Is taking side part of the “understanding”?

A research dilemma has approached me during the last couple of weeks when I have realized that I tend to take sides. Through my academic training I have come to consider that science and knowledge production are never innocent, they are part of political processes, for example by what research is promoted and then how results are negotiated and used, and whose knowledge counts (as valuable). In academic circles the discussion about objectivity, impartiality and neutrality has been alive and thriving and is far from new, dealing with whether it is at all possible, or if we have to admit that we always have a partial perspective, that we never look from everywhere or nowhere (Haraway 1991), and further that the researcher has a “privileged speaking position” (Back and Solomos 1993, cited in Hammersley 1999).Others have suggested that it is necessary to take side and that it is not even desirable to attempt to be neutral (Galis 2007). The ideal is then to be an “engaged intellectual” with a commitment to values and offer a worldview or interrupting the process of socio-cultural reproduction (Hammersley 1999:8). This is distinct to being committed to a category of persons, or to a political organization. So, since my own concern about “taking sides” is not new, I want to discuss the specific issues that have made me delve upon the area recently.

Today I have been inspired by Martyn Hammersley and his book Taking sides in social research: essays on partisanship and bias (1999). He quotes Patti Lather who has written that “Once we recognise that just as there is no neutral education there is no neutral research, we no longer need apologize for unabashedly ideological research and its open commitment to using research to criticize and change the status quo” (Lather 1986a:67; cited in Hammersley 1999:2). Hammersley argues that she takes this as a starting point rather than something which needs arguments to be backed up, and he cites a contradictory view offered by Patai. She claims that “In fact, putting scholarship at the explicit service of politics carries many (and rather obvious) risks, and should not be greeted with the facile assumption that of course it is what ‘we’ should do” (Patai 1994:68; cited in Hammersley 1999:2). The issue is interesting in relation to the expectation and policy directive that Swedish research should be socially relevant. It was only a few days ago that I received an invitation to a conference in Sweden concerning the theme on how to perform socially relevant research. My question is – for whom, and who decides what is relevant in a context where knowledge is valued due to the contribution of practical activities like political, professional or commercial (Hammersley 1999).

Through the university one is trained to perform valid studies. In an article on anti-racism by Back and Solomon, also referred to by Hammersley, they discuss what to neglect when presenting the findings publicly in order not to harm the people one is studying (Back and Solomos 1993, cited in Hammersley 1999). I found this interesting as well, not only in relation to what one reports at the end, but also in relation to what one decides to include in the project. I am currently debating with myself on whether to observe a specific activity that there has been commotion about within the movement that I am focusing on. Do they have the right, from a research ethical perspective, to question what I study or not? Would I betray them if I went? Would I close doors? Is my responsibility even to get engaged in a critical discussion with the actors of the opposing stand?

I consider that my research is “critical”. “Critical” research doesn’t imply that research per se is independent, but that it is independent from a dominant ideology (Hammersley 1999:3). It is here that I feel as if I have been absorbed by the field which I am studying (I am sure there is a concept, probably from psychoanalytical research for this phenomena or sensation). Through the interaction with the environmental movement I have been convinced that there is harmful cyanide in the water around the gold mines, of the cancerogenous qualities of gliphosate and electromagnetic fields, and of the environmental hazards posed by deforestation. Just like participants in the movement I interpret that this is a sign of poor political management, corruption and how neoliberal economic values rule. But my taking side does not only concern actors, but also different forms of political participation – individual vs collective forms, like demonstrations vs saving water in your bathroom, petitions for waste management vs recycling in your home. But wait a minute, do I dare to publish these thoughts on a public website? So, finally some views on the value of contrasts in keeping a reflexive standpoint to my project. In everyday studies which have been influences by surrealism there is a methodological appreciation for “surprising juxtapositions” (Highmore 2002:23). I mention this as a safety vault, in the sense that I hope I will manage to keep a healthy academic reflexivity on what my study indicates by moving between contexts, contexts that can offer contrasts, or juxtapositions, that highlight the norms, practices and discourses within the movement that I am studying and attempting to understand.

References:
Galis, Vasilis (2007) “Studying the Development of Athens Metro and the Greek
Disability Movement: Neutrality, Reflexivity, and Epistemological Choice”, conference paper at 4S, Montreal, October 2007.
Hammersley, Martyn (1999) Taking sides in social research: essays on partisanship and bias. Routledge.
Haraway, Donna (1988) “Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective”, Feminist Studies. Vol. 14, Issue 3, pp. 575-599.
Highmore, Ben (2002) Everyday Life and Cultural Theory. Routledge.