����ֱ��

Similar to extracting natural resources, researchers have extracted data – cultural practices, artefacts, genetic data – from Indigenous communities and continue to do so until this day. Also beyond the context of Indigenous communities, extractivism in research is relevant. For instance, last year Dutch newspaper de Volkskrant published an article on ‘research fatigue’ in Rotterdam – in particular, in what are considered ‘bad’ or ‘vulnerable’ neighborhoods. The article highlights how residents are exasperated by (social) scientists knocking at their door for research participation (usually without giving something in return for participants’ time and efforts or reporting back). As one resident expresses: “They think they can just come here and collect some data.”

In contrast, feminist, Indigenous and other critical theory scholars have long raised attention for the positions of researcher and researched. They argue that researchers should not be considered outsiders, somehow neutral and unimplicated in who and what they observe, but rather, they should account for the inherent impact of their presence and the power dynamic between being researcher and being researched. This also requires active reflection of the kind of person the researcher themselves is, what they bring to a relationship between researcher and researched, and how this might influence their research results. As Smith says:

“Research in itself is a powerful intervention, even if carried out at a distance, which has traditionally benefited the researcher, and the knowledge base of the dominant group in society. When undertaking research, either across cultures or within a minority culture, it is critical that researchers recognize the power dynamic that is embedded in in the relationship with their subjects. Researchers are in receipt of privileged information. They may interpret it within an overt theoretical framework, but also in terms of a covert ideological framework. They have the power to distort, to make invisible, to overlook and to draw conclusions, based not on factual data, but on assumptions, hidden value judgements, and often downright misunderstandings. They have the potential to extend knowledge or to perpetuate ignorance” (2012, p. 229)

Against this background, how to overcome extractivism in research? One response to this is cocreation together with active reflection on the positions of researcher and researched, requiring critical self-awareness, attention for the power dynamics of research and openness to relationship-building. Within our research team, the aim for cocreation also translates to weekly reflections on our role as researchers, how to deal with differences in expectations, speed and results between knowledge institutions and other stakeholders like industry and civil society, and on ways of giving back, reporting back, receiving and offering constructive feedback and overall building sustainable relationships. When frictions arise in the process of cocreation, we see them as productive: they help exploring how our personal convictions influence our research relationships and results, and it presents an opportunity to give and receive constructive feedback and to embrace a diversity of perspectives. Tsing expresses it well:

“These incommensurable interviews clarified for me a central feature of all social mobilizing: It is based on more or less recognized difference in the goals, objects, and strategies of the cause. The point of understanding this is not to homogenize perspectives but rather to appreciate how we can use diversity as well as possible” (2005, p. x).

Smith, L. T. (2012). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples (Second edition). Zed.

Tsing, A. L. (2005). Friction: An ethnography of global connection. Princeton Univ. Press.