Premium
Relationships, complicity and representation: Conducting research in Nepal during the Maoist insurgency
Author(s) -
Pettigrew Judith,
Shneiderman Sara,
Harper Ian
Publication year - 2004
Publication title -
anthropology today
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.419
H-Index - 24
eISSN - 1467-8322
pISSN - 0268-540X
DOI - 10.1111/j.0268-540x.2004.00248.x
Subject(s) - complicity , politics , representation (politics) , insurgency , sociology , political science , law
peer-reviewedConducting fieldwork in conflict situations raises specific\udmethodological and ethical questions. While Taussig\ud(1984, 1987, 1992) and Scheper-Hughes (1995) have\udcalled for anthropologists to speak out against terror, they\udhave not addressed in detail how researchers working in\udwar zones should negotiate the pragmatics of representation\udin dangerous field situations. As Kovats-Bernat\ud(2002) notes, although there is a growing literature that\udaims to develop theoretical approaches to the study of violence,\udrelatively little attention has been given to the practical\udconcerns surrounding fieldwork in conflict\udsituations.1 What is needed, he argues, is 'the adoption of\udnew tactics for ethnographic research and survival in dangerous\udfield sites - strategies that challenge the conventional\udethics of the discipline, reconfigure the relationships\udbetween anthropologist and informant, and compel innovation\udin negotiating the exchange of data under hazardous\udcircumstances' (2002: 208). Danny Hoffman (2003) similarly\udaddresses this issue with his call for a reconsideration\udof 'frontline anthropology' techniques. We contribute to\udthis discussion by examining these questions within the\udrapidly changing context of Nepal, where a bitter internal\udconflict has developed over the last eight years