Class 1 Reflection

The readings from this week resonated with me so much as they captured several tensions and dilemmas I have experienced during my field works. An idea that seems to be emerging for me from both the readings is the importance of caring and being responsible towards the community with whom the research is conducted. This extends the act of research as a mere mechanical task but rather an act of active participation in the community. My fieldworks thus far have been in India and I have always been confident that I know the context well. But every time I interact with the communities I realize how easy it is to get out of touch especially when I am not immersed in the community. I found these tensions to be well captured by Anokwa et al -- “Many of the barriers faced by the Ghanaian doctors in Ghana were not anticipated by the American doctors, despite the freshness of their experience in-country.” (Anokwa et al., 2009, p. 107). Substitution can be helpful for high-level overview but working directly with the community is essential to bring out the nuances.

Given the interventionist nature of the HCI4D research, it is imperative for the research goals to be aligned with the needs of the community and the expectations of the implementation partners. The authors have also discussed how this can lead to conflicting expectations between the researchers and the partners, which I have also experienced in my work. “After speaking with a number of organizations about a promising idea, one author realized that his project scope was too large and the research contribution too small, so the idea had to be put on hold.” (Anokwa et al., 2009, p. 108) I believe this again points to the importance of the researchers being more immersed in the community so that they can see the actual needs more clearly and shape the goals accordingly. I had my reservations against the authors given their positionality of being North American researchers conducting interventions in the "developing" regions of the world, guided by certain professional motives and power structures. However, I was glad that they acknowleged that “Our stories are also revealing in what they do not discuss. No stories dealt with the process of selecting a worthwhile problem to research or identifying the objectives of a project.” (Anokwa et al., 2009, p. 111)

I also felt that Harrington et al's work nicely complemented the Anokwa et al's work in showing the complexities of engaging in participatory design/research. “The research team found it important to not only establish relationships, but to demonstrate commitments by remaining ‘there’ in order to engage in collaborative design ethically.” (Harrington et al., 2019, p. 11) - Researchers immersed themselves in the community. Even though the researchers did significant efforts in engaging with the community, there were notable tensions due to the prevailing power structures and economic realities. A quote that stood out for me from the reading is - “And so, I’m the kind of person that believes change is only going to come from within the community. The cavalry ain’t coming in to save us, we gonna have to save ourselves.” (Harrington et al., 2019, p. 15) - How can researchers be supportive in this process than being interventionists?