Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T05:56:51.782Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Foreign Researcher: Friend or Foe?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 May 2014

Mubanga E. Kashoki
Mubanga E. Kashoki*
Affiliation:
Institute for African Studies, University of Zambia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In returning once again to an old theme and a familiar and much discussed topic one is keenly conscious of the danger of harping on, as one observer has labelled it, a “tired refrain.” The present revisit is predicated on the simple premise that, though no new ground is broken or fundamentally fresh issues raised, the problem is an intractable one, recurrent and pervasive, and consequently, if for no other reason, deserves one more round of attention. There is also the point, as Colson has aptly observed, that “the world is not an easy place” and abounds in social scientists and others who “share in the questioning of purposes and values.” Indeed, while what is raised in this paper might bear a distressing resemblance to arguments we have heard before, it is important to remember that to the communities who bear much of the brunt of the research conducted by foreign scholars, ethical, moral, and related issues surrounding foreigner-dominated research continue to constitute a critical area for concern and therefore a legitimate topic for sustained criticism and inquiry. Many African universities, for instance, have established ‘research affiliate schemes’ as an important, indeed integral, component of their academic functions, but in the course of operating these schemes philosophical and practical issues have arisen, many of which await satisfactory answers.

It would, however, be wrong to suggest that these concerns remain the preoccupation of academics alone, because in practical terms what a university does inevitably affects the wider public and in consequence arouses their interest and curiosity. A good example of this interest by the wider public in the affairs of the university, with specific reference to research and foreign scholars, is provided vividly and colorfully by an article written by Peter Mwaura which appeared in The Sunday Post, an East African newspaper.

Type
Fieldwork in Zambia
Information
History in Africa , Volume 5 , 1978 , pp. 275 - 299
Copyright
Copyright © African Studies Association 1978

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

NOTES

1. William Shack, personal communication.

2. Colson, Elizabeth, “Culture and Progress,” American Anthropologist, 78(1976), p. 261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3. See Mwaura, Peter, “Expatriate Research: Little Progress, More Problems,” The Sunday Post (Nairobi, Kenya), July 9, 1972, p. 5Google Scholar; also quoted in The Journal of the Language Association of Eastern Africa, 3(1975), pp. 103–04.Google Scholar The references in this paper are to the journal.

4. Ibid.

5. Streeten, Paul P., “Social Science Research on Development: Some Problems on the Use and Transfer of an Intellectual Technology,” as cited in Journal of Economic Literature, 12(1974), p. 1.Google Scholar

6. It needs to be clarified at this point that several kinds of foreign researcher may be distinguished: graduate or postgraduate students; established (university-based) scholars with considerable research experience; foreign scholars resident in developing countries for varying periods of time; researchers employed or commissioned by United Nations organizations; and foreign research workers in the employ of the governments of developing countries. While it is recognized that problems pertaining to each of these categories are sometimes substantially different, to the extent that there is a tendency in the researched communities to look at the foreign researcher indiscriminately, it has been considered convenient, for the purposes of this article, to treat him in an equally undifferentiating fashion in the present discussion. The emphasis here, however, will be on the foreign researcher based in foreign universities.

7. Mwaura, , “Expatriate Research,” p. 103.Google Scholar

8. Cazès, Daniel, “Comment,” Current Anthropology, 9(1968), p. 409Google Scholar, citing Swadesh, Mauricio, La nueva filología (Mexico City, 1940), p. 21.Google Scholar

9. Colson, , “Culture and Progress,” p. 266Google Scholar, with emphasis added.

10. Berreman, Gerald, “Is Anthropology Alive? Social Responsibility in Social Anthropology,” Current Anthropology, 9(1968), p. 391CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gjessing, Gutorm, “The Social Responsibility of the Social Scientist,” Current Anthropology, 9(1968), p. 397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

11. See, for example, the University of Zambia's Handbook on Research for the Year 1972, p. 80.

12. See Uchendu, Victor C., “Priority Issues for Social Anthropological Research in Africa in the Next Two Decades,” a paper presented to the Twentieth Conference of the African Studies Program, Northwestern University, September 10-13, 1968.Google Scholar

13. For example see Ladner, Joyce A., ed., The Death of White Sociology (New York, 1973)Google Scholar; Streeten, “Social Science Research”; Blauner, Robert and Wellman, David, “Toward the Decolonization of Social Research,” in Ladner, , Death, pp. 310–30Google Scholar; Serpell, Robert, Culture's Influence on Behaviour (London, 1976)Google Scholar; Magubane, B., “A Critical Look at Indices Used in the Study of Social Change in Colonial Africa,” Current Anthropology, 12(1971), pp. 419–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Mills, C. Wright, “The Social Role of the Intellectual” in Horowitz, I., ed., Power, Politics, and People (New York, 1964), pp. 292–304Google Scholar; Alvin Gouldner, “Anti-Minotaur: The Myth of a Value-Free Sociology” in ibid., pp. 196-217; Gjessing, “Social Responsibility.”

14. Berreman, , “Is Anthropology Alive?” pp. 392–93.Google Scholar

15. Temu, Peter, “The Employment of Foreign Consultants in Tanzania: Its Value and Limitations,” African Review, 3(1973), p. 72.Google Scholar

16. Ibid.

17. Berreman, , “Is Anthropology Alive?” p. 391.Google Scholar

18. Abrahams, Cecil, “Review of Chinua Achebe, Morning let on Creation Day (London, 1975),” Canadian Journal of African Studies, 10(1976), p. 357.Google Scholar

19. Temu, , “Employment,” p. 70.Google Scholar

20. Colson, , “Culture and Progress,” p. 269Google Scholar; Dr. Colson (personal communication) states that during the 1940s it was usual for research officers working for the Rhodes-Livingstone Institute, a number of whom were doctoral candidates, to spend a minimum of two to two and a half years on actual fieldwork, divided into an initial year of fieldwork and followed by an initial write-up before the officer returned to the field for his final year of investigation. She also points out that the British Colonial Social Science Research Council, established about the same time as RLI, awarded at least one research grant for as much as three years, thus enabling the recipient to spend at least two years in the field.

21. See “Research Affiliate Scheme,” University of Zambia, Institute for African Studies.

22. Refer to the International Association of Cross-cultural Psychology (IAACP), Appendix A, “Advisory principles for ethical considerations in the conduct of cross-cultural research,” Fall 1973 revision (mimeographed), p. 1.

23. Abrahams, “Review.”

24. Colson, , “Culture and Progress,” pp. 269–70.Google Scholar

25. It has been suggested in some quarters that in the same way that research proposals are referred to those on the spot for comment, drafts of Ph.D. dissertations or research reports should be submitted for verification of facts and conclusions by those likely to be closer to the reality of the situation. Others argue here that this is beginning to verge dangerously on the invasion of academic freedom.

26. See Institute for African Studies, University of Zambia, “Research Affiliate Scheme: Agreement Form,” (mimeographed).

27. See African Social Research, no. 16 (1973), p. v.Google Scholar

28. See, for example, Peter, Lawrence J., The Veter Prescription (New York, 1972)Google Scholar, especially the section, “The Peter Palaver: Use Words to Mystify Rather than Clarify.”

29. Blauner, and Wellman, , “Toward the Decolonization,” p. 316.Google Scholar

30. Streeten, , “Social Science Research,” pp. 1–2.Google Scholar

31. Ibid., p. 2.

32. The fact that this is also true of newly-established periodicals in industrialized societies does not detract from the force of the argument.

33. Butler, P.M., “Comment,” Current Anthropology, 9(1968), p. 408.Google Scholar

34. Ibid.

35. One is of course conscious of the fact that funding agencies now stipulate as an essential condition of their funding operations that the grant recipient from developing countries should preferably undertake research in the country of his permanent residence. Based on past experience, funding agencies are wary of Third World scholars lingering longer than is necessary in developed countries for fear that they might constitute a brain-drain as a result of a protracted sociocultural and economic attachment to the country of their training.