-portal.org The Oxford Handbook of Historical Ecology and Applied Archaeology

http://www.diva-portal.org
This is the published version of a chapter published in The Oxford Handbook of Historical Ecology and
Applied Archaeology.
Citation for the original published chapter:
Årlin, C., Börjeson, L., Östberg, W. (2015)
Participatory Checking and the Temporality of Landscapes: Increasing Trust and Relevance in
Qualitative Research.
In: Christian Isendahl, Daryl Stump (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Historical Ecology and
Applied Archaeology Oxford: Oxford University Press
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199672691.013.19
N.B. When citing this work, cite the original published chapter.
Permanent link to this version:
http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:su:diva-124943
Participatory Checking and the Temporality of Landscapes
OxfordHandbooksOnline
ParticipatoryCheckingandtheTemporalityofLandscapes:Increasing
TrustandRelevanceinQualitativeResearch CamillaÅrlin,LoweBörjeson,andWilhelmÖstberg
TheOxfordHandbookofHistoricalEcologyandAppliedArchaeology
EditedbyChristianIsendahlandDarylStump
OnlinePublicationDate: Nov
2015
Subject: Archaeology,EnvironmentalArchaeology
DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199672691.013.19
AbstractandKeywords
Developmentalnarrativesarecommonlyconstructedthroughstatementsondirectionsanddriversofongoingchange.In
theprocess,however,heterogeneousrealitiesandhistoricaltrajectoriesbecomemanicuredandtruncateddueto
temporalshort-sightedness,misinformation,andthecreationofclear-cutcategorizations.Basedonhistorical,
geographical,andanthropologicalresearchonlandscapechangeinEastAfricafromthenineteenthcenturytothe
present,thischapterexamineshowdifferenttypesofhistoricaldatasources(maps,photographs,remotesensingdata,
writtenandoralaccounts,aswellasthelandscapeitself)canbeusedtobothinterrogateandimprovetherigourof
narrativesthatframeconcernsfordevelopmentandconservation.Wedescribemethodsofinteractionwithmembersof
theresearchedcommunitiesoverthesevariousdatabodies,andsummarizethisprocessas‘participatorychecking’.
Whilethefocusofthischapterisonlandscapechangetheparticipatoryresearchmethodsdescribedareequallyrelevant
toothertopicsanddisciplines.
Keywords:Landscapechange,participatorychecking,memberchecking,participatoryresearchmethods,historicaldata,Tanzania
Introduction
Debatesandnarrativesofdevelopmentinherentlyrelatetothepast,beitthelastseasonorlastmillennia,againstwhich
changeisdocumented,assumed,oranticipated.Hence,thepastisbeingusedanddoesinfundamentalwaysstructure
developmentnarratives(seeintroductorychapterinthisvolume).Instudiesoflocalresourceusestrategiesandland-use
change,articulationsofthepastvaryfromclearlydefinedspecifictimeperiodsormoments,tovagueandunhistorical
statementsabout‘traditional’practicesorsituations.Thischapterwilldemonstratetheutilityofacoupleofmethodsthat
wesummarizeas‘participatorychecking’,especiallywhereresearchisdesignedtohaveapositiveimpactonthe
communitiesthatplayhosttoresearchprojects.Ourcasestudiesaretakenfromlandscapechangeresearchbutare
equallyrelevanttoothertopicsanddisciplines.
Usedconsciously,withattentiontospecificcircumstances,narrativesandrepresentationsofthepastcanbecome
powerfulartefacts,whichgivevoicetolocalagency(e.g.FairheadandLeach,1996).Establishing‘rigour’and
‘trustworthiness’inscientificaccountsofthepastshouldthusbeaprimaryconcern,notleastforresearchthataimstobe
policyrelevant.‘Rigour’referstoconventionalcriteriaforevaluatingquantitativeresearchandisachievedwhenastudyis
consideredvalid,reliable,andobjective.Inqualitativeresearch‘trustworthiness’takesonasimilarsignificance.Itrefers
toresearchfindingsthatare‘believable’and‘worthtakingaccountof’(BaxterandEyles,1997:506;LincolnandGuba,
1985:290).Trustworthinessimplies‘sociallysanctionedcredibility’anddoesnotnecessarilybuildon‘claimstotruth
basedoncorrespondingreferencetoanindependentreality’(DemerittandDyer,2002:238),butratheron‘the
appearanceofbeingfairandimpersonal’(Porter,1995:8).
Anobviouspointofdepartureforadiscussiononmethodologiesforanykindoflandscapechangeresearchisofcourse
Page 1 of 15
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford
Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 17 February 2016
Participatory Checking and the Temporality of Landscapes
thelandscapeitself.Thephysicallandscape(anditsrepresentations)offersatangibleandconcretemanifestationofthe
complexitiesoftemporalandspatialrelationsthathistoricalstudiesarefacedwith.TimIngoldarguesthat:
[m]eaningistheretobediscoveredinthelandscape,ifonlyweknowhowtoattendtoit.Everyfeature,then,is
apotentialclue,akeytomeaningratherthanavehicleforcarryingit.
(Ingold,2000:208)
Generationshavedwelledinthelandscape,performingtheirtasks,and‘lefttheresomethingofthemselves’(Ingold,
2000:189).Discussinghowlandscapeformsemergeintheprocess,Ingoldwritesthatif‘werecogniseaman’sgaitin
thepatternofhisfootprints,itisnotbecausethegaitprecededthefootprintsandwas“inscribed”inthem,butbecause
boththegaitandtheprintsarosewithinthemovementoftheman’swalking’(2000:198–199).Thelandscape,asIngold
observantlypointsout,isa‘taskscape’.Inthischapterweproposeamethodologicalapproachforhowresearchersmay
‘attendto’pasttaskscapesinaresponsibleandproductiveway.
Tobeusable,however,thepastmustbemadecommunicableanddebatable.Itcanberepresentedas‘historical
artefacts’(e.g.books,articles,pamphlets,maps,posters,photographs,diagrams,landscapefeatures,materialobjects,
etc.)(cf.Latour,2005:71;TsouvalisandWaterton,2012:116).Informants’narrativesaboutlandscapefeaturesor
representationsoflandscapescanbesolicited,interrogated,andcross-examined,andpracticesinlandscapesobserved.
Thiscanbedonethroughwalkstogetherwithlocalinformantsdocumentingevidenceofphysical,historical,ritual,
economic,andsocialactivities,ingroupdiscussionsandmeetingsaswellasinmoreregularinterviews.Hence,itisin
dialoguewithpeoplelivinginandusinglandscaperesourcesthatIngold’sinsightcanbeoperationalized.
TakingourexperiencesfromfieldworkinrurallandscapesinTanzaniaasabasis,wediscussthreetypesofartefactsthat
canbeusedtofacilitateaprocessof‘participatorychecking’:(1)researchresults(summarizedandpopularizedin
pamphlets,drawings,anddiagrams),(2)alienrepresentationsoflandscapes(mapsandimagesproducedbyoutsiders
thatinformantsarenotfamiliarwith),and(3)familiarlandscapefeatures(themateriallandscapeitselfandpictorial
representationsoflandscapes).
MethodologiesforGenerating‘UsablePasts’:ExamplesfromLandscapeChangeResearchinAfrica
TakingAfricanlandscapesasanexample,anumberofstudieshavebeenpublishedsincethe1980sthatbyincludinga
genuinehistoricalperspectiveoncontemporaryenvironmentalissueshaveenrichedourcapacitytounderstanddynamics
oflandscapechangeanditsimplicationsforconservationanddevelopmentconcerns(e.g.Richards,1985;Tiffenetal.,
1994;FairheadandLeach,1996;McCann,1999;Maddox,2006).
Atypicaltraitofstudiesthathavemadeanimpactondevelopmentandconservationdiscoursessincethe1990sisthat
theyhave,incombinationwithwrittenandoralsources,successfullyweavedhistoricalnarrativesaroundimages.Thishas
bothaddedrigourtolandscapechangestudiesandfacilitatedcommunicationofresearchfindings.Themostbasicand
commonlyusedmethodistoanalyseimagesofthesamelandscapefromdifferentpointsintime.Thiscanbedoneeither
bycomparingaerialphotographsorsatelliteimagesoveranarea(FairheadandLeach,1996),orbyso-called‘repeat
photography’whereplacesshownonhistoricallandscapephotosareidentifiedandrevisitedtotakenewphotographs
andstudychanges(Tiffenetal.,1994;RohdeandHoffman,2010).Ifplacesdepictedcannotbeidentifiedprecisely,the
contentofhistoricallandscapephotographs,orphotorealisticdrawings,canstillbeinterpretedandusedindialoguewith
informantsifthelandscapeandlocationdepicted,andthehistoricalcontextofthephotograph,isknown(seediscussion
laterinthischapter).
AmorerarelyusedhistoricalsourcematerialinanAfricancontextishistoricalmaps.Researchers’scepticismofusing
historical(read:colonial)mapsisunderstandable.Mapsareindeedchallengingrepresentationstoworkwith(Harley,
1989),butmapsdocontainvaluableinformationandcan,ifusedcritically,beuseful,bothindialoguewithinformantsand
asacomplementtoimagesinassessmentsoflocalandregionallandscapechanges.Finally,withtheincreasing
availabilityofhighresolutionsatelliteimagerysincethe2000s,newopportunitiesforparticipatorymappingand
interviews,e.g.participatoryGIS(Dunn,2007),haveemerged.Acriticalpointhereisthattheclarityanddetailofsuch
imagesmakeitpossibleforinhabitantsofthelandscapesdepictedtoidentifyfeaturesandmakeimaginarytravelsinthe
images.
Whenhistoricalmaps,photographs,orotherlandscaperepresentationsarebroughttothefieldandsharedwithlocal
Page 2 of 15
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford
Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 17 February 2016
Participatory Checking and the Temporality of Landscapes
communitiesanimportantmethodologicalstepistaken:theybecomepointsofinteractions,‘clues’,orartefactsthatcan
becontested.Asweargueinthenextsection,thisisacriticalstepinmakingthepastusable.Thesameisofcoursetrue
formaterialfeaturesofinvestigatedtaskscapes,likeforinstancematerialcultureandartefactsthataregeneratedbyor
incollaborationwithinformants,e.g.sketch-maps,time-lines,orothertypesofartefacts.
ParticipatoryChecking:AMethodologicalFrameworkforImprovingTrustworthinessinParticipatoryResearch
Approaches
Oneconventionalandauthoritativemethodologicaltechniqueofestablishingrigourinqualitativeresearchistotriangulate
data:i.e.tocombinedifferentbodiesofdataandmethodssothattheyaddbreadthandcomplexitytoaninquiry.
Triangulationdoesnotinitself,however,implythateachbodyofdataormethodusedisreliable;triangulationofbiased
ormisconceiveddataoffersnoimprovementtoresearchquality.ChoandTrent(2006)provideanoverviewofthepros
andconsoftriangulation,andargueinfavourofincluding‘memberchecking’asatooltocheckpreliminaryresultsand
increasevalidity(seealsoCresswellandMiller,2000;BaxterandEyles,1997;LincolnandGuba,1985,2000).Together,
thesestudiespointtoaratherconsistentappealforamorefrequentuseofmembercheckingtechniquestoestablish
rigourinqualitativeresearchasanimportantcomplementtotriangulation.
Membercheckingorrespondentvalidation,whichisanothertermthatisfrequentlyused,referstoaresearchprocessto
testdata,analyticcategories,andinterpretations,andisundertakentogetherwiththosethatprovidedtheinformationin
interviewsandgroupdiscussions.Thepurposeistoincreasevalidity,relevance,andcredibility,i.e.trustworthiness.
Membercheckingiscommonlyunderstoodasthetestingofpreliminaryresults,butcanalsooccurreflexively
throughouttheprocessofinquiry(ChoandTrent,2006:322),andthushasalotincommonwiththe‘participatory
research’traditionofdevelopmentstudies(Chambers,1997;Mikkelsen,2005;Brydon-Milleretal.,2011;Tsouvalisand
Waterton,2012).Infact,thepowerofparticipatorymethodsliesinthewaythatitsetsprocessesofmembercheckingat
theheartofresearchagendas—evenifthishasnotbeenexplicitlyarticulatedas‘memberchecking’orequivalentterms
inthereportingofparticipatoryresearch.Triangulationremainsakeytechnique,butadditionaldimensionsareinvited
whenlocalinformantsactivelyparticipateintheresearchprocessandevaluatetheresults.Participatorymethodsdonot
onlyaimatextractinginformationfrominformantsbutalsobuildknowledgeinareciprocalprocess.Newfamiliarity,
detail,involvement,andcompetenceappear.Morevoicesareadded.
Clicktoviewlarger
Figure1 Theparticipatorycheckingframework
Severecriticismhasbeendirectedagainstparticipatorytechniques(e.g.CookeandKothari,2001;Chilvers,2009).The
participatorytool-box(decisiontrees,mappingandrankingexercises,transectwalks,Venndiagrams,workcalendars,
etc.)isoftensloppilyapplied,particularlyindevelopmentwork,andwhereinsufficienttimeisallowedforgenuine
reflectionordissent.Ithasalsobeennotedthatparticipationexercisestendtoseecommunitiesashomogeneousand
static,therebydisregardingconflictinginterestsandneeds,andthatthepublicnatureofparticipationexerciseswilltend
toconfirmestablishedpatternsandknowledgeattheexpenseofwhatismessyandmarginal.Whiletheseandother
shortcomingsofparticipatoryapproachesneedtobeaddressed,thereisnoreasontodespair.Researcherscando
betterthanconsultantsonquickmissionsfordevelopmentagencies.Fig.1highlightsthecriticalroleofmember
Page 3 of 15
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford
Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 17 February 2016
Participatory Checking and the Temporality of Landscapes
checkinginrelationtotriangulationandparticipatoryresearchmethods.
Inarecentreviewanddiscussionofparticipatoryresearchanditsscientificusefulness,TsouvalisandWaterton(2012)
argueinfavourofbuildingparticipationoncriticalsocialsciencetheory.Theframeworkof‘participatorychecking’
presentedhereinasimilarwayhighlightstheusefulnessofparticipatoryresearchthatisbothcriticallyalertand
theoreticallygrounded.Ouremphasisontheusefulnessofincludinghistoricalartefactsininterviewsasawaytoperform
‘checking’,canbecomparedwithmethodologicalapproachesbasedon‘hybridcollectives’(cf.CallonandLaw,1995),
wherealsothingsandnotonlypeopleparticipate.However,whilehybridcollectivesareusuallybasedonlong-term
relationshipsbetweenresearchersandinformants(TsouvalisandWaterton,2012:112),participatorycheckingoffersa
methodologicalapproachthatdoesnotrequirealong-termcommitmentbytheinformants,whichmakesitflexibleand
adaptabletoamultitudeofresearchcontexts.
ArgumentsforUsingMemberCheckinginQualitativeResearch
Incontrasttotriangulation,ortheuseofmultiplemethods,membercheckingisnotonlyamatteroffinding
corroboratory,contrasting,orfalsifying,material,buttochecktowhatextentresearchersandinformantsunderstand
eachother,andhowtheyrelatetotheinquiry.Membercheckingthushelpstoreducerisksofmisinterpretationduring
interviewsandsurveys.Thenotoriousdistinctionbetween‘us’and‘them’becomesslightlylessdistinctasresearchers
andinformantsengageinjointendeavoursandcometosharesomeoftheresponsibilityforastudy.
Acounter-argumentwouldbethatwhenthedistinctionbetweenresearchersandinformantsbreaksdown,thedesired
testofdatanolongertakesplace.However,thisthreatismoreapparentthanreal.Thepointwithmembercheckingis
firstlytoestablishifinformantsfindtheresults‘fair’(LincolnandGuba,1985:315)eveniftheymaynotagreewithall
details.Butequallyimportant,weargue,isthatthroughreportingback,commentsaregeneratedthatinturnwill
influencetheinquiry(Seale,1999:72).Sincetheemphasisisoninteraction,wemoveawayfrommerely‘checkingthe
facts’intoafieldofreflexiveinquirywhichistransactional.Truthbecomessomethingnegotiated,gradual,andprocessual
astherespectiveagendasofinformantsandresearchersarecontinuouslynegotiated.Tosomeextentthiswillhappenin
anyinterview,butusuallyimplicitlyandwithoutbeingproblematized.Throughparticipatorycheckingthoseaspectsofthe
researchprocessthatmaynotbeconsciouslyacknowledgedrisemoreeasilytowardsthesurface,andcanbe
incorporatedintotheanalysis.
Thisalsomeansacknowledgingthatwearedealingwithrepresentations,not‘reality’itself.Inthisview,methodisakey
totrustworthinessratherthanastraightroutetotruthfulness(DemerittandDyer,2002:238).Takingapragmatic
standpointthatseekstoavoidclaimstobothabsolutetruthandrelativism,‘beingfair’isaqualityofresearchthathas
epistemologicaldimensions,aswellasethical.Researchersgaintrustworthyresultsifmethodsarerespectedasfair(i.e.
findingsarenotmerelyseenasfruitsoftheinvestigators’ownbiases,creativity,andimpulses)bybothinformantsandthe
scientificcommunity.
WhatTechniquesAreMostCommonlyUsedtoBuildRigourandTrustinResearch:
MemberChecking,Triangulation,orParticipatoryMethods?
Inareviewofwhatstrategiesgeographersduringthelate1980sandearly1990susedtoestablish‘rigour’inqualitative
research,BaxterandEyles(1997:511)foundthatof31empiricalpapersonlythreementionedthatrespondentswere
contactedtoverifyfindings.Asafollow-uptothissurvey,wehave—usingadvancedsearchcriteriainGoogleScholar—
triedtocapturetowhatextentmemberchecking,triangulation,andparticipatoryapproacheshavebeenusedsincethe
late1990sinthedisciplinesthatthisbooktargets(Table1).
Page 4 of 15
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford
Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 17 February 2016
Participatory Checking and the Temporality of Landscapes
Table1HitsinGoogleScholar(1997–2012)forselectedkeywordsrelatedtopracticesofmemberchecking,
participatorymethods,andtriangulation.Numbersaregivenaspercentagesofthetotalnumberofhits.
Subject
Total
hits
Triangulation
Participatory
Participant
Member
checking
Reporting
back
Humangeography
36,300
6.9
22
24
0.3
0.3
Humanecology
27,600
4.4
29
29
0.5
0.2
Environmental
history
21,800
1.9
12
11
0.1
0.1
Politicalecology
17,200
3.3
38
21
0.1
0.2
Historicalecology
7,530
1.2
6
5
0.0
0.0
Archaeology
184,000
2.1
5
9
0.1
0.2
Indigenous
archaeology
769
1.3
11
12
0.0
0.1
Appliedarchaeology
479
0.6
13
12
0.0
0.0
Cultural
anthropology
36,900
4.9
18
41
0.5
0.3
Development
studies
165,000
2.2
11
10
0.1
0.1
Sociology
700,200
2.5
7
15
0.5
0.2
TheresultsoftheGoogleScholarsearchpresentedinTable1showaveryclearpattern.1Whilethereisonlyamodest
variationbetweendisciplines,thedifferencebetweenthemethodologicalkeywordsisstrikingandconfirmsthe
conclusionbyBaxterandEyles(1997),ChoandTrent(2006),andothers.Membercheckingtechniquesareforawide
rangeofdisciplinesnotpartofnormalmethodologicalpracticeatleastifthisisdefinedasapurposefularticulationofthe
termsmemberchecking,respondentvalidation,reportingback,orverificationbyrespondents.Triangulationis,in
comparison,amuchmoreestablishedandcommontechnique.Thehighscoresfor‘participatory’and‘participant’
indicatethatthereisscopeforamoreconcertedengagementwithmembercheckingprocessesinqualitativeresearch.
Theinterestinparticipatoryresearchmethodsisthere,butresearchersdonotseemtoincludeactivechecking
proceduresintheirresearch.Herewesuggestmethodsthatcanallowforthis.
Participatorycheckingwillalmostinevitablymakeresearchmorerelevantandtrustworthytolocalcommunities(cf.Seale,
1999:72).Thisisacrucialdimension,notleastinplaceswhereresearchisthoughtofasa‘dirtyword’(Smith,2012),i.e.
historicallylinkedtocolonialexerciseofpowerandracistideas.Asinterview-basedresearchmustrelatetolocalopinion
andvaluesofinformants,usingparticipatorycheckinginoneformortheotherissensible.Voicesthatarecommonly
silencedcanbeheard.However,italsoneedstobenotedthattheothersideofincreasedinvolvementisthatresearch
resultsaremoreeasilycontested.Whilethisispartlythepointwiththeprocess,italsomeansthatdecisionswillhaveto
betakenonwhatinterpretationsaretobeendorsedfordifferentcontexts,andindeedwhatisfinallytobepublished—
whohasthefinalsay.Afurtherconsequencecanbeincreasedfrictioninlocalcommunitiesasvariouslocalgroupings
mayusetheresearchtochampiontheirparticularcauses.Researchersneedtobeawarethattheyinitiateprocessesthat
canhavefar-reachingconsequencesandpreparestrategiesfortacklingsuchsituations(Mohan,2008:48f.).
Page 5 of 15
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford
Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 17 February 2016
Participatory Checking and the Temporality of Landscapes
Themostobviousandefficientmeanstoaccomplishparticipatorycheckingistousesomekindofartefactsasshared
pointsofreferenceininterviewsanddiscussionswithinformants.Inourexamplesinthenextsectionweshowhow
differenttypesofartefacts,representingdifferentaspectsofbothpastandongoinglandscapechange,canbeusedto
facilitateparticipatorychecking.
ParticipatoryCheckingUsingLocalLanguageBooklets
Inaresearchprogrammeon‘Man–landinteractionsinsemi-aridcentralTanzania’,jointlyrunbytheInstituteofResource
AssessmentattheUniversityofDaresSalaamandtheSchoolofGeographyatStockholmUniversity(Mung’ong’oetal.,
2004),weproducedbookletssummarizingprovisionalresearchresultsinSwahili.Theseweredistributedintheareas
whereresearchwasconducted.Thepamphletswerediscussedatvillagelevelseminarstoscrutinizethefindings,to
formulatethenextstepsintheresearchprocessbutalsotohelptheresearcherstomoveoutsidetheirown
preconceivedframeworks,whichofcoursehadinfluencedhowwehadsoughtinformation.Throughthevillageseminars
wehopedtogenerateexchangesofideasnotintroducedbyourselves,andthuscomeclosertospontaneouslocal
discourses(Lassiter,2005).Herewebrieflysummarizeexperiencesfromoneoftheresearchareas,GoimaDivisionin
KondoaDistrict,Tanzania.
Apartfromtheinitialintentiontoreportresultsbacktothecommunities,wesoonalsorealizedthevalueofthe
pamphletsasamediumforwideroutreach.Inparticular,youngpeoplewhohadheardaboutthebookletsaskedfor
copies.Otherswhoreadthemwithaneagerinterestwereschoolteachersandmembersofstaffinthedistrictand
divisionaloffices.Althoughtheywouldhaveaccesstotheresearchresultsthroughournormalpublications,they
definitelypreferredthepopularizedlocallanguagebooklets.
Clicktoviewlarger
Figure2 ResidentsofMadahavillage,KondoaDistrict,Tanzania,readingaSwahilibookletpresentingresearch
resultsfromtheirarea
Villagersreceivedthebookletsalmostsolemnly(Fig.2).Thefirstpagewasturnedslowlyandcarefully.Peoplereadwith
greatconcentration,somewithconsiderableeffort.Bookspassedbetweenhands.Itwasthephotographsthatinthefirst
placeattractedinterest.Peoplecommentedaspersonsandplaceswererecognizedinthepictures,pointingout
differentdetailstoeachother.
Fortheelderlysomeofthepublicationsbroughtbackmemoriesoftimesgone.TheSwahilibookletswereappreciated
asdocumentinglocaloralhistory.PaskaliSakiremarked:‘Itisthechildrenthathavestrength.Theywillread.Weknowthe
history,butwewillpassaway,whiletheyremain.’
CheckingFindingsandDebatingaTheoryofSoilFormation
Anindigenoustheoryofhowsoilsform,change,anderodehadbeendocumentedamongtheBurunge,aCushiticspeakingpeoplelivinginGoimaDivision(Östberg,1995:93–116).Aseriesofvillageseminarswereheldtocheckfacts
andtotestifpeoplecouldrecognizeandacceptadrawingshowingtheprincipalelementsoftheirtheoryofsoils.Oneof
themeetingswaswithagroupofeldersinavillagewherewehadnotworkedbefore.Wewantedtolearntheviewsof
informantswhohadnotbeeninvolvedinpreviousdiscussionsonthetopic.Theeldersenthusiasticallyenteredintoa
detaileddebateofthedifferentaspectsoftheBurungetheoryofsoils.Theyconfirmedthegeneralpropositionofthe
model,that‘landhaslife’andsoilhasthecapacitytorisetowardsthesurface,butaddedthatthisability(nguvo,strength,
Page 6 of 15
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford
Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 17 February 2016
Participatory Checking and the Temporality of Landscapes
powerinSwahili)islikebreathing.Inthesoilbelow,ataboutthreemetres’depth,thereisheat,whichpushesthesoil
upwards.Thelandbreathesout.‘Itislikethevapouryouseerisingfromthelandafterrains.’Thisheatfrombelow
contributestocropgrowthasitmeetsthecoldnessoftherains.Twothingsareneededforcropgrowth:heatfrom
belowrisingupwardsandthecoldnessofthefallingrain.TothedescriptionthatwehadpreviouslyrecordedofBurunge
perceptionsofhowsoilsbehave—theresultofaconventionalethnographicfieldstudy—theseeldersaddedanother
dimension:temperature.
Whenparticipantshelddifferentviewspeopleacceptedtheseascomplementarystatementsratherthanenteringinto
polemics.Whatmatteredmosttouswasthattheconceptsandreasoninginherentinthemodelturnedouttobeboth
intelligibleandfamiliar.OurinterpretationandrepresentationofBurungesoilsciencemadesensetopeopleinthearea,
althoughmanywereconversantalsowiththestandarddescriptionofsoilformationanderosion.
ThePamphletsasUsableHistoricalArtefacts
ConcludingavillageseminarwherewehadpresenteddiagramsonsocialstratificationintwovillagesaswellasaSwahili
bookletdescribingthedevelopmentoflanduseinrecentdecades,SalimSuter,arelativelyaffluentfarmerandlocal
trader,saidthat
Someofthesethingshavenotbeengoodtohear.Peopleinotherplaceswillreadit,andthisispainfultous.It
isnotgoodthattheyreadaboutthepovertyofpeople,orhowtheforestresourceisbeingsquandered.But
whatyouhavesaidistrue.Thiscannotbedenied.AsfarasIamconcerned,Isay,thatyoumaywritethese
thingseveniftheyhurtus.Itisonustochangewhatisnotgood.
Suchcommentscanbeinterpretedasevidencethatthebookletshad,atleastinitially,heightenedpeople’sawarenessof
currentchangesintheirarea.Notthattheydidnotknow.Butthepamphletsprovidedareasontotalktoeachother
aboutwhathappened.
Thediscussionsonchangesintheareadidnotsomuchbringupnewfactsforusresearchersasallowustohearthem
fromadifferentangle.Wewerenotinterviewing,butlisteningtopeopletellingeachotherwhattheyfoundparticularly
important.Therewasnoparticularreasonwhytheyshouldbringupthesethemes—exceptthattheyfoundthem
importantorthattheydisagreedwithus.Theroleshadchanged.Wedidnotstagetheinteractionbetweenresearchers
andinformantsasunequivocallybetweenclear-cutrolesasoftenhappensduringinterviews.Theinitiativewasnolonger
soclearlyinourhands.Therelativeintensitybywhichdifferentgroupsofpeoplereactedtodifferentissuesoftheir
choicebecameimportantnewdata.Wewerebroughtatleastonestepclosertoreallife,whilestillhavingtheadvantage
ofencirclingtopicsimportanttotheresearchprogramme.
ThemodeofrelatingtothecontentsoftheSwahilibookletsreflectedthatknowledgeisnotonlysomething‘outthere’
thatresearcherspickuplikeapreciousgemstone.Itisalso,andmoreimportantly,somethingproduced,whichis
dependentoncontext,andwhichincreasesinreliabilitywhenexchanged.Knowledgeturnsouttobedialectical,and
imperfect.Therealtestofourfindingscamewhentheywereexchangedlocally.Incidentally,thiscastsdoubtonhow
agenciesrequestknowledgethatisconsistent,packaged,andreadyforuse;tobe‘applied’,aspeopleinthe
developmentindustryoftensay.Evenoutrighttechnicalresearch,sayspecificationsforfertilizerapplicationsordesigns
ofcontourridges,cannotescapethatcontextmattersandthatnegotiatedknowledgeisinmanycasesmorerelevantthan
authoritativeinstructions.
Using‘Alien’HistoricalArtefactstoElicitDiscussiononLocalOralHistory
[T]hepartsofthebrainthatprocessvisualinformationareevolutionarilyolderthanthepartsthatprocessverbal
information.Thusimagesevokedeeperelementsofhumanconsciousnessthandowords;exchangesbasedon
wordsaloneutilizelessofthebrain’scapacitythandoexchangesinwhichthebrainisprocessingimagesaswell
aswords.Thesemaybesomeofthereasonsthephotoelicitationinterviewseemslikenotsimplyaninterview
processthatelicitsmoreinformation,butratheronethatevokesadifferentkindofinformation.
(Harper,2002:13)
Historicalartefactssuchasarchivaldocuments,photographs,landscapedrawingsinrarebooks,andmapsseldom
Page 7 of 15
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford
Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 17 February 2016
Participatory Checking and the Temporality of Landscapes
surfaceintheareastheydepict.Rather,theycommonlyremaindistancedandalientothepresent-dayinhabitantsofthose
places.Ifsuchartefactsareatallused,itisoftenwithinnetworksofresearchers.Whenthisalien‘archivalknowledge’
meets‘localknowledge’itisofteninabookandintheformofacademictriangulationandanalysis.But,asthequote
fromHarpersuggests,imagescarrymeaningsandcluestopastlandscapesthatmaynotbepossibletoreachthrough
othermeans.Thissectiondrawsonthesamemethodologicalprincipleasstudiesusingphotoelicitationandexemplifies
howhistoricalphotographs,drawings,andmapscanbeusedforparticipatorychecking.
ConfrontingLocalOralHistories
InastudyofthehistoricalgeographyoftheIraqwintensivefarmingsysteminnorthernTanzaniaastronglocalbeliefthat
theIraqwcommunityhaddevelopedundersiegefromsurroundingMaasaicommunitieswaschallenged.Beforethe
resultsoftheinvestigationwerepublished(Börjeson,2004)theyweresummarizedinasmallbookletinSwahili,which
includedphotorealisticlandscapedrawingsandphotographsoftheareabyearlyGermantravellers.Withthesepictures
oftheareafromthelatenineteenthtoearlytwentiethcenturiesasstartingpoints,thekeyfindingsofthestudywas
presentedatameetingwithlocalelderscumhistorians(peoplewithalocalreputationforbeingknowledgeableabout
thearea)andothervillagers.Allweremen.
ThegeneralviewoftheelderswasthattheIraqwwereconfinedtotheirhistoricalheartland,Iraqw’arDa/aw,duringthe
latenineteenthandearlytwentiethcenturies,whilethecoreargumentofthebookletwasthatamuchlargerareathan
theIraqwheartlandwassettledandfarmedbyIraqwcommunitiesatthatperiod.Whenpresentedwiththeresearch
findings,thelocalhistorians’firstreactionwasthatthiswaswrongandmisinformed.However,asthehistoricalpictures
clearlyshowedsettlementsandfarminginareasoutsidetheheartland,thesepromptedlivelydiscussionsatthemeeting.
Whendiscussionshadcometoanend,thespokesmenofthemeetingdeclaredthatitwasindeedpossiblethatareas
outsidetheheartlandweresettledatthistime.ThereasongivenwasthestrongpowersandmilitaryskilloftheIraqw
leadersneededtodefendtheIraqwcommunityfromhostilitiesandcattleraids.Withthisconclusionitwaspossibleforthe
participantsatthemeetingtosomehowreconcilethepicturesofIraqwsettlementoutsidethehistoricalheartlandwith
theirownknowledgeaboutIraqwsettlementhistory.Theirdiscussionofthelandscapeevidenceshowninthepictures,
however,stillsuggestedthattheyhadnotfullyacceptedourresearchfinding:thecriticalcommentsweretooobvious.
Wehadreceivedlocalcritique,butnottotalrejectionofthefindingspresented.Thepointwithparticipatorycheckingis
tofindoutifresearchresultsareintelligibleandmeaningful,nottogetblanketconfirmationofthem.
Clicktoviewlarger
Figure3 Baumann’sdepictionoftheUfiomemountainin1891
(Baumann,1894)
Inasecondcase(Årlin,2011)therewasadiscrepancybetweenalatenineteenth-centurydepictionoftheUfiome
mountaininpresent-dayBabatiDistrict,north-centralTanzania(seeFig.3),andtheperceptionheldbymanyofthose
interviewed.BringingtheimagealongtointerviewsopenedupdiscussionsofthedifferentvisionsofwhatUfiomehad
lookedlike‘inthepast’;‘thepast’nowhavingpossiblemultipleshapes.Thehistoricalpictureshowsamountainwith
grassyslopesin1891,whilethecommonunderstandingamonginformantswasthatthemountainslopeshadalwaysbeen
coveredwithdenseforest.The‘alien’artefactthuspresentedthepossibilitythatchangeinlandcoverhadoccurred,and
itwasagreedthatthelocalhistoricalimageofaforestedmountainisonethatismoreassociatedwiththeearlytomidtwentiethcentury.Thisinsightprovidedforawholenewavenueofdiscussionthatfollowed:Whydidthisoccur?What
wherethedriversbehindthischange?Wasthehistoricalpicturetheresultofonlyviewingthemountainfromoneside?If
so,whatdoesthissayabouttheGermantravellers’accountoftheUfiomelandscape?Thediscussionwentmuchfurther
thantheinterviewspreviouslyconducted.Landcoverchangebecameanissueofdebateamongtheinformants.Some
camebacktoournextmeetingalreadychargedwithissuestheywantedtodiscuss.Thealienhistoricalartefactshadthus
Page 8 of 15
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford
Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 17 February 2016
Participatory Checking and the Temporality of Landscapes
providedthegroundstore-thinkthingsthatpreviouslydidnothavetobere-thoughtatall.
UsingHistoricalMaps
Anotherexampleofhowalienartefactsmaybeusedforparticipatorycheckingconcernstheuseofhistoricalmapsinthe
field.Thesemaybealienbothinthesensethattheyareanabstractandunfamiliarwayofdepictingthelocalenvironment.
Theymayalsobealienintheveryrealsenseofdepictingthelandscapewherepeoplelive,butwithdifferentnamesor
compositionofland-useandvegetationcoverthanwhatisknowntothepeoplewholivetheretoday(Årlin,2011).
Bringingmapsintothefieldmayalsoprovokestrongreactions,especiallyiflocalcommunitieslackresourcestocritically
examinesuch‘evidence’andwheretheirownrepresentationsarelandmarkbasedratherthanquantifiedandgridded.
Usingmapsoftenmeansenteringahighlypoliticizedfield,notleastifthemapsareproducedbyacolonialpoweror
foreignnation.But,theinformationcontainedinhistoricalmapsmayalso,despiteuncertaintiesandbiases,bevaluableas
entrypointsforparticipatorycheckingprocedures.Anothermethodologicaloptionistotriangulateandcompare
informationheldinhistoricalmapswithothertypesof‘alien’datasourcessuchasarchaeologicalreports,
palaeoenvironmentalrecords,andremotesensingdata(Börjeson,2009;Årlin,2011).
InDialoguewiththeTaskscape:SituatedLandscapeInterviews
Wovenlikeatapestryfromthelivesofitsinhabitants,thelandisnotsomuchastagefortheenactmentof
history,orasurfaceonwhichitisinscribed,ashistorycongealed.
(Ingold,2000:150)
Ingoldarguesthatthelandscapeisa‘taskscape’ofactivities,e.g.movementandpracticesofwork:‘…thelandscapeas
awholemustlikewisebeunderstoodasthetaskscapeinitsembodiedform:apatternofactivities“collapsed”intoan
arrayoffeatures’(2000:198,emphasisintheoriginal).Thelandscapeisaconstantlytransformingentity,butthereare
alsosolidformsinthelandscapethattakeonamoredurablecharacter,i.e.featuresthatremainaftertheactivitiesthat
createdthemhaveended.Fromamethodologicalpointofviewtheideaofa‘taskscape’impliesthatthelandscapemay
notonlybeconsideredanobjectofstudy,butalsoasamethodforinquiryaboutthehistorical,social,andlived(or
immaterial)dimensionsofthetaskscape.Embodiedknowledge,i.e.practicalknowledgeandexperiences,cometo
surfaceinthetaskscape.Thematerialformsofalandscapeareextensionsofthehandsandminds(meaningand
memories)ofitsinhabitants.Involvingthephysicalfeaturesoftaskscapesininterviewsistherebyawaytoreachforboth
thematerialandimmaterialdimensionsofpastactivitiesandworkprocedures.Byconsciouslyincludinglandscape
featuresasartefactsininterviewsituations—beitarablefields,trees,irrigationcanals,fieldboundaries,terraces,
woodlots,housesoranydiscretesiteorfeaturethatlocateandsituatepractical,symbolic,orhistoricalsignificance—
researchersandinformantsareprovidedwithsharedpointsofreferenceforparticipatorychecking.
Anumberofothermethodsshareasimilarmethodologicalprinciple,e.g.participatorymappingandso-called‘go-along’
interviewsortransectwalks,wherebyinterviewsarecombinedwithwalkingtogetherwithinformantsinataskscape
(Carpiano,2009;Chapinetal.,2005;IngoldandVergunst,2008).Differenttypesofparticipatorymappingapproaches
will,however,implydifferentkindsofengagementwiththetaskscape.Wewillbrieflymentionthreedifferentapproaches.
Page 9 of 15
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford
Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 17 February 2016
Participatory Checking and the Temporality of Landscapes
Clicktoviewlarger
Figure4 AgriculturallandscapeofaridgeinHhayG eay,Kwermusl,Iraqw’arDa/aw.Thehighestpointoftheridge
isinthesouth-easternpartofthemap.Thelocationofhousesfollowsthecrestoftheridge.
MappingbyLoweBörjesonandDeogratiusHilluinFebruaryandMarch1996,andinMarch1998.
Mappingisaninterpretativeprocess.Indetailedparticipatorylandscapemapping,situatedinterviewsarecombinedwith
adetailedmappingoflandscapefeatures,todocumentandanalysespatialandtemporaldimensionsofataskscape
(Börjeson,2004).Fig.4givesanexampleofadetailedmapofaridgeinKwermuslvillage,Iraqw’arDa/aw,Manyara
District,Tanzania.Inthiscasetheprocessofmappingcontributedtoahistoricalandgeographicalanalysisofagricultural
intensificationandhowthatprocesswassupportedbyincrementalaccumulationof‘landesquecapital’(seethenext
subsection)(Börjeson,2007).Second,participatoryGIS,ormethodsusinghighresolutionimagesoraerialphotographs
indialoguewithinformants,havegainedinpopularitywiththeincreasedavailabilityandaccessibilityofsatelliteimages
(Duncanetal.,2010;Dunn,2007).Itdiffersfromtheapproachdiscussedearlierasitreliesonabird’seyeimageofthe
landscapeinsteadofthelandscapeitself,asasharedreferencepoint.Image-basedparticipatorymappingmethods,
however,offerthepossibilitytosituateinterviewsinrelationtofeaturesandplacesinthelandscapebyidentifyingthese
ontheimage,thuseconomizingontimespentonwalkingandtransportationbetweenplacesofinterest,evenifan
unavoidablelimitationisthatinterviewsarenotactuallyperformedwithinataskscape.Finally,settingremotelysensed
imagesandgeometriesaside,sketch-mapping(mappingwithoutgeometriesanddistancesaccordingtoadefinedscale),
directlyontheground,oronpaper,isawidelyusedstrategytounleashcluesastohowtheenvironmentcarries
meaning,howitisconceptualizedandcategorizedlocally.Heretheengagementwiththetaskscapeisagaindifferent,as
specificmateriallandscapeformsnolongerprovidesharedreferencepoints.Insteadfocusliesonnarrative
representationsofthetaskscape.
LandesqueCapital:AKeytoParticipatoryCheckinginaTaskscape
Instudieswherethetemporaldimensionsofanagriculturallandscapeareofinterest,itisimportanttopayattentionto
enduringlandscapefeaturesorlandesquecapital.Suchfeaturesofferimportantanalytical,practical,andconcrete
referencepointsforparticipatorychecking.AsdefinedbyBlaikieandBrookfield(1987:9)landesquecapitalis‘any
investmentinlandwithananticipatedlifebeyondthatofthepresentcrop,orcropcycle’.Itcommonlyreferstophysical
landscapeelementsthatimproveagriculturalproductivity(terraces,drainageandirrigationchannels,stonewalls,etc.)or
anthropogenicsoils(cf.Brookfield,2001;HåkanssonandWidgren,2014).Amoreinclusiveandintegratedconceptionof
landesquecapitalwouldalsoincludemanagementofvegetationandbiodiversity(e.g.treesandforests)or‘fieldsystems
asawhole’(Brookfield,2001:184;Börjeson,2014;cf.Arroyo-Kalin,thisvolume).Theconceptoflandesquecapitalhas
primarilybeenusedinarchaeologicalandhistoricalstudiesofintensivelycultivatedlandscapes,butissuesaddressedby
thisconceptsuchasfarmers’workprocessesandinvestmentsareindeedcentraltostudiesofagrarianchangemore
broadly(Börjeson,2014).
Asenduringinvestments,landesquecapitalcapturesthequintessenceofpasttaskscapes(cf.Doolittle,thisvolume).
Whenusingsuchfeaturesasanchorpointsinsituatedlandscapeinterviews,embodied,social,andmaterialdimensions
Page 10 of 15
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford
Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 17 February 2016
Participatory Checking and the Temporality of Landscapes
collapseasstoriesandstatedfactsblendwithhands-onillustrationsofpractices,identificationofphysicaldetailsand
anomalies,landmarks,andtemporalcontexts.Bythesameprocesstheresearcherdevelopsher/hisownfamiliaritywith
theinvestigatedlandscape.Throughtheresearchprocessthelandscapetransformsintoa‘taskscape’.Notthesame
taskscapeasheldbyinformants,butthereareshapes,sharedexperiences,and‘checked’understandingswhere
informantsandresearchersmeet.Thequestionofhowanagriculturalterraceisformedprovidesacaseinpoint.Notall
terracesarebuiltstructures.Mostarepartiallyorpredominantlyformedalsobyslowincrementalprocesses,e.g.
downslopesedimentmovementcombinedwithpiecemealrepetitiveworktasksperformedbyfarmers(cf.Doolittle,
1984,2001,andinthisvolume;Börjeson,2007;Stump,2006;Davies,2014).Understandingsuchslowprocesses
requiresacloseunderstandingoftheactualphysicalformanditsunderlyinglabourandlandscapeprocesses.
Participatorycheckingthroughsituatedlandscapeinterviewswillinmostcasesheightentheinvestigator’ssensitivityto
processesthatarenotreadilyobservableandthusdeepenunderstandingsofagriculturallandscapechange.
UsingthePastinthePresent:ImplicationsforAppliedResearch
Participatorycheckingcanhelptomoderatetwomajordilemmasinfieldresearch:the‘us/them’andthe‘now/then’
distinctions.Wehavediscussedhowparticipatorycheckingcanhelptocreatemoreofacommonlanguageand
understandingbetweenresearchersandinformants.Similarlyitalsohelpstocreatemorecommongroundonwhatis
impliedwithhistoricalreferenceslike‘before’,‘earlier’,‘intheolddays’,etc.
Wehavediscussedhowvariousartefactscanbeusedastoolstocreatecommondiscursiveroomswherefield
researchersandinformantscanmeet.Artefactshelpresearchersandinformantstofindcommonground,avoidabstract
reasoning,andthusreducetherisksofmisinterpretation(inallaspectsoftheword).Themoretheyproducetogether
(maps,diagrams,seminars,andinterpretationsofphotographs,landscapefeatures,andsatelliteimagery,etc.),the
greaterthechancesaretodiscoverwhenlanguagesdifferandwhereuncertaintiesoccur.Themethodisanythingbut
new.Incriminalinvestigationsitiswellknownhowusefulitistotakeasuspectbacktothesceneofthecrime.The
possibilitiestocheckdetails,posefollow-upquestions,andtostimulatememoriesimprovegreatly.Likewise,when
informantsinterpretaphotograph,forinstance,theystartjustthere,andthefieldresearcherstandsinabetterpositionto
followtheinformants’thinkingcomparedtowhenmoreabstractquestionsareasked,andwhenmanyexternal
circumstanceswillinfluencehowtheinformantreceivesandprocessesquestions.Historicalartefactsneednotonlybe
relics.Contemporaryobjectsmaybejustasusefulasstartingpointsforhistoricalinquiries.
Ifsuccessful,participatorycheckingincreasesthechancesthatresearchcanbeofusetolocalcommunitiesandthatthe
finalwrite-upswillbereadableandrelevanttomoreaudiencesthanonlytheresearchers’immediatecolleagues;itis‘a
purposefulsocialinvitationinwhichtheparticipants,especiallypeoplelivingatthemarginofsociety,determinethe
imagesofthemselvesthattheywishtobecomepublic’(ChoandTrent,2006:336).
Checking:OnWhoseTerms?
Theresearcherisexploitativeinrelationtohis/herfieldarea.Butsoareinformantsinrelationshiptotheresearchers.
Theyparticipatetogaincontactsandfringebenefits.Thereissomethingfundamentallyequalinthatinformantsandfield
researchersbothhavepersonalmotivesfortheirundertakings.Themoreopenandfairwecanbeaboutthis,theeasier
itwillbetomakeresearchusefultobothsides—andthebetterwillthequalitygrow.
Itisgenerallyheldinsocialsciencethatinformantshavearighttoanonymity.Inmanycountriesthiscanbeimportant
whentheyriskbeingbadgeredbyauthoritiesorbyinfluentialpeoplebecauseoftheirinvolvementwithresearch
producingresultsthatmaynotbeappealingtothepowersthatbe.Thismustofcoursebeseriouslyconsidered.Butour
experienceisthattheoppositesituationisalsocommon.Researchersgetsubstantialhelpfromcommunitiesand
individualswithoutdulyacknowledginghowcrucialtheseinputshavebeen.Allresearchersarecarefultorefertothe
publishedsourcestheyhaveusedbutwhentheytaplocalexpertisethisisoftenanonymizedas‘maleelder’or‘woman
inherlate50s’.Didtheresearchersvisitazoo?Whyarethethoughtsofametropolitancolleagueacknowledgedwith
yearandpagewhiletheknowledgeofinformantscumlocalexpertsisnotrecognizedbynameanddate?Aprerequisite
isofcoursethatinformantsareaskediftheyacceptbeingquotedorcitedwithname,andthattheycanrealisticallyjudge
whatitmayentailtoappearinaresearchpublication.Distributingpopularizedreportsintheinformants’ownlanguage,
toinformants,fieldassistants,andotherswithaninterestintheresearchpriortothefinalreporting,will,inadditiontothe
aspectsdiscussedbefore,alsogiveanideaofhowtheresearchfindingswillbepresentedandmayhelpinformantsto
Page 11 of 15
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford
Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 17 February 2016
Participatory Checking and the Temporality of Landscapes
judgehowtheyfeelaboutappearinginsuchcontexts.
Participatorycheckingcanbeusedbothtoimprovethequalityoftheresearchprocessandtocontributetosocial
change.Thischapterhasdiscussedthefirstaspectprimarily,butalsohintedthatitisoftendifficulttodrawalinebetween
thetwo.ManyresearchersworkinginAfricahavefoundthemselvestalkingonbehalfoftheareawheretheyhave
workedandthepeoplelivingthere.Theywanttohelpoutandperhapsalsodirectdevelopmentinterventionsto‘their’
area;to‘givevoicetopeopleotherwisenotheard’.Theintentionsarethebest,butwithoutactiveinvolvementofthose
directlyconcernedtheriskofreproducingoldhierarchical,evencolonial,narrativesandrelationshipsincreases(Smith,
2012).Participatorycheckingprovidesatleastsomemitigationinthisquandary(cf.Bradshaw,2001).
Anyscholarneedstoscrutinizethepowerrelationssheorheparticipatesinandask:‘whobenefits?’Itisobviousthat
theresearchersbenefitsincethequalityoftheirworkisenhanced.Theycanalsogetinformalcreditforbeingdemocratic
andcommitted.But,theyalsohavearesponsibilitytoreflectonthebenefitsthatinformantsreceivefromtheir
contributions.Evenifresearchresultsmaynotyieldsubstantialbenefitsorimprovementstothelivesofthose
participating,itisanessentialcomponentofparticipatoryresearchtoactinaresponsibleandreciprocalwaytowards
informants.Inthischapterwehavearguedinfavourofsharingresearchmaterialwithinformantstostimulatecritical
discussionsontrustworthiness,rigour,andusefulnessoflandscapechangeresearch.Thereasonsaresimple:itisfair,
andatthesametimegoodresearcheconomy.
Acknowledgements
ThankstoGunhildSettenforinsightfulcommentsonthemanuscript.CorrespondencewithProfessorJiwonChung,a
leadingspokesmanoftheTheatreoftheOppressedmovement,usefullysensitizedustothecomplexitiesof‘who
benefits?’inactionresearch.Wearealsothankfultotheeditorsofthisbookforveryconstructivecommentsondifferent
versionsofthemanuscript.Thefullresponsibilityforanyremainingshortcomingsinthetextremainswiththeauthors.The
writingofthischapterwasmadepossiblebyresearchgrantsreceivedbyLoweBörjesonfromSida(SWE-2008-230),The
RoyalSwedishAcademyofSciences,andTheSwedishResearchCouncilFormas(2008-1405)andbyWilhelmÖstberg
fromTheSwedishResearchCouncil(421-2006-1583).
References
Årlin,C.(2011).BecomingWilderness:ATopologicalStudyofTarangire,NorthernTanzania1890–2004.Stockholm:Acta
UniversitatisStockholmiensis.
Baumann,O.(1894).DurchMassailandzurNilquelle:ReisenundForschungenderMassai-Expeditiondesdeutschen
Antisklaverei-KomiteindenJahren1891–1893.Berlin:Reimer.
Baxter,J.,andEyles,J.(1997).Evaluatingqualitativeresearchinsocialgeography:establishing‘rigour’ininterview
analysis.TransactionsoftheInstituteofBritishGeographers22(4):505–525.
Blaikie,P.,andBrookfield,H.(1987).LandDegradationandSociety.LondonandNewYork:Routledge.
Börjeson,L.(2004).AHistoryunderSiege:IntensiveAgricultureintheMbuluHighlands,Tanzania,19thCenturyto
thePresent.Stockholm:Almqvist&WiksellInternational.
Börjeson,L.(2007).Boserupbackwards?Agriculturalintensificationas‘itsowndrivingforce’intheMbuluHighlands,
Tanzania.GeografiskaAnnaler,SeriesB,HumanGeography89(3):249–267.
Börjeson,L.(2009).Usingahistoricalmapasabaselineinaland-coverchangestudyofnorthernTanzania.African
JournalofEcology47(Suppl.1):185–191.
Börjeson,L.(2014).Theantithesisofdegradedland:towardagreenerconceptualizationoflandesquecapital.InN.T
HåkanssonandM.Widgren(eds),LandesqueCapital:TheHistoricalEcologyofEnduringLandscapeModifications.
WalnutCreek,CA:LeftCoastPress,251–268.
Bradshaw,M.(2001).Contractsandmemberchecksinqualitativeresearchinhumangeography:reasonforcaution?
Area33(2):202–211.
Page 12 of 15
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford
Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 17 February 2016
Participatory Checking and the Temporality of Landscapes
Brookfield,H.(2001).Intensification,andalternativeapproachestoagriculturalchange.AsiaPacificViewpoint42(2–3):
181–192.
Brydon-Miller,M.,Kral,M.,Maguire,P.,Noffke,S.,andSabhlok,A.(2011).Jazzandthebanyantree:rootsandriffson
participatoryactionresearch.InN.K.DenzinandY.S.Lincoln(eds),TheSageHandbookofQualitativeResearch.4th
edition.ThousandOaks,CA:Sage,387–400.
Callon,M.,andLaw,J.(1995).Agencyandthehybridcollectif.SouthAtlanticQuarterly94(2):481–508.
Carpiano,R.(2009).Cometakeawalkwithme:the‘go-along’interviewasanovelmethodforstudyingtheimplications
ofplaceforhealthandwell-being.HealthandPlace15(1):263–272.
Chambers,R.(1997).WhoseRealityCounts?PuttingtheFirstLast.London:IntermediateTechnologyPublications.
Chapin,M.,Lamb,Z.,andThrelkeld,B.(2005).Mappingindigenouslands.AnnualReviewofAnthropology34:619–638.
Chilvers,J.(2009).Deliberativeandparticipatoryapproachesinenvironmentalgeography.InN.Castree,D.Demeritt,D.
Liverman,andB.Rhoads(eds),ACompaniontoEnvironmentalGeography.Oxford:Wiley-Blackwell,400–417.
Cho,J.,andTrent,A.(2006).Validityinqualitativeresearchrevisited.QualitativeResearch6(3):319–340.
Cooke,B.,andKothari,U.(eds)(2001).Participation:TheNewTyranny.London:ZedBooks.
Cresswell,J.,andMiller,D.(2000).Determiningvalidityinqualitativeinquiry.TheoryIntoPractice39(3):124–130.
Davies,M.I.J.(2014).Thetemporalityoflandesquecapital:cultivationandtheroutinesofPokotlife.InN.T.Håkansson
andM.Widgren(eds),LandesqueCapital:TheHistoricalEcologyofEnduringLandscapeModifications.WalnutCreek,
CA:LeftCoastPress,172–196.
Demeritt,D.,andDyer,S.(2002).Dialogue,metaphorsofdialogueandunderstandingsofgeography.Area34(3):229–
241.
Doolittle,W.E.(1984).Agriculturalchangeasanincrementalprocess.AnnalsoftheAssociationofAmerican
Geographers74(1):124–137.
Doolittle,W.E.(2001).Learningtoseetheimpactsofindividuals.GeographicalReview91(1–2):423–429.
Duncan,D.,Kyle,G.,andRace,D.(2010).Combiningfacilitateddialogueandspatialdataanalysistocompilelandscape
history.EnvironmentalConservation37(4):432–441.
Dunn,C.E.(2007).ParticipatoryGIS:apeople’sGIS?ProgressinHumanGeography31(5):616–637.
Fairhead,J.,andLeach,M.(1996).MisreadingtheAfricanLandscape:SocietyandEcologyinaForest-SavannaMosaic.
Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Håkansson,N.T.,andWidgren,M.(eds)(2014).LandesqueCapital:TheHistoricalEcologyofEnduringLandscape
Modifications.WalnutCreek,CA:LeftCoastPress.
Harley,J.B.(1989).Maps,knowledge,andpower.InD.CosgroveandS.Daniels(eds),TheIconographyofLandscape.
Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,277–312.
Harper,D.(2002).Talkingaboutpictures:acaseforphotoelicitation.VisualStudies17(1):13–26.
Ingold,T.(2000).ThePerceptionoftheEnvironment:EssaysonLivelihood,DwellingandSkill.London:Routledge.
Ingold,T.,andVergunst,J.L.(2008).WaysofWalking:EthnographyandPracticeonFoot.Aldershot:Ashgate
Publishing.
Lassiter,L.E.(2005).TheChicagoGuidetoCollaborativeEthnography.Chicago,IL:UniversityofChicagoPress.
Latour,B.(2005).ReassemblingtheSocial:AnIntroductiontoActor-Network-Theory.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.
Page 13 of 15
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford
Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 17 February 2016
Participatory Checking and the Temporality of Landscapes
Lincoln,Y.S.,andGuba,E.G.(1985).NaturalisticInquiry.BeverlyHills,CA:Sage.
Lincoln,Y.S.,andGuba,E.G.(2000).Paradigmaticcontroversies,contradictions,andemergingconfluences.InN.K.
DenzinandY.S.Lincoln(eds),HandbookofQualitativeResearch.2ndedition.ThousandOaks,CA:Sage,163–188.
McCann,J.(1999).GreenLand,BrownLand,BlackLand:AnEnvironmentalHistoryofAfrica,1800–1990.Oxford:
JamesCurrey.
Maddox,G.H.(2006).Sub-SaharanAfrica:AnEnvironmentalHistory.SantaBarbara,CA:ABCClio.
Mikkelsen,B.(2005).MethodsforDevelopmentWorkandResearch:ANewGuideForPractitioners.ThousandOaks,
CA:Sage.
Mohan,G.(2008).Participatorydevelopment.InV.DesaiandR.B.Potter(eds),TheCompaniontoDevelopment
Studies.2ndedition.London:HodderEducation,45–50.
Mung’ong’o,C.G.,Kikula,I.S.,andMwalyosi,R.B.B.(eds)(2004).GeophysicalandSocio-PoliticalDynamicsof
EnvironmentalConservationinKondoaDistrict.DaresSalaam:DaresSalaamUniversityPress.
Östberg,W.(1995).LandisComingUp:TheBurungeofCentralTanzaniaandtheirEnvironments.StockholmStudies
inSocialAnthropology34.Stockholm:StockholmUniversity.
Porter,T.M.(1995).TrustinNumbers:ThePursuitofObjectivityinScienceandPublicLife.Princeton,NJ:Princeton
UniversityPress.
Richards,P.(1985).IndigenousAgriculturalRevolution.London:Hutchinson.
Rohde,R.F.,andHoffman,M.T.(2010).LandscapeandvegetationchangeinNamibiasince1876basedonthe
photographsofthePalgraveCommission.InU.SchmiedelandN.Jü rgens(eds),BiodiversityinSouthernAfrica,Volume
2:PatternsandProcessesatRegionalScale.GöttingenandWindhoek:KlausHessPublishers,6–14.
Seale,C.(1999).TheQualityofQualitativeResearch.London:Sage.
Smith,T.L.(2012).DecolonizingMethodologies:ResearchandIndigenousPeoples.LondonandNewYork:ZedBooks.
Stump,D.(2006).ThedevelopmentandexpansionofthefieldandirrigationsystemsatEngaruka,Tanzania.Azania
41(1):69–94.
Tiffen,M.,Mortimore,M.,andGichuki,F.(1994).MorePeople,LessErosion:EnvironmentalRecoveryinKenya.
Chichester:Wiley.
Tsouvalis,J.,andWaterton,C.(2012).Building‘participation’uponcritique:theLoweswaterCareProject,Cumbria,UK.
EnvironmentalModelling&Software36:111–121.
Notes:
( 1.)ThesearchesweredoneinGoogleScholarasthisallowedustosearchfulltextsandabroadrangeoftexts,andnot
justabstracts.Atotalof15differentkeywordsweresearched,butnotallhavebeenincludedinthetablesincetheresult
ofthesesearchesyieldedinsignificantproportionsorweresimplyredundanttothekeywordsincludedinthetable.The
searcheswereperformedon7–8May2012usingtheformula‘discipline’and‘keyword’intheadvancedsearchsettings.
CamillaÅrlin
CamillaÅrlinisaresearcherattheDepartmentofHumanGeography,StockholmUniversity.ShehaswrittenBecomingWilderness-A
topologicalstudyofTarangire,NorthernTanzania.Hermainresearchinterestsincludeanimalgeography,landscaperesearch,and
naturalresourcemanagementinbothSwedenandEastAfrica.
LoweBörjeson
LoweBörjesonisaLecturerattheDepartmentofHumanGeography,StockholmUniversity.HehaswrittenAHistoryunderSiege.
IntensiveAgricultureintheMbuluHighlands,Tanzania,19thCenturytothePresent(Almqvist&WiksellInternational,2004).His
Page 14 of 15
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford
Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 17 February 2016
Participatory Checking and the Temporality of Landscapes
researchisconcernedwithhistoricalandcurrentprocessesoflandscapeandagriculturalchangeindifferentlocalitiesinAfrica.He
isengagedinanumberofinterdisciplinaryresearchprojectsandhaspublishedarticlesonagriculturallandscapechangeatboth
localandregionalscales.
WilhelmÖstberg
WilhelmÖstbergisanAssociateProfessorinSocialAnthropologyandaffiliatedresearcherattheDepartmentofHumanGeography,
StockholmUniversity.Heisaformerco-editorinchiefofEthnos.JournalofAnthropology.HisbooksincludeTheKondoa
Transformation.ComingtoGripswithSoilErosioninCentralTanzania(ScandinavianInstituteofAfricanStudies,1986)andLandis
ComingUp.TheBurungeofCentralTanzaniaandTheirEnvironments(StockholmUniversity,1995).Hehaspublishedarticleson
naturalresourcemanagementinEastAfricaandontraditionalAfricanart.
Page 15 of 15
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford
Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 17 February 2016