Abstract
AbstractThis chapter explores how the distinction(s) implied by the term “fieldwork’”, gives rise to false and misleading dichotomies that are not so useful to any decolonial migration praxis that tries to undo the bureaucratic damage of hegemonic ideas about research ethics. It argues that the dichotomies of “home” and the “field” conjured by this term negate an intermediate space between these two extremes in which social relationships, kinship ties and social value define the possible extent of the risk of migration research to further marginalise or protect migrants. The opposing possibilities arise from the interaction of these social attributes to the extent that they mediate a definition of ethical responsibility that is meaningful in particular contexts. This lends, in turn, a novel meaning to power and reciprocity that necessitates a paradigm shift in the kinds of ethics procedures as well as considerations in partnerships on migration studies that presume that power relationships are evened out when research is undertaken by African researchers working in African academic institutions.
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Reference39 articles.
1. Achiume, E. T. (2019). Migration as decolonization. Stanford Law Review, 71, 1509.
2. Amelina, A. (2021). After the reflexive turn in migration studies: Towards the doing migration approach. Population, Space and Place, 27(1), e2368.
3. Anthony, K. I. (2013). The dimensions of African cosmology. Filosofia Theoretica: Journal of African Philosophy Culture and Religion, 2(2), 533–555.
4. Cole, A. (2016). All of us are vulnerable, but some are more vulnerable than others: The political ambiguity of vulnerability studies, an ambivalent critique. Critical Horizons, 17, 260–277. https://doi.org/10.1080/14409917.2016.1153896
5. Conrad, J. (2015). Heart of darkness. Alma Books.