Advertisement

Exchange of Intangible Gifts? Reflections on Research Relationships When “Studying Up”

  • Emilia Perujo
Chapter
Part of the Theory and History in the Human and Social Sciences book series (THHSS)

Abstract

Why do informants participate in anthropological research? To examine forms of mutual exchange in research relationships, it might be helpful to refer to one of anthropology’s key concepts: reciprocity, i.e., the principle of mutual exchange, an act of giving, receiving, and again giving back. Before we start our social science inquiries, it is clear for us why we want to be benefited by access to experiences, opinions, and beliefs, although it is never so clear why people we meet agree to participate, even more when we are not giving back a tangible, visible “gift” until research is finished, and when people do not ask for it explicitly. What do we give in exchange of their time and knowledge? In this paper I focus on four different fieldwork experiences when “studying up.” It is the result of a reflexive process of reevaluating the motives and transactional dynamics between the researcher and her conunterparts, partners, or interlocutors.

Keywords

Reciprocity Fieldwork Power Interaction Ethics 

References

  1. Arendell, T. (1997). Reflections on the researcher-researched relationship. A woman interviewing men. Qualitative Sociology, 20(3), 341–368.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024727316052CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Becker, G. (1994). Metaphors in disrupted lives. Infertility and cultural constructions of continuity. Medical Anthropology Quarterly, 8(4), 383–410.  https://doi.org/10.1525/maq.1994.8.4.02a00040CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cassell, J., & Jacobs, S.-E. (1987). Introduction. In J. Cassell & S.-E. Jacobs (Eds.), Handbook on ethical issues in anthropology. Washington: American Anthropological Association.Google Scholar
  4. Cornejo, M., Mendoza, F., & Rojas, R. C. (2008). La investigación con relatos de vida.Pistas y opciones del diseño metodológico [Research with life histories. Clues and options for methodological design]. Psykhe, 17(1), 29–39.  https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-22282008000100004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P. (1993). Ethnography. In Principles in practice. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Malinowski, B. (1978). Argonauts of the Western Pacific. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Mauss, M. (2002). The gift. The form and reason for exchange in archaic societies. (W. D. Halls. Trans.). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Nader, L. (1972). Up the anthropologist. Perspectives gained from studying up. In D. Hymes (Ed.), Reinventing anthropology (pp. 284–311). New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
  9. Simmel, G. (1921). The sociological significance of the ‘stranger’. In R. E. Park & E. W. Burgess (Eds.), Introduction to the science of sociology (pp. 322–327). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  10. Spencer, D. (2010, February 28). Emotions in anthropological fieldwork. Emotions in the field and relational anthropology. Retrieved February 20, 2010, from http://emotionsinanthropology.blogspot.com/2010/02/emotions-in-field-and-relational.html
  11. Stodulka, T. (2015). Emotion work, ethnography, and survival strategies on the streets of Yogyakarta. Medical Anthropology, 34(1), 84–97.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01459740.2014.91670CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. Tober, D. M. (2001). Semen as gift, semen as goods. Reproductive workers and the market in altruism. Body & Society, 7(2–3), 137–160.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1357034X010070CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Emilia Perujo
    • 1
  1. 1.Departamento de Antropología SocialUniversidad Autónoma Metropolitana-IztapalapaMexico CityMexico

Personalised recommendations