Imagine yourself on a bus in a small eastern Nepalese hill town, about to set off as a migrant to the lowland Tarai or somewhere in NE India. There is noise and bustle, from the people who have struggled to get on the bus and secure space for themselves and their families, and from the driver who honks the horn and revs the accelerator pedal, eager to depart. You are squashed into a space with your knees bent up against the seat in front. The vibrations from the engine permeate the whole bus, and you reflect on the six hours that lie ahead until you reach your destination. A final passenger is pushed aboard and, to shouts from the fare collector, gears grinding, you are off. Just at this pinnacle of journeying, when you feel your senses could not be more fully loaded with stimuli, your emotions full of departure, the driver puts in a cassette and turns it on full volume.
Routing Clifford amongst the Yakha in Nepal and NE India
An Impact Case Study of Anthropological Collaboration in Tobacco Control
Andrew Russell and Sue Lewis
In this article we consider the 'impact case study' (ICS) as a specific kind of document, one which, as part of the U.K.'s Research Excellence Framework (REF), enforces a common template for the description and measurement of the social and economic effects of research in U.K. higher education. We track the development of an ICS describing anthropological research in tobacco control which, after many iterations, was not submitted as part of the REF. We ask 'what is impact?' in cases where anthropological research is based on principles of collaboration and serendipity rather than the mechanistic 'research > translation > impact > measurement' model which an ICS is expected to follow. What is included and what excluded by the strictures of such a model? We are generally supportive of the impact agenda, feeling that university resources and activities have a vital role to play in progressive social change. However, the way 'impact' is recorded, appraised and measured in an ICS only captures a small proportion of the effects of anthropological research, and encourages particular forms of public engagement while discounting others.
Dilemmas in an Ethnographic Study of Health Policy Makers
Serena Heckler and Andrew Russell
In this article we report on collaborative, ethnographic research investigating the first regional tobacco control office in the U.K. and some of the dilemmas it poses. The ideal of collaboration is fully realisable in this setting, where the participants are both eager and qualified to contribute meaningfully to the project. However, the fulfilment of such an ideal poses its own problems. For example, the educational level and professional expertise of some participants allows them to fully engage with the theoretical framework to the extent that they could, if allowed, rewrite manuscripts. Other issues are more subtle, such as how to establish appropriate boundaries between the researcher and the tobacco control office staff. We suggest that the collaborative research model presupposes differentials of power, education and culture between researchers and participants that do not necessarily apply in the case of research in such settings. Where these differentials are lacking, the field is open for dominant participants to assume `undue influence' over the research project. To prevent this, we have reinstated boundaries between object and subject that were originally dissolved as part of the collaborative model. As a result, our project is maintaining a delicate balance between the conflicting aims of objectivity and collaboration.