Abstract
Equitable interdisciplinary teamwork is easier said than done. For, it is not simply a matter of adding a “pinch” of social science into a larger interdisciplinary team, and stirring. Putting interdisciplinarity into action requires a more distilled and nuanced approach involving negotiation, bargaining and, sometimes, contestation and resistance between and among different domains of disciplinary actors, knowledge, meanings and understanding. The overarching goal for anthropologists and sociocultural scientists is to integrate theories, methodologies, and practices of the study of culture, politics, and social relations into agricultural and natural resource management research, as well as to integrate themselves into larger interdisciplinary teams on an equal footing. As McDonald argues in his call for a discussion on keeping the culture in agriculture, “by putting culture squarely at the center of any analysis of agriculture, we seek to “put people first” by exploring the complex ways that people conceptualize, give meaning to, and organize around agriculture” (McDonald 2005, p. 71). However, putting culture into the analysis of agriculture in research systems long dominated by biophysical scientists and approaches, such as within research centers of the Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), is challenging. This chapter describes the various dilemmas, challenges, and opportunities encountered by sociocultural scientists in interdisciplinary projects within the CGIAR. It argues that to more effectively address the needs and realities of vulnerable women and men at the grassroots, agricultural research systems must take more steps to fully integrate social, cultural, and political lines of inquiry into their core mandates.
This paper is a revised and expanded version of a paper initially presented at the American Anthropological Association annual conference in Washington D.C. in 2005, entitled “Anthro-Apology?: Negotiating Space for Interdisciplinary Collaboration and Rigorous Anthropology in the CGIAR” by the same authors.
The author’s (Diane Russell) contributions to this chapter do not represent official opinions or positions of either USAID or the Government of the United States of America.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Prominent sociocultural disciplines include anthropology, sociology, and political science.
- 2.
The 2008 G&D survey did not disaggregate between economists and sociocultural scientists.
- 3.
Unless one is interested in studying critically the anthropology of science or the impacts of technology, in which case all the priorities might be a good subject for reflexive and critical research.
- 4.
- 5.
Other institutions that support social sciences, such as universities, were able to better maintain the relevance of the social sciences to their core mandates (Brush 2006, p. 1).
- 6.
Current (2009) members of the Science Council include six biophysical scientists and one economist (see www.sciencecouncil.cgiar.org/).
- 7.
The survey undertaken by CIAT in 2002 demonstrates that of the category of anthropologists, sociologists, and “related disciplines,” 42% were receiving “core” funds, while 34% had special project/competitive and grant funds, 9% had funds from systemwide programs, and 15% were seconded to the CG (CIAT 2002).
- 8.
CIFOR (the Center for International Forestry Research) is perhaps an exception to the overall trend in the CGIAR, with sociocultural scientists currently out-numbering economists, and social scientists (in the aggregate) occupying between 33% and 56% of senior scientist and managerial positions. However, with the exception of postdoctoral fellows, biophysical scientists dominate more junior scientific positions – with sociocultural scientists, economists, and biophysical scientists occupying 14%, 14%, and 72% of these staff positions (respectively).
- 9.
Perhaps this is a context that is not very different from the new context of academia (as we have observed in the UK and US recently).
- 10.
The detailed study of human societies practiced by immersing oneself in that society for an extended period of time. Ethnography is founded on the concept of “holism,” the idea that a system’s properties cannot be accurately understood independently of each other.
- 11.
While the focus of this chapter has been on the CGIAR, it equally pertains to the experiences of socio-cultural scientists in national agricultural research systems – the most creative and talented of whom tend to quickly move to more fertile professional ground given the scientific and political challenges faced. The recommendations herein can therefore be equally relevant to the CGIAR as to other agricultural research systems driven by similar perspectives and challenged by similar constraints.
- 12.
One colleague in CIFOR complained that his social science colleagues often view biophysical research to be too “theoretical” (e.g. not of immediate social relevance), and therefore felt constrained in the questions that could be asked. Questions about forest biomass, once largely shunned by his peers, are now en vogue as a result of the emerging global interest in climate change mitigation. This experience can be viewed in two ways: as a constructive way in which social scientists have helped enhance the relevance of biophysical research, or as a failure of other disciplines (in this case, social scientists) to acknowledge early on the importance of certain questions from other disciplines. This example provides further evidence for the need for cross-“cultural” dialogue among different disciplines on an equal playing field.
- 13.
Indeed, one debate within the network was whether it should remain an exclusive network of anthropologists, or whether it should be open to other disciplines. By ear-marking the network for anthropologists only, it might have missed an important opportunity for promoting interdisciplinary understanding and bridge-building with other sociocultural scientists as well as the wider CG.
References
Biggs, S. (1989). A multiple source of innovation model of agricultural research and technology promotion. AgREN Network Paper No. 6. London: ODI.
Bodley, J. H. (1994). Cultural anthropology: Tribes, states and the global system. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.
Box, L. (2008). Book Review of M. M. Cernea & A. H. Kassam, (Eds.), 2006, Researching the culture in agri-culture: Social research for international development. Wallingford, UK: CABI. Development and Change, 29 (1), 173–196.
Brush, S. B. (2006). Cernea comment. Special Section, Peer Commentaries on Michael Cernea’s “Studying the culture in agriculture: The uphill battle for social research in CGIAR.” Culture and Agriculture, 28 (1), 1–3.
Camaroff, J., & Camaroff, J. (1991). Of revolution and revelation, volume 1: The dialectics of modernity in a South African frontier. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Camaroff, J., & Camaroff, J. (1997). Of revolution and revelation, volume 1: Christianity, colonialism and consciousness in Southern Africa. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Carney, J., & Watts, M. (1990). Manufacturing dissent: Work, gender and the politics of meaning in a peasant society. Africa, 60(2), 207–241.
Cernea, M. M. (2005). Studying the culture of agriculture: An uphill battle for social research in the CGIAR. Culture and Agriculture, 27(2), 73–87.
CGIAR Science Council. (2000). A food secure world for all: Towards a new vision and strategy for the CGIAR. Rome: Science Council Secretariat.
CGIAR Science Council. (2005). System priorities for CGIAR research 2005–2015. Rome: Science Council Secretariat.
CIAT (2002). CGIAR social scientists survey. Cali: CIAT. http://webapp.ciat.cgiar.org/src/survey.htm. Accessed 30 April 2009
Cleveland, D. (2006). What kind of social science does the CGIAR, and the world, need? Culture and Agriculture, 28(1), 4–9.
Cotula, L., Dyer, N., & Vermeulen, S. (2008). Fuelling exclusion? The biofuels boom and poor people’s access to land. London: IIED.
Eyzaguirre, P. (2006). Agricultural biodiversity and how human culture is shaping it. In M. M. Cernea & A. H. Kassam (Eds.), Researching the culture in agri-culture: Social research for international development (pp. 264–284). Wallingford, UK: CABI.
Fairhead, J., & Leach, M. (1996). Misreading the African landscape. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fairhead, J., & Leach, M. (1995). False forest history, complicit social analysis: Rethinking some western African environmental narratives. World Development, 23(6), 1023–1035.
Ferguson, J. (1994). The anti-politics machine: “Development”, depoliticization, and bureaucratic power in Lesotho. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Fujisaka, S. (1994). Will farmer participatory research survive in the international agricultural research centres? In I. Scoones and J. Thompson (Eds.), Beyond farmer first: rural people’s knowledge, agricultural research and extension practice (pp. 227–235). London: Intermediate Technology Publications.
Gender and Diversity (2008). Systemwide CGIAR HR survey 2008. Nairobi: Gender and Diversity Programme of the CGIAR.
German, L., Mazengia, W., Tirwomwe, W., Ayele, S., Tanui, J., Nyangas, S., Begashaw, L., Taye, H., Admassu, Z., Tsegaye, M., Charamila, S., Alinyo, F., Mekonnen, A., Aberra, K., Chemangeni, A., Cheptegei, W., Tolera, T., Jotte, Z., & Bedane, K. (in press). Enabling equitable collective action and policy change for poverty reduction and improved natural resource management in the Eastern African Highlands. In E. Mwangi, H. Markelova, & R. Meinzen-Dick (Eds.), Collective action and property rights for poverty reduction. Washington, DC and Baltimore, MD: IFPRI and Johns Hopkins.
Holt-Gimenez, E., Altieri, M. A., & Rosset, P. (2006). Ten reasons why the Rockefeller and Bill and Melinda Gates Foundations’ Alliance for a Green Revolution for Africa will not solve the problems of poverty and hunger in Sub-Saharan Africa. Food First Policy Brief No. 12. Oakland, CA: Institute for Food and Development Policy.
Jayasinghe, G., & Moore, B. (2003). First the good news … Staffing the CGIAR 2003. Working Paper No. 40. Nairobi: CGIAR Gender and Diversity Program.
Keeley, J., & Scoones, I. (1999). Understanding environmental policy processes: A review. Working Paper No. 89. Brighton: Institute of Development Studies.
Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Latour, B. (1993). We have never been modern. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester.
Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory life: The social construction of scientific facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Mackenzie, F. (1995). “A farm is like a child who cannot be left unguarded”: Gender, land and labour in Central Province, Kenya. IDS Bulletin, 26(1), 17–23.
Mazengia, W. (2006). Enhancing improved seed dissemination through local bylaws in Gununo watershed, Southern Ethiopia. Paper presented at the Africa-Wide Workshop on Bylaws. Nairobi, 27–29 Nov.
McDonald, J. H. (2005). Keeping culture in agriculture: A call for discussion. Culture and Agriculture, 27(2), 71–72.
Moore, D. (1993). Contesting terrain in Zimbabwe’s eastern highlands: Political ecology, ethnography and peasant resource struggles. Economic Geography, 69, 380–401.
Mosse, D. (2005). Cultivating development: An ethnography of aid policy and practice. London and Ann Arbor, MI: Pluto Press.
Parpart, J. L., & Marchand, M. H. (1995). Exploding the canon: An introduction/conclusion. In M. H. Marchand & J. L. Parpart (Eds.), Feminism/postmodernism/development (pp. 1–22). London: Routledge.
Rathbeber, E. (2006). Who are the social researchers of the CGIAR system? In M. M. Cernea & A. H. Kassam (Eds.), Researching the culture in agri-culture: Social research for international development (pp. 51–80). Wallingford, UK: CABI.
Rathgeber, E. (1990). WID, WAD, GAD: Trends in research and practice. Journal of Developing Areas, 24(4), 489–502.
Rocheleau, D., & Edmunds, D. (1997). Women, men and trees: Gender, power and property in forest and agrarian landscapes. World Development, 25(8), 1351–1371.
Schroeder, R. A. (1993). Shady practice: Gender and the political ecology of resource stabilization in Gambian garden/orchards. Economic Geography, 69(4), 349–365.
Shiva, V. (2000). Stolen harvest: The hijacking of the global food supply. Boston, MA: South End Press.
Shrum, W. (1988). Review essay: The labyrinth of science. American Journal of Sociology, 94(2), 396–403.
Stanford, L. (2006). Response to Michael Cernea. Special section: Peer commentaries on Michael Cernea’s “Studying the Culture in Agriculture: The Uphill Battle for Social Research in CGIAR.” Culture and Agriculture, 28 (1), 20–24.
Stockholm Environment Institute, SEI. (2008). Food, feed and fuels: Consequences of land use change patterns for livelihoods of marginalised people in the South. Stockholm and The Hague: SEI and HIVOS.
Verma, R. (2001). Gender, land and livelihoods: Through farmers’ eyes. Ottawa: IDRC.
Verma, R. (2009). Inside the development machine: Power, culture and disconnect in the central highlands of Madagascar. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, School of Oriental and African Studies.
World Bank. (2004). The CGIAR at 31: An independent meta-evaluation of the consultative group on international agricultural research. Washington, DC: Operations Evaluation Unit. The World Bank.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Conrad Kottak for providing thoughtful and valuable feedback as a discussant when this material was first presented as a paper in a panel on the role of anthropologists in interdisciplinary projects at the 2005 AAA conference in Washington D.C. Thanks go also to Cynthia Fowler for organizing the panel and inviting us to participate. We would also like to acknowledge the contributions of Vicki Wilde of the G&D Systemwide Program and Lely Taulu of CIFOR for their generous contribution of data on staffing.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2010 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Verma, R., Russell, D., German, L. (2010). Anthro-Apology? Negotiating Space for Interdisciplinary Collaboration and In-Depth Anthropology in the CGIAR. In: German, L., Ramisch, J., Verma, R. (eds) Beyond the Biophysical. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-8826-0_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-8826-0_12
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-8825-3
Online ISBN: 978-90-481-8826-0
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)