Marginalized Communities and the Problem of Research Extraction

IF 7 1区 管理学 Q1 BUSINESS Journal of Management Studies Pub Date : 2023-12-11 DOI:10.1111/joms.13027
Joel Bothello, Leandro Bonfim
{"title":"Marginalized Communities and the Problem of Research Extraction","authors":"Joel Bothello, Leandro Bonfim","doi":"10.1111/joms.13027","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n<blockquote><p>‘Wait – is that it? Are you coming back tomorrow?’</p>\n<div>-Interviewee in the township of Delft, South Africa</div>\n</blockquote>\n</div>\n<p>These questions were raised at the end of an interview in 2019, when the first author was conducting research in South Africa on informal economy entrepreneurs. Here was an informant who had just finished recollecting some difficult moments in his life, revealing an implicit expectation that the interview would yield further interactions and reciprocity stemming from the exchange. Yet the naïve researcher struggled to explain to the interviewee that he was leaving South Africa the next day because he had concluded his data collection.</p>\n<p>We are both part of a growing number of management and organization researchers who are studying marginalized groups such as refugees, modern slaves, low-caste communities, indigenous peoples or necessity entrepreneurs. The aim of this work is to not only generate novel insights into the factors that drive, sustain and disrupt socio-economic inequalities and inequities, but also challenge the taken-for-granted epistemological and ontological assumptions in management and organization research. However, we observe that, more often than not, the financial, professional and reputational benefits of such work accrue to the researchers involved rather than the communities under study: this is, effectively, a phenomenon of extraction, where knowledge and insights from locals – who have lived experiences of marginalization, exclusion, precarity and deprived human rights – are mined and exported for consumption in places that are far removed, culturally, economically, and geographically from the source. It is as pernicious a practice as it is subtle: conventional resource extraction involves the visible removal of a tangible resource, while this form of ‘research extraction’ can be executed with participants having little say or control over their own narratives – or even knowing that their experiences are being shared.</p>\n<p>In this essay, we feel compelled to underscore how problematic research extraction is and identify ways that we, as management scholars, can (and must) mitigate it. These are issues that both of us have both been grappling with in our own work; one of us focuses on impoverished informal economy entrepreneurs in South Africa and the other examines smallholder farmers in Southern Brazil. We have been seeking to move away from a templated and taken-for-granted approach to research, where we collect data <i>on</i> marginalized populations in short, intensive bursts of fieldwork, followed by a return to the ivory tower to write papers, secure grants, present in climate-controlled conference centres and publish in pay-walled journals (perhaps claiming an award along the way for novel or relevant research). This research approach – based on principles of decontextualization, researcher objectivity and contributions to theory instead of practice (Gibbons et al., <span>2010</span>) – is pervasive yet, we argue, immoral when it comes to studying people in precarious (and sometimes literally life and death) circumstances.</p>\n<p>Inspired by the approach of our Brazilian community partner organization that works with local yerba mate tea producers, we propose an alternative paradigm that we label as ‘research infusion’, where we seek to engage in reciprocal action: we seek to absorb (with consent) insights from those steeped in the context while also infusing the context with what we have to offer (knowledge, worldviews, resources, etc.). The emphasis is on research ‘with’ and ‘for’ rather than ‘in/on’ or ‘about’ marginalized communities (Fahlberg, <span>2023</span>). By outlining what research infusion looks like, we seek to develop a call to action for management scholars who study marginalization, to reflect upon what they can (and must) do differently throughout the research process to avoid extractive practices. Beyond the individual-level call for management scholars to shift their mindsets and practices away from research extraction, we also underscore how research infusion necessitates system-level changes to our profession and to the institution of the business school. Our essay therefore also targets journal editors and deans, calling for changes on how we study marginalization.</p>","PeriodicalId":48445,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Management Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":7.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Management Studies","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.13027","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

‘Wait – is that it? Are you coming back tomorrow?’

-Interviewee in the township of Delft, South Africa

These questions were raised at the end of an interview in 2019, when the first author was conducting research in South Africa on informal economy entrepreneurs. Here was an informant who had just finished recollecting some difficult moments in his life, revealing an implicit expectation that the interview would yield further interactions and reciprocity stemming from the exchange. Yet the naïve researcher struggled to explain to the interviewee that he was leaving South Africa the next day because he had concluded his data collection.

We are both part of a growing number of management and organization researchers who are studying marginalized groups such as refugees, modern slaves, low-caste communities, indigenous peoples or necessity entrepreneurs. The aim of this work is to not only generate novel insights into the factors that drive, sustain and disrupt socio-economic inequalities and inequities, but also challenge the taken-for-granted epistemological and ontological assumptions in management and organization research. However, we observe that, more often than not, the financial, professional and reputational benefits of such work accrue to the researchers involved rather than the communities under study: this is, effectively, a phenomenon of extraction, where knowledge and insights from locals – who have lived experiences of marginalization, exclusion, precarity and deprived human rights – are mined and exported for consumption in places that are far removed, culturally, economically, and geographically from the source. It is as pernicious a practice as it is subtle: conventional resource extraction involves the visible removal of a tangible resource, while this form of ‘research extraction’ can be executed with participants having little say or control over their own narratives – or even knowing that their experiences are being shared.

In this essay, we feel compelled to underscore how problematic research extraction is and identify ways that we, as management scholars, can (and must) mitigate it. These are issues that both of us have both been grappling with in our own work; one of us focuses on impoverished informal economy entrepreneurs in South Africa and the other examines smallholder farmers in Southern Brazil. We have been seeking to move away from a templated and taken-for-granted approach to research, where we collect data on marginalized populations in short, intensive bursts of fieldwork, followed by a return to the ivory tower to write papers, secure grants, present in climate-controlled conference centres and publish in pay-walled journals (perhaps claiming an award along the way for novel or relevant research). This research approach – based on principles of decontextualization, researcher objectivity and contributions to theory instead of practice (Gibbons et al., 2010) – is pervasive yet, we argue, immoral when it comes to studying people in precarious (and sometimes literally life and death) circumstances.

Inspired by the approach of our Brazilian community partner organization that works with local yerba mate tea producers, we propose an alternative paradigm that we label as ‘research infusion’, where we seek to engage in reciprocal action: we seek to absorb (with consent) insights from those steeped in the context while also infusing the context with what we have to offer (knowledge, worldviews, resources, etc.). The emphasis is on research ‘with’ and ‘for’ rather than ‘in/on’ or ‘about’ marginalized communities (Fahlberg, 2023). By outlining what research infusion looks like, we seek to develop a call to action for management scholars who study marginalization, to reflect upon what they can (and must) do differently throughout the research process to avoid extractive practices. Beyond the individual-level call for management scholars to shift their mindsets and practices away from research extraction, we also underscore how research infusion necessitates system-level changes to our profession and to the institution of the business school. Our essay therefore also targets journal editors and deans, calling for changes on how we study marginalization.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
边缘化群体与研究成果提取问题
等等--就这样吗?你明天还会来吗?"--南非代尔夫特镇的受访者在 2019 年的一次访谈结束时提出了这些问题,当时第一作者正在南非开展有关非正规经济创业者的研究。这位受访者刚刚回忆了他人生中的一些艰难时刻,透露出一种隐含的期望,即访谈将产生进一步的互动,并从交流中产生互惠。然而,天真的研究人员却很难向受访者解释,他第二天就要离开南非,因为他已经结束了数据收集工作。我们都是越来越多的管理和组织研究人员中的一员,他们正在研究难民、现代奴隶、低种姓社区、原住民或生活必需品企业家等边缘化群体。这项工作的目的不仅在于对推动、维持和破坏社会经济不平等和不公平的因素提出新的见解,还在于挑战管理和组织研究中理所当然的认识论和本体论假设。然而,我们注意到,此类工作的经济、专业和声誉利益往往归属于参与研究的研究人员,而非所研究的社区:这实际上是一种榨取现象,即从当地人--他们有边缘化、排斥、不稳定和被剥夺人权的生活经历--那里挖掘知识和见解,并输出到在文化、经济和地理上远离源头的地方消费。这种做法既恶毒又微妙:传统的资源开采涉及有形资源的明显移除,而这种形式的 "研究开采 "在实施过程中,参与者对自己的叙述几乎没有发言权或控制权,甚至不知道自己的经历正在被分享。这些都是我们两人在自己的工作中一直在努力解决的问题;我们中的一位关注南非贫困的非正规经济企业家,另一位则研究巴西南部的小农。我们一直在努力摒弃按部就班、想当然的研究方法,即通过短期、密集的实地调查收集边缘化人群的数据,然后返回象牙塔撰写论文、获得资助、在气候控制的会议中心发表演讲、在付费期刊上发表文章(或许还能顺便因新颖或相关的研究而获奖)。这种研究方法基于非语境化原则、研究者客观性原则以及对理论而非实践的贡献原则(Gibbons et al、受与当地耶巴马黛茶生产商合作的巴西社区伙伴组织的方法启发,我们提出了另一种范式,我们称之为 "研究渗透",在这种范式中,我们寻求参与互惠行动:我们寻求吸收(在征得同意的情况下)那些身处环境中的人的见解,同时也向环境渗透我们所能提供的东西(知识、世界观、资源等)。重点是 "与 "和 "为 "研究,而不是 "在/在 "边缘化社区或 "关于 "边缘化社区的研究(Fahlberg,2023 年)。通过概述研究注入是什么样子,我们试图为研究边缘化问题的管理学者发出行动呼吁,让他们反思自己在整个研究过程中可以(而且必须)采取哪些不同的做法,以避免萃取性实践。除了从个人层面呼吁管理学者转变思想和做法,摒弃研究榨取,我们还强调了研究注入如何对我们的专业和商学院机构产生系统层面的影响。因此,我们的文章也针对期刊编辑和院长,呼吁他们改变我们研究边缘化问题的方式。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
16.40
自引率
5.70%
发文量
99
期刊介绍: The Journal of Management Studies is a prestigious publication that specializes in multidisciplinary research in the field of business and management. With a rich history of excellence, we are dedicated to publishing innovative articles that contribute to the advancement of management and organization studies. Our journal welcomes empirical and conceptual contributions that are relevant to various areas including organization theory, organizational behavior, human resource management, strategy, international business, entrepreneurship, innovation, and critical management studies. We embrace diversity and are open to a wide range of methodological approaches and philosophical perspectives.
期刊最新文献
Issue Information Issue Information - Notes for Contributors Business, Conflict, and Peace: A Systematic Literature Review and Conceptual Framework Outcome‐Based Typology of Social Enterprises: Interlacing Individual Transformation, Capital Provision, and Societal Influence Multimodal Collective Sensemaking in Extreme Contexts: Evidence from Maritime Search and Rescue
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1