A tool for collaboration between anthropologists and NGOs
Since 1985, the Organization of Indigenous Doctors of Chiapas (OMIECH) has been supporting and promoting the work of traditional midwives in indigenous communities in the Highlands of Chiapas. Collaborating with non-governmental organizations, anthropologists and medical doctors in Chiapas as well as abroad, OMIECH has built an international and intercultural network to raise awareness about the disappearance of traditional midwifery. Since 2010, the Women and Midwives Section of OMIECH has partnered with the French NGO Association Mâ, an organization promoting natural and respected childbirth in France.
I met members of OMIECH in 2013 through the Association Mâ, as I was starting my doctoral studies. We began collaborating as an aspect of my doctoral fieldwork. My research questions stemmed from preliminary fieldwork with OMIECH, and my dissertation, documenting the impact public health policies on indigenous midwives’ work, is informed in part by narratives of midwives who belong to the OMIECH network. As my fieldwork developed, I volunteered for both Mâ and OMIECH, on-site during my fieldwork, and at a distance through communication platforms such as Skype the rest of the time. In this essay, I reflect on our collaboration by presenting my activist researcher position, and the tools we have used to make this collaboration sustainable.
“You know, a lot of researchers have come here. We gave them all the information, we talked to them, and then, they never came back,” Micaela Icó Bautista, the coordinator of the Women and Midwives Section of OMIECH told me during the weeks following our first encounter. In addition to never seeing the researchers again, her and her colleagues were upset that they were never acknowledged in the research nor received a copy of any publications about them. The Women and Midwives’ Section shared with me the work of students who interned with them as well as journal and newspaper articles about the organization that they were able to gather over the years. However, according to Micaela and her colleagues, more researchers have come to work with them who never shared their results. In this context, we spent our very first meeting, during which I presented my research interests to OMIECH, discussing common grounds between the organization’s goal and my academic skills.
In many ways, activist research is a lesson in humility, as we adapt our methods of research to meet our collaborators’ needs. As a result of my long-distance collaboration with OMIECH’s Women and Midwives’ Section, I have come in contact with midwives across the globe, and learned to balance between “doing” (being involved in projects) and “writing” (about such projects). In such, my commitment to OMIECH’s political goal taught me to revisit my writing to make it relevant to my partners, as well as writing for advocacy.
Anthropologists working in the field of human rights take on the multiple roles of witnesses, advocates and activists. Ultimately, activist-research relies on the belief that political engagement is in continuity with our anthropological training, what Shannon Speed calls doing “critically engaged activist research” (2006). The activist side of my research also positioned me as an outsider within, providing a vantage point to auto-analyze my own interactions within OMIECH and note the differences in opinion and experience that might arise between my colleagues and myself. Simultaneously approaching OMIECH as a doctoral student and as a member of their French partner organization has placed me in uncomfortable situations at times, but allowed me to fully live participant-observation, and gain the kind of knowledge that allows me to talk about the politics of indigenous organizing “from the gut” (Bernard 2006; 342).
Techniques and Technologies: Making it Work
In total, I completed thirteen months of on-site fieldwork in Chiapas, spread over a period lasting from May 2013 to July 2015. Despite our various geographical locations, OMIECH and I have been able to write projects together, present our work in academic settings such as the 2015 SLACA conference, and organize local events in France and Chiapas.
The use of technology is crucial to conduct this type of ethnography and to collect data without being physically in the field, what I refer to as long-distance ethnography. Maintaining regular contact with OMIECH while in the United States has been essential for my research and even more crucial in developing trust. I conducted long-distance ethnography over a period of four months in 2014 which included the video recording of bi-monthly meetings of the Women and Midwives’ Section, and my response to these recordings through email and/or video messages. In face-to-face participant-observation, the presence of the researcher is slowly erased through a process of habituation and trust building. In a similar way, in long-distance ethnography, the webcam, at first odd, became integrated into the meetings. By the second recorded meeting, I had questions directed towards me/the camera.
The possibilities of activist research are multiplied by the availability of new technologies (videoconferences, file sharing, Internet-based calls). In our case, they have contributed to building a dialogue with such diverse publics as academics, activists, parteras and families in Chiapas, France and the USA. As anthropologists, long-distance ethnography also challenges our research methods, which often limit our “doing” to the field, while the “writing” happens at home. On both OMIECH and my side, technology has contributed to good working relationships between us, allowing both my colleagues to update me with important news from the organization, and me to keep them updated about my dissertation work. Video platforms, instant messaging, and social media all shorten the spatial and mental distance between fieldwork and home. By allowing our research partners to interfere in our daily routine, they create new ethical questions, and make us accountable beyond the occasional phone call. Ethical and methodological questions about long-distance ethnography also make their way in the training of future anthropologists, who, wherever their fieldwork takes them, will rely on their use.