Fernandes

I am glad that Fernandes is talking about the "market driven organization of the production and consumption of knowledge." As I move through academia, the sense of faddishness and cliquishness has been surprising. In particular, I have been frustrated by what she calls "the new stylistic or linguistic turn of phrase" (p.195) which seems to be mandatory for publication. For social scientists, who might be assumed to share a concern with the ways in which institutions like education affect people differentially on the basis of class, it seems peculiar that what we publish should be written in a style that is linguistically inaccessible to ordinary citizens.

That said, once I figured out what was meant by an “ethic of risk”, I found her discussion of the matter useful, although I can only hope that I understood her correctly. There is danger in the attempt to translate other peoples’ worlds into academic knowledge, but it is unethical to try to play it safe. The fieldwork I am proposing for my dissertation will be among African-Americans. As one of my classmates said to me, “Wouldn’t it be better for an African-American to do that study?” Yes. Yes it would, but I don’t  see anyone ready to take it up, so I have been trying to figure out how to do this ethically. Yet I have been acutely aware that this is a project which is entirely my idea. It’s a fairly hot topic with the people who have the power to grant funds. It’s a topic that is dear to the heart of my advisor. These are things that are important ingredients for a successful dissertation – what Fernandes refers to as the politics of fieldwork. But it may not be a hot topic with the people in the community I will be asking to participate.

I hope I can design a study that will produce knowledge that is helpful to the community. I have to write a proposal for something that I think will contribute to the well-being of its subjects, as well as to the theoretical edifice of my discipline, get it approved by a committee of professors, and get it funded by some committee of experts in public health. Will this proposal be something that the local community finds valuable? Quoting Welch, Fernandes writes, "...within an ethic of risk, actions begin with the recognition that far too much has been lost and there are no clear means of restitution" (p.131). When I start talking to potential informants, I may find out that there is something else they wish I would study, or I may find out that they agree with my classmate and want me to get out of the neighborhood. It seems better to talk to potential informants first, recognizing that I might be going back to my advisor and saying, “They would rather I studied something else.” The ethic of risk – to decide to care and to act although there are no guarantees of success.

So, Fernandes’ discussion of a practice-oriented approach, with attention to the practice of ethical principles as knowledge is produced, contains suggestions that I should keep as a list above my desk. Pay attention to how you are gaining access to informants and to information. Think about what kinds of questions should (or should not) be asked. Make sure your subjects have the information they need. When you write your papers, think about who will be using it, for what purpose, and who will profit from it. Your subjects should profit from it. She suggests being an engaged witness, not merely observing, but in the sense of bearing witness, testifying, or speaking out on behalf of others. The witness in a field setting changes the dynamics, and there is the danger of putting one’s informants in a bad position. This makes perfect sense, but what can I assume about the way that my presence will change the dynamics in a given situation? Above all, I need to be willing to give up a degree of control, to develop and rethink my research goals and agendas in collaboration with members of the local community.