The Ugly S c h o l a r : N e o c o l o n i a l i s m a n d E t h i c a l I s s u e s in International Research CATHY A. RAKOWSKI

As a discipline, sociology has had to confront criticism of the nature and ends of sociological research and ethnical dilemmas in the study of social problems and people. Over time guidelines have appeared to aid in protecting subjects and colleagues (e.g., the ASA Code of Ethics) and to guarantee research standards (e.g., the peer-reviewed proposal process, human subjects committees). However, guidelines tend not to address the challenges sociologists face in international research. This results in unpleasant experiences and potentially endangers research and researcher alike. This articles responds to the gap in the literature on ethical issues in international research. It draws on writings by social scientists and from the author's experience in Latin America. T h e s o c i o l o g i c a l d e b a t e o v e r e t h i c s in i n t e r n a t i o n a l r e s e a r c h is n o t o f r e c e n t origin ( S j o b e r g 1967). But issues o f c o l l a b o r a t i o n a n d c o n t r o l in r e s e a r c h h a v e r e c e i v e d i n s u f f i c i e n t a t t e n t i o n f r o m t h e d i s c i p l i n e in t h e U n i t e d States. I U.S. s o c i o l o g i s t s w h o c o n d u c t field w o r k in d e v e l o p i n g c o u n t r i e s will b e c o n f r o n t e d alternately b y g e n e r a l i z e d negative p e r c e p t i o n s ( d e s e r v e d or n o t ) o f n e o c o l o n i a l i s m o n t h e p a r t o f U.S. a n d E u r o p e a n s c h o l a r s ( t h e "ugly s c h o l a r "2 o f t h e title), antiAmerican sentiment, resistance, and--in seeming contradiction--a perceived s u p e r i o r i t y o f U.S. s c h o l a r s h i p b y h o s t c o u n t r y elites. Such p e r c e p t i o n s are r e l a t e d as m u c h to t h e p o l i c i e s o f o u r p l a c e o f origin a n d o u r d i s c i p l i n a r y t r a d i t i o n s as t h e y are to c u l t u r a l d i f f e r e n c e s a n d e t h n o c e n t r i s m a m o n g individuals. O u r r e s p o n s e s r a n g e f r o m d e f e n s i v e n e s s a n d i s o l a t i o n i s m to i n t r o s p e c t i o n a n d dialogue. In t h e l a t t e r case, m a n y s o c i o l o g i s t s are able to w o r k o u t i n d i v i d u a l i z e d solutions. H o w e v e r , e a c h s t r u g g l e d a l o n e a n d t e n d s to b e r e g a r d e d as an " e x c e p t i o n to the rule." It is truly frustrating t h a t e a c h sociologist must stumble down the same path without warning or guidance.

Cathy A. Rakowski is assistant professor in the Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology and the Center for Women's Studies, The Ohio State University, 2120 Fyffe Rd., Columbus OH 43210. l~kowski

69

T h e s e issues, their rationale and origin, and strategies for c o p i n g with, reducing, or c i r c u m v e n t i n g t h e m n e e d to be discussed publicly. N o r t h American sociologists could benefit f r om sensitizing ourselves to criticisms of our practice o f sociology from colleagues in o t h e r settings. As a c o n t r i b u t i o n in this direction, this article p r es e nt s a discussion of the t ype of issues sociologists current l y face w h e n w o r k i n g in international settings. T h ese can be classified as o p p o r t u n i s m , d o m i n a n c e , and d e p e n d e n c y at the level of c o u n t r y relations, inter-institutional relations, interaction a m ong individuals, and in the r e s e a r c h e r - r e s e a r c h subject relation. Th e exa m pl es p r o v i d e d are dr a wn primarily from the e x p e r i e n c e s of the a u t h o r and colleagues w o r k i n g in Latin America, and f r o m a debate on academic neocolonialism and r e s e a r c h that has d e v e l o p e d in Europe and Latin America. Th e debate is particularly relevant to those w o r k i n g on d e v e l o p m e n t and social change Naturally, th er e are different vantage poi nt s from w h i c h to evaluate the iss u e s - - i n c l u d i n g that o f U.S. scholars o r Latin American scholars. This article does n o t p r e s e n t all sides. It attends to the issues as e x p r e s s e d t h r o u g h criticism o f the role of U.S. scholars and institutions in Latin American research and teaching. The discussion favors dilemmas e x p e r i e n c e d by the author during thirteen years o f r es ear ch in Venezuela and the p e r c e p t i o n s of the a u t h o r ' s colleagues. The o b jectiv e is to sensitize sociologists to these issues, explain their rationale, and p r o v i d e examples.

Dimensions

of Neocolonialism

T h e mo s t serious charges f a c e d by U.S. sociologists are t h o s e of neocolonialism (Chambers 1987; D e ve r eaux and Hoddinott 1992; Fortuijn 1984; Garcia 1981a, 1981b; Gareau 1986). In some cases charges result from a failure to distinguish b e t w e e n researchers and their c o u n t r y of origin. In others, charges are g r o u n d e d in th e b e h a v i o r of scholars and their h o m e institutions. Charges include neocolonialism in institutional relations, m e t h o d o l o g y , t h e o r y and c o n c e p t s , funding, publishing, and relations w i t h r e s e a r c h subjects. In general, neocolonialism (also r e f e r r e d to as academic imperialism) is when dependency relations [between countries] extend to universities and research activities. Researchers from rich countries have more funds at their disposal, more time to spend on fieldwork, often more sophisticated apparatus of preparation, which enables them to dictate the research agenda, choose the research design and methodology, and determine what will happen to the results. (Fortuijn 1984, p. 59) Even w h e n collaborative a r r a n g e m e n t s are made b e t w e e n visiting researchers and c o u n t e r p a r t s at the r e s e a r c h site, r e s e a r c h relations may be unequal. And e v en w h e n measures are taken to ens ur e a fair division of labor and decision making, researchers, authorities and others at the r e s e a r c h site may "perceive" the o u t s i d e r r e s e a r c h e r as a "manifestation of d e p e n d e n c y relations, and act accordingly, with a mixture of hostility, distrust, greed and subservience" (Fortuijn 1984, p. 59).

70

The American Sociologist/Fall/Winter 1993

This problem originates in the relations of dominance and d e p e n d e n c y bet w e e n the United States and Latin America, in historical relations b e t w e e n some sociology d e p a r t m e n t s in the United States and others in Latin America, and in the objectives of sociological research. 3 Typically, these are easily d o c u m e n t e d examples of institutional neocolonialism. Institutional neocolonialism can be more subtle, as in the case of the education of future Latin American scholars and policy makers. Each example is dealt with in turn in the following paragraphs.

Examples of Institutional Neocolonialism U.S. and European sociologists have dominated in the education and training of international researchers both in their h o m e universities and in the countries of Latin America and Africa (Edwards 1989, p. 123). This might have facilitated the diffusion of U.S. theories and m e t h o d s and, hence, of collaboration w i t h U.S.-trained colleagues. Two factors have made diffusion and collaboration difficult. The first factor relates to tensions b e t w e e n European and U.S. sociology. Although they share a c o m m o n origin, they have evolved differently. U.S. sociology is more empiricist and positivist while the European tradition allocates greater importance to historical and geographical c o n t e x t and to reflexivity. 4 In Latin America, these traditions have c o m p e t e d w i t h each other to influence sociological m e t h o d s and theoretical frameworks (Albornoz 1962). The parallel rise of neo-Marxist theories in Europe and Latin America in the sixties and seventies (e.g., d e p e n d e n c y theory, the c o n c e p t of marginalization) reinforced the compatibility of European and Latin American perspectives and heightened resentm e n t of U.S. domination of Latin American economies. Much U.S. sociology has been anti-Marxist and this was perceived in Latin America as evidence of sociology's consortium with government. Not infrequently, research projects and faculty exchange programs w e r e "tools" of U.S. policy and anticommunist campaigns (Castro 1988; Sjoberg 1967). At times, r e s e n t m e n t of U.S. sociology had simpler causes. For instance, students in the United States from Latin America, Africa, and Asia frequently complain that the training they receive in U.S. sociology departments does not prepare t h e m to be sociologists in their h o m e countries. 5 They protest an exclusionary focus on theories and m e t h o d s that are inadequate for studying the social issues of their home countries, as well as U.S. faculty w h o resist adapting course content and reading lists to include alternatives to a sociology of the United States. 6 This is perceived by students as an e t h n o c e n t r i c devaluation of Latin American (or African or Asian) knowledge, ideas, and problems (Brown 1993; Mohamed and Lloyd 1990). Furthermore, most U.S. academics do not value or teach "applied" or policy-relevant research m e t h o d s (Berk 1981)--frequently n e e d e d by students from countries facing significant economic, political, infrastructural, and social problems (Cernea 1985; Chambers 1983, 1987). In Latin America, policy makers turn to academics for theories and data that can help them understand social problems and identify like solutions (Albornoz 1962; Naim and Pifiango 1985). Finally, the statistical m e t h o d s favored by U.S. sociologists require access to

Rakowski

71

reliable and sophisticated data and e q u i p m e n t w h i c h may not be available in p o o r e r co u n tr ies (Edwards 1989). These c o n c e r n s are valid. T echni cal obstacles, d o m i n a n c e - d e p e n d e n c y issues, accusations o f e t h n o c e n t r i s m and irrelevance, and research for the p u r p o s e of political manipulation are obvious barriers to collaboration. These probl em s w e r e e x a c e r b a t e d in the 1980s by the increasing distance b e t w e e n the research interests and c o n c e r n s of U.S. and Latin American scholars. In Latin America, social scientists have f o c u s e d increasingly on the pressing p r o b l e m s of debt crisis, social impacts of structural adjustment and e x p a n d i n g povert y, dem ocrat i zat i on and social m o v e m e n t s . U.S. social s ci ence is challenged by c e n t e r s of k n o w l e d g e in Latin America (and Europe) w h i c h are shifting to an emphasis on innovative and p ar ticip ato r y a p p r o a c h e s to r e s e a r c h and problem-solving (Edwards 1989, p. 123; Gareau 1986; Slater 1990). Latin American scholars look to multiple sources for a p p r o a c h e s to social research, including the n e w E u r o p e a n "radical" forms of structuralism, even while t hey still may draw from the United States the "nuts and bolts" t e c h n i q u e s of positivist r e s e a r c h m e t h o d s tied to a m o d e r n i z a t i o n ideology (Calder6n and Piscitelli 1990; Long 1990, p. 21). Leading Latin American sociologists favor an approach that is contextual, historical, inclusive, involved, experiential, socially relevant, and uses multiple m e t h o d s to e x p l o r e c o m p l e x reality. Many have d e v e l o p e d i m p o r t a n t n e w theories of social c h a n g e w h i c h are i m b e d d e d in Latin American social realities (Escobar and Alvarez 1992; GarciaGuadilla 1992). T h e distance b e t w e e n t he research interests and c o n c e r n s of U.S. and Latin American scholars in general cont ri but es to tensions in collaborative relations b e t w e e n individuals, and may increase the likelihood of perceived "imperialism" w h e n U.S. scholars bring with t h e m r e s e a r c h p r o b l e m s and designs f r o m home. Neocolonialism b e c o m e s a major issue w h e n a U.S. institution assumes or is assigned (by a U.S. funding agency) t he role of m e n t o r or lead institution in "collaborative" r e s e a r c h involving c o u n t e r p a r t s from a d e v e l o p i n g country. Even w h e n such linkages and the transfer of methods, funding, and t h e o r y w e r e invited by local authorities and receiving institutions, t h e y can lead to intellectual resistance by local colleagues ( B r ow n 1993) w h i c h t h r e a t e n s the viability and o u t c o m e o f research. Collaboration t hen b e c o m e s unattractive to bot h U.S. and host c o u n t r y scholars. F r o m t h e vantage poi nt of U.S. scholars w h o do not recognize resistance for w ha t it is or w h o are not sensitive to issues of inequality and control, the p r o b l e m may be attributed to "cultural differences" or, m o r e seriously, to "backwardness" or a lack of professional ethics am ong local sociologists (Fortuijn 1984). Ironically, this situation tends to r e i n f o r c e pressures for d o m i n a n c e - d e p e n d e n c y relations and e x a c e r b a t e s e t h n o c e n t r i s m . Sometimes p e r c e p t i o n s of institutional neocolonialism are based on real incidents. These include the role played by U.S. institutions in establishing sociology as a discipline in s om e Latin American universities. Castro (1988) r e c o u n t s w i t h embarrassing detail the role played by U.S. sociologists and a major m i d w e s t e r n university b e t w e e n 1952 and 1962 in Venezuela (at the invitation of Venezuelan and g o v e r n m e n t authorities during t he military dictatorship that e n d e d in 1959). 72

The American Sociologist/FaU/Winter 1993

Although sociology dates to the 1880s in Venezuela and courses in sociology w e r e t a u g h t in the Colleges of Law (Political Science), History, Psychology, and Economics, 1952 was the first year that a Department of Sociology and Anthropology offered degrees in these fields (Albornoz 1962). Although the positivist model of sociology emphasized by the U.S. scholars w h o helped establish the Department fit well with the sociological tradition in Venezuela, it quickly became associated w i t h U.S. political imperialism and support for the dictatorship. 7 In addition, its empiricist emphasis on knowledge generation and impersonality ("the more objective, the better") collided w i t h a the emphasis given in sociology (part of the College of Economics) to issues of political e c o n o m y and, in Venezuelan universities, to political activism (Albornoz 1962). 8 Frustration of students and intransigence of those in charge of the U.S.modelled program led literally to an academic "coup" and the expulsion of U.S. professors and texts (Albornoz 1962; Castro 1988). It is institutional experiences like this o n e - - a n d the political and military agendas behind funding of social science research in Southeast Asia, Africa, and Latin America--that validate the distrust of colleagues abroad, substantiate assumed links b e t w e e n U.S. imperialism and academic imperialism, and foster face-to-face conflicts b e t w e e n U.S. and Latin American scholars. In most cases, those of us on the receiving end arrive in virtual ignorance, only to confront over and over the "sins" of U.S. policy. Even after w e have gained trust and acceptance, nationality constrains our work. For instance, in 1973 (while a legal resident of Venezuela), I was unable to find e m p l o y m e n t in the social sciences. Although potential employers e x t e n d e d invitations for "informal" collaboration, I was told over and over again that Chile's experience with Project Camelot-funded by the U.S. army (Sjoberg 1967)--had led to a generalized policy of "any nationality e x c e p t U.S." A second example is more recent. In 1984 I was advisor to a team of young planners at a regional d e v e l o p m e n t corporation. One of the planners persistently u n d e r m i n e d or made sarcastic c o m m e n t s about every suggestion I made. After several months tensions led to a very public confrontation. In response to my d e m a n d that he stop sabotaging my work, he rattled off a list of "my" sins. These included Ronald Reagan's support of Central American dictatorships and the fact that U.S. professors and consultants in the past had "taken jobs away" from qualified Venezuelans. The conflict was resolved w h e n he sheepishly acknowledged that I had nothing to do w i t h Reagan's policies, and after he learned that I h a d taken the job as a favor to a c o l l e a g u e - - o u r b o s s - - a n d only after all Venezuelans contacted had turned it down. I have lost c o u n t of the n u m b e r of times that my presence or that of U.S. or European colleagues at conferences provoked arguments b e t w e e n colleagues w h o k n e w us and those w h o did not and objected to the presence of a "gringa w h o might try to dominate the discussion." The planner's accusation that U.S. consultants and scholars are favored over Venezuelans is often true. Perceived neocolonialism fosters not only resistance, but also acquiescence and subservience. Frequently, assumptions are drawn on either or both sides regarding the relative w o r t h of the theories and skills of U.S. or Latin American scholars.

Rakowski

73

Intellectual Neocolonialism Elites and the citizens w h o emulate t h e m assume that the w o r k of a N ort h American or Eu r opean scholar is i nhe r ent l y s u p e r i o r because of his or h e r nationality or the U.S. institution's reputation. After all, the U.S. e x p e r i e n c e of technological advances, consumerism, and educational institutions as c e n t e r s of research and progress is that most f r e q u e n t l y held up as a m odel for the countries o f the South. T o o many Latin Americans devalue indigenous things and overvalue things North American (Barroso 1991; Montero 1984). The fact that U.S. scholars f r equent l y are c h o s e n as consultants o v e r Venezuelans ( b ecau s e of e t h n o c e n t r i s m on the part of Venezuelan c o n t r a c t o r s and international funding agencies) and that s o m e receive e x o r b i t a n t fees and use consulting to advance their o w n r es e a r ch agendas and reput at i ons (in some cases ab s co n d in g w i t h the data) embarrasses and complicates the w o r k of U.S. scholars c o m m i t t e d to egalitarian r e s ear c h relations. An e x a m p l e of this c o m e s from a collaborative r es e a r ch p r o j e c t initiated in 1992 by t w o Venezuelan colleagues w h o asked me to act as advisor to their project. In meetings w i t h officials of the Venezuelan funding agency and the university managing the grant, questions about the p r o ject w e r e persistently addressed to me despite my polite yet equally persistent tactic of turning to m y colleagues for answers. When o n e colleague w i t h d r e w f r o m the p r o j e c t becaus e of a family matter, c o n t i n u e d funding of the p r o j e c t was a p p r o v e d only after I agreed to increase my i n v o l v e m e n t in field w o r k and writing of the final report. (In reality, the remaining colleague is capable of assuming c o m p l e t e c o n t r o l of t h e p r o j e c t and will u n d o u b t e d l y w ri t e the final r e p o r t w i t h m i ni m um input from me.) In this case, it was Venezuelan officials w h o i m p o s e d inequality in the relationship b e t w e e n my colleagues and myself. My nationality led to the assumption that 1 - - t h e f o r e i g n e r - - s h o u l d be in charge o f this project. This t ype of r e s p o n s e can be as destructive of collaboration as any a t t e m p t by my h o m e institution or myself to impose control. It also forces the U.S. scholar into a role w h i c h appears to confi rm neocolonialism. Oth er e x a m p l e s abound. For instance, my colleagues revealed that on several occasions w h e n their co-workers ( w h o s e grants had not b e e n f u n d e d ) l earned of the grant, t h e y r e c e i v e d c o m m e n t s that "you only got the grant b e c a u s e you have a 'gringa' involved." Such c o m m e n t s reveal the devaluation of local knowledge and skills t h r o u g h intellectual neocolonialism. We k n e w the t rut h and tried to educate those w h o made comments. But their unwillingness to acknowledge my Venezuelan colleagues had w r i t t e n a b e t t e r proposal and my c o n t i n u e d inv o l v e m e n t h i n d e r e d the r e c o g n i t i o n that my colleagues deserved. Denial o f Latin American e x p e r t i s e is r e i n f o r c e d by research and consulting f u nd ed by bilateral d o n o r agencies w h o stipulate that U.S.-based "expert s" be c o n t r a c t e d and that such pr oj ect s include a training c o m p o n e n t for Latin Americans. Th e a s s u m p t i o n is that only those in Latin A m e r i c a have s o m e t h i n g to learn. This n o t only hurts scholarly relations, but frequent l y guarantees the failure o f the research, training, or both. In a r e c e n t case in Venezuela, t w o U.S. "experts" hired t h r o u g h a c o n t r a c t f u n d e d by a U.S. agency did n o t speak the

74

The American Sociologist/Fall/Winter 1993

language, k n e w not hi ng about the local c o n t e x t , and di dn't b o t h e r to find out b e c a u s e o f an e t h n o c e n t r i c (or " e x p e r t c e n t r i c " ) belief in t h e superiority of "the w a y things are done" in their c o u n t r y of origin. T h e y p e r c e i v e d their task as "advising" rather than "learning" or "collaborating." Meanwhile, experts in Venezuela w h o had d e d i c a t e d their careers to the t o pi c (educational r e f o r m ) l i n c l u d i n g t w o U.S. ex p atr i a t e P h . D , s - - w e r e passed by. Needless to say, little of use came out of their consulting and several Venezuelan participants sought out the Costa Rican Ph.D. s tu dent w h o a c c o m p a n i e d the "experts" and asked h e r to c o n d u c t a p ar ticip ato r y w o r k s h o p w i t h them. Frequently, m e t h o d o l o g i c a l issues arise w i t hi n the c o n t e x t of intellectual neocolonialism. For instance, di f f er e nc e s in the style of research, choices, and preferences of researchers and consultants also can undermine even well-intentioned endeavors. The w o r s t case I have c o m e across is that of consultants w h o selectively transmit skills or withhold information in order to guarantee future consulting contracts. In o n e case, a c ons ul t ant from a major university on the East Coast w r o t e a c o m p l e x statistical p r o g r a m w h i c h was installed on the mainframe comp u t e r for use by analysts and planners at a regional d e v e l o p m e n t c o r p o r a t i o n in Venezuela. Local analysts w e r e trained to use the program, but not to modify it. Each time a "bug" arose, the c o r p o r a t i o n had to bring the c o n s u l t a n t back until, after about the third or fourth return trip, they scrapped and replaced the program.

Methodological Issues in Neocolonialism T h e r e are n u m e r o u s exam pl e s of real versus p e r c e i v e d n e o c o l o n i a l i s m by U.S. and E u r o p e a n scholars. T hes e i n c l u d e d o c u m e n t e d cases of m e t h o d o l o g i c a l neocolonialism in the form of a p p r o p r i a t i o n of data ("data mining" or "data hoarding") and c o n t r o l over t h e o r y and funding. Methodological neocolonialism most c o m m o n l y refers to the pract i ce of "data m i n i n g " - - " i m p o r t i n g " to the United States (or e l s e w h e r e ) pri m ary data generated in o th er settings without cost to the importing scholar and at some opportunity cost to the r e s e a r c h e r s and institutions w h i c h p r o d u c e d that data. In some cases, c o p ies of data may be c o n c e d e d for use "in-country" during visits by international scholars and r e m o v e d w i t h o u t permission. In others, data have b e e n copi ed and shared willingly in the interest of international collaboration and permission may be g r an ted for its use outside the c o u n t r y by r e s e a r c h e r s and graduate students. O n c e in the United States or Europe, data is p r o c e s s e d , re-worked, and i n t e r p r e t e d . Even w h e r e permission to use data sets has b e e n granted, p r o b l e m s occur. Typically (and usually c o n t r a r y to verbal agreements), the finished p r o d u c t is not shared wi t h the c o u n t r y of origin, and t hose using the data sets do not credit or involve in analyses the r e s e a r c h e r s and agencies w h i c h p r o d u c e d the data in the first place (Fortuijn 1984, p. 59; Garcia 1981a, p. 83). Instead, primary data are t r a n s f o r m e d into virtually u n r e c o g n i z a b l e s e c o n d a r y or tertiary data, and resulting publications t end not to a c k n o w l e d g e the original source (a p r o b l e m c o m m o n to intracultural r e s e a r c h as well), Thus, publication of empirical studies based o n those data give the i m pr e s s i on that c o n t r i b u t i o n s to k n o w l e d g e w e r e

Rakowski

"?5

made solely by those w h o transformed the data and that important empirical analyses take place only in the United States or Europe. In some cases, publication o f findings may c o m p e t e with or preclude publication by the original researchers in international journals. In others, importing scholars may have benefitted from written work or verbal exchanges with the original researchers, but fail to acknowledge these exchanges, arguing or merely assuming that the transformation and reworking of data (considered raw materials) have created a n e w p r o d u c t attributable only to t h e m (Garcia 1981a). This may be true in the sense that these scholars have added "intellectual value" but this does not solve the ethical issue of recognizing (or camouflaging) the intellectual origins and contributions of those w h o p r o d u c e d the primary data. In addition, the fact that publication of findings from such d a t a - - a n d even from most collaborative research--is often limited to English (or French and German) and to U.S. (or European) publications makes access difficult by scholars and policy makers in the research setting, reinforces dominance and control over knowledge, and gives the impression, again, that important work takes place only among speakers of English (or French or German). This reinforces the problem of the devaluation of local knowledge and skills. An example of this is provided by Garcia (1981a, 1981b) w h o publicly den o u n c e d a group of French scholars from a prestigious research institution for appropriating data from Latin American urban research and failing to credit the source and intellectual contributions of the Latin American researchers. She had been present at meetings b e t w e e n the Latin American team and the French scholars, and her review of conclusions in the French publications detected a n u m b e r of similarities w i t h the findings published in Spanish from analyses of primary data. No m e n t i o n was made of these earlier conclusions although they had been shared with the French scholars. Although this practice is questionable, it is widespread. There are even more blatant cases of methodological neocolonialism w h i c h constitute outright theft of data. The d e v e l o p m e n t corporation that sponsored my dissertation research in 1979 was very bitter over a British scholar (a very well k n o w n sociologist) w h o had been hired to help design, conduct, and analyze a household survey in the late 1960s. Survey results w o u l d be used to determine development plans and investment needs. W h e n the contract was completed, according to informants at the corporation, he packed up the original data tapes and took t h e m to his research institution, leaving the corporation with no copy. Despite efforts made in both countries, the data were never recovered. Not all methodological issues are so dramatic or clearcut. One widely discussed methodological issue is that of researchers working on rural problems w h o establish an urban base of operations (for the amenities) and w h o tend to limit contact with research subjects because of class, race, educational, and sex differences (i.e., they prefer to spend time with those w h o are like them). Visits to the research site constitute a type of "tourism" and make it likely that research findings will be erroneous (Chambers 1983, 1987; Edwards 1989, p. 125). An76

The American Sociologist/Fall/Winter 1993

other familiar example is that of researchers w h o hire others to do field work while they maintain distance from those w h o m they study. It its extreme, this becomes a situation of "research apartheid" and certainly is not conducive to accurate interpretation of data whose meanings may require sensitivity to local context and culture. It exacerbates conceptual problems w h i c h go hand-in-hand with methodological problems.

Conceptual Neocolonialism U.S. (and European) sociologists who work in "developing" countries are criticized not only for the way in w h i c h they c o n d u c t research, but for the theories and concepts they use to interpret the social reality of other societies (Long 1990; Mueller 1987; Peattie 1981). Theoretical and conceptual frameworks are considered to be neocolonialist w h e n a) they apply theories and concepts that originate in the experience of the United States and Europe to evaluate the Latin American experience, b) the points of comparison against w h i c h Latin American societies are j u d g e d - - a n d always come up short--are U.S. and European societies, and c) Latin American research data, variables, and concepts are manipulated to force t h e m into preconceived, alien categories (Castro 1988; Garcia 1981a; Kimmerling 1992, p. 446). A c o m m o n example of this type of neocolonialism is the c o n c e p t of development. Development status of countries around the world is assessed through indicators based on the characteristics of the United States and Western Europe. Thus, social science concepts like d e v e l o p m e n t and the methods that support t h e m are value laden, ethnocentric, and ahistorical. 9 Research based on those theories and concepts is unlikely to contribute to our understanding of the dynamics of social and economic change, and paradigms based on t h e m cannot explain or predict reality in other settings (Cardoso 1987; Calder6n and Piscitelli 1990; Collins 1986; Edwards 1989; Goulet 1983). To c o m p o u n d the problem, these concepts and theories have left their impact on data collection--especially standardized measures applied for purposes of comparison. In consequence, w h e n n e w and improved concepts are developed, they cannot be tested with available data sets. The financial impossibility of producing alternative data through innovative m e t h o d s severely limits the type of research that can be conducted. Even so, there is ample evidence to support the inadequacy of paradigms from the United States and Europe to a c c o u n t for Latin American experience or to identify cultural universals and specificities which must be understood if t h e o r y - - a n d planning--are to be improved (Cardoso 1987; Klar6n 1986; Long 1990; Peattie 1981; Slater 1990). A final example of conceptual neocolonialism is found in writings on Latin American scholars that present t h e m as being influenced by scholars and theories from the United States or Europe, thus denying or at least deemphasizing their innovations and importance. For instance, attempts have been made to relegate the theory of dependency to a mere translation of the theory of imperialism and to attribute Latin American functionalism to acritical cultural propagation (Calder6n and Piscitelli 1990, p. 93). Yet, the reality is that important Latin

Rakowski

77

American scholars like Gino Germani, Fernando Henrique Cardoso, and Enzo Faletto have not merely copied the theories of Parsons, Marx and Weber; they transformed these theories in light of the historical, cultural, and institutional specificities of Latin American contexts. Latin American scholarship is creative in its local use and reassessment of the sociological categories generated in other countries (Calder6n and Piscitelli 1990; So 1990). To devalue the importance of Latin American scholarship serves to maintain the dominance of U.S. and European scholarship and deprives U.S. scholars of the o p p o r t u n i t y to learn from Latin American colleagues. For instance, many Latin American researchers use an innovative actor-oriented approach and an historical-structural approach, and their research choices relate to processes specific to Latin America: popular mobilization, grassroots initiatives, the defeat of leftist parties, the relative weakening of labor movements, deindustrialization and structural adjustment, social impacts of development projects and public policy, the reappraisal of civil society, and the importance of micropolitics in everyday life (Calder6n and Piscitelli 1990, p. 88; Long 1990). This opens possibilities for improving theories and expanding empirical knowledge t h r o u g h comparative research. Both methodological and conceptual neocolonialism can arise through situations of funding neocolonialism.

Funding Neocolonialism Funding neocolonialism is based on the fact that most research funding originates in the United States, Canada, and Europe. Thus, funding agencies and the disciplines whose standards they share are in a position to impose research priorities and establish methodological standards and theoretical issues consistent w i t h the cultural and scientific traditions of the institutions (universities, foundations, governments) of d o m i n a n t countries (Edwards 1989; Fortuijn 1984, p. 60). This situation is exacerbated by the fact that U.S. scholars may have more time for research. Other pressures are exerted by regulations governing funding contracts w h i c h place legal as well as moral obligations on U.S. researchers and their h o m e institutions, and by the difficulty of enforcing regulations across borders. This favors placing control over research in the hands of a U.S. researcher and/or institution w h i c h can assume legal responsibility for the use of funds. Subsequently, w h e n it comes time to divide up tasks, researchers from the host country are generally in a subordinate position while the team leader, the one from the funding country, is the one w h o controls the research budget (Fortuijn 1984, p. 59). It is the leader w h o can dictate the research agenda, choose the research design, and determine what happens with the results (Fortuijn 1984). Issues of proprietorship over data and pressures on U.S. scholars to publish as sole or first author provide additional (implicit) incentives to control research and data, although explicit reasons may be argued on the basis of assumed greater expertise in methodology, access to superior equipment, and the greater opportunities for disseminating findings given the great n u m b e r of journal outlets in the United States. Proprietorship issues w o r s e n if data are transferred to

78

The American Sociologist/Fall/Winter 1993

the United States for processing and analysis. Finally, differences in customs, pace of work, demands on researchers' time, perceived importance of producing receipts for expenditures, and other cultural or logistical differences are frequently offered as justification for control over data (Fortuijn 1984; Garcia 1981a). Regardless of the arguments for cor:trol, nonetheless they lead to neocolonialism: the U.S. scholar extracts a form of "wealth" from the developing c o u n t r y for the benefit of his or her discipline and career, the funding agency imposes its agenda and standards, and host country scholars are deprived of data and recognition. Worst of all, outside control inhibits the development of innovative m e t h o d s and c o n c e p t s that may be more appropriate to the research setting. Differences in funding possibilities and relations of d e p e n d e n c y lead to confrontations at conferences and seminars b e t w e e n local and U.S. scholars. I have observed several such confrontations, mosr recently at a congress of Latin American sociologists (Caracas, 1993)-and a W o m e n ' s Studies panel conference (University of Buenos Aires, 1990). In these cases, both Latin American scholars and practitioners from n o n g o v e r n m e n t a l organizations (which had been the subjects of studies) complained of hoarding of funding sources and research conclusions by U.S. and European scholars. Unless scholars c o m e up with ways to share funding and findings, they are at risk of losing access to research subjects in the "living laboratories" of Third World countries (Cernea 1985; Schwartz and Eckhardt 1985). Several possibilities for cooperation emerged during the Buenos Ares discussion. For instance, researchers could subcontract some research tasks to practitioners at NGOs rather than to other academics or to outside interviewers. Researchers could "consult" with subjects on findings as a type of validity check and opportunity to inform on outcomes. At the very least, research findings should be returned in a form accessible to non-English speakers because, as a Mexican practitioner put it, "we are real people confronting desperate problems" and need information to help negotiate solutions. Non-sharing of research conclusions or return only in the form of publications in English several years after the research ends is another form of data mining (Chambers 1983; Edwards 1989; Fortuijn 1984, p. 59; Gans 1989; Garcia 1981a, 1981b).

The Insidiousness o f Neocolonialism Even w h e n U.S. scholars and Latin American collaborators formulate w h a t they believe will be a truly cooperative research project whose data will be widely disseminated, the pervasiveness of research-based neocolonialism can lead others to e x p e c t neocolonialism and exploitation. This occurs in both Latin America and elsewhere. In 1992, a major U.S. foundation w h i c h p r o m o t e s international collaborative research turned d o w n a proposal submitted t h r o u g h my h o m e institution by a team made up by myself and four Venezuelan colleagues. Two were from Venezuelan universities, one the director of a nonprofit community development organization, and the fourth a policy maker participating at no cost (government rules). The research responsibilities and the budget had been w o r k e d out by mutual agreement in light of e x p e c t e d differences in inputs and

Rakowski

79

costs, and according to the stipulations of our respective institutions. Thus, my university would receive overhead but--admittedly reluctant--had agreed to disburse funds t h r o u g h subcontracts to the Venezuelan universities (the team t h o u g h t this w o u l d be the simplest legal mechanism to guarantee adequate accounting to meet U.S. laws). Expenses of faculty and students involved were carefully calculated according to U.S. and Venezuelan standards and institutional rules. The major reason given for rejecting the proposal was, according to the review c o m m i t t e e ' s chair (a Latin American): "It w o u l d appear that the U.S. researcher will benefit the most from research and will have control over methods, funding, and findings. Could she be putting others to work to supply her with data? Why will her institution control funds? And w h y are Venezuelan students allocated so m u c h less support than U.S. students?" Although the proposal laid out carefully the details of collaboration and the reasons for funding allocation (e.g., cost of living differences, tuition differences), the reviewers did not believe what the proposal said. Instead, they decided the w o r d i n g of the proposal was a cover up for a neocolonialist project. Neocolonialism is not the only well-entrenched threat to collaborative research. Differences regarding the need for social utility, accountability, and feedback to research subjects also create obstacles to collaboration.

Issues o f S o c i a l Utility and D i s s e m i n a t i o n Should sociological research in international settings contribute to social change and policy, and should social research involve advocacy on behalf of vulnerable groups? These are questions that frequently divide U.S. scholars and their counterparts in Latin America and can contribute to perceived neocolonialism. Social relevance and advocacy are surprisingly controversial issues among U.S. sociologists (Laue 1978; Gans 1989); this is not the case in most Latin American countries. In part, this is explained by the more radical theoretical approaches favored by many Latin American scholars (neo-Marxist); in part by the fact that state agencies are the major source of funding for university think tanks and research institutes. This does not imply that Latin American scholars are less c o m m i t t e d to or involved in w o r k i n g on theoretical and conceptual issues. It does mean that social utility of research findings is not seen as an obstacle to scholarly research. Many U.S. sociologists w h o w o r k on international problems are wrestling w i t h the need to balance discipline standards with research w h o s e findings might contribute to solving social problems in developing countries. They are accused of engaging in "self-serving" research with little regard for the problems faced by the people they study. This situation may change dramatically in the future as scholars are asked increasingly to d o c u m e n t the w o r t h and usefulness to society of their research and teaching (Gans 1989). There are other sources of impetus to socially relevant research and dissemination of findings. Sources include special grant programs by foundations (Howard Heinz, MacArthur, Ford, Inter-American Foundation) and several multilateral agencies 80

The American Sociologist/Fall/Winter 1993

/

(Asad 1973; Blumberg 1989; Cernea 1985; Chambers 1987; Derman and Whiteford 1983; Finsterbusch and Partridge 1990; Goulet 1989; Moser 1989; Partridge and Warren 1984; Schwartz and Eckhardt 1985; Sorbo 1988). These represent n e w and valuable sources of funding for scholars with alternative research agendas-including participatory a p p r o a c h e s to d e v e l o p m e n t and timely return of findings to research subjects (Korten 1984). One difficulty with dissemination is that it requires writing up findings in Spanish or Portuguese and in a form accessible to the typically low-educated groups studied. In the United States, dissemination of any k i n d - - l e t alone in other languages--receives no direct s u p p o r t and may hinge on the personal c o m m i t m e n t and time constraints of individual scholars. This heightens the attractiveness of truly collaborative relations with Latin Americans since they are likely to publish in Spanish and for a broad audience. Social utility and policy relevance are not in conflict with the American Sociological Association's Code of Ethics. The definition of professional integrity includes the "obligation to disseminate research findings, e x c e p t those likely to cause h a r m . . , or w h i c h are proprietary u n d e r a formal or informal agreement" (I.A. 13). One argument that has c r o p p e d up supporting sociologists' participation in the dissemination and interpretation of their research findings is that failure to do so leaves research findings vulnerable to selective interpretation and misuse, especially by elites w h o are more likely to have access to t h e m than the groups and communities that w e r e studied. Elites, then, can use findings to maintain their position and manipulate or hurt research subjects. Information is power, A second argument is that d e v e l o p m e n t economists and g o v e r n m e n t planners w h o have dominated the field of d e v e l o p m e n t have b e e n influenced by sociological theories of modernization and social transformation (Arndt 1987; Peattie 1981; Preston 1982; So 1990). This led to a v i e w of social differentiation (and disruption) and the transition from tradition to "something else" as inevitable and desirable. Furthermore, the sociological notion that d e v e l o p m e n t requires attitude change in the direction of individualism led policy makers to see p e o p l e a s m a t b e s t - - t o o l s to be manipulated a n d m a t w o r s t - - o b s t a c l e s to d e v e l o p m e n t (Klar~n 1986; Peattie 1981; Portes 1977; Rakowski 1985, 1989),. Thus, sociological concepts have been made "relevant" by default--appropriated by nonsociologists and applied to serve their ends, and some sociological c o n c e p t s have b e c o m e "part of the problems of u n d e r d e v e l o p m e n t , rather than being part of the solution" (Edwards 1989). The c o u n t e r a r g u m e n t that policy relevance in research interferes with objectivity is a "mystification" a n d - - i n the field of d e v e l o p m e n t and social c h a n g e - - c o n t r i b u t e s to "sterile and in-ward looking research" (Long 1990, p. 19). It also deprives sociologists of opportunities to develop innovative m e t h o d s and b r o a d e n k n o w l e d g e through e x p o s u r e to c o m p l e x social problems and the alternative perspectives of research subjects, policy makers, practitioners, and specialists from other disciplines (Berk 1981; Chambers 1987). Striving to achieve research with social utility--particularly through collaborative r e s e a r c h - - m a y contribute to improved d e v e l o p m e n t paradigms and formal Rakowski

81

models of social change that emerge from empirical research and are testable (Cardoso 1987; Long 1990; Preston 1982; Slater 1990). As it is, sociology's formal m o d e l s - - g r a n d t h e o r i e s - - h a v e failed to explain reality because t h e y are not explanations of r e a l processes of change (Cardoso 1987).

Concluding Comments This article has attempted to summarize and apply a consciousness-raising approach to issues of neocolonialism and exploitation in international research. Many of the problems discussed here are probably inevitable to some degree. But their importance can be d i m i n i s h e d - - a n d some might be p r e v e n t e d - - b y increased sensitivity to cultural differences and the way in w h i c h U.S. policy is superimposed on collegial relations. Persistent self-reflection and honest and open c o m m u n i c a t i o n are critical to diminish both real and perceived neocolonialism. The American Sociological Association's Code of Ethics provides some "guiding principles" w h i c h apply here, including avoiding "disparities in wealth, power, and social s t a t u s . . . [which] may reflect and create problems of equity in research collaboration" (Article B), and the handling of collaborative ventures: "When several sociologists . . . are involved in joint projects, there should be mutually a c c e p t e d e x p l i c i t a g r e e m e n t s at the o u t s e t w i t h r e s p e c t to d i v i s i o n of work . . . . access to data, rights of authorship, and other rights and responsibilities" (I.A. 11). The Code also provides hints on h o w to strive for scholarly standards while being sensitive to the potential harm to others that may arise t h r o u g h sociological work and knowledge. By recognizing the "potential for harm to individuals, groups, organizations, communities and societies that may arise out of the inc o m p e t e n t or unscrupulous use of sociological work and knowledge," the Code suggests implicitly the need to take safeguards (Preamble) and reinforces this by affirming that "sociology s h a r e s . . , the c o m m i t m e n t to the free and o p e n access to knowledge and service, and to the public disclosure of findings." I w o u l d take this further and argue that sociologists engaged in field work on Latin American poverty and s o c i o e c o n o m i c problems should assume a c o m m i t m e n t to give something back to those we study. We and our colleagues may be able to shed light on w h y old paradigms and strategies have failed to improve p e o p l e ' s lives, can translate the concerns of the p o o r and disenfranchised into terms that can be understood by c o m m u n i t y d e v e l o p m e n t agencies, can clarify the values (and potential winners and losers) implicit in plans and programs, can correct the misinterpretation of sociological theories and concepts, and can argue for the urgency of promoting a more humane d e v e l o p m e n t (Cernea 1985; Chambers 1983, 1987; Derman and Whiteford 1983; Edwards 1989; Goulet 1983, 1989; Mueller 1987; Moser 1989). I do not suggest the road is an easy one or that n e o c o l o n i a l i s m - - p e r c e i v e d or real--will disappear. It will not, for all the reasons given. But we can confront our o w n role in perpetuating neocolonialism and exploitation a n d - - i n doing

82

The American Sociologist/Fall/Winter 1993

s o m i n c r e a s e o u r understanding of the issues p e r c e i v e d by our Latin American colleagues and international students. I offer a final e x a m p l e from my most r e c e n t r e s e a r c h in Venezuela. This e x a m p l e serves to illustrate the pervasiveness of neocolonialism and suggests s om e of the tradeoffs that may be necessary to c o n tr o l its imp act on collaborative research. The e x a m p l e com e s from 1992 w h e n a research p r o j e c t on w h i c h I had b e e n w o r k i n g since 1989 b e c a m e a collaborative project. 1~ I had engaged in collaborative r es ear ch b e f o r e as part of a consulting team, but this was the first time collaboration m e a n t relinquishing c o n t r o l over data, m e t h o d s , and findings I alone had p r o d u c e d . I was dismayed to find myself suddenly g r i p p e d with anxiety o v er issues o f p r o p r i e t o r s h i p and accountability (to the r e s e a r c h f o u n d a t i o n at my h o m e institution and the National Science Foundation, principal funding source). What was ironic was that n o t only did I k n o w collaboration w o u l d have definite benefits, I had sought it. Factors in my decision to invite t w o Venezuelan colleagues to join the p r o j e c t i ncl uded the impossibility of carrying out all r e sear ch tasks alone and the possibility of p r o d u c i n g r e s e a r c h findings in b o t h scholarly form (in English and Spanish) and for dissemination (in Spanish) to the c o m m u n i t i e s studied. A third f act or was the i m p e n d i n g e x h a u s t i o n of r e s e a r c h funds b e f o r e I had c o m p l e t e d field w o r k and analysis. T he t w o colleagues w h o joined memin iti al l y as paid r e s e a r c h a s s i s t a n t s - - v o l u n t e e r e d to apply for research funds f r om Fundacite, a regional r e search foundation. My colleagues w e r e friends ( o n e for over ten years) and their f e e d b a c k on r e sear ch m e t h o d s and insight into local institutional factors already had h e l p e d me i m p r o v e th e research design and b r o a d e n the c o n c e p t u a l framework. In turn, I h e l p e d t h e m acquire n e w m e t h o d o l o g i c a l skills. T h e proposal t hey d r e w up was f u n d e d immediately. It clearly expl ai ned that "their" p r o j e c t was an o u t g r o w t h of m y pr i or r e s e a r c h and I was included as an unpaid advisor (alt h o u g h travel e x p e n s e s w e r e c o v e r e d ) . N o w t h e y had c o m m i t m e n t s to their funding agency and c o n t r o l o v e r d i s b u r s e m e n t of funds and p r o g r a m m i n g of field work. The dynamics of our i n t e r a c t i o n c h a n g e d b r i e f l y - - p r i m a r i l y because of my reactions ( w h i c h s h o c k e d all t h r e e of us and left m e feeling ashamed), ll At my insistence, w e e n t e r e d a p e r i o d of negotiation (tears included) w h i c h briefly challenged our w o r k i n g relationship and our friendship, but w h i c h - w h e n c o m p l e t e d - - h a d s t r e n g t h e n e d both. Each o f us laid on the table our e x p e c t a t i o n s for w h a t w e w a n t e d to get out o f the p r o j e c t and, in a sense, w e "divided up" rights to data and publication. In doing so, w e learned that each of us had s o m e w h a t different e x p e c t a t i o n s and needs. Th e details are not important. What is i m p o r t a n t is that it t ook communication and a lot of soul searching to o v e r c o m e the pressures I felt to maintain c o n tr o l and for t h e m to admit t hei r o w n concerns. Ultimately, w e each gave up s o m e t h i n g in e x c h a n g e for s o m e t h i n g - - t h e y had rights to use findings and data from my earlier research and I f r om joint research (always crediting joint efforts). But I also had rights to publish findings from m y earlier field w o r k w i t h o u t sharing credit. T h e y w o u l d get credit for all policy d o c u m e n t s ( i m p o r t a n t to Rakowskt

83

their careers

but not mine);

to community

leaders.

w e all w o u l d

Order

of intellectual

contribution

would

with their names

appear

of importance

except

Examples

uneasy

reveal

perceived neocolonialism, to learn

foster

Issues of exploitation sive. But, to paraphrase special roles

issues ways

knowledge,

as potential

more

of ethics,

relations. genuinely

admonitions

sociologists change

1967; Gans

and uncomfortable

in which

of research

1989)

need

agents

1978, p. 168). Asking ourselves (Becker

papers

on degree

written

in Spanish

social

utility,

neocolonialism

relations.

issues. Many socioloor neocolonialism. operates,

sources

of

and the continual need to increase awareness of pressures

neocolonialist

can help

All s c h o l a r l y

disseminated

depend

first. In the long run, I realize that I lost nothing

disheartening

discussing

presented

that encourage

and writing.

in English would

for the illusion that I was free from neocolonialist

This article addresses gists are

get credit for information

of authorship

Honest

communication

collaborative

subjects

for professional

to applied

sociologists,

to be sensitive

(Adamek

and

is a s t a r t i n g

gain are more because

to balancing

Marvin

"sociology for whom

and willingness

relations.

1986,

pp.

we

eluhave

careers

with

69-70;

Laue

and under what conditions?"

point.

Notes I would like to thank Maria Nuria De Cesaris, Mercedes Mandd, Linda Lobao and Cornelia Butler Flora for their comments on an earlier version of this paper. A thank-you also to Vanessa Cartaya and Maria Pilar GarclaGuadilla for sharing with me the conflicts and problems they have faced in collaborative research and relations with non-Latin American colleagues. Special gratitude is extended to two anonymous reviewers whose comments greatly helped to improve the essay. 1. Anthropology, the humanities, feminist sociologists, and sociologists from Europe and Israel have done a better job at confronting these issues than have ~mainstream" U.S. sociologists. See Asad 1973; Calhoun, LiPuma, and Postone 1993; Collins 1986; Devereaux and Hoddinott 1992; Finsterbusch and Partridge 1990; Geertz 1983; Goulet 1989; Kimmerling 1992; Mohamed and Lloyd 1990; Nielsen 1990; Reinharz 1992). 2. The term ~ugly scholar" refers to the perception others have of us as imperialist, neocolonialist, and selfserving in our international research. It does not necessarily reflect U.S. scholars' motives or perceptions of self. 3. As an anonymous reviewer pointed out, it should be remembered that the history and politics of funding for international research--including those of some well-known private foundations--are linked to the history and politics of developmentalism, which was promoted as an antidote to communism after World War II. 4. An example is Pierre Bourdieu's argument that social life "must be understood in terms that do justice both to objective material, social, and cultural structures and to the constituting practices and experiences of individuals and groups" (Calhoun, LiPuma, and Postone 1993, p. 3). ~Reflexive" sociology works to undercover the arbitrary conditions of social structure and shares knowledge with social "agents" (citizens). 5. It might be asked why they chose to study in the United States. Overwhelmingly, place of study is determined by the agendas of national and international scholarship programs and those who fund them. 6. Similar complaints are levelled by our Canadian colleagues as well. 7. Apparently, at least some academic institutions charged with mentoring social science departments in Latin American did so in cooperation with the U.S. State Department. In Venezuela, one U.S. faculty member popular with students was removed by his U.S. colleagues because he supported student interest in Marxist theory. Another faculty member was subsequently discovered to be on a list of known CIA agents (Castro 1988). Even worse, the United States government was supportive of a brutal dictatorship and shortly befure its overthrow presented General Marcos P6rez Jim6nez with a medal recognizing his friendship and support for American business interests in Venezuela. 8. University students were important members of the underground resistance which overthrew the dictatorship in 1959. 9. This type of argument should sound familiar. For instance, some sociologists criticize intracultural theory and research as androcentric and eurocentric. E.g., women and minorities are forced into categories constructed from studies of white men, and through which women and minorities wind up classified as "deficient" or deviant (Gilligan 1982; Nielsen 1990; Reinharz 1992).

84

T h e A m e r i c a n S o c i o l o g i s t / F a l l / W i n t e r 1993

10. The project I initiated in 1989 was the first stage of a multimethod, kmgitudinal study of social and cultural change in thirteen small towns in a region undergoing a large-scale multistage forestry and industrialization program. The study had a policy objective as well as methodological and disciplinary objectives. I completed a household survey in thirteen towns in 1990 and carried out interviews with major employers and content analyses of project documents between 1989 and 1992. Although funding ran out in late 1992, indepth interviews, life histories, and town histories required additional field work through December 1993. 11. In retrospect, I understand that before they were funded I believed that by bringing them into the project I was (generously) promoting their careers and reputation more than 1 was benefitting from their assistance. After they were funded, I realized I believed myself to be the sole creative force behind the study.

References Adamek, Raymond J. and Grace M. Marvin. 1986. ~Ethical and Policy Implications of Applied Sociologists' Work," J o u r n a l o f Applied Sociology 3(1):67-71. Albornoz, Orlando. 1962. La Sociologia en Venezuela. Caracas: Editorial Arte. American Sociological Association. 1989. "Code of Ethics." August 14. Arndt, H, W. 1987. Economic Development: The History of an Idea. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Asad, Talal, ed. 1973. Anthropology a n d the Colonial Encounter. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press. Barroso, Manuel. 1991. Autoestima del Venezolano: Democracta o marginalidad? Caracas: Editorial Galac. Becker, H. 1967. "Whose Side Are We On?" Social Problems 14:239-47. Berk, Richard A. 1981. "On the Compatibility of Applied and Basic Sociological Research: An Effort in Marriage Counseling, ~ The American Sociologist 16:204-211. Blumberg, Rae Lesser. 1989. Making the Case f o r the Gender Variable: W o m e n a n d the Wealth a n d Well-being o f Nations. Washington, D.C.: Agency for International Development. Brown, Richard Harvey. 1993. "Cultural Representation and Ideological Domination." Social Forces 17(3):657676. Calder6n, Fernando and Alejandro Piscitelli. 1990. "Paradigm Crisis and Social Movements: A Latin American Perspective." Pp. 81-95 in Comparative Methodology: Theory a n d Practice in International Social Research, edited by Else Oyen. London: Sage Publications. Calhoun, Craig, Edward LiPuma and Moishe Postone, eds. 1993. Bourdieu: Critical Perspectives. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Cardoso, Fernando Henrique. 1987. "Problems of Social Change, Again?" International Sociology 2(2):177-187. Castro, Gregorio Antonio. 1988. Soci61ogos y Sociologfa en Venezuela. Caracas: Unesco. Cernea, Michael M. 1985. "Sociological Knowledge for Development Projects." Pp. 3-22 in Putting People First: Sociological Variables in Rural Development, edited by M. M. Cernea. New York: Oxford University Press. Chambers, Robert. 1983. Rural Development: Putting the Last First. London: Longman. Chambers, Robert. 1987. "Normal Professionalism, New Paradigms, and Development," Agriculture a n d Rural Problems. Collins, Randall. 1986. "Sociology as the Land of Oz," California Sociologist 9(1-2):33-60. Derman, William and Scott Whiteford. 1983. "Introduction." Pp. 1-15 in Social Impact Analysis a n d Developm e n t Planning in the Third World, edited by W. Derman and S. Whiteford. Boulder, CO: .Westview Press. Devereaux, Stephen and John Hoddinott. 1992. Fteldwork in Developing Countries. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers. Edwards, Michael. 1989. "The Irrelevance of Development Studies," Third World Quarterly 11(1):116-135. Escobar, Arturo and Sonia Alvarez, eds. 1992. The Making o f Social Movements in Latin America. Boulder, CO" Westview Press. Finsterbusch, Kurt and William L. Partridge. 1990. "The Development Anthropology Approach." Pp. 55-68 in Methods f o r SocialAnalysis in Developing Countries, edited by K. Finsterbusch, J. Ingersoll, and L. Llewellyn. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Fortuijn, Emiei Droogleever. 1984. ~The Failure of Ethics in Practice: Cultural and Institutional Barriers of a Research Project in Venezuela," 1DS Bulletin 15(4):59-69. Gans, Herbert. 1989. "Sociology in America: The Discipline and the Public," American Sociological Review 54:116. Garcia (-Guadilla), Maria Pilar. 1981a. "La defensa del espacio cientlfico y el neocolonialismo en la investigaci6n urbana del Tercer Mundo," Argos (social science and humanities journal of the Sim6n Bolivar University, Venezuela) 1(3). Garcla (-Guadilla), Maria Pilar. 1981b. "Una experiencia neocolonialista en la investigaci6n urbana sobre el Tercer Mundo: El caso de Toulouse, Francia," Argos (social science and humanities journal of the Sim6n Bolivar University, Venezuela) 1(1). Garcla-Guadilla, Maria Pilar. 1992. "The Venezuelan Ecology Movement: Symbolic Effectiveness, Social Practices, and Political Strategies." Pp. 150-170 in The Making of Social Movements in Latin America: Identity, Strategy, a n d Democracy, edited by A. Escobar and S. Alvarez. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Gareau, Frederick H. 1986. "The Third World Revolt Against First World Social Science," International J o u r n a l of Comparative Sociology 17(3-4):172-189.

Rakowski

85

Geertz, Clifford. 1993. Local Knowledge. New York: Basic Books. Gilligan, Carol. 1982. In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women's Development. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Goulet, Denis. 1983. "Obstacles to World Development: An Ethical Reflection," World Development 11(7):609624. Goulet, Denis. 1989. "Participation in Development: New Avenues, ~ World Development 17(2):165-178. Kimmerling, Baruch. 1992. ~Sociology, Ideology, and Nation-Building: The Palestinians and their Meaning in Israeli Sociology, ~ American Sociological Review 57; 446-460 Klar~n, Peter F. 1986. "Lost Promise: Explaining Latin American Underdevelopment." Pp. 3-31 in Promise of Development: Theories of Change in Latin America, edited by P. F. Klar~n and T. J. Bossert. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Korten, David C., ed. 1984. People-Centered Development. West Hartford: Kumarian Press. Laue, James H. 1978. "Advocacy and Sociology." Pp. 167-199 in Social Scientists as Advocates." Views f r o m the Applied Disciplines, edited by G.H. Weber and G. J. McCall. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications. Long, Norman. 1990. "From Paradigm Lost to Paradigm Regained? The Case for an Actor-Oriented Sociology of Development," European Review of Latin American and Caribbean Studies 49:3-23. Mohamed, Abdol R. Jan and David Lloyd, eds. 1990. The Nature and Conquest o f Minority Discourse. London: Oxford University Press. Montero, Maritza. 1984. ldeologia, Alienaci6n e ldenttdad NacionaL Caracas: Colecci6n Ciencias Econ6micas UCV. Moser, Caroline O.N. 1989. ~Gender Planning in the Third World: Meeting Practical and Strategic Gender Needs," World Development 17(11):1799-1825. Mueller, Adele. 1987. "Peasants and Professionals: The Production of Knowledge about Women in the Third World." Paper presented at the meeting of the Association for Women in Development, Washington, D.C., April 15-17. Naim, Mois~s and Ram6n Pifiango, eds. 1985. El Caso Venezuela, Una llusi6n de Armonta. Caracas: Ediciones IESA. Nielsen, Joyce McCarl. 1990. "Introduction." Pp. 1-40 in Feminist Research Methods: Exemplary Readings in the Social Sciences, edited by J. McC. Nielsen. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Partridge, William L. and Dennis M. Warren. 1984. "Introduction: Development Anthropology and the Life Cycle of Development Projects. ~ Pp. 1-8 in Training Manual in Development Anthropology, edited by W. L. Partridge and D. M. Warren. Washington, D.C.: American Anthropological Association. Peattie, Lisa R. 1981. Thinking About Development. New York: Plenum. Portes, Alejando. 1977. ~On the Sociology of National Development: Theories and Issues." Pp. 188-227 in Third World Urbanization, edited by J. Abu-Lughod and R. Hays., Chicago: Maroufa Press. Preston, P. W. 1982. Theories o f Development. London: Routledge Kegan Paul. Rakowski, Cathy A. 1985. ~The Planning Process and the Division of Labor in a New Industrial City: The Case of Ciudad Guayana, Venezuela." Pp. 195-223 in Capital and Labour in the Urbanized World, edited by J. Walton. London: Sage Publications. Rakowski, Cathy A. 1989. ~Evaluating Development: Theory, Ideology, and Planning in Ciudad Guayana, Venezuela," International Journal of Contemporary Sociology 26(1-2):71-92. Rakowski, Cathy A. 1991. "Gender, Family, and Economy in a Planned, Industrial City: The Working- and LowerClass Households of Ciudad Guayana." Pp. 149-172 in Gender, Family, and Economy: The Triple Overlap, edited by R. L. Blumberg. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Reinharz, Sbulamit. 1992. Feminist Methods in Social Research. New York: Oxford University Press. Schwartz, Norman B. and Kenneth W. Eckhardt. 1985. ~International Development Projects, Communities and Social Impact; Some Critical Notes." Pp. 77-96 in Social Impact Analysis and Development Planning in the Third World, edited by W. Derman and S. Whiteford. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Sjoberg, Gideon. 1967. ~Project Camelot: Selected Reactions and Personal Reflections." Pp. 141-161 in Ethics, Politics, and Social Research, edited by G. Sjoberg., Cambridge: Schenkman Publishing. Slater, David. 1990. "Fading Paradigms and New Agendas--Crisis and Controversy in Development Studies," European Review of Latin American a n d Caribbean Studies 49:25-32. So, Alvin Y. 1990. Social Change and Development: Modernization, Dependency, and World-System Theories. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Sorbo, Gunnar M. 1988. "Has the World Bank Abandoned its Focus on Poverty Alleviation?" Excerpts from a speech from the World Bank Symposium, Oslo, March. IDA Development Anthropology Network Bulletin 6(2).

86

T h e A m e r i c a n S o c i o l o g i s t / F a l l / W i n t e r 1993