Ethnographic Immersions and Local Collaborations in the Study of Globalization and Environmental Change

  • Stephanie Buechler

Abstract

In this chapter, I examine the role of feminist research methodologies I used across four research sites over three decades to develop collaborative research on the gendered effects of globalization and environmental change and their intersections. I focus on differences and similarities in the development of research collaborations in these four sites and on how feminist research methodologies formed and solidified these collaborative projects. I argue that these collaborations had a cumulative effect: each built on experiences gained during earlier field experiences, but were also adaptive to the specific conditions encountered in the fieldwork settings. In these ethnographic research endeavors, globalization affected the collaborations between the researcher and the interviewees: the more the social group being studied had been touched by globalization, the more common ground was found. Ethnographic research shed light on the interlinkages between environmental change and globalization, especially where research was conducted over a longer period to illuminate processes of change. Ethnographers utilizing feminist research methodologies can bridge differences between interviewer and interviewee, but these methodologies must be adapted to each new context and to each new relationship between the ethnographer and interviewee. This type of research allows for deeper collaborations between the ethnographer and myriad local experts with whom she/he works.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aitken, Stuart C., Ragnhild Lund, and Anne Trine Khorholt. (2007) “Why Children? Why Now?”, Children’s Geographies 5(1–2): 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Appadurai, Arjun. (2003) “Sovereignty without Territoriality: Notes for a Postnational Geography,” in Anthropology of Space and Place: Locating Culture, eds. Setha M. Low, Denise Lawrence-Zuniga. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell Publishing, 337–351.Google Scholar
  3. Bickham Méndez, Jennifer. (2009) “Globalizing Feminist Research,” in Women Fielding Danger-negotiating Ethnographic Identities in Field Research, ed. Martha K. Huggins and Marie-Louise Glebbeek. New York: Rowman and Littlefield, 67–96.Google Scholar
  4. Buechler, Hans, and Judith-Maria Buechler. (1996) The World of Sofia Velázquez. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  5. ——. (1990) The World of Sofia Velázquez, a film in collaboration with Hans Schlumpf.Google Scholar
  6. ——. (1981) Carmen: the Autobiography of a Spanish Galician Woman. Cambridge, Mass: Schenkman.Google Scholar
  7. Buechler, Hans, Judith-Maria Buechler, Simone Buechler, and Stephanie Buechler. (1998) “Financing Small-Scale Enterprises in Bolivia,” in The Third Wave of Modernization in Latin America: Cultural Perspectives on Neoliberalism, ed. Lynne Phillips. Wilmington, DE: SR Books, Jaguar Books series No. 16, 83–108.Google Scholar
  8. Buechler, Stephanie. (2012) “Sustainability of Gendered Agricultural Production in the Context of Water Scarcity and Climate Change on the Mexican Border with the United States,” in Gender, Natural Resources and Sustainability: Critical Case Studies from the Americas and Asia, ed. María Luz Cruz Torres and Pamela McElwee. Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 121–141.Google Scholar
  9. ——. (2009) “Gender, Water and Climate Change in Sonora, Mexico: Implications for Policies and Programmes on Agricultural Income Generation.” Special Issue on Climate Change. Gender and Development 17(1): 51–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. ——. (2005) “Women at the Helm of Irrigated Agriculture in Mexico: the Other Side of Male Migration,” in Opposing Currents: The Politics of Water and Gender in Latin America, ed. Vivienne Bennett, Sonia Dávila Poblete, and Maria Nieves Rico. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 170–189.Google Scholar
  11. ——. (2004) “A Sustainable Livelihoods Approach for Action Research on Wastewater Use, in Agriculture,” in Wastewater Use in Irrigated Agriculture: Confronting the Livelihood and Environmental Realities, ed. Christopher Scott, Naser Faruqui, and Liqa Rachid-Sally. Oxfordshire, UK: CABI Press, 25–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. ——. (2003) “Irrigated Agriculture on Mexican Ejidos: Complementarities with Off-farm and Non-farm Economic Strategies,” in Managing a Sacred Gift: Changing Water Management Strategies in Mexico, ed. Scott Whiteford and Roberto Melville. La Jolla: Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies, Univ. of California, San Diego, 125–142.Google Scholar
  13. ——. (1992) “Strategizing in the Face of Industrial Restructuring: Women at Work in a Foreign- owned Garment Industry and at Home in Rural America.” (Master’s thesis, Public Affairs Program, Cornell University).Google Scholar
  14. Buechler, Stephanie (director), Hans Buechler (ethnography), and Juan Miranda (camera). (1994) Doña Avelina: Una artesana boliviana: crédito y producción. Coalición Internacional para la Mujer y el Crédito y Banco Sol.Google Scholar
  15. ——. (1994) Doña Avelina: A Bolivian Artisan: Credit and Production. Intermational Coalition for Women and Credit and Banco Sol. (English version of above Film.)Google Scholar
  16. Buechler, Stephanie, and Emma Zapata Martelo, eds. (2000) Estuve detrás de todo a la corre y corre: Género y manejo de agua y tierra en comunidades rurales de México [Gender and the management of water and land in Mexican rural communities]. Serie Latinoamericana. México, D.F.: International Water Management Institute and the Colegio de Postgraduados, Montecillo.Google Scholar
  17. Buechler, Stephanie, and Gayathri Devi. (2012) “Highlighting the User in Wastewater Research: Gender, Caste and Class in the Study of Wastewater-dependent Livelihoods in Hyderabad, India,” in Diverting the Flow: Gender Equity and Water in South Asia, ed. Sara Ahmed, Suman Rimal Gautam, and Margreet Zwarteveen. New Delhi: Zubaan Books, imprint of Kali for Women, 337–366.Google Scholar
  18. Buechler, Stephanie, and Gayathri Devi. (2005) “Local Responses to Water Resource Degradation in India: Groundwater Farmer Innovations and the Reversal of Knowledge Flows.” Special issue on Water. Journal of Environment and Development 14(4): 410–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Buechler, Stephanie, Gayathri Devi, and Rama Devi (Directors). (2003) Making a Living along the Musi River: Wastewater Users in and around Hyderabad City, India. Documentary film coproduced by the International Water Management Institute, the Department for International Development, UK and the Resource Center for Urban Agriculture and Food Security Foundation, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
  20. De Vault, Marjory. (1990) “Talking and Listening from a Women’s Standpoint: Feminist Strategies for Interviewing and Analysis,” Social Problems 37(1): 96–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Feldman, Shelley, and Stephanie Buechler. (1998) “Negotiating Difference: Constructing Selves and Others in a Transnational Apparel Manufacturing Firm,” Sociological Quarterly 39(4): 623–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fluehr-Lobban, Carolyn. (2008). “Collaborative Anthropology as Twenty-First-Century Ethical Anthropology,” Collaborative Anthropologies 1: 175–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gorelick, Sherry. (1996) “Contradictions of Feminist Methodology,” in Feminism and Social Change, ed. Heidi Gottfried. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 23–45.Google Scholar
  24. Hopkins, Peter. (2009) “Women, Men, Positional Ties and Emotion: Doing Feminist Geographies of Religious Groups.” Acme 8(1): 1–17.Google Scholar
  25. Leichenko, Robin and Karen O’Brien. (2008) Environmental Change and Globalization: Double Exposures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mellor, Jody, Nicola Ingramb, Jessie Abrahamsa, and Phoebe Beedell. (2014) “Class Matters in the Interview Setting? Positionality, Situatedness and Class.” British Educational Research Journal 40(1): 135–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mullings, Beverley. (1999) “Insider or Outsider, Both or Neither: Some Dilemmas of Interviewing in a Cross-cultural Setting,” Geoforum 30: 337–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Naples, Nancy. (1996) “A Feminist Revisiting of the Insider/outsider Debate: the “Outsider Phenomenon in Rural Iowa,” Qualitative Sociology 19(1) : 83–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Nast, Heidi. (1994) “Women in the Field: Critical Feminist Methodologies and Theoretical Perspectives,” Professional Geographer 46(1): 54–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Oakley, Ann. (2003) “Interviewing Women: A Contradiction in Terms,” in Turning Points in Qualitative Research: Tying Knots in a Handkerchief, ed. Yvonna S. Lincoln, Norman K. Denzin. Walnut Creek, Calif.: Alta Mira Press, 243–264.Google Scholar
  31. Parreñas, Rachel Salazar. (2007) “Geographies of Race and Class: The Place and Placelessness of Migrant Filipina Domestic Workers,” in The Gender of Globalization: Women Navigating Cultural and Economic Marginalities, ed. Nandini Gunewardena and Ann E. Kingsolver. Oxford; Santa Fe, N.M.: School for Advanced Research Press, 171–195.Google Scholar
  32. Temple, Bogusia, and Rosalind Edwards. (2002) “Interpreters/translators and Cross-Language Research: Reflexivity and Border Crossings,” International Journal of Qualitative Methods 1(2): 1–12.Google Scholar
  33. Trainor, Audrey A. (2013) “Interview Research,” in Qualitative Methods in the Social and Behavioral Sciences, ed. Audrey A. Trainor and Elizabeth Graue. New York: Taylor and Francis, 125–138.Google Scholar
  34. Valentine, Gill. (2002) “People like Us: Negotiating Sameness and Difference in the Research Process,” in Feminist Geography in Practice-Research and Methods, ed. Pamela Moss Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 116–126.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Stephanie Buechler 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stephanie Buechler

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations