An argument against field notes

Development practitioners are aware of the power of language.

We know the term ‘development’ – and what it implies and reinforces – is itself problematic, and have seen marked changes in the language the sector uses to try and enable greater inclusion and to meaningfully address the racialised power imbalances of the who and how in which aid is received and given. We see the shift from ‘beneficiaries’ to ‘participants’, to the greater emphasis on participatory methods in development programming from the early 2000s, and in the more recent push and adoption of the ‘localisation’ agenda.

At its heart, localisation aims to foster a locally-led development approach which is tied to each country’s unique political, social, cultural, economic and environmental conditions. In practice, this involves enabling greater leadership from local, marginalised and underrepresented communities when designing development activities, defining priorities, implementing programmes and measuring and evaluating results. 

The language of imperialism

Despite these shifts, much of the language used in development practice runs contrary to localisation. Take, for instance, the term ‘field notes’. I write this blog from Tanzania where I have been conducting ‘field visits’ with colleagues. During this time, friends and colleagues have encouraged me to take ‘field notes‘ when performing project visits. This got me thinking about the term and its use in development.
 
Fields notes, by definition, refers to qualitative notes that scientists and researchers record in the course of field research, during or after their observation of the specific organism or phenomenon they are studying. Historically, one might think of Charles Darwin taking sketches aboard The Beagle. Or Margaret Mead, the 20th century anthropologist and ethnographer, who took field notes for her book Sex and Temperament in Three Primitive Societies (1935) while conducting research in Papua New Guinea. 
 
These examples reveal how the history of field notes spans academic disciplines and is intrinsically linked with imperialism. In fact, the historical origins of anthropology are rooted in colonial enterprise. Much of the early work in anthropology was conducted to better understand, manage and exploit territories under imperial control. For instance, anthropologists and their field work contributed to the British Empire’s 1938 An African Survey: A Study of Problems arising in Africa South of the Sahara.

The survey, issued by the Royal Institute of International Affairs (Chatham House), detailed a wide range of topics, including political, social, economic and cultural aspects of the region. It provided insights into the historical, sociological and [MOU1] African nations, their colonial experiences and the impact of colonialism on their development. 
 
The term field notes is filled with connotations of imperialism, scientific pursuit and study. Yet, in development we still regularly refer to ‘the field’, ‘field visits’, ‘fieldwork’ and ‘field notes’ – why? Our usage of and reference to ‘the field’ – with its historical implications – reinforces the notion that participants in development programmes are to be studied, rationalised, documented and experimented on by those in high-income countries. Yet, international development is not a lab. Its participants are not scientific or anthropological subjects to be studied and tested upon. They are individuals who should be allowed to tell their own stories on their own terms. 

Knowledge production and power

We know from Foucault that the production of knowledge in any discipline is inseparable from the exercise of power. And as the localisation agenda aims to address power imbalances across international development, we must consider how we ourselves produce knowledge and the language we use to do so. The use and current practices of field notes is not inclusive. Instead, the concept of field notes reinforces the idea of the ‘other’, who is there to be studied, observed and managed. 
 
So, where do we go from here? Spivak asked in 1988 can the subaltern speak? It seems we are no closer to meaningfully answering this question.

There is a deep irony in the fact that it is I, a white man from the United Kingdom, who is arbitrate on the issue of what should and should not be deemed inclusive and localised language. Do the communities that development practitioners  support really care whether we say field notes? Maybe not; most likely not. Yet, the term ‘field notes’ is, and remains, problematic.
 
An alternative is at best elusive, and at worst it does not meaningfully change the very oppressive structures that the use of the term ‘field notes’ reinforces. If another term is used such as ‘programme visits’ or ‘programme notes’, are we really giving a localised voice to those communities on the ground? It is a bind with no clear-cut answer. But it is one we must consider moving forward.
 
The production of knowledge involves power and any notes taken – field or otherwise – is an exercise of that power. How best should this power be wielded?