Chat with us, powered by LiveChat Could you please help me to write the summary and also response essay of two readings (one already had summary ) | acewriters
+1(978)310-4246 credencewriters@gmail.com
  

1. Please write a summary of participatory ethics in 100- 150 words. Explain the key terms, main arguments, and assumptions. 2.Please write a brief response of it. (100-150 words) 3.Please write a response combine with two readings . Combine with the attached document summary and response paper 11 which is the summary of Horrison’s book, explain how these two texts relate. Synthesize them if you can, and if you cannot, explain what the barriers preventing such a synthesis are. Include your own voice by weighing arguments, evaluating evidence, and raising critical questions. If there seems to be something important that none of the authors addresses, point it out and state what you think its significance is. Try to be as specific as possible. Guideline 1. Do your best to characterize each text’s arguments fairly and accurately. 2. Evaluate the evidence that each text presents: point out strengths and weaknesses, both internal to the text and in relation to the others. For example, if one text makes an argument based on an assumption that another text either confirms or refutes, then you can use the latter text to evaluate the plausibility of the claim made by the former. 3. Consider both sides of issues at stake. If all the texts are on one side of an issue, consider the other side. If the texts fall on both sides of an issue, consider where agreements and disagreements lie and what each side’s strengths and weaknesses are. 4. Don’t forget to synthesize your account by showing how the texts relate to one another. The authors are in a figurative, if not literal, “conversation” with one another, and you must be able to recognize and explain what is going on in that conversation.
summary_and_response_paper_11.docx

participatory_ethics.pdf

harrison___decolonizing_anthro_chapters.pdf

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Running Head: SUMMARY AND RESPONSE
1
Summary and response
Part 1: summary.
A summary on decolonizing anthropology.
Faye V. Harrison’s book moving further towards an anthropology for liberation.
(Arlington, Virginia: AAA publications) is an anthropological book that details the colonial and
imperialists rule in the early 1960s. In order to achieve freedom and equity, anthropology which
resulted from rationalists and liberal intellectual traditions must be destroyed. Its objective is to
address the release and limitations of radical and critical anthropology that has emerged from the
debates and limitations of the past two decades. The critiques of critiques will lay down the path
to an anthropology designed to promote equality, justice and social transformation. The book
challenges anthropologists to consider the critiques of the neglected traditions that have long
confronted and challenged the colonial and neocolonial structure of power and economic
relations. The apartheid policy is interlinked with the colonial expansion and dominion. The
major cause of world challenges is enduring race class/inequalities. The white superiority is a
major cause of inequality in today’s world. “A decolonized anthropology require the
development of theories based on non-western precepts and assumptions.” Anthropology
contributions by people of color has greatly been interfered with. This has led to biased
multiculturalism with censored information. Anthropologists can be directly involved in politics
with people and communities that host ethnographic investigations. The book attempts to press
the issue of native anthropologists further in order to identify the race and class which are too
prone for anthropologists to neglect.
SUMMARY AND RESPONSE
2
Part 2: Reaction.
One of my relationship to the book is how the opinions of the anthropologists of color
and women has been censored. The white superiority led to biasness in anthropology because of
inequality. Through the critique of the intellectual traditions, facts about third world and people
of color can be developed. I think anthropology should promote equality and justice regardless of
gender and color. Anthropologists should be able to contribute to better understanding of racism,
and the socio-cultural construction of racial differences.
I think the anthropology of race is backwardness and a show of how neglecting of vital
information can lead to the omission of facts. I think the concept of cultural differences has
greatly affected the main goal of addressing the political and economic challenges facing the
world. By revisiting the work of the anthropologists who were forced to work and struggle in
intellectual periphery, anthropologists can positively contribute to the study of race, culture and
inequality.
In conclusion, I would suggest that anthropologists should avoid the concept of race,
color and white superiority.
SUMMARY AND RESPONSE
3
Participatory Ethics:
Politics, Practices, Institutions
Caitlin Cahill 1
F
Community Studies, College of Social & Behavioral Science,
University of Utah, Utah USA
Email: caitlin.cahill@csbs.utah.edu
HU
UH
Farhana Sultana
Department of Geography, King’s College London, The Strand
London WC2R 2LS UK Email: farhana.sultana@kcl.ac.uk
HU
U
Rachel Pain
Department of Geography, Durham University, Science Site,
Durham DH1 3LE UK Email: rachel.pain@durham.ac.uk
HU
0 B
UH
Introduction
Research in […] a time of uncertainty, and in an era when knowledge
as power is reinscribed through its value as a commodity in the
global market place, presents tricky ground for researchers. (Smith,
2007, 102)
1
© Caitlin Cahill, Farhana Sultana and Rachel Pain 2007; journal compilation © ACME
Editorial Collective, 2007
ACME: An International E-Journal for Critical Geographies, 6 (3), 304-318
305
This observation from indigenous scholar Linda Tuhiwai Smith about research in
the twenty-first century has special resonance for participatory research. As
participatory researchers, we pursue research and other activities with communities
(or traditional research ‘subjects’) as collaborating partners, with the primary goal
of working towards positive changes on issues identified by the collective (Kindon
et al., 2007). We try to engage in all aspects of research – research questions, the
choice and design of methods, the analysis of data, the presentation of findings, and
the pursuit of follow up action – as collaborative projects which require negotiation
between the different parties. So the complex challenge of negotiating ‘ethics’ – as
multiple and contested, and whether in institutional or everyday spaces – is central
to our research process and inquiry.
This special issue provides an opening on the messy, behind-closed-door
conversations we participate in as we negotiate the ethical quandaries that riddle
our research, writing, and theorizing. It grew out of a desire to excavate the ‘tricky
ground’ we stand on as participatory researchers grappling with the politics of
collaboration, positionality, accountability, and responsibility (Smith, 2007). We
articulate these questions within the framework of ‘ethics’ in order to engage in the
thorny dilemmas that participatory research presents for theory, practice, and
institutional policies. Teasing out the critical issues that participatory research
raises for research ethics, we hope to contribute to the ongoing public conversation
about the obligations, challenges, and tensions involved in engaging in
collaborative research towards social change (Cameron and Gibson, 2005; Kindon
et al., 2007; Manzo and Brightbill, 2007), and to recent debates around institutional
ethics 2 .
F
F
The epistemological approach of participatory research has profound
implications for rethinking our ethical commitments, and raises a series of critical
questions. What do participatory theory and practice tell us about the nature and
location of ‘ethics’? What are the ethical dimensions of participatory work? Are
there fundamental principles at play in ethical decision-making in participatory
projects? And, finally, is there such a thing as an ‘ethic of participation’; and if so,
what does it look like? 3 As Manzo and Brightbill (2007) argue, many choose to do
participatory work for ethical reasons, but doing so does not circumvent ethical
F
F
2
See Alderson and Morrow, 2006; Evans, 2004; Halse and Honey, 2005; Hodge and
Lester, 2006; Israel and Hay, 2006; Leadbeater et al., 2006.
3
See Manzo and Brightbill, 2007, 33-34, for further discussions in this vein, while Khanlou
and Peter (2005), and Rambaldi et al. (2006), summarize the ethical issues which particular
participatory approaches may face.
Participatory Ethics: Politics, Practices, Institutions
306
dilemmas. Indeed it raises new dilemmas, and these often collide with institutional
ethics procedures in especially problematic ways. To this end, the papers here
critically interrogate the tensions involved in participatory work, and seek to
advance a deeper, more critical conceptualization of participatory ethics. This is
especially important given recent trends towards the institutionalization of research
ethics, and the call for greater accountability for research processes, outcomes and
politics to researchers, institutions, funders and research participants.
At the heart of this special issue is a deep-seated belief in the transformative
potential of participatory research. Our conceptualization of a participatory ethics
is motivated by a vision for ‘what could be,’ and the possibilities of addressing
asymmetries of power, privilege, and knowledge production. Inspired by the
radical philosopher Paulo Freire (2001), we conceptualize participatory ethics as an
intervention:
When I speak of intervention, I refer both to the aspiration for radical
changes in society in such areas as economic, human relations,
property, the right to employment, to land, to education, and to
health, and to the reactionary position whose aim is to immobilize
history and maintain an unjust socio-economic and cultural order.
(Freire, 2001, 6)
In this sense participatory ethics might be understood as an ethical stance against
neutrality, and ‘an “existential” commitment to an ethical ideal rather than to
historical inevitability’ (Aronowitz, 2001, 7). To this end, participatory ethics are
affirmed as an epistemological curiosity; a responsibility for critical reflection and
action that is an integral part of being alive (Freire, 2001); and a ‘retreat from the
stance of dispassion’ (Fine et al., 2000, 128; Haraway 1991). While such a stance
has been advocated and debated amongst critical geographers and feminist scholars
in recent years (e.g. Bondi 2003; Fuller and Kitchin, 2004; Moss 2002; Nast 1994),
our interest here is the ways that these goals inform and encourage certain
participatory research practices and research ethics.
Central to participatory ethics, too, is a presumption of engaged scholarship,
of doing research informed by an ‘ethic of care’ in its most profound sense as a
deep respect for relationships and humanity (Ellis, 2007; Gilligan, 1982; Halse and
Honey, 2005; Lawrence-Lightfoot, 2000; Lawson, 2007; Manzo and Brightbill,
2007). A participatory ethics builds upon long-standing traditions of grassroots
social movements, activism, critical race and feminist theories and the work of
social justice advocates who strive to address unequal relations of power, open up
new spaces for decolonized knowledge production, and challenge the dominant
hegemonic paradigm (Kretzmann and McKnight, 1996; Tuck, forthcoming; Kelley,
1998; Smith, 2007). At the same time, such approaches raise critical concerns
about the implications for this practice, especially in the increasingly corporatized
academic setting. Below, we map out the ethical dimensions of participatory
ACME: An International E-Journal for Critical Geographies, 6 (3), 304-318
307
research in the three overlapping domains of institutional policies, research
practice, and politics, with reference to the papers that follow our introductory
overview.
1 B
4 B
Ethical Domains
Institutional policies
This special issue originated in a series of dynamic conference sessions at
the Association of American Geographers and the Royal Geographical
Society/Institute of British Geographers in 2006 that engaged participants in a
dialogue about the whispered frustrations and dilemmas involved in doing
collaborative work. Of particular concern to those involved was the debate about
institutional ethics versus ethical practice which, while not limited to participatory
research, is thrown into sharp relief when considering participatory practice. Our
sessions became safe spaces to publicly air grievances, share strategies, and work
collectively to understand and respond to the tensions between institutional ethics
and participatory ethical practices. On the one hand, researchers seem increasingly
subject to a restrictive, inflexible and top-down view of what ‘ethics’ should be, via
the codes of human subject panels which we are expected to adhere to. On the other
hand, debates about what participatory ethics might be emphasize an emergent
process of negotiating research ethics with participants based on their concerns.
All of the papers in this collection touch upon these issues, which are of particular
concern because of the demands of ethical clearance from universities and the
institutions that fund and control research.
To begin, Deborah Martin’s paper offers an historical context for the
‘regulatory regimes’ of Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) and human subject
committees. While there are slightly different issues in the United Kingdom
(where ethical review boards are only now being established systematically in
some social science disciplines), her critical insights into the institutionalization
and bureaucratic enforcement of ethics are relevant to all participatory researchers.
She illustrates how the IRBs’ codified power relations and assumptions about
agency serve to disenfranchise all involved.
Sarah Elwood, Kye Askins, Megan Blake, and Matt Bradley all share
personal journeys negotiating IRB gatekeepers, revealing the contradictions
between ethics that are embodied, engaged and negotiated collectively, and the
imposition of one-size-fits-all ethical standards. Sarah Elwood discusses the
challenge of maintaining the ‘reflective dialogue with research participants that lies
at the heart of participatory ethics’ in the face of institutional requirements that do
not recognize that research questions and procedures, as well as findings, may be
emergent as well as open to negotiation with participants. Megan Blake’s emphasis
is on different constructions of the researcher and subject between participatory
action research and institutional ethical review, and the particular issues faced by
Participatory Ethics: Politics, Practices, Institutions
308
researchers who already know, or come to know, participants as friends. For Kye
Askins, becoming a member of her university’s ethics committee was one solution
to her frustration with their limited view of what research is and how it happens.
Her experiences, recounted ethnographically here with the humour that may be a
qualification for sitting through these meetings, underline her insistence that
notions of ethics are multiple and contextual, and best understood in place. Matt
Bradley shares his frustrating experiences of trying to get IRB approval for a
participatory project. His self-reflexive critical analysis of his interactions with the
IRB provides an opening on how the review board marginalizes ‘and
disenfranchised and disadvantaged they claim to protect, all the while ensuring the
survival of the commodification of knowledge for an academic political economy
dominated by a cultural elite’. The authors collectively reveal the contradictions of
a top down institutional ethics which in the name of ‘protection’ gives control of
the process to the researcher. We join Fine at al. (2000, 113) in asking ‘who’s
informed and who’s consenting?’; ‘what is consent? and for whom?’; and how
might an informed consent process look different in a participatory project?
While we bemoan the headaches and restrictions imposed by IRBs, the
authors here are also keen to think through how ethics might facilitate rather than
limit our research practices (Halse and Honey, 2005), and how we might continue
to co-create participatory ethics in the face of growing pressures from our
institutions. This raises a critical issue that emerges across the papers: whether
participatory ethics should be understood in opposition to human subject
committees, or whether, as Manzo and Brightbill (2007) suggest, we should
struggle to extend the core principles of participatory ethics to existing review
bodies. So, for example, rather than doing no harm, participatory research aims to
create social change, as they argue: ‘indeed, a PAR [participatory action research]
inspired understanding of social justice suggests that it is in fact unethical to look
in on circumstances of pain and poverty and yet do nothing’ (Manzo and Brightbill,
2007, 35). With this in mind, we ask how participatory ethics might provide new
insights for reforming ethical review board structures in order that they encourage,
rather than restrict or obstruct, emancipatory collaborative research projects (Pain,
forthcoming).
5 B
Research practices
A participatory ethics is about inclusion, as Freire argues:
The silenced are not just incidental to the curiosity of the researcher
but are the masters of inquiry into the underlying causes of the events
in their world. In this context research becomes a means of moving
them beyond silence into a quest to proclaim the world. (Freire,
1982, 30-31)
ACME: An International E-Journal for Critical Geographies, 6 (3), 304-318
309
Participatory research starts with ‘the understanding that people – especially those
who have experienced historic oppression – hold deep knowledge about their lives
and experiences, and should help shape the questions, [and] frame the
interpretations’ of research (Torre and Fine, 2006, 458). But what does this look
like in practice?
Many of the papers in this collection address important
considerations for engaging in participatory research, such as: how are ethics
negotiated with participants? What power relations and hierarchies become
considerations in doing research? How can we create an iterative and responsive
process for developing ethical codes and agreements with our partners in a way that
reflects and honors our collective negotiated process?
Do respondents have
different ethical priorities to those researchers may take for granted as ‘good
practice’, and what issues does this raise for research? What are the ways in which
participatory ethics can be operationalized in research practice? If ethics are
understood to be socio-culturally and contextually specific, how can we co-create
an ethical practice with our co-collaborators? What particularities are there for
international research, across different places and scales, that might require
different or additional attention?
These issues raise important questions about how intersections of race,
class, gender, ethnicity, and sexuality inform practice in particular contexts. As
Peter Hopkins and Farhana Sultana discuss in their papers, researchers are faced
with multiple dilemmas in engaging with marginalized populations that require the
researcher to be critical of their own positionality, reflexivity, and the power
relations involved. Both describe negotiating ethics in practice: Farhana Sultana, as
a Bangladeshi-born woman returning to conduct research from a US University,
speaks of the impact of multiple axes of difference, inequalities, and geopolitics in
framing the possibility of ethical encounters. Peter Hopkins’ comments are made in
light of his sameness as a Glaswegian young man, difference in relation to the
young Muslims and asylum seekers in his research, as well as other aspects of
positionality that are less often subject for reflection.
Indeed, the prioritization and value of relationships, and the alliances which
emerge in participatory research – as opposed to the brief functional research
encounters of many approaches – are what differentiate participatory research, and
characterize it as both ethically challenging and rewarding (Pain et al, 2007; and
see Megan Blake in this issue). Participatory research aims at ‘mutual respect,
dignity and connectedness between researcher and researched… [It] requires
researchers to act from our hearts and minds, to acknowledge our interpersonal
bonds to others’ (Ellis, 2007, 4). Further, the development of relationships as part
of a process of collaborative engagement may be personally transformative for all
who are involved in the research (see Cahill, 2007). But with collaboration comes
commitment, and this may clash with institutional expectations. For example,
Evans (2004) argues against the rule of confidentiality in regard to the communities
involved in research, which institutional ethical procedures assume is beneficial.
Participatory Ethics: Politics, Practices, Institutions
310
He suggests that if research is participatory and ‘ethical in content and structure
rather than structure alone’ (Evans, 2004, 75) then there is no reason for
anonymity. Moreover, Evans argues that participants have the moral right to be
recognized as sources of information as well as to accrue any benefits for their
communities coming out of research.
A participatory ethics reframes the issue of the ‘protection’ of vulnerable
subjects beyond the process of informed consent and institutional liability. For
example, if research ‘subjects� …
Purchase answer to see full
attachment

error: Content is protected !!