in the tradition
Acknowledgements that has made the GJSS a home
for graduate students who seek to
We would like to thank both the critically engage with inter/trans (or
editorial board and the reviewers. post!) disciplinary methodological
We are indebted to the entire GJSS inquiry in the social sciences. Any
Editorial team for their commitment, editorial mistakes are ours alone.
dedication and hard work. We also
offer enormous gratitude to the Gwendolyn Beetham, New York
anonymous student reviewers and Melissa Fernndez, London
academic reviewers, who offer their May 2010
time and energy to help ensure that
articles submitted to the GJSS are
reviewed to the highest standard.
Gwendolyn would like to acknowl-
edge Max Tremblay, at the New
School for Social Research in New
Editorial 13
References
Marina Franchi
Key Words: interdisciplinarity, gender studies, Bologna process, Higher
Education, research, GJSS
point at which the concept of inter- cally, used both by critical scholars
disciplinarity became relevant both and neo-liberal inspired European
for their work and for their definition Higher Education Reforms. Hence,
as scholars. Academia operated as one could indeed argue that inter-
both the site in which one shapes and transdisciplinarity function like
her own expertise, and where one magical signs (Katie King 1994),
meets the criticism to a given set of that is, as empty signifiers meaning
practices. whatever their users want them to
From the beginning, the panel mean. (Hark 2007). The panellists
tried to unpack the buzz word of made clear how the neo-liberal defi-
interdisciplinarity, a term not con- nitions and aims produced through
fined within methodology chapters the Higher Education policy debates
but which, as Liinason has previ- hugely contrast with the definitions
ously pointed out, has become a and practices of interdisciplinarity
buzz-word in the current higher that flourished within Queer Studies
education policies of the European or Postcolonial studies.
Union (Liinason, 2009: 52). The When the discussion moved to
panel provided the audience with an the core of the topic: the field of
interesting panoramic view of how Gender Studies, the audience was
interdisciplinarity became valued presented with another paradox of
within the European Union policy- interdisciplinarity. The panel provid-
making process. Focusing on the ed insightful examples of practicing
Bologna process of harmonization interdisciplinary research, while at
of higher education in Europe, they the same time discussing the para-
discussed how different countries doxical position of disciplining a field
coped with the request for interdis- of research and education we have
ciplinarity that the European Union proudly dubbed inherently interdis-
put forward. During this process, the ciplinary (Holm 2003). In what I per-
buzz word became a necessary sonally consider the most appealing
skill for maintaining a competitive part of an utterly intriguing talk, the
position in the research market2. focus on Gender Studies led to a in-
After an overview of the policy teresting reading both on the prac-
use of interdisciplinarity, Maria do tices of the field, and on the narra-
Mar Pereira invited the panel to tives that permeate those practices.
think through interdisciplinarity as The speakers explained that, in the
a paradox. As described by Sabine last few decades, Gender Studies -
Hark in Magical Sign: On the Politics the discipline that used to occupy a
of Inter- and Transdisciplinarity space within various departments,
(published in the above mentioned and hence was inherently interdis-
issue of GJSS), the magical sign ciplinary- acquired a physical in-
of interdisciplinarity is, paradoxi- dependent status through the con-
16 GJSS Vol 7, Issue 1
As a graduate student, I have of- your beliefs about the nature of so-
ten been advised to choose a meth- ciety and the ways in which it can be
od that is able to tackle the research known. But acknowledging this is of-
question I am asking. Yet, this choice ten at odds with the regime of truth
is something that reaches into the (Foucault 1977/1980b, 1997/1995)
assumptions about reality that we of our modern world that equates
bring to our work (Crotty 1998, 2). truth with science. In this equation,
In other words, this choice is not the latter stands for rational and rig-
only a simple, rational act of match- orous testing that can explain the
ing your research question to the nature of things (Fay 1992; Hamilton
ways in which you will investigate 1992; Hollis 2002). To the extent that
it. It also involves your worldview, this regime of truth has become part
Graduate Journal of Social Sicence June 2010, Vol. 7, Issue 1
2010 by Graduate Journal of Social Science. All Rights Reserved. ISSN: 1572-3763
Dumitrica: Choosing Methods, Negotiating Legitimacy 19
phys relative newness. While a his- and borrow from a variety of theo-
toriography of the method remains retical frameworks to legitimize their
to be written, autoethnography has choice of method and to frame their
been established as an academic approach to the research problemat-
method primarily through the work ic. Most importantly however, these
of Carolyn Ellis and Art Bochner in scholars perform the legitimacy of
the early 1990s (Anderson 2006; the method, by submitting their work
see also Ellis 2004)2. Although to peer-review processes and pub-
now autoethnographers often draw lishing it in academic journals and
from feminist epistemologies (e.g. books (Bochner 2002; Denzin 2006;
Code 1991; Collins 1990; Haraway Ellis 1993, 1997, 1998, 2004; Holt
1988; Harding 1991), postcolonial 2002; Richardson 2002; Sparkes
theories (e.g. Bhabha 1994; Spivak 2000, 2002). In this process, auto-
1999; for a discussion of autobiog- ethnographys contested position
raphy and postcolonial theory, see presents an opportunity to inquire
Huddart 2008), sociology of illness into the power dynamics through
(e.g. Frank 1991, 2004) and the which the academic norm becomes
cultural turn in anthropology (e.g. constructed and perpetuated.
Geertz 1983; Clifford and Marcus In this paper, I offer a personal
1986), Ellis and Bochner were locat- account of what the choice of au-
ed within the field of sociology and toethnography as a method may
thought of autoethnography in the look like from the point of view of
context of symbolic interactionism a doctoral student. My own take to
(see Anderson 2006; Ellis 2004). the method cannot be divorced from
The history of autoethnography is both the politics of the method3
also intrinsically connected to meth- (Frank 1983; Clifford and Marchs
odological debates in anthropology 1986; Eisner 1988; Gitlin et al.
and to the use of personal narra- 1989) and my own position within
tives in traditional social science the academic system. Informed
(particularly anthropology and soci- by Foucaults discussion of power,
ology); the word autoethnography discourse and authority (Foucault
was coined by an anthropologist, 1966/1970, 1972, 1976/1980,
while the term autobiography was 1977/1980, 1977/1995), I begin by
used in literary studies to designate asking what is autoethnography
a specific writing genre (Ellis 2004). and why is it such a contested meth-
Thus, it is fair to say that autoeth- od?, only to realize that this ques-
nographers reclaim historical origins tion should be situated within a larg-
that often disregard (and thus chal- er context of inquiry which includes
lenge) disciplinary boundaries. This asking: what constitutes academic
trend continues, as autoethnogra- knowledge; who grants it legitimacy;
phers cross disciplinary boundaries and how am I, as a student, relating
Dumitrica: Choosing Methods, Negotiating Legitimacy 21
leads to glossing over the particu- part follows some of the rules of
larities of methodological debates academic writing, such as resting
in specific disciplines. Yet, I do not a case upon prior academic litera-
think this undermines the validity ture or the citation style. Where tra-
of this autoethnographic exercise: ditional academic writing insists on
the major contemporary theoreti- the separation of the author/ text,
cal and epistemological debates logical sequencing and (linear) flow
in social theory have a meta-disci- of the argument, a metalogue is a
plinary aspect (e.g. Delanty 2000)5. personal story where the argument
As already indicated, the historical does not necessarily follow a well-
contexts reclaimed by autoethnog- rehearsed path (from premises to
raphers, as well as the use of au- conclusions). Its role is to reveal
toethnography has always involved the complexity of the problematic,
such meta-disciplinary theories and provoking readers to make sense
epistemological debates. This does of it through their own frames. This
not preclude the fact that autoethno- is by no means something new; for
graphic projects are employed and instance, post-modernism has chal-
legitimized within the context of spe- lenged the traditional author/ reader
cific disciplines6. positions, arguing for the need to
While this paper deals with the develop a new aesthetic of aca-
networks of power within which I demic writing that takes all texts as
find myself as a doctoral student, oriented by the intentions and con-
it also represents an act of direct texts of its producers and readers
engagement with them. After all, I (e.g. Hutcheon 1983).
am writing a paper for the purpose By taking this form, the paper al-
of publishing it within an academic lows me to follow more closely my
journal and my ability to do so comes thinking flow, which often times has
from being part of this expert sys- a tree-like structure simultaneous-
tem (Giddens 1990). For this rea- ly branching in various directions.
son, the paper takes the form of a It also allows me to bring forward
metalogue, which is a conversation the values that accompany spe-
about some problematic subject cific ideas, exposing the feelings,
(Bateson 1972, 1) in which both the questions and uncertainties brought
topic and the form invite the writer along by the act of choosing a suit-
and the reader to navigate between able method. This personal struggle
layers of understanding and order. is an often- ignored aspect in aca-
As a submission to a peer-reviewed demic publications on methods7.
journal, I also had to compromise Yet, the selection of a method re-
on the metalogue: although part of mains an important mechanism of
the paper is written in a nonconven- situating oneself within particular
tional, dialogical format, the other schools of thoughts and disciplines.
Dumitrica: Choosing Methods, Negotiating Legitimacy 23
The metalogue is thus able to con- ally work for me, because my own
textualize a reflection about au- research is driven by my personal
toethnography within a view from background. I should acknowledge
below of the politics of the method that, shoudnt I? My project deals
(Clifford and Marcus 1986; Eisner with identity issues. Doesnt it seem
1988; Frank 1982; Gitlin et al. 1989) strange to talk about identity as if
and the specific emotional space its something that the researcher
that accompanies such politics. The can study, without her own identity
choice and understanding of the to come under microscope? Many
method, together with the emotions autoethnographic projects deal
that accompany these processes, with identity questions, precisely
are means by which we insert our- because this method gives the re-
selves with the complex networks of searcher an avenue to question how
power that make up the social world their own identity comes into play
in which we exist. in the research process and then
connect this to wider social struc-
*** tures (Ellis 1998; Richardson 2000;
Student: I have finally found a Sparkes 2000, 2002; Stapleton and
method for my dissertation that re- Wilson 2004).
ally suits me. I would like to do an I read this autoethnographic piece
autoethnography! about Asian women who married
US servicemen after the Second
Supervisor: Autoethnography? World War and came to live in the
Let me remind you that you will US. Initially, the researcher wanted
present this work to a defense com- to map the problems these women
mittee. You need to be cautious of encountered in the US. But she was
such highly subjective methods... also the daughter of one of them, so
they may be inspirational, but they she was afraid that her own identity
are hard to defend. Besides, if you would bias her research. Her fear
want to become a scholar, you have made her overlook[] the pos-
to learn to distance yourself from sibilities for exploring what a more
your own beliefs. With an autoeth- self-reflexive ethnographic rep-
nography, you can only talk about resentation might look like one
your own beliefs, your own views. based upon a lifetime of talk story
And thats the problem right there: with [her] mother and her circle of
if its about you, it cannot be empiri- friends. (Creef 2002, 80). In the
cally falsifiable (Popper 1965). end, she did an autoethnographic
project where her own life became
Student: Why is it such a bad the lens through which the stories
thing if I am the object of my own of these women were linked to the
inquiry? Autoethnography would re- wider social structures in which they
24 GJSS Vol 7, Issue 1
lived. It was this personal lens that Not to mention that it will be very
allowed her to tell the story of how hard to get any funding for such a
identity and race feel like within project. Grant-giving agencies want
those structures. This also allowed to see reliable results, that can be
her to question her own relation, as extended and used. You have to
both a researcher and a daughter, be more strategic here and think in
to the subjects of her research. She terms of your final goals: to write a
did not produce yet another account defendable dissertation that will get
where identity was reduced to num- you what you need for now, the doc-
bers and cases to be examined. toral title.
With her mother becoming her
most willing chief informant, both Student: I know, I do want to write
author and readers are prompted a good thesis. But I feel I owe it to my-
to question their own ethics of re- self to stay true to who I am and how
searching and consuming the oth- I insert myself in my own research,
er. As she narrated identity and because to know an object without
race, we, as readers, re-construct- considering the way [I] participate in
ed and lived them through her. The the production of that knowledge
personal lens forced her to question (Gitlin et al 1989, 245) seems a bit
the ways in which writing as an out- unfair to me8. I do not want to write
side researcher transformed these a thesis fearing the committee wont
women into cases and objects of like it. I want to write a thesis that
research, further denying them their I feel brings something new, and
individuality and agency. most importantly, addresses so-
cial inequality and structural op-
Supervisor: Well, it seems like pression. I am motivated by strong
an interesting story. But this is also feelings here. I start from a political
the source of the problem: it sounds position, and it seems only fair to
more like a story and less like a acknowledge it and incorporate it in
piece of research. Unless autoeth- a reflexive manner in my research,
nographers are part of your commit- dont you think? Why is it that if its
tee, this may get you in trouble. The a personal story, it is suddenly less
committee members may not share defendable? What makes a thesis
your enthusiasm for this method. defendable anyway? Just because
What will you do when they will ask you follow the standard research
about the generalizability of your re- steps it doesnt mean your personal
sults? What can you do to defend story is not inserted into the whole
a project where the method through research project. Its not as easy as
which your results are reached is coming up with a research question
under question? No, I do not think that can be investigated, defining its
autoethnography is a good idea. terms and building a methodological
Dumitrica: Choosing Methods, Negotiating Legitimacy 25
design that can address the ques- sat on any committee evaluating an
tion; making sure the design is repli- autoethnography. Yet, in my experi-
cable to ensure results are reliable. ence, the method is one of the most
Then, crafting a clever argument as scrutinized aspects of your research
to why only this research design re- project. You may position yourself
ally works for my specific question as a qualitative researcher, but you
(hence, why others do not work). are still doing a research project and
And finally, doing the research and you are still writing an academic dis-
presenting the findings in a concise sertation. A thesis where you are
and clear manner, by connecting both the author and the object of in-
them to the theory I have used (Iowa quiry seems self-indulgent (Sparkes
State University n/a). As long as the 2002). It comes into conflict with
method is rigurous, the conclusions some of the most entrenched val-
are defendable! ues of academic work: the ability
I am a qualitative researcher to arrive at conclusions by means
and I am espousing a particular of a rational argument that can be
political stance. I think this is how I explained and then tested by logi-
can defend the method if the com- cal means. Autoethnography may
mittee and I do not see eye to eye be a qualitative research method,
on the legitimacy of this method9. but it remains contested even with-
Autoethnography is only another in (qualitative) ethnography (see
form of the reformist movement in Anderson 2006; Atkinson 2006).
social science research introduced Ethnography is in fact a good ex-
by qualitative research from the ample here. Ethnographic accounts
1970s on (Denzin and Lincoln 2002). existed before the method itself be-
If I position myself firmly within this came accepted as scientific. But
paradigm and within a constructivist scholars persuaded the academic
epistemology, then shouldnt this be communities that ethnography can
enough to make a strong case for be done in a scientific manner if it
my choice of method? uses narrative realism. To the extent
that a description remained true to
Supervisor: There is a differ- what people were doing, then eth-
ence between making a strong case nography was a reliable and sci-
for your method and the accep- entific method. Thus, the earlier
tance of that method as legitimate. accounts were dismissed as litera-
Remember that legitimacy is con- ture and the author became absent
textual: you try to establish it in rela- from the descriptive account he pro-
tion to the prevailing forms that are vided (Clifford and Marcus 1986;
considered legitimate. Writing auto- Gitlin et al. 1989). Thus, the quali-
ethnographies for doctoral projects tative shift you talked about earlier
remains quite rare, and I have never also affected debates on ethnogra-
26 GJSS Vol 7, Issue 1
phy. From the 1960s on, we have being constructed? To what extent
witnessed an increased recognition will the committee members see it
that no description is independent as an established method or reject it
from its interpretation and that the as non-academic or self-indulgent.
author/ researcher is always using Should I understand that, in spite
her own perspective in describing of the qualitative turn, the debate is
something (Gitlin et al. 1989). In this still one about objectivity, reliability
shift from description to questioning and validity?
how people make sense of things -
and how researchers intervene in Supervisor: It is a question of
this process- - ethnography moved legitimacy. You know, each society
from being considered a descrip- has its regime of truth [...] the type
tive method to being evaluated on of discourse which [society] ac-
the basis of the thick descriptions cepts and makes function as true
and constant symbolic translation (Foucault 1977/ 1980b, 131). It is
it achieved (Geertz 1983). Yet not this regime of truth that provides us
even these discussions completely with the criteria for deciding what
opened the door to embracing au- can count as truth. Or, in our case
toethnography, as the question of here, as a method to access the
analysis remains a contentious is- truth about social reality. To a cer-
sue (on similar questions around tain extent, the legitimacy of a meth-
the evaluation of ethnography, see od is still measured against this re-
also Clifford and Marcus 1986). gime of truth. Of course, what one
How is analysis to be done? What takes to be the regime of truth de-
constitutes a good, academic auto- pends on ones epistemologic and
ethnography? Is autoethnography disciplinary position. For example,
to be used in an evocative man- an understanding of race as a bio-
ner, to emphasize the journey and logical category is considered as a
to expose the flow of lived experi- fallacy from a constructivist point of
ence, without engaging in its direct view. These regimes are not some-
analysis (Ellis and Bochner 2006)? thing immutable. They do change
Or should autoethnography be an as they have to always respond to
analytical tool, committed to an an- criticism stemming from new social
alytic research agenda focused on circumstances.
improving theoretical understand-
ings of broader social phenomena Student: In my thesis and in my
(Anderson 2006, 375)? defense, I need to prove that I know
Student: The legitimacy of this the regime of truth and the criteria
method is what seems to be in my it imposes. This would authorize me
way here. How legitimate is auto- as a speaker within the academic
ethnography? How is this legitimacy setting (Foucault 1972). To a cer-
Dumitrica: Choosing Methods, Negotiating Legitimacy 27
tain extent, this is what I think the about legitimacy: what counts as
defense is all about: prove I master academic work and why?
the rules of the game, the intellec- Lets take what you said that au-
tual legacy of my discipline and the toethnography may read just like lit-
debates around my chosen method. erature. The good part of it is that
And that I am able to combine them, it makes academic research more
so that I come up with something accessible to people. Geertz said
new and original. I should be honest that the power of a text comes from
and admit that I do want to get the its ability to move the reader, its
doctor title! horror as a lived case and the mo-
rality it carries (Geertz 1983, 36).
Supervisor: That is exactly what I Academic texts are not supposed to
am trying to tell you: that you need to make you cry, organically scare you
think in advance about your defense or psychologically disturb you! But
and about your career. I may be too it is precisely those pieces that are
harsh on autoethnography here, be- able to move us while at the same
cause there is a lot of room for the time bringing up the social dynam-
author/ researcher in the qualitative ics in which we live that make us
paradigm, especially when com- more critically engaged with these
pared to positivist epistemologies. dynamics (Ellis 1997). Some schol-
But with autoethnography its almost ars want to recuperate this evoca-
like the boundaries of this qualita- tive power, and this is where they
tive paradigm are being pushed a locate the strength of the method
bit too far. I guess it reads too much (Ellis and Bochner 2006). For oth-
like literature (Richardson 2002, 39- ers, this evocative power has to be
50; see also Clifford and Marcus accompanied by a theoretical re-
1986)! Nobody says you should not flection that enables us to simulta-
be reflexive about your own position neously construct and question our
as a researcher . Insert a section on own meanings, as well as the prob-
this in the methods chapter! But to lems they bring to light (Anderson
make it into the method itself, I am 2006; Atkins 2006). The personal
not sure about that. narrative layer is like a drawing in
which you produce line upon line
Student: Its true that Ive also thus creating layered accounts
wondered about the whole literary [which] leave traces of a play of dif-
aspect. I mean, I have a hard time ferences for other selves who read
confronting my own academic self, to apprehend. This, in turn, makes
whispering in my ear that my writing it possible for selves to identify with
doesnt even count as poorly written other selves, bringing us closer to-
fiction, let alone academic work! But gether in the understanding that we
then Im back to my earlier question are all the same, located in different
28 GJSS Vol 7, Issue 1
tion, in the complexity of the writ- evaluate such work, it is hard to es-
ing and the emotional credibility and cape my own feelings towards the
honesty of the author. I know we piece. If I disagree with the interpre-
want to avoid simplistic descriptions tation, it becomes more difficult to
and that we need to to question in- evaluate it, and I find myself looking
tuitive or ready-made explanations, for the coherence of the argument,
but I think autoethnography allows for the proof provided by the au-
for this in providing a space for thor.
our many selves or contradictory I feel very ambivalent on auto-
selves to become visible in the text ethnography now. And I wonder if it
(Ellis 1997). Finally, autoethnogra- has to do with the fact that I have
phy espouses a particular political to identify with the position of the
goal, that of addressing inequali- evaluator. The pressures I face
ties and injustice. In this sense, its now are different: I want to ensure
evaluation could consist of asking that the arguments and the ensuing
whether the narrative speaks about knowledge they propose are indeed
empowerment and resistance to op- valid. To consider them as such, I
pressive norms (Bochner 2002). need to make sure they are based
So, a good autoethnography on a rigorous observation or logical
needs not indulge in the cozy space argumentation. At the same time, I
where the self thinks highly of her/ know that in the social sciences,
himself (Sparkes 2002). A good au- we have never overcome our inse-
toethnography is one that contrib- curities about our scientific stature.
utes to understanding the society In our hearts, if not in our minds,
in which we live. Its value lies in we know that the phenomena we
the ability to render the complexity study are messy, complicated, un-
of issues and make it appealing to certain, and soft. Somewhere along
the reader, because the knowledge the line, we became convinced that
we gain through empathy is just as these qualities were signs of inferi-
important as the knowledge we get ority which we should not expose
from numbers. And a good autoeth- (Bochner 2002, 258). When I do my
nography needs to be reflexive and own research, I feel more inclined
to make us want to engage in the di- to acknowledge this messiness and
alogue (Ellis 2004; Sparkes 2002). the results of my own position in
filtering it. I think of this as reflexiv-
Supervisor: How do these crite- ity and I tell myself it is an impor-
ria measure up when you try to use tant part of the critical interpretation
them in evaluating student work? (Richardson 2002). But when I eval-
uate other peoples research, things
Student: You are right, its not are not always the same. Yes, I still
very easy because whenever I try to ask questions around the position
30 GJSS Vol 7, Issue 1
of the researcher, but the way I ask your point about legitimacy and
such questions sounds more as if the networks of power behind it. It
the researcher can get to the es- makes me think that, to a certain
sence of things if her own biases do extent, autoethnography is so ap-
not get in the way. pealing and yet so problematic pre-
cisely because it has not achieved
Supervisor: On the one hand, full legitimacy. Its marginal posi-
you are talking about criteria for tion is both a promise of expanding
evaluating autoethnographic work. what counts as academic research,
On the other, you are talking about and a threat to it. I can see how the
the politics of the profession. Lets whole discussion about criteria of
get back to the question of the le- evaluation is in fact one in which the
gitimacy of the method: its hard to boundary of academic work is both
think of what counts as a method challenged and reinforced; for in or-
without considering the politics of der to legitimize autoethnography,
the discipline in which you are writ- I borrow from the vocabulary and
ing. It matters a great deal if you are tactics of the established method-
positivist or constructivist; if you are ological corpus, whether quantita-
interested in causal relations and ef- tive or qualitative (Ellis 1997; Ellis
fects, or if you are more interested and Bochner 2006; Sparkes 2000).
in understanding meaning-making The discussion we have here is of a
practices. In terms of authority, if quite different nature from the act of
you are a famous scholar like Bruno reading autoethnographic pieces. In
Latour, presenting your theory by many published autoethnographies,
means of a funny dialogue between the legitimacy of the method is not
a student and a professor, you can necessarily put under question,
say things in a quite different man- but performed by the fact that the
ner than if you are only a graduate pieces are published in academic
student doing an autoethnographic outlets. In my case, I am doing an
dissertation20. Your future depends autoethnography from a different
on how you are evaluated in the position: as a doctoral student, wor-
defense! The way in which you es- ried about my own defense; thus my
tablish yourself as a scholar within choice of a method becomes crucial
a particular discipline and using a to my professional future. I need to
specific method will matter a lot in be strategic here, not only on my
terms of what kind of departments method, but on my politics as well.
will want to hire you and what re-
search funds you can access. ***
The choice of autoethnography
Student: Maybe I am not think- as a method is neither a simple
ing very strategically here. I see nor a purely rational act. It involves
Dumitrica: Choosing Methods, Negotiating Legitimacy 31
not entirely against it. Indeed, I am ect, a negotiation that brings togeth-
part of it. Thus, when I have to act er my values and my position within
as an evaluator of academic work, the academic system, as well as the
for instance, my ambivalence to au- networks of power within which I am
toethnography is heightened. This trying to insert myself.
ambivalence has also been noted
by previous autoethnographers, Endnotes
particularly in instances where they
realized that their own defense of
1
Other qualitative methods also bring the
researcher to the forefront of the research
the legitimacy of the method bor- process, retaining this commitment to re-
rows from the established norms of flexivity and critical engagement. In the
academic argumentation (e.g. Ellis case of feminist inspired reflexive ethnog-
and Bochner 2006; Holt 2003). In raphies, Suki Ali notes that researchers
my case, I try to rationalize it as an have to be reflexive not only in terms of
how their identity comes to intersect with
indicator that the regime of truth- or the research process, but also in terms of
the hegemonic claim over what can how that relates to issues of power, and
constitute knowledge - is never fully impacts on research and respondents
dominant, but also resisted. In my (2006: 476). However, unlike autoethnog-
case, I both challenge and internal- raphy, they are still using other peoples
experiences as data.
ize and use it to establish myself as
an authoritative speaker. Therefore, 2
Other prominent advocates of autoeth-
this regime of truth, which support- nography are sociologists Laurel Rich-
ed the various lines of power ex- ardson and Norman Denzin. The latter is
posed in the metalogue, should not an important figure in the legitimation of
autoethnography as a qualitative method
be understood simply through the through his work on qualitative methodol-
conceptual binary enforcement/ ogy in social sciences (see for instance
submission, but as a node through Denzin and Lincoln 2002).
which power flows which involves
processes of internalization and
3
The politics of the method refer to the ar-
gument that methods cannot be separated
resistance (Foucault 1977/1980). from particular worldviews - or discourses,
Ironically, it is in those nodes that the in Foucaults formulation - which are part
hegemony of the regime of truth is of the social distribution of power. Foucault
being both re-established and con- argued that some scientific methods (such
tested, keeping this regime flexible as those characterizing medicine or psy-
chology) are an intrinsic part of the modern
enough to be able to deal with new forms of social control (Frank 1982, 66).
contingencies, contexts and posi- Similarly, Clifford and Marcus (1986) have
tions. Choosing a method is not discussed the impossibility of separating
merely a logical deduction from the ethnography, as a method, from interpreta-
research question I am asking; it in- tion. The latter always implies our position
and worldview.
volves a negotiation of what counts
as a legitimate method for my proj- 4
The two characters presented here (the
Dumitrica: Choosing Methods, Negotiating Legitimacy 35
6
I have been introduced to autoethnogra- 9
Andrew C. Sparkes describes these
phy within the context of a course on re- hardships in two different settings: in the
search methods in communication studies. defense of an autoethnographic thesis
Within this disciplinary field, autoethnog- (Sparkes 2002) and in the review of an
raphy may be seen as a means to access autoethnographic journal article (Sparkes
meaning-making processes. This marks 2000). For Sparkes, the question of how to
autoethnography as a method able to ad- judge a piece that does not fall within the
dress concerns specific to communication traditional boundaries of academic work
scholars (such as how we make sense of needs to be accompanied by an aware-
the world around us). For example, my col- ness and willingness on the part of review-
league and I have used autoethnography ers/ defense committee to move outside
as a method of research in virtual worlds. their own particular paradigmatic position
We argued that this method allows us to (Sparkes 2000, 29).
tackle the dynamics of online gender con-
struction and performance, and we made a 10
I am refering to the section in Latours
case for its legitimacy by using both femi- book Reassembling the Social (2005),
nist theories and previous work on gender where a student meets a professor to talk
in virtual worlds (see Dumitrica and Gaden about doing an actor-network research
2009). project.
7
Qualitative methodologists talk about the References
relation between the researcher and his/
her work (see for instance Denzin and Lin- Alexander, C. 2004. Writing Race: Eth-
coln 2002; Seale 2004). However, there nography and the Imagination of
are also many methodology textbooks still
the Asian Gang. In Researching
presenting the process of selecting a meth-
od as a logical one, deriving from the type Race and Racism, edited by M.
of the research question asked. Bulmer and J. Solomons, 134-
149. London and New York: Rout-
36 GJSS Vol 7, Issue 1
Over the last decade, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council
has been actively working to encourage interdisciplinary and collaborative
approaches to acquiring and disseminating knowledge in Canada. How inter-
disciplinarity is understood and how it is translated into practice has been a
source of debate, however. In this paper, we examine how we problematised
interdisciplinarity and collaboration and how we learned from this process
as a student group in the context of Hidden Costs / Invisible Contributions, a
large multi-university research project based at the University of Alberta.
Students have been involved at a number of levels in this project: our MA,
MSc and doctoral research have become intertwined with and integral to the
project; we have authored and co-authored papers and presentations, we
have assisted in other members research, and we have been involved in
the SSHRC mid-term review. As emerging scholars, in a project which has
combined the research and knowledge of both the social sciences and the
humanities, we have had to develop our own strategies for negotiating differ-
ences. In this paper, we will investigate four key areas that we have identified
as potential challenges to successful collaboration: conceptual, methodologi-
cal, pragmatic and personal differences. In our examination of the difficulties
and rewards that we faced as students in each area, we will argue that suc-
cessful collaborative and interdisciplinary work across the social sciences and
humanities requires a reconfiguration of the ways that we are taught to see
our particular disciplines. We have had to challenge how we understand the
language, practice and function of our disciplines and the manner in which we
approach this work as individuals. This has been a transformative process for
each of us, but also one that has lent a renewed rigour and expanded scope
in our own individual work.
The real voyage of discovery con- the charms and challenges of trans-
sists not in seeking new landscapes, lating a SSHRC policy of interdis-
but in having new eyes. ciplinary collaboration into practice
-Marcel Proust (quoted in Clark, by relating our own student experi-
2006) ences working on a SSHRC-funded
program of research, Hidden Costs/
Invisible Contributions (HCIC)1. We
Introduction are going to explain why we believe
Since its inception in 1977, the that interdisciplinary collaboration
Social Sciences and Humanities is important for student training and
Research Council of Canada how this process has given (and
(SSHRC), a Canadian government- continues to give) depth and rich-
funded agency which supports ness to our individual work, without
Canadian and international scholar- glossing over the difficulties inher-
ship, has been actively working to ent to interdisciplinary collaboration
encourage interdisciplinary and col- or the challenges that we face going
laborative approaches to acquiring forward from this project.
and disseminating knowledge in the Our collaborative journey offi-
research it funds (Klein 1996). How cially began in January 2003, with
that interdisciplinarity is under- the start-up of the HCIC program of
stood and how it is translated into research. Drawing upon research
practice has been a source of de- and knowledge from the social sci-
bate, however. In the academy, the ences and humanities, this program
term, interdisciplinarity, has mul- considered both the costs of care-
tiple meanings, with different risks giving for older adults and adults
and implications for each stake- with disability and the contribu-
holder in the research project (Klein tions of these individuals to soci-
2005). For student researchers, in ety. The HCIC team drew together
particular, whose future careers are various researchers, practitioners,
closely tied to SSHRC funding, and NGO partners, policymakers and
often dependent on research posi- students from across Canada and
tions within SSHRC-funded initia- internationally, who were united in
tives, collaborative interdisciplinarity their interests in aging and disabil-
can be new and difficult terrain to ity, and who were willing to work
negotiate. Surprisingly, while there collaboratively with others. HCIC
has been a significant body of re- posed several major research ques-
search on interdisciplinarity and tions: What are the hidden costs
collaboration within the academy, of care to caregivers and what are
there is almost nothing that focus- the invisible contributions made by
es exclusively on student perspec- older adults and adults with disabil-
tives. In this paper we will examine ity? How do we define care and
Bruusgaard et al. : Are we all on the same page? 41
broad topics roughly correspond to tions asked and the things asked
the four areas (conceptual, person- of them are informed by the theory
al, methodological and pragmatic) central to each discipline. In think-
that the student group in our project ing about care and caregiving, for
identified as crucial to our journey example, where a literature scholar
toward interdisciplinarity. We now asks questions about the depictions
turn to the analysis of this experi- of older adults in fiction over the last
ence. twenty years, a sociologist might ask
questions about the statistical data
A journey through collaboration: of a particular segment of the popu-
expanding the conceptual land- lation. Each approach is perfectly
scape valid for their individual disciplines,
and indeed, the questions they each
The first area identified in our pose of their subjects might be quite
discussions around interdisciplin- similar, but the questions are limited
ary collaboration, the conceptual, to a particular class of objects, which
was also the most difficult to isolate in turn circumscribes and limits how
and define clearly. Paradoxically, each individual sets up a research
however, it was also the area where project.
students felt the most profound Students were integrated into the
changes in the course of the re- HCIC project from the earliest stages
search project. The Oxford English of development. Much of our anxiety
Dictionary defines a concept very at the beginning revolved around
loosely as an idea of a class of ob- how were going to work together
jects; a general notion; an invention across these disciplinary boundar-
(OED). The concept is what lies be- ies and much of our time was spent
hind the research project: it is si- in thinking conceptually about how
multaneously the idea or invention we were going to build working rela-
around which the research project is tionships with each other. How were
built and the main research question we going to communicate, express
that becomes the framework of the ideas, and work across our very dif-
project. At the conceptual stage we ferent disciplines?
look at and think about all the given These anxieties were very real
data on a particular subject and ask and appeared at first almost insur-
ourselves, What is missing? mountable. Since we were all, more
It is important to note, however, or less, thinking within a discipline,
that the concept behind a research it was difficult to think conceptually
project is also in large part that idea outside of those boundaries. Would
of a class of objects. In the con- it not be a challenge to balance all the
ceptual stage disciplinary foci are ideas and viewpoints of the student
most apparent, because the ques- group and then synthesize them into
Bruusgaard et al. : Are we all on the same page? 47
one research project? Would it not developed within the student group
be difficult for each of us to find an as a discrete entity within HCIC.
individual place within the research, Perhaps, as Fairbairn and Fulton
and would it not be even more diffi- (2000) suggest, because we were
cult to focus to not be so inclusive students, at an early stage in our
that the work would lose its impact? academic careers, and able to im-
Or would one form of research, one merse ourselves fully into an experi-
discipline, take precedence over the ence like HCIC, we were able to try
others? Where would we draw the on and discard new ideas and new
line? Consequently, student pre- approaches without inherent risk to
sentations, in these early stages of our academic futures. It may also be
HCIC research, tended to focus on that we were individually very open
how the lines of communication and to the process of collaboration and
responsibility between researchers found that it fit our own personali-
might operate over the course of the ties and learning styles. It likely also
project. has a lot to do with the leadership
What we were really modelling, of more senior colleagues on this
as it turns out, was how to build project; colleagues who welcomed
trust. Paramount to a successful student ideas and student input and
working relationship was to under- enthusiastically supported our initia-
stand, at the conceptual level, how tives. We believe that the SSHRC
we each approached a problem, funding for graduate research as-
how we defined that problem, how sistants and the ability to work long-
we communicated it to the rest of the term on this project also helped.
group, and how we could use this The students within HCIC were all
productively as a group. As the stu- involved with the project for two or
dent group began to work together more years, while the authors of
collaboratively on posters and panel this article were involved, whether
presentations, and with other team directly or indirectly, for 3 or more
members on HCIC research and in- years.
dividual dissertation work, we had It is important to recognize, too,
to come up with our own practical that HCIC included only disciplines
strategies for overcoming our seem- from humanities and social scienc-
ing differences. Somewhat ironical- es. Engineering and science, which
ly, the students we interviewed said Biglan (cited by Schommer-Aikins,
that the more the students worked Duell and Barker 2003) calls the
together, the more they trusted each hard disciplines, were not a part
other and the more they trusted of the collaboration team. According
each other, the more faith they put to Alexander (1992), in the humani-
into the process. It was surprising ties and social sciences, answers to
how quickly and how fully that trust problems are often incomplete, and
48 GJSS Vol 7, Issue 1
ics and tables to interpret and de- dently of our minds. In this sense,
pict their data. They work with large for qualitative investigators, the po-
numbers and anonymous samples sitions of both the researcher and
that make possible the generalisa- the researched are intrinsic to the
tion of results to a wider population research process (Sale, Lohfeld &
with an estimated degree of error. Brazil 2002). In short, there is no
Others are more closely associ- such thing as value-free, neutral
ated with qualitative methodologies knowledge-production processes.
and assemble their data based on In most disciplines, one of these
observation, interaction, interview, approaches is usually privileged over
narrative and discourse analysis, the other. Students are frequently
and other unobtrusive modes of more familiar with one tradition or
gathering information and knowl- the other, as the two paradigms
edge. They work with smaller sam- tend to be taught as independent
ples, collecting stories, meanings of one another, and it is uncommon
and worldviews, accumulating field that graduate programs emphasize
notes, searching archival docu- both to the same degree. HCIC
ments, examining images and texts. encompassed a large, multidisci-
Their data is interpretative, process plinary team and involved multiple
oriented and holistic. projects that employed qualitative
Academics from the two traditions and quantitative methodologies. Not
work within very different paradig- surprisingly then, from a method-
matic frameworks. The quantitative ological perspective we found that
paradigm is often associated with participating in HCIC was beneficial
positivism (and post-positivism), as it provided us with exposure to a
which assumes that all phenomena wide range of approaches. In sum,
can be reduced to empirical indica- as one student put it, being a mem-
tors, that an objective reality exists ber of HCIC has helped us in devel-
independent of human perception, oping research skills and becoming
and that the investigator and the more competent researcher[s].
investigated are independent enti- Curiously, student responses did
ties (Sale, Lohfeld & Brazil, 2002). not express many concerns in rela-
In this sense, positivists assert that tion to collaboration around meth-
research can be conducted within odological issues. Part of this may
a neutral, value-free framework. In actually stem from the way that we
contrast, the qualitative paradigm approached collaborative research.
is based on interpretivism and con- We spent a lot of time just talking in
structivism. It claims that reality is HCIC: talking as a research group,
socially constructed and constantly talking as student researchers,
changing, and therefore is multiple and talking as colleagues. The un-
and cannot be accessed indepen- intended effect of these dialogues
50 GJSS Vol 7, Issue 1
was that it allowed us to explore and has offered us, in terms of enriching
overcome methodological differenc- our academic training and enhanc-
es both before and as we were col- ing our career prospects as future
laborating on research projects. researchers.
While the HCIC initiative offered
students great exposure to a variety Against all odds: confronting
of methodologies, it was not neces- pragmatic difficulties in collab-
sarily a multi-methods approach. orative research
Collectively, the various research
projects conducted under HCIC em- The third key area identified in
ployed different methodologies, but student discussions around inter-
individually each one of them was disciplinarity and collaboration was
more closely associated with a qual- the pragmatics of working together.
itative or a quantitative approach. After the conceptualisation of a proj-
It was only towards the end of the ect, and the subsequent planning,
project, and especially in the context there comes a time when the proj-
of discussions regarding a possible ect has to be put into motion. This
second application for funding, that is the pragmatic stage of collabora-
the possibility of mixing and match- tive research, which we define as
ing methodological approaches in the actual practise of implementing
single studies in order to acquire a a project. This was the area which
more holistic perspective of a par- students most often identified as be-
ticular problem became more prom- ing a challenge and over the course
inent. This shift, again, was one of the HCIC research, we developed
that students seemed to experience a number of strategies to overcome
more acutely than any other mem- (both real and imagined) differenc-
bers of the HCIC team. Certainly, es.
with Bryman (2006) and others, we Power-sharing was principal
are aware that mixed approaches among student-identified concerns.
are not a panacea to all research, Because HCIC included scholars
and that ultimately it is the ques- from a variety of disciplines, as well
tion under investigation that should as practitioners, policy makers, and
guide our methodological decisions. community partners, this meant dif-
But by using multiple methods we ferences, not only in discipline, but
will be able to find broader, more also in member investment in the
comprehensive answers to our outcome of the project, goals for the
problems because we will be asking research and interests in the project.
different, more substantive and ex- This had particular significance for
citing questions. To us, the student students, especially at the beginning
group, this is perhaps one of the of the project, who perceived them-
most valuable experiences HCIC selves as the least senior members
Bruusgaard et al. : Are we all on the same page? 51
of the research team. The physical spected and valued not as student
distances between team members research but as research in its own
was also identified as a major chal- right, we pushed ourselves to think
lenge, since the project involved a more broadly and more deeply.
number of universities and commu- When we presented our ideas to
nity agencies across Canada and others in the project, the response
other countries. we invariably got, is not can we
We believe that there was a make this work? but how do we
strong commitment to interdisciplin- make this work? and what are the
ary collaboration and to fostering tools with which we can provide you
student involvement from everyone to make this work?
involved in HCIC during the five This is not to say, however, that
years of the project. All the students there were no individual challeng-
consistently reiterated that the en- es with power-sharing. Although
couragement they received from the base for the project was at
senior team members and commu- one university, HCIC research was
nity and government partners was managed by a number of partner
a major reason for our positive ex- universities geographically distant
perience with HCIC. We were given from each other. As a result, it was
the opportunity and the funding to sometimes difficult to interpret di-
do week-long campus exchanges, rectives and suggestions from more
so that we could each visit another senior partners at other universities.
university campus and work with With multiple projects operating si-
other researchers involved in HCIC. multaneously, there was also the
Student-initiated research was wel- potential for some students to feel
comed and supported. One student, lost and isolated in the larger group.
in their response to our questions, To combat this, during annual team
suggested that this encouragement meetings, especially, we allotted a
gave students the belief that we large portion of our time to come to-
can and will be able to resolve dif- gether as a group (both as a whole
ferences and solve problems. We group and as a student group) to
were able to work successfully with- play games, exchange ideas and
in the project largely because it was discuss issues. This practice was
a strong expectation of the project fostered by the senior research-
that we could and would contribute ers and team leaders in the HCIC
in a real way. We were expected project and, as one student put it:
to offer insights and make sugges- Meetings are great opportunities to
tions, to integrate our research into put faces on names and re-connect
the larger project and to publish this with the team and the project. Its
work abroad. Because we knew that great to hear about what each one
our ideas and our research were re- of us is doing. Meetings really boost
52 GJSS Vol 7, Issue 1
ence 6(3):1-12.
Qin, J., F. W. Lancaster, and B. Allen.
1997. Types and levels of collabo-
ration in interdisciplinary research
in the sciences. Journal of the
American Society for Information
Science 48(10): 893-916.
Sale, E. M., L. H. Lohfeld, and K. Brazil.
2002. Revisiting the quantitative-
qualitative debate: Implications for
mixed-methods research. Quality
& Quantity 36: 43-53.
Schommer-Aikins, M., O.K. Duell, and
S. Barker. 2003. Epistemological
beliefs across domains using Bi-
glans classification of academic
disciplines. Research in Higher
Education 44(3): 347-366.
Schommer-Aikins, M. 2004. Explain-
ing the epistemological belief sys-
tem: Introducing the embedded
systemic model and coordinated
research approach. Educational
Psychologist 39(1): 19-29.
Schn, D. 2004. The Reflective Prac-
titioner: How Professionals Think
in Action. New York: Basic Books.
Slatin, C., M. Galizzi, K. D. Melillo, B.
Mawn. 2004. Conducting inter-
disciplinary research to promote
healthy and safe employment in
health care: Promises and pitfalls.
Public Health Reports 119(1): 60-
72.
Social Sciences and Humanities Re-
search Council. Major Collabora-
tive Research Initiatives (MCRI).
http://www.sshrc.ca/web/apply/
program_descriptions/mcri_e.
asp#1 (accessed July 17, 2009).
Stead, G. B., and T. F Harrington. 2000.
A process perspective of inter-
national research collaboration.
Journal of Employment Counsel-
ing 37(2): 88-97.
Imperial Plants:
Modern Science, Plant Classification
and European Voyages of Discovery
Rachel ODonnell
cal knowledge from native peoples, science, noting the relevance of bo-
Europeans created a modern his- tanical classification to a gendered
tory of cultural exchange and colo- history of science and the origins of
nial bioprospecting, i.e. Western en- such science into account. While
deavors to capitalize on indigenous some science historians argue that
knowledge of natural resources. historians of science take an almost
Science and the development of universally negative tone seeing
capitalism converged on the dis- modern science as all-too ready to
cipline of botany as ornaments in assist the powers-that-were, wheth-
European gardens, sought-after er domestic or imperial, (Drayton
medicaments, and profitable plants 2000, 128) feminist science studies
became the most important mate- often considers the political implica-
rials in the building of empire, but tions of the production of particular
only after a new objective science historical scientific knowledges. We
had taken ideological hold2. can only look at these specific mate-
This review essay takes an inter- rial events in light of their ideological
disciplinary approach to the relation- context since, as Merchant articu-
ships among science, nature, and lates, Descriptive statements about
gender in Europe in the early mod- the world can presuppose the nor-
ern period and explores the role of mative; they are then ethic-laden
Carl Linnaeus as one of the key de- (Merchant 1990, 4). Linnaeuss
velopers of modern science, placing classification system and its con-
his role in the context of political, nection to the voyages of explora-
economic and cultural changes in tion by botanists both prompted and
Europe in the sixteenth and seven- expanded much of this classifica-
teenth centuries. Beginning from tion. Indeed, constructions of gen-
the central historical analyses in the der are relevant to all this history.
field of feminist science studies, the As Ruth Watts (2005, 89) argues,
first section of this essay will outline not only were scientific impulses of
historical associations of nature and women restrained by gendered no-
science in order to put in context tions of science from the origins of
the second part of my essay and modern science, but the position of
the bulk of my argument. In order women was in line with conflicting
to fully understand the historical and modern principles that underlay a
ideological justifications for plant contested terrain in science for the
classification and European voy- centuries that followed.
ages of botanical discovery, it is im- It is in this light that I attempt to
perative to begin with a discussion illustrate the centrality of narratives
of early feminist science studies of empire to the production of rec-
works, such as Carolyn Merchants ognizable and legitimate narratives
work on the history of the origins of of science. I focus on the construc-
ODonnell: Imperial Plants 61
est stone (Merchant 1990, 1) was to uncover its secrets. Both nature
of highest importance. Such un- and women began to be represent-
derstandings of the world involved ed as subordinate and passive. The
identifying nature and the earth with Aristotelian and Platonic concep-
a nurturing mother, which gradually tion of the passivity of matter could
disappeared with the mechanization be incorporated into the new me-
and rationalization of prevailing ide- chanical philosophy in the form of
ologies during the seventeenth cen- inert dead atoms, constituents of
tury, what would later be called the a new machine-like world in which
scientific revolution. Nature as fe- change came about through exter-
male earth and spirit was subsumed nal forces, a scheme that readily
by the development of the machines sanctioned the manipulation of na-
of capitalism; the image of a natu- ture. The Neoplatonic female world
ral earth had previously severely soul, the internal source of activity in
constrained what could be done nature, would disappear, in order to
to nature. With the disintegration be replaced by a carefully contrived
of feudalism and the expansion of mechanism of subtle particles in
European colonialism and capital- motion. Indigenous conceptions of
ism, commerce and profit became the land and a previous ethic of re-
more ideologically important to the straint disappeared as the ongoing
development of science than any- exploitation of resources available
thing else. for any nations use was justified by
Nature that was once seen as the new science.
alive, fertile, independent and ho- During the scientific revolu-
listic devolved into a mechanized tion, a grand narrative emerged of
science during the sixteenth and the earth not as center of the uni-
seventeenth centuries that created verse but as something available
new attitudes toward land. Such for industrial science. Tools were
intellectualized science lead to the now used in which to uncover this
domination of both nature and the natural philosophy with empirical
female: mechanistic approaches to and experimental methods and me-
nature brought about the creation chanical law. It was only in very re-
of objective knowledge developed cent history that science has come
by experiment and the active sub- to represent a field of study much
ject/passive object we know today more specific than its original gener-
as the modern sciences. Merchant al meaning or knowledge that one
calls our voyeuristic approach to has of things. Science lost such a
nature ocularcentric, (Merchant broad understanding by the nine-
1990, 2) describing the way in which teenth century and acquired specif-
Western sciences look out at na- ic meaning based on mathematics
ture as separate from us in order and controlled observational experi-
64 GJSS Vol 7, Issue 1
ment: Scientific method came to By the time Bacon wrote his New
mean particular techniques requir- Atlantis in 1624, significant class
ing particular training, while mathe- divisions motivated by capitalism
matical descriptions of the universe and perpetuated by the industrial
came to be acknowledged as more revolution were common throughout
exact models of the observed world Europe. Changing relationships be-
(Zinsser 2005, 4). How did natural tween local and large manufactur-
philosophy become science and ers prompted a doctrine of scientif-
move toward classification and sci- ic progress associated with the rise
entific exploration? of technology in support of capital-
Francis Bacon (1561-1626), the ism. Further, as scientists became
celebrated father of modern sci- guardians of scientific knowledge
ence, developed an interest in in- and technical language, valuing
dustrial science and an inductive the objective over the subjective (in
method to reveal true science: which the philosophical disappears)
Female imagery permeated his became the dominant European
description of nature and his meta- ideology. Bacons efforts to define
phorical style and were instrumen- experimental method in these terms
tal in his transformation of the earth found the bodies of animals and hu-
as a nurturing mother and womb of mans secondary to developing true
life into a source of secrets to be understandings of nature.
extracted for economic advance. From the 1650s onward, Bacon
Bacon saw dominating nature as worked in developing a methodolo-
part of ensuring the good of the en- gy for the manipulation of nature, in-
tire human race: cluding a tendency to charge wom-
en with medical knowledge with
She [nature] is either free and witchcraft and celebrate particular
follows her ordinary course of constructions of femininity that were
development as in the heavens, not knowledge-based. Sciences
in the animal and vegetable cre- that women traditionally operated
ation, and in the general array of in, such as midwifery and alchemy,
the universe; or she is driven out were soon considered subjects that
of her ordinary course by the per- could be relegated to the periphery
vasiveness, insolence, and for- in search of true and objective sci-
wardness of matter and violence ence: an experimental and objec-
of impediments, as in the case of tive new science served the needs
monsters; or lastly, she is put in of capital and its accompanying ide-
constraint, molded, and made as ology, the privileged first-born twins
it were new by art and the hand of of modern science: the myth of the
man; as in things artificial (cited natural body and the myth of value-
in Merchant 1990, 165). neutral knowledge (Schiebinger
ODonnell: Imperial Plants 65
class physicians. The heroic narra- since among its merits was its abil-
tives they wrote served to heighten ity to disregard local circumstances,
a new version of heroic masculin- such as climate and soil conditions,
ity (Terrall 1998, 225-7) and high- without renouncing its claim to be
light the adventures of naturalists describing a natural, or universal,
who encountered the dangers of the order (Lafuente and Valverde 2005,
natural world. One German natural- 137). Kingdoms of plant species,
ist explorer who dramatized the dif- which Linnaeus imagined were ruled
ficulty of his passage: the weather by laws similar to those that gov-
was severe, the rain continual, the erned empires, were further divided
mud thick and stagnant. Food was into Classes and then into Orders,
scarce along the long road and plac- which were then broken into Genera
es to lodge nonexistent. Few people and Species. Global expansion,
of means go by foot in these condi- as much as it served to shape the
tions, he concluded, they arrange science of plants, included certain
instead to be carried in a chair tied forms of knowledge accompanying
to a mans back (Schiebinger 2004, global botanical exchange, and de-
67). pended on local negotiation and cul-
European respect for traditional tural encounters, and dealt with the
knowledges lessened over the eigh- failures of transportation, disease,
teenth and nineteenth centuries. and adaptations. Still, what re-
Interest in indigenous knowledge mained most important were plants
degenerated to superstition that that could easily be transported and
coincided with the development of turned into profit, such as coffee and
commercial crops and botanys goal opium. As Lafuente and Valverde
of charting commerce and state pol- conclude, Linnaean botany was a
itics from the sixteenth through the form of biopolitics, what we might
eighteenth centuries6. Such under- call imperial biopower devoted to
standings of plants as primarily prof- turning diversity, local variation, and
itable derive from early conceptions qualia into data (2005, 46). Indeed,
of the nature of science itself, where as others have argued, Empire re-
claims of objectivity coincide with quires that scientists and their pa-
little question of how findings are trons share the belief that the stuff
evaluated, who has access and au- of nature can be captured in words,
thority to the knowledge, or to whom figures, lines, shading, gradients,
scientific findings are presented7. A or flows (Lafuente and Valverde
consistent botanical language was 2005, 141). In fact, national identi-
crucial to the success of the expe- ties among European empires often
ditions of European empires to in- became centered around precise
vestigate the flora of the colonies: natural knowledge of New World re-
Linnaeuss system was efficient gions they colonized:
ODonnell: Imperial Plants 67
197). What should be clear is that land and sea travel; mine ores;
Linnaeuss system of plant classifi- identify the economically useful
cation and its repercussions never minerals, plants, and animals of
would have been accepted had it other parts of the world; manu-
not been already clear what consti- facture and farm for the benefit
tuted scientific knowledge and who of Europeans living in Europe,
was responsible for its production, the Americas, Africa and India;
but what should be elaborated fur- improve their health and occa-
ther are the definite links between sionally that of the workers who
Linnaeuss system and the voy- produced profits for them; protect
ages of exploration. Seventeenth settlers in the colonies from set-
and eighteenth century voyages of tlers of other nationalities, gain
discovery brought European culture access to the labor of indigenous
into contact with a variety of world residents (Harding 1991, 43-
cultures, but it is important to recall 4).
that European sciences were then
being developed to enable the ex- Epic scientific voyages spon-
pansion of European empires at the sored by colonial powers explored
expense of those Europeans en- the natural riches of the new world.
countered9. Certainly, European Political economic thinkers of the
expansionism changed the topog- day who touted Western European
raphy of global scientific knowledge expansion found that amassing
(Harding 1991, 29), and the under- great wealth and power relied on
development or decline of scientific exact knowledge of nature and cel-
traditions in other cultures: ebrated the resources could be ob-
tained for European powers through
Those aspects of nature about conquest and colonization. Indeed,
which the beneficiaries of ex- in the eighteenth century, there was
pansionism have not needed or a close alliance between medicine
wanted to know have remained and colonial botany or, the study,
uncharted. Thus, culturally dis- naming, cultivation, and marketing
tinctive patterns of both knowl- of plants in colonial contextswas
edge and systematic ignorance born of and supported European voy-
in modern sciences pictures of ages, conquests, global trade, and
natures regularities and their un- scientific exploration (Schiebinger
derlying causal tendencies can and Swan 2005, 2). Plants were
be detected from the perspec- important all kinds of New World
tives of cultures with different pre- travel, even missionary workas
occupations. For example, mod- a food source, in order to combat
ern sciences answered questions disease, and for building materials
about how to improve European (Bravo 2005, 63). Botanists were
ODonnell: Imperial Plants 69
Rose 1997; Srivastava 2006). The ral conversation norms that are
steeper the power gradient, the context-specific (Bloor et al. 2001).
greater an interest the researched This makes it especially problematic
have in adjusting their responses to that also the chapter on moderating
who they perceive the researcher discussions is largely a repetition of
to be. Researchers self-deploy- the standard FGD literature. The
ment may change who respondents few conversational norms that are
perceive them to be, but this does mentioned are more about topics
not change the extent to which re- that may be tricky to elicit responses
sponses reflect respondents per- on in general, than about challenges
ception of them, regardless of what specific to the FGD method. They
that perception is. The absence of are content-specific rather than
these two challenges is conspicu- method-specific, and say little about
ous because the standard FGD how the interactive processes on
literature claims the FGD method, which the method hinges may play
when used to its strengths, can shift out differently in Two-Thirds World
researcher-researched power rela- contexts, and how to handle this.
tions and thus reduce the extent to Given the challenges of steep
which positionality determines what power gradients, positionality and
data can be generated (Kambrelis et different conversational norms, this
al. 2005; Kitzinger 1999; Smithson book does not adequately explain
2000; Wilkinson 2006). Henninks how FGDs can be used to their
handbook gives no advice on this. strengths in the Two-Thirds World.
The advice it offers on moderation However this does not detract from
seems to blithely gloss over this the books immense usefulness
challenge: for one large group of readers.
Researchers familiar with the practi-
The deference effect (where calities of working in the Two-Thirds
participants say what they think World, and with the standard focus
a moderator wants to hear rather group literature, will find little new
than their own opinion about an here. In particular, readers of the
issue) can be avoided by clear- skeptical enthusiastic literature that
ly reinforcing to participants at followed the methods surge in pop-
the outset of the discussion that ularity, which hones in on what types
all views are valued and it is par- of data FGDs can reliably generate,
ticipants own views that are be- and how to conduct them in order to
ing sought. (184) generate this type of data, will miss
this level of epistemological aware-
Proponents of FGDs emphasise ness (Barbour et al. 2001; Bloor et
that most guidance on how to mod- al. 2001; Parker and Tritter 2006).
erate a discussion relies on natu- Nevertheless, One-Third World re-
76 GJSS Vol 7, Issue 1
ceived from her postgraduate stu- ship in Spain. The book is based on
dents. rich documentary sources including
Medicina, historia y gnero is quantitative and qualitative publica-
primarily about interdisciplinar- tions by and on women in scientific
ity, which has been considered one journals, under- and postgraduate
of the main characteristics of the courses in gender and history of
methodological toolbox of womens medicine offered by Spanish uni-
and gender studies. Throughout the versities, the proportion of men and
book Ortiz discusses possible inter- women professors in Spain within
sections within the disciplines such the field of the history of science,
as womens history, history of medi- and more. Furthermore, the meth-
cine and history of science both in odological comments and observa-
research and teaching, providing an tions are of great value especially
excellent practical example of how to less experienced scholars, espe-
to pursue interdisciplinary scholar- cially as far as academic teaching is
ship. This dimension of Ortizs work concerned.
is emphasised in the third part of the With regards to drawbacks of this
book, where she refers to interdis- text, in Chapter 1.2 Ortiz extensively
ciplinarity as, along with pluralism, discusses rather basic notions such
one of the most distinctive features as gender, sexism, or androcentrism
of the contemporary history of sci- in a passage which is too rudimen-
ence and medicine, which seeks to tary for researchers with some ex-
include and combine different theo- perience in the field of gender stud-
retical and methodological para- ies. Meanwhile, the next chapters
digms. (1.3 and 1.4), which are dedicated
I would highly recommend Ortizs to feminist re-conceptualizations of
book to all scholars and students the body and the concepts of femi-
who work on issues related to wom- nist authorship, authority and sexual
en and medicine, especially within difference, only scarcely mention
or in reference to the Spanish femi- these concepts. Development and
nist framework. Above all, this work critical revision of these would have
provides an excellent and neatly increased the usefulness of this
organized bibliographical revision book for feminist researchers. Ortiz
of the most prominent works from does situate herself as a feminist
Anglo-Saxon, French and Spanish scholar, but this book would have
context. The extended reference benefited from more emphasis on
list can be useful to those interest- her own position within feminist the-
ed in (feminist) history of science ories and academia. However, the
and medicine, and also to all who simplicity and underdevelopment of
wish to learn about the origins and the mentioned parts of the text can
development of feminist scholar- be justified by Ortizs consideration
Review: Ignaciuk 81
for the broader public at which the Spanish edition of the Masters.
book is aimed. These are, as she
explains in the introductory part References
of the book, scholars who work in
the field of the history of medicine, Caballero Navas, M.C., Cabr i Pairet,
possibly with scarce knowledge of M. and Ferre Cano, D.. 2000.
womens studies or contaminated Las mujeres en la medicina he-
brea medieval: El libro de amor
with the common misuses of these
de mujeres o libro de rgimen de
terms, and postgraduate students las mujeres. Edicin, traduccin y
of history of medicine and womens estudio. Granada: Universidad de
studies. Beyond any doubt, both will Granada.
certainly find this work of great utility Cabr i Pairet, M. and Ortiz Gmez,
in their research and studies. T. 2001. Sanadoras, matronas y
mdicas en Europa: Siglos XII-
Endnotes XX. Barcelona: Icaria.
Esteban, M.L. 2001. Re-produccin
1
The book I review was published in del cuerpo femenino: Discursos y
Spanish only. The authors publications in prcticas acerca de la salud. Don-
English include chapters on the history of ostia: Tercera Prensa.
Spanish midwives in Marland (1993) and . Antropologa del cuerpo: G-
Marland and Rafferty (1997). She has nero, itinerarios corporales, iden-
also recently published a chapter on fe- tidad y cambio. Barcelona: Bella-
male medical professionals in Spain dur-
terra.
ing Francoism (Rodrguez-Sala & Zubieta
Garca 2005) and co-edited Dynamics of
. 2007. Introduccin a la antro-
health and welfare (published in Lisbon by pologa de la salud: Aplicacio-
Colibri in 2007), a collection of commented nes tericas y prcticas. Bilbao:
sources in history of medicine, in which she OSALDE
co-edited, together with Denise Bernuzzi Gil Garca, E. 2007. Otra mirada a la
SantAnna, the part entitled Perspectives anorexia: Aproximacin feminista
on gender and health. a los discursos mdicos y de las
mujeres diagnosticadas. Grana-
2
Teresa Ortiz is also one of the founding da: Universidad de Granada.
members of Instituto de Estudios de la Harding, S.G. 1991. Whose science?
Mujer [Womens Studies Centre], an inter- Whose knowledge? Thinking from
disciplinary body established at this univer- womens lives. Ithaca: Cornell
sity in 1986. It is now host to GEMMA: Joint University Press.
European Masters Degree in Womens and
Laurinda Abreu, P.B., Ortiz Gmez, T.
Gender Studies, a prestigious European
postgraduate programme, which is be-
and Palacios, G. 2007. Dynamics
ing developed simultaneously since 2007 of health and welfare: Texts and
in seven European universities (Granada, contexts. Lisboa: Edies Colibr.
Oviedo, Utrecht, Lodz, Ljubljana, Hull and Miqueo, C. 2001. Perspectivas de
CEU-Budapest) under auspices of the gnero en salud: Fundamentos
European Commission. Medicina, histo- cientficos y socioprofesionales
ria y gnero is used as a textbook in the de diferencias sexuales no previs-
82 GJSS Vol 7, Issue 1
References:
References