Television and New Media Audiences

Television and New Media Audiences
By Ellen Seiter, Oxford: Clarendon Press (Oxford University Press) 1999 148 pp.  

A review by Lynn Schofield Clark, University of Colorado
Ethnographic audience research, as anyone who has attempted such work knows, is a time-consuming, expensive, and often long-term commitment. While conventions governing analysis and writing differ across approaches, data-collection alone can be an arduous process, as participants are recruited for extended periods through either appeals to their generosity or token payments (or the subtle pressure of guilt). Nevertheless, scholars in audience research, as well as in studies of culture and society more generally, continue to strongly advocate for interpretive research based in the practices of everyday life. Thus it is cause for celebration when a fine volume such as Television and New Media Audiences arrives from an experienced and respected audience researcher like Ellen Seiter.  
Television and New Media Audiences reflects upon several interrelated qualitative studies conducted or overseen by the author over a period of several years. She takes as her topic the highly relevant issue of what she terms the “’lay theories’ of media effects:” those often unspoken guidelines that inform how people view the media practices they engage in, and how they view the media consumption of others. She gives particular attention to the widespread view that television and other media have a negative effect on children. In several insightful analyses, she examines how this “lay theory” plays itself out in relation to both the gendered division of labor in the household and the expectations of social class. Seiter’s arguments are based on interviews conducted with parents of young children and preschool teachers, as well as observations she conducted at various preschools. She also occasionally references her own experiences as a parent of a young child.
The strength of the book lies in Seiter’s interviewing and analytical abilities. By introducing case studies of parents she has interviewed both formally and informally over the course of several years, in her third chapter Seiter is able to demonstrate interconnections between tensions concerning “media effects” and fears related to less-secure class positions. For instance, she contrasts a set of upper-middle-class and less affluent parents she interviewed, noting that the former were more likely to view their child’s involvement with television as “active” in choice-making, while those from less privileged positions voiced more concerns regarding the negative influences of television. She notes that in a certain sense, those parents with greater concerns about television may be right to be concerned. Yet she links this concern not to television’s power to manipulate, but to the fact that the teachers with whom children interact tend to equate television-viewing with lowered academic abilities (and hence perceptions about excessive viewing would further limit the less privileged child’s access to future opportunities).  
Another important insight links criticism of television with an increased level of expectations concerning a mother’s responsibility for her children. She notes that while both fathers and mothers strongly emphasized the need for regulation of media consumption, the responsibility for this task largely fell to the mothers (and thus the fathers’ admonition contributed to the mothers’ sense of guilt at any perceived lapses of oversight). Seiter argues that “lay theories of media effects” simply extend the continued private/public distinctions that enable men who work outside the home to view home as a “haven” while women(whether employed or not) more often work constantly either with the children or performing household tasks to maintain the domestic sphere.
In the fourth chapter, Seiter turns her attention to pre-school teachers and day-care providers. Here, she again analyzes the “lay theories of media effects” with reference to class position, noting that the more expensive pre-schools and day cares she visited had stricter rules related to television viewing and use of television-related commercial products than did the more affordable options. She relates the media restrictions at the former to the largely-unspoken yet central task of inculcating taste among the more well-heeled children. This education of young children into certain tastes, including the dismissal of television as unworthy, was not something she observed in the less expensive child care situations. In those locations, there was less concern for status distinctions and hence children could talk about television without concern for adult disapproval. Of course, given what Seiter has pointed out earlier regarding the social sanctions against television-viewing, this difference in approaches does not necessarily bode well for the less privileged children. This is in part why she criticizes prior cultural studies research that has tended to celebrate viewing “pleasures” with what she feels is inadequate attention to material consequences of viewing in relation to social approbation.
The fifth chapter is the book’s weak spot, notably because it veers away from earlier discussions of class and gender in its attempt to draw lines between “secular” and what she terms “fundamentalist” preschool and day care centers. She notes an interesting tendency among these religiously-affiliated centers to emphasize concerns she did not observe in the “secular” locations, specifically those about magic or the occult, Darwinism, and sexual preference among other things. Yet these insights are clouded by several questionable assertions. One wonders, for instance, if “fundamentalist” becomes a code word for working-class conservative Protestantism, a group she then contrasts with the greater number of persons she assumes to be middle-class “secularists.” I believe it would have been more productive to compare religious day care centers situated differently with reference to class, for certainly those who self-identify as “evangelical” make up a much larger proportion of the population than fundamentalists and have throughout history blended, rather than accentuated, norms between middle class and religious identifications, even along gender lines (see Smith, 1998; Gallup and Castelli, 1989; Brasher, 1998). 
While most of the book centers on beliefs and attitudes concerning television, in the next-to-last chapter she makes a strong argument for the study of new media technologies and their entrance into the home. By likening the introduction of computers into the home with television’s introduction decades earlier, Seiter is able to highlight the connections between these two technologies at both household and corporate levels. She thereby lays out an important agenda for the research into new media technologies, one to which television audience researchers can make an important contribution.
While much of this review has centered on findings and arguments, Seiter’s book offers more than this in that she develops an argument for the benefits of reflexive, in-depth and contextualized research. In her second chapter, Seiter reviews several of the studies most frequently cited as “ethnographic” in audience literature, noting that many do not meet the standards of ethnography as that method is understood in its original field of cultural anthropology. Yet much of her own analysis similarly does not rest on repeated exposure to everyday interactions among many socially networked individuals of a particular community, the “classic” approach to ethnography she advocates. Instead, she relies upon repeated interviews, some with persons she knows well through her own involvement in a parents’ support group, and others she knows less well who are preschool teachers and professional day care providers. Yet rather than raise this issue as a weakness, I see it as a strength. Seiter perhaps inadvertently enables media scholars to move away from the geographically-limited notions of “culture” as the ideal boundaries within which an ethnography must be conducted. This suggests a turn akin to that favored by cultural anthropologist Sherry Ortner (1993), who argues that in place of the former bounded approach, cultural anthropology has now moved toward two new forms of ethnography: what she terms “issues” and “documentary” ethnography. Seiter’s work qualifies as an “issue ethnography,” as it is a study of how a specific social controversy (in this case, the issue of negative effects of the media) plays itself out in various interrelated locations.In this sense, perhaps the book’s most important contribution lies in its ability to address an issue considered highly relevant to many parties concerned today with media influence, from parents and teachers to policymakers and industry leaders. It should not be surprising that Seiter’s “issues ethnography” is most convincing when she considers contextual information she has gained prior to the specific interview situation. While perhaps once we suspected that only lengthy stays in unfamiliar environments might yield ethnographic knowledge, as media audience researchers we all draw upon a store of similar personal and scholarly knowledge that informs our arguments. The demands of reflexivity within contemporary research increasingly require us to acknowledge this, as Seiter does in the current project.
In conclusion, the text’s topic, research methodology, and accessible writing style make this an excellent book for upper-level undergraduate and graduate courses that address critical/cultural studies, audience research, and media use in the family, as well as courses addressing policy implications of contemporary research.  
References:
Brasher, B. (1998). Godly Women: Fundamentalism and Female Power. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Gallup, G. and Castelli, J. (1989). The People’s Religion: American Faith in the 1990s. New York: MacMillan.
Ortner, S. (1993). Ethnography among the Newark: The class of ‘58 of Weequahic high school.
Michigan Quarterly Review 32(3), 411-429.
Smith, C. (1998). American Evangelicalism: Embattled and Thriving. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Ethnography as Art: How the Tools of Anthropology Can Enrich the Creative Process

Ethnography as Art: How the Tools of Anthropology Can Enrich the Creative Process

“ …when the infinite falls into ordinary time.”
  B.F. Fairchild

Standing at the bottom of a large, raked auditorium on the first day of his upper division cultural anthropology class, a well-known, albeit slightly rumpled UCLA professor grasps the plain wood podium before him and facing the assemblage of students with a slight, amused smile and an unmistakably mischievous gleam in his eye. “A lot of people,” he begins, “wonder exactly what it is that cultural anthropologists do. They’ve seen Indiana Jones …they get exposed to dinosaurs and fossils from the Jurassic Park movies, so, to some extent they ‘get’ archaeology. But when it comes to anthropology, to cultural anthropology …many folks are simply in the dark.” The students, still a little groggy from the slap in the face of fall’s early morning responsibilities, begin to jot down a few notes here and there, but still have not managed to unstick their heads from the back of the comfy, padded armchairs that fill the cavernous, grey lecture hall. The professor pauses a moment, peers about at the sea of drowsy eighteen-year-old faces, seemingly enjoying himself, and continues, “cultural anthropology …at least anyway, modern cultural anthropology …relativistic anthropology …is the process of making the extraordinary ordinary and the ordinary extraordinary.”  
With this a handful of students perk up, lift their heads, and quietly repeat back what the professor has just said. With this last statement, the professor has captured the attention of a good number of his academic charges. On this day, nearly seven years ago, I am one of those students.
Today I am a non-practicing but still highly devoted cultural anthropologist, a mother of two, and a writer (not necessarily in that order). As writers, we often struggle with exactly how to tell a story; we know what we want to say, but run circles around ourselves trying to figure out how best to say it. I engage in this struggle myself on a daily basis, but have found that by employing certain tools from my old days as a student of anthropology I am often able to crush the rut that looms threateningly over my laptop. What follows will be a “how-to” guide of sorts; a discussion of the four tools, borrowed from ethnography, that I use when setting out to create a good, solid story. With each of these tools I will include a brief study of authors I feel have utilized this idea in their own work. We will conclude with a discussion of how an exploration of cultural anthropology can help us as writers to explore issues of ethnicity and multiculturalism in our own work.  
Exposing the oddities of the familiar and uncovering the familiar in the exotic is one of the most relevant, enlightening, and beautiful aspects of cultural anthropology: to teach people that what “they” do isn’t so different and what “we” do isn’t so normal. How do anthropologists go about their attempts to teach this vital, complex lesson? They do it largely through the practice of ethnography. Ethnography refers to the biography of a culture and/or ethnicity. Actually, I prefer “memoir” and not “biography” because an ethnography consists of a lot more than just a chronology of a culture’s existence; there is much room for interpretation and reflection on the part of both the ethnographer and the people within the culture being studied; and nearly all anthropologists go into the field with an idea they are out to explore or a question they are trying to answer.  
How does ethnography work? In a nutshell: an anthropologist chooses a culture, sub-culture, or group to observe. Generally she goes into the “field” with a pre-existing question or phenomenon she wishes to explore. After establishing herself somewhat in the new environment--making contacts, meeting people, getting as comfortable as possible--she watches. She watches, and she watches, and she watches. And then she watches some more. After she watches a bit more after that …she writes.
So, the guidelines for an effective ethnography are as follows: 1) Set out to explore the world in a way that reveals the absurdity of what your home culture holds as normal, and expose the shared, sensible, and basic attributes of behaviors that are perceived as exotic. 2) Think of a question about a person or people you would like to know more about. Ask yourself if the answer would make a good, relevant story. 3) Observe the people (if you are on the heavily scientific end of anthropology you will call them “subjects”) in their home environment. Take copious amounts of notes. Take more notes. 4) Write.
What does all this have to do with creative writing? What could ethnography possibly have to do with your memoir? Your short story? Let’s take another look at the above list. 
1) Set out to explore the world in a way that reveals the absurdity of what your culture holds as normal and expose what is common in behaviors perceived as exotic. What better mentality for a writer …a storyteller? This is, indeed, the most important tenet of cultural anthropology, and I think should be a tenet of creative writing as well. The most compelling stories, fiction or non-fiction, confront the reader with the utter surprise of life. The best works of creative writing show the discomfort of the comfortable or the normalcy of the bizarre: Truman Capote’s In Cold Blood, Sylvia Plath’s The Bell Jar, and more recently Dave Eggers’ A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius and Lauren Slater’s Lying …the list goes on and on. However each of these works operates on either the premise of exposing the reader to the unusual, bizarre, and often dark aspects of the familiar or revealing the common, universal qualities of themes considered by many to be exotic, different, what anthropology would refer to as the “them” of the “us/them” dichotomy. I would like to pause here to examine in detail Capote’s In Cold Blood and Plath’s The Bell Jar as these two works provide spectacular examples of the power of both demystifying the unknown while also portraying the familiar as exotic.
At the beginning of In Cold Blood after describing both Holcomb, Kansas and the Clutter family as typical American institutions, Capote goes deeper and gives the reader insight into some of the more unfamiliar aspects of family life in this small town: “In regard to his family, Mr. Clutter had just one serious cause for disquiet—his wife’s health. She was “nervous,” she suffered “little spells”—such were the sheltering expressions used by those close to her.” (Capote 7) By employing the euphemisms given to Mrs. Clutter’s possible disorder, Capote provides a window into the rigidly polite, suppressed nature of Holcomb life. Even this early in the story Capote shows us a hidden, secretive side to a family that many who grew up in the 1950s could easily identify with. Throughout the work Capote continues to expose the multifaceted natures of the players involved in the Holcomb murders. At times the reader is even led to, in part, sympathize with Perry Smith, one of the murderers. Take for example a passage that describes Perry’s life while he is living in a cell adjacent to the home of the undersheriff and his wife: 
The topmost branches of a snow-laden elm brushed against the window of the ladies’ cell. Squirrels lived in the tree, and after weeks of tempting them with leftover breakfast scraps, Perry lured one off a branch onto the window sill and through the bars. It was a male squirrel with auburn fur. He named it Red, and Red soon settled down, apparently content to share his friend’s captivity. Perry taught him several tricks: to play with a paper ball, to beg, to perch on Perry’s shoulder. (Capote 254) 
By showing the darker side of the Clutter family and an amiable, soft side of Perry Smith, Capote succeeds in exoticizing the familiar and demystifying the unfamiliar and scary. This gives the reader a more full, richer experience than if only the evil side of the murderer was shown and only the sweet, functional side of the Clutter family was portrayed.
Sylvia Plath’s masterful work The Bell Jar is a spiraling journey into the tormented mind of an “average” young woman. Through Esther Greenwood, the largely autobiographical heroine of the novel, Plath is able to show unfamiliar, sometimes frightening, sometimes amusing aspects of growing up female in the early sixties. 
Take, for example, Esther’s imagining of a possible marriage to a potential lover as she lies next to him in bed: 
I tried to imagine what it would be like if Constantin were my husband. It would mean getting up at seven and cooking him eggs and bacon and toast and coffee and dawdling about in my nightgown and curlers after he’d left for work to wash up the dirty plates and make the bed, and then when he came home after a lively, fascinating day he’d expect a big dinner, and I’d spend the evening washing up even more dirty plates till I fell into bed, utterly exhausted. This seemed a dreary and wasted life for a girl with thirteen years of straight A’s, but I knew that’s what marriage was like, because cook and clean and was just what Buddy Willard’s mother did from morning till night, and she was the wife of a university professor and had been a private school teacher herself. (Plath 94)
Instead of espousing the more conventional happily married fantasies that were expected of young girls of that era, Plath shows in clear, well-observed detail a more hidden, concrete aspect of being a wife.  
Even something as simple as coming down with a bad case of food poisoning, Plath is able to turn surreal and unknown. Her use of detail and swirling imagery renders an experience that many of us have gone through ourselves frightening and foreign:  
I sat on the toilet and leaned my head over the edge of the washbowl and I thought I was losing my guts and my dinner both. The sickness rolled through me in great waves. After each wave it would fade away and leave me limp as a wet leaf and shivering all over and then I would feel it rising up in me again, and the glittering white torture-chamber tiles under my feet and over my head and on all four sides closed in and squeezed me to pieces. (Plath 49)
One of the most haunting, memorable sections of The Bell Jar unfolds when Esther loses her virginity. The language and attention to detail renders yet another familiar experience disturbing and perilous. Esther has just arrived at her friend’s apartment after the young man she has just lost her virginity to has dropped her off: 
  “You look funny,” Joan said.
  “You better get a doctor.”
  “Why?”
  “Quick”
  “But …”
  Still she hadn’t noticed anything.
I bent down, with a brief grunt, and slipped off one of my winter-cracked black Bloomingdale shoes. I held the shoe up, before Joan’s enlarged, pebbly eyes, tilted it, and watched her take in the stream of blood that cascaded on to the beige rug.
  “My God! What is it?”
  “I’m hemorrhaging.” (Plath 258)
One thing that makes this and so many of Plath’s scenes come alive is her strong use of concrete detail, which is a vital element to ethnography as well. Often in an ethnography it is the seemingly mundane details of how a person in a certain culture carries out his or her day-to-day existence that provides the breadth and heart of a people’s story. And this has never been more true than in our current era of anthropology, when the old stand-by “and while the men were away on the hunt [followed by lengthy, unending description of said hunt], the women and children were left behind to tend to domestic chores” is finally being replaced with thorough, well-observed descriptions of cross-cultural female roles. 
Indeed, Marjorie Shostak’s seminal 1981 ethnography, Nisa: The Life and Words of a !Kung Woman was ground-breaking not only for the fact that it focused on the life of one person in order to get to the core of an entire culture, but also for its balanced, studied exploration into female day-to-day life. This book is important to the study of anthropology for many reasons including those listed above, however it is also quite relevant to the field of creative writing in that it was the first ethnography that utilized strong narrative technique in addition to the clear detail and meticulous reporting of data inherent to fieldwork. UCLA anthropology and linguistics professor Dr. Marjorie Goodwin says of Shostak’s Nisa, “I think this was a great idea and very engaging. I'm all for this [style of ethnography] if it reflects what went on as well.” (Personal correspondence, 2002)
Hence, Plath’s “winter-cracked black Bloomingdale shoes” and “enlarged, pebbly eyes” are examples of the kind of detail a writer can only achieve after spending a good deal of time with her characters, or in anthropological terms “subjects.”
 Sometimes, however, what we don’t say can be even more important than the crystalline images we painstakingly create for the reader. Take for example, Plath’s stark description of one of Esther’s suicide attempts: 
I had taken the silk cord of my mother’s yellow bathrobe as soon as she left for work, and, in the amber shade of the bedroom, fashioned it into a knot that slipped up and down on itself. It took me a long time to do this, because I was poor at knots and had no idea how to make a proper one.  
Then I hunted around for a place to attach the rope.
The trouble was, our house had the wrong kind of ceilings. The ceilings were low, white and smoothly plastered, without a light fixture or a wood beam in sight. I thought with longing of the house my grandmother had before she sold it to come and live with us, and then with my Aunt Libby.
My grandmother’s house was built in the fine, nineteenth-century style, with lofty rooms and sturdy chandelier brackets and high closets with stout rails across them, and an attic where nobody ever went, full of trunks and parrot cages and dressmakers’ dummies and overhead beams thick as a ship’s timbers.
But it was an old house, and she’d sold it, and I didn’t know anybody else with a house like that. (Plath 177)
By discussing a suicide plan in language stripped of any darkness or fright, Plath succeeds in rendering this scene not only startlingly macabre, but also brutally familiar. Somehow we can relate to a suicide gone awry simply because the noose won’t hang high enough …everyone has been in a situation where something that should go as planned, doesn’t. The suicide, then, is taken out of the realm of the unfamiliar and exotic and situated in terms to which the audience can relate. 
Both Plath and Capote are able to tell their stories more fully by jolting the reader out of her comfort zone. In ethnography, this often happens naturally, as real-life people very rarely do what you expect them to. “It's hard to piece together things …that are not linear or neatly categorized. But we attempt to tell narratives, which is what novelists do as well, to convey what everyday life is like. We do not dwell as much on the quantification so we can be more humanistic,” states Dr. Goodwin. (Personal correspondence, 2002) Following this pattern can help the creative writer by allowing for characters and settings that breathe with the mess and chaos of real life.
Now, of course in anthropology we are speaking culturally, so the list of what is odd and what is normal changes wherever you venture …shifts with whomever you talk to. I offer the above list of authors as an example of twentieth century Western literature. What shocks, comforts, and dismays obviously shifts and ebbs in a manner unique to each culture.
 2) Think of a question you would like to know the answer to. Would the answer make a good story? What better place for a writer to start than this? When discussing her book A Child Out of Alcatraz, author Tara Ison said the following: “I found out there were families that used to live on the island. I had all these questions and I had to know about them. And then I said, ‘Someone has to tell their story.’ And then I said, ‘That someone has to be me!’”(Lecture, Antioch University Los Angeles, 2001) In a lecture comparing the process of writing to archaeology, Sharman Apt Russell notes, “Don’t be afraid to ask the big questions …don’t be afraid to dig a little.” (Lecture, Antioch University Los Angeles, 2001) Both Russell and Ison are two authors who often use an idea, puzzle, or question they would like to investigate as a starting point for their writing. Russell’s recent book When The Land Was Young: Reflections on American Anthropology studies the complex, often difficult issues facing the archaeological community today, and how those issues affect all human beings worldwide. Russell lets a questioning, inquisitive tone drive much of her prose, allowing the reader to journey with her in order to gain better understanding:
I do not know what links me to the person who shaped this clay. I cannot really imagine a specific woman; I tell that story only to my children. But I do feel a connection. This making of pots is part of what it means to be a human being. Perhaps it is the essence. Suddenly my own life seems like a dream. Wal-Mart, surely, is nothing but an amazing, amusing, fantastical dream. In the middle of that store, in a restaurant, at a street corner, I have often paused, confounded by an atavistic awe. Wow! I think, looking at a traffic light. Magic! Who did this? What happened to the world? Where are the trees? I am both appalled and appreciative. (Russell 4)
Tara Ison uses a similar investigative approach when composing her novels and short stories. In addition to the richly detailed and exhaustively researched A Child Out of Alcatraz, Ison’s short story “Cactus” stands out as an example of how research and questions both big and small can give breadth to creative prose. In this instance the question is small yet distinct, in what ways do cacti resemble a painful journey through a doomed romantic relationship?
Jumping cholla. They’re everywhere. He pointed to a shrubby, fuzzy cactus nearby, three or four feet high, pale green and flowerless. It looked like a bristled balloon animal, twisted from those long, skinny balloons into joints, and covered with spiky hair. It looked mocking.
You must’ve brushed against it, he said. You step too close to one of those joints, they sense the moisture or heat or energy or something, and attack.
They jump, and cling on.
This is like getting all your childhood vaccinations at once, I said. I wasn’t crying, yet.
I told you to be careful.
You told me to be patient.
Same thing, he said. He rummaged in his duffel bag. They also call it teddy bear cholla.
Adorable, I said. (Ison 124)

Note how the sharp, detailed description of the jumping cholla adds to the bristling tension building between the couple.
I recently spoke with Ison and Russell in hopes of further exploring how the issues of curiosity and questions informs and motivates their writing. According to Russell, “I never write from the pedagogical instinct, the urge to teach. I never write because I have answers. I write because I have questions which I want to answer for myself. I write as an act of discovery and exploration. I write as a way to figure out the world and this has become my way of being in the world.” (Personal correspondence, 2002) Ison described her process as one heavily rooted in the practice of research:
I often begin with something I think I know a little about (ex: cactus, prisons, etc., whatever) - I leap in to the writing at that point, to get a feel for the story, the characters, the metaphors, the theme. Quite soon I exhaust my superficial knowledge, and then I stop writing and hit the research books. And I learn how very little I actually know. The research provides some answers - but also triggers more questions. So, it's back to the writing to explore those questions from the characters' perspectives. Then back to research, and so on. It's a symbiotic thing, back and forth, answers leading to more questions - all, ideally, leading to more linguistic, psychological, and metaphorical layers. (Personal correspondence, 2002)
Therefore sometimes going against Hemingway’s familiar adage to “write what you know” can give color and depth to our prose, and as these authors illustrate, provide inspiration as well.
 3) Observe the people and take copious notes. Replace “people” with “characters” and we’ve hit on another vital aspect of creative writing. Ethnographers are militant watchers, eavesdroppers, and note-takers. They carry a small notebook or “jot book” wherever they go to discreetly record observations or snippets of conversation. They often joke about “weak bladders” because they are constantly running to the bathroom to write something down for fear of making their subjects (or characters in creative writing terminology) uncomfortable. The details and nuances writers could gain from following this particular practice are invaluable. 
The very process of throwing yourself out of the “writing,” of focusing strictly on observation and the acquisition of detail in and of itself can be immensely freeing. And you don’t need a “real” person or subject to do this either. Try taking a character from one of your short stories or a novel. Now close your eyes and “observe” that person from the time he wakes up in the morning until the time he goes to bed at night. Watch your character’s routines and rituals, find the beauty in his ordinary day-to-day life; Joan Didion’s shimmering image. How did he brush his teeth? Was he rude to the teller at the bank? Does he try to obey traffic laws? Does he run red lights? Does he wash his hands every time he uses the bathroom? Does he put his dirty socks in the hamper at the end of the day or toss them on the floor? Of course, every one of the details you acquire won’t and shouldn’t make it into your story (just as the anthropologist doesn’t simply photocopy his jot book and call it an ethnography), but how much richer will your story be for this new information? How much more depth will this character have now that you “know” him a little better? Try it with one or two of the characters at the beginning of this paper. Watch the crumpled, brilliant professor. Eavesdrop on the conversation between the bored, sleepy sorority girls. Now re-write my scene, and I bet it will turn out better. 
In his Psychology of Anthropology course at UCLA, Dr. Alan Fiske discussed the importance of food across cultures. He told his students that one of the first things an ethnographer looks for in the field is which people eat together. Food sharing and food preparation is important in every single society, and often, important affine (such as a step-parent, or in-law) and blood kin relations can be deduced by observing who eats with whom.
One writer who utilizes the importance of food to full effect is author and poet Jim Krusoe. His relationship to his characters is complete …he appears to know every detail of their lives. Some of these details are included, some left out; but we never doubt for a second that Krusoe knows everything there is to know about the characters he creates. One way in which he brings his characters to life is through his referencing what they eat throughout the day. I have often read books and wondered why the people in the story never ate or went to the restroom. Not only does Krusoe’s use of food in his stories and novel provide a reality and sense of grounding, what a character chooses to eat can also be quite telling of his or her personality.
In Blood Lake and Other Stories, a series of connected short stories, Krusoe is masterful at writing to the reader’s sense of taste and smell. In “Remorse,” we can all but smell the gorilla’s “honey-and-wheat-germ shampoo” (Krusoe 32), and we can almost taste the police officer’s “tube of cola flavored lip balm.” (Krusoe 23) The smells and tastes are also used to subtly connect certain stories as when the protagonist of “A Distant View of Hills” sees “one solitary man in a white coat, like a lab jacket tossing health-food muffins to the gorillas.” He goes on to comment on what he sees: “Health food,” I thought. “Right.” (Krusoe 79) Including flavors, smells, and texture into your work not only breathes life into a story but also more fully engages the reader.
“Breakfast was a leisurely affair—we went out to a cozy country cottage complete with chintz curtains and china coffee cups, soft-boiled eggs from free-range hens, fresh fruit, French rolls, and free refills of fig preserves, but the zoo was a disappointment.” (Krusoe “A Distant View of Hills” 78)
“I ordered a mug of beer and a liverwurst sandwich, and finished them both quickly. I was hungrier than I had thought, and I ordered another of the same.” (Krusoe “Blood Lake” 38)
“In the mornings I would make a pot of coffee and set out the box of Sugar Frosted Flakes, Bud’s favorite cereal. Cissie usually ate only a piece of whole wheat toast with apple butter, and a cup of coffee. After they finished eating I did the dishes and had my own breakfast: fresh fruit, yogurt, and a muffin.” (Krusoe “A Cowboy’s Story” 55)
Take a look at the above three passages: each one revolves around food in some way, whether it be preparing a dish, sitting down to a meal, or a simple description of what is being eaten. And yet, through these simple observations about what is being eaten at these particular points in the stories, Krusoe succeeds in setting three very different moods.
 In the first passage we can’t help but get a sense of a relaxed, wealthy decadence: the reference to eggs from “free-range hens,” and the free refills of the fig preserves. This setting is almost too perfect, kitschy, an easy to picture and entirely appropriate and telling setting for a breakfast for two people in the first blush of romance, which is exactly what is taking place in the story. The second passage gives the reader a sense of tension, distraction …as the character eats quickly, doesn’t even seem to register the meal, and so orders a second. An apt way of conveying this character’s feeling after driving his recently deceased friend from where they had been fishing to his home, many miles away. The third passage gives us a strong sense of each character introduced in relatively few words. The reader can easily imagine Cissie’s concern for health and appearance, Bud’s lack thereof, and the protagonist’s practical, easygoing personality.  
 Krusoe uses this convention in his novel, Iceland as well. The protagonist, Paul, regularly describes his cabbage-based meals, and the narrative often pauses as he takes his time to dine. This gives us insight into Paul in two very significant ways: 1) Most of the time he has no particular place to be, and his leisurely, extremely slow-paced meals are indicative of this and 2) Paul has to eat a lot of cabbage because he has heard it can be beneficial to his “failing organ.” The vague nature of the relationship between Paul’s illness and cabbage complements the overall sense of the obtuse that surrounds both his “orgagenic disintegration” and Paul in general.
Another important aspect of the jot book mentality is the inclusion of simple, straightforward lists. Ethnographers employ lists all the time: what people eat, what people do, the components of a certain ritual, the steps to a particular dance. Often this is an issue of practicality more than anything else, the ethnographer is trying to convey information about a group of people, and often lists are the easiest means of conveying certain details. However, an unadorned list sometimes has a funny way of telling a reader more about a person, group of people, or situation than a lengthy, verbose description. Let us, once again, look at the work of Marjorie Shostak:
Children, adolescents under fifteen, and adults over sixty contribute little to the quest for food, and others gather or hunt only about two or three days a week. Additional time is spent in housework, cooking and serving food, child care, and the making and repairing of tools, clothing, and huts. But this still leaves substantial time for leisure activities, including singing and composing songs, playing musical instruments, sewing intricate bead designs, telling stories, playing games, visiting, or just lying around and resting. (Shostak 10)
Averaging little more than two days a week in the quest for food, they gather from among 105 species of wild plant foods, including nuts, beans, bulbs and roots, leafy greens, tree resin, berries, and an assortment of other vegetables and fruits. They also collect honey from beehives, and occasionally small mammals, tortoises, snakes, caterpillars, insects, and birds’ eggs. (Shostak 12)
The !Kung infant has continual access to the mother’s breast, day and night, usually for at least three years, and nurses on demand several times an hour. The child sleeps beside the mother at night, and during the day is carried in a sling, skin-to-skin on the mother’s hip, wherever the mother goes, at work or at play. (This position is an ideal height for older children, who love to entertain babies.) When the child is not in the sling, the mother may be amusing her—bouncing, singing, or talking. (Shostak 45)  
Three relatively clear-cut lists: one of daily activities, one of foodstuffs, and one 
of mothering tasks. Even if I were to show these passages, separate from the rest of the text, to a person who was totally unfamiliar with !Kung culture he would probably still be able to intuit several things about this people from the listed information alone. The food, the parenting techniques, etc. all point to a culture that lives an existence far from urban life. Also, the first list would lead one to believe that the !Kung are generally a relaxed, easy-going people spending little time and worry on food acquisition and preparation. And both of the above assumptions are true (or, at least were, until the encroachment of colonial forces into village life).
 The magic ability of the list to convey a lot of information in precious few words works wonderfully in narrative as well. In addition to developing your story in greater detail it is also yet another example of the tried and true “showing not telling” strategy. While the focus is on the list itself, the reader is free to pick up any meaning, detail, or subtext that lies within. Two writers whose use of lists are particularly noteworthy are: Mark Twain (in Life on the Mississippi) and F. Scott Fitzgerald (in The Great Gatsby). Lists are wonderful for getting the hidden nuances of a story across to a reader, as we will see in the examples from these authors that follow.  
 Mark Twain’s two and a half page list describing the details of a typical (or, actually in his wry terms, “every”) New Orleans house (circa early 1880s) is far too long to include here in its entirety (pgs. 275-278), but that is certainly a shame because it shimmers with author’s trademark evocative dead-pan wit. The close attention to detail and cultural significance to various items found would do any ethnographer proud. And while Life on the Mississippi is admittedly a blending of fiction and nonfiction, Twain’s exhaustive list would lead one to believe he had just spent a long, hard day in the field. Here is a small sample (he has already moved from the “sham” “Greek porticoed” exterior of the house, into the interior, where he is describing what can be found on the walls) of Twain’s “observations”:
Framed in black mouldings on the wall, other works of art, conceived and committed on the premises, by the young ladies; being grim black-and-white crayons; landscapes, mostly: lake, solitary sail-boat, petrified clouds, pre-geological trees on shore, anthracite precipice; name of criminal conspicuous in the corner. Lithograph, Napoleon Crossing the Alps. Lithograph, The Grave at St. Helena. Steel-plates, Trumbull’s Battle of Bunker Hill, and the Sally from Gibraltar. Copper-plates, Moses Smiting the Rock, and Return of the Prodigal Son. In big gilt frame, slander of the family in oil: papa holding a book (“Constitution of the United States”); guitar leaning against mamma, blue ribbons fluttering from its neck; the young ladies, as children, in slippers and scalloped pantelettes, one embracing toy horse, the other beguiling kitten with ball of yarn, and both simpering up at mama, who simpers back. These persons all fresh, raw, and red—apparently skinned. Opposite, in gilt frame, grandpa and grandma, at thirty and twenty-two, stiff, old-fashioned, high-collared, puff-sleeved, glaring pallidly out from a background of solid Egyptian night. (Twain 277)
Through this amusing and highly detailed list we not only get a humorous birds-eye view of the lifestyle of the inhabitants of this sort of house, but of the author’s feelings about this sort of people as well. As opposed to “Once in the house I couldn’t believe the hideousness of a large oil painting of the family. I thought it was absolutely awful.” We get simply, deliciously: “In big gilt frame, slander of the family in oil.” Often a list describing something a person uses, eats, drives, or lives in is far more effective in conveying character and emotion than an elaborate description of the actual person.
Da Fontano the promoter came there, and Ed Legros and James B. (“Rot-Gut”) Ferret and the De Jongs and Ernest Lilly—they came to gamble, and when Ferret wandered into the garden it meant he was cleaned out and Associated Traction would have to fluctuate profitably next day.
A man named Klipspringer was there so often and so long that he became known as “the boarder”—I doubt if he had any other home. Of theatrical people there were Gus Waize and Horace O’ Donavan and Lester Myer and George Duckweed and Francis Bull. Also from New York were the Chromes and the Backyssons and the Dennickers and Russel Betty and the Corrigans and the Kellehers and the Dewars and the Scullys and S.W. Belcher and the Smirkes and the young Quinns, divorced now, and Henry L. Palmetto, who killed himself by jumping in front of a subway train in Times Square. (Fitzgerald 62-63)
Oh those wonderful Gatsby parties! In this excerpt from the nearly two and a half page “guest list” of people enjoying themselves in Jay Gatsby’s palatial home, we get an idea not only of the type of people who attend these parties, but of the narrator’s (Nick Carraway) feelings about them as well. Not to mention the fact that this list also serves to introduce several characters that are seemingly unimportant at this point in the story, but become crucial following Gatsby’s death. By grouping these characters (Klipspringer, most notably) with the names and brief descriptions of people we are never going to hear about again, we both get introduced to players vital to the last half of the drama while also maintaining our illusions about who the central figures are in the story. Dropping bits of important information into a lengthy and seemingly innocuous list can be a wonderful way of foreshadowing …without foreshadowing.
In her recent seminar “The Hermit Crab Essay” at Antioch University Brenda Miller suggests lists and “how-to” guides as possible frames or “shells” for essays. Her highly amusing piece “How to Mediate” is an essay about her experiences at a New Age spa/ashram that is structured as a step-by-step guide. “DAY THREE: When you wake up, you might hear two women whispering in the bathroom. If so, take the opportunity to feel superior” (108). “DAY FOUR: Just when you think you have it down, when you’ve noticed yourself noticing your breathing for unbroken seconds at a time, your teacher tells you everything will change from now on” (Miller 109). And from DAY TEN:
In the afternoon, realize that Marybeth has been sitting behind you all along. Wonder how you missed her there, all this time. Before going to your seat, watch the back of her head, the set of her small shoulders. See her as a body already dead. See the flesh passing away until only a skeleton remains. Wonder how you will live your life from now on. (Miller 112).
Using this simple, second-person “how-to” structure, Miller is able to cover a gambit of emotions, ranging from humor, to frustration, to sadness. The deft touch with which this essay is written allows the reader to feel a direct connection to the narrator, allowing the truth and universal themes within the piece to shine through the stark, guidebook form. 
4) Write. Composing ethnography is a lot like writing a good story. You need plot: what was important, resonant at the beginning, middle, and end of your time with these people? You need theme: why did you choose these people to study? What led you to them? (This pertains to the issue of finding a relevant question we discussed above in #2) In spending time with them, what are you learning about yourself? Your culture? (Those who still eschew “reflexive” anthropology would quibble with these last two questions, but I am of the camp that in order for an ethnography to be complete, the ethnographer must be present, with all his/her biases, opinions, and culture-shaped paradigms intact). You need setting: this is one of the most important aspects of ethnography. In order to orient the reader to the lives of the people being discussed, a full rich description of location and environment is vital. And often environment, location, and climate are major factors in the development of culture. You need strong, pertinent dialogue: how do these people interact with each other? With you? Just like in a good story, dialogue makes an ethnography come to life.
Only recently have ethnographies been freed from languishing away in the ivory tower. Writers like Oliver Sacks, Denis Johnson, Karen Tei Yamashita and early on, Marjorie Shostak and Chinua Achebe have brought a modified ethnographic style of writing more into the mainstream. Why did it take so long for culture memoirs, rich with drama, excitement, and action to make their appearance into the mainstream? The answer is twofold: 1) The field of anthropology has always suffered somewhat from a bit of an inferiority complex in regards to the other “hard” sciences. The dominant thinking was (and in many circles still is, unfortunately) that if an ethnographer’s data could be followed and appreciated by a layperson than it simply wasn’t “academic” or “scientific” enough. Therefore dry language, mechanical, obtuse language was purposely used. However some accomplished, progressive anthropologists would disagree with this, consider Dr. Fiske’s words on the issue of whether ethnography has reached the mainstream in recent years: “[Ethnographic works have made it into the mainstream] Not often, but not that rarely. Few ethnographies are intended for a general audience.” (Personal correspondence, 2002) Actually I agree with Dr. Fiske to the extent that there are certain marked differences between composing ethnography and composing creative literature, and the issue of audience is certainly among these differences. An author (even a memoirist or other creative nonfiction writer) can tweak and alter a scene to dramatic effect, or to shift the power and balance between characters, an ethnographer, of course, shouldn’t. Anthropologists are wedded to “facts” in a way that authors aren’t …and shouldn’t be. However we must remember that at the end of every bit of ethnographic data, there is a human anthropologist who can’t help but view through world through his own lens of cultural and individual biases and beliefs. In other words, authors can stretch and bend for the sake of art of craft, anthropologists, technically, cannot (although sometimes the truth does end up slightly bent anyway). What anthropologists can do, as Shostak has shown us, is experiment with form and structure in order to present the ethnographic data in a way that is both striking and factual.  
2) Many anthropologists, even cultural anthropologists, have a background in science, and come into the world of ethnography lacking any sort of training in how to effectively tell a story. Although some anthropologists do recognize the similarity between good ethnography and good storytelling: “Definitely I feel it is [ethnography as similar to creative writing]. You need to engage the reader in what you write. I feel it should not (generally) be fictional, but rather report what is happening and not try to embellish what is going on, because I want to capture the give and take of everyday life,” according to Dr. Goodwin. (Personal correspondence, 2002) Capturing the give and take of everyday life, isn’t this the crux of what all of us, whether writers of nonfiction or fiction are trying to accomplish?  
Ethnography hasn’t nearly hit as big as I feel it could, and should with the mainstream in the United States. But as people become more aware of cultural issues there is more and more demand for studies and inquiries into how people’s beliefs, customs, and even daily rituals develop and why. Even looking no further than the events of September, 2001 we can see that perhaps our society is finally beginning to pay attention to the importance of culture, religion, and custom in all of our lives.
Marjorie Shostak played a crucial role in the push to give cultural anthropology a position in the mainstream, and much of the fluidity of Shostak’s book is due to the use of Nisa’s own words throughout the text. She is a natural storyteller and her cadence and phrasing creates as rich a narrative as to be found in any work of literature:
Then the pains start to come, again and again. There’s hurt and pain and it comes like it’s fire! Again and again it comes, then it rests. It’s quiet, lying still. Then it rises again, jabbing and hurting, bigger and bigger, coming over and over again. There’s another rest; even if it’s already pushing out, it just rests. But it rises again and there’s more pain and pushing and it starts to come out from the mouth of your stomach. It’s on its way out. Another quiet and another rise. Then a pain like fire is at the lips of your vagina and the head and the hair on the head start pushing through. Those are the things that hurt; not the body, that doesn’t hurt at all. Then more quiet and more pushing. With the next rise, it pushes against and rushes out.
That’s the birth of a baby. (Shostak 185)
As creative writers, it is often difficult not to crumble under the constant pressure of creating, “making up” a story, “inventing” a character. But if we aren’t afraid to rummage around a little in the anthropologist’s toolbox, we can open ourselves and our writing to unexpected, exciting, and freeing opportunities. By treating the characters on the page as flesh and blood, we can allow them to grow and develop in ways that aren’t possible when they are being regarded merely as our “creations.” By following the ethnographer’s guidelines for successful social science, we can breathe new life into those who inhabit our stories and add dimension, clarity, and universality to the stories themselves.
In addition to providing us with useful tools and prompts for creating solid, innovative literature, cultural anthropology and ethnography can assist us in an exploration of some of the weighty issues of ethnicity and culture facing writers today. Consider writer Lakin Khan’s words in a recent posting to Antioch University’s online “Risky Business” conference (created by alumna Wendy Ortiz, and dedicated to the risks inherent to writing):
I think a greater challenge and bigger risk, though, is creating a convincing portrait of a person in their environment who is emphatically not the author. As a woman of a certain age and cultural background, readers probably would have little problem when I write about characters of similar background and gender. But what if my narrator is male of African-Jamaican descent? What if I wrote a novel about life as an Eskimo shaman, or Filipina grandmother, or indigenous American teen? Do I have the right even to go there? (Khan, 2002)
Do I have the right even to go there? This is an issue facing writers more and more each day. With books centering around multicultural characters increasing in popularity, questions of ownership and who has the right to write what rise to the forefront. Marjorie Shostak let the words of an African woman weave a spell of rich, beautiful language around what could have been just another dry, data laden ethnography. But what if Shostak had been a novelist, and Nisa her invention? Does it matter to us, as readers, that Nisa is real? Does it assure us somehow that it’s okay for this white, middle-class woman to be writing about the harsh realities facing a displaced African people? How would we feel if this was a work of fiction? How do we feel about similar works of fiction? Arthur Golden’s Memoir of a Geisha, for example, a work dazzlingly similar to Shostak’s ethnography in style and tone?
I felt his hands at my waist, caressing the fabric of my underrobe. When at last I opened my eyes again, he stood behind me still, taking in the scent of my hair and my neck. His eyes were fixed on the mirror—fixed, it seemed to me, on the waistband that held my underrobe shut. Every time his fingers moved, I tried with the power of my mind to keep them away, but all too soon they began creeping like spiders across my belly, and in another moment had tangled themselves in my waistband and begun to pull. I tried to stop him several times, but the Baron pushed my hands away as he’d done earlier. Finally the waistband came undone; the Baron let it slip from his fingers and fall to the floor. My legs were trembling, and the room was nothing more than a blur to me as he took the seams of my underrobe in his hands and started to draw them open. (Golden 261)
These are the words of Sayuri, a 1930s Kyoto geisha, who is entirely Arthur Golden’s creation. While he based this character and others in the novel on exhaustive research and interviews with former geishas (Golden has a Master’s in Japanese history from Columbia), the novel is still just that, a novel, and the characters are still, for all intents and purposes, made up. However Golden writes this story as a “true” memoir, even going so far as to add a fictitious “Translator’s Note” in the beginning of the work that discusses extensive interviews and meetings with the fictitious Sayuri. While I’m certain much of the motivation to use the memoir convention came from a desire to tell a historically based story in a unique way, I have to wonder if part of the decision to use this form came from an attempt by Golden to separate himself, who he is as a middle-class Caucasian American, from the text. Is this story any more or less real because the author’s personal background is far, far away from Japan? Can we ask the same question of Nisa as well?
  Unfortunately, these questions lend themselves to more questions than they do to any solid answers. I tend to vacillate on the issue of ownership in writing. While I think anyone should be free to write whatever story drips from his or her pen, I also think writers should practice careful research and study when creating an environment other than their own. Not only does this make for more socially responsible writing, as shown earlier, careful research and detail adds to the overall quality of the work as well. I don’t think writers should let our postmodern politically charged world to discourage them from experimenting and feeling free in their work. I think it’s okay to have a character that is mean and spiteful, or a criminal, and also African-American and in a wheelchair. I think it’s okay to have a homophobic narrator. I believe there is a danger in sanitizing writing to the point that we ignore society’s unpleasantness and dangers. Writers more than anyone else are charged with holding the proverbial mirror up to humanity. Airbrushing out our more unsightly cultural and social blemishes will only lead to forgetting, which would be foolish as well as dangerous. The trick is to write with abandon, but with responsible abandon. A writer should know exactly why he is writing what he is writing, not just for the social implications, but to remain true to the characters and story as well.  
An awareness of ethnographic practices can serve as an essential tool for creative writers; not only for the tricks of the trade that can help stimulate good storytelling, but also as a guide into the murky territory of culture, ethnicity, and ownership.  

Works Cited
Anderson, Chris. Style as Argument. Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press, 1987.

Capote, Truman. In Cold Blood. New York: Vintage International, 1994.

Eggers, Dave. A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2000.

Fiske, Dr. Alan Page. Lecture: “Psychology of Anthropology.” Anthropology 135b. UCLA, Winter 2000.

Fiske, Dr. Alan Page. Personal correspondence, Summer 2002.

Fitzgerald, F. Scott. The Great Gatsby. New York: Collier Books, 1986.

Golden, Arthur. Memoirs of a Geisha. New York: Vintage Contemporaries, 1997.

Goodwin, Dr. Marjorie. Personal correspondence, Summer 2002.

Ison, Tara. “Cactus.” Another City: Writing from Los Angeles. Ed. Dave L. Ulin. San Francisco: City Lights Books, 2001.

Ison, Tara. Lecture: “Fact into Fiction.” Antioch University Los Angeles, Summer 2001.

Ison, Tara. Personal correspondence, Summer 2002.

Iyam, David Uru. Lecture: “Tools of Ethnography.” Anthropology 139. UCLA, Spring 1998.

Khan, Lakin. Email post. Risky Business Online Conference. Antioch University, Summer 2002.

Krusoe, Jim. Blood Lake and Other Stories. Albany, CA.: Boaz Publishing Company, 1997.

Krusoe, Jim. Iceland. Chicago: Dalkey Archive Press, 2002.

Krusoe, Jim. Personal correspondence, Summer 2002.

Miller, Brenda. “How to Meditate.” Season of the Body. Louisville: Sarabande Books, 2002.

Miller, Brenda. Lecture: “The ‘Hermit Crab Essay.’” Antioch University Los Angeles, Summer 2002.

Plath, Sylvia. The Bell Jar: The 25th Anniversary Edition. New York: HarperCollins, 1996.

Russell, Sharman Apt. Personal correspondence, Summer 2002.

Russell, Sharman Apt. When The Land Was Young: Reflections on American Archaeology. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2001.

Russell, Sharman Apt. Lecture: “Writing as Archaeology with a Sidelong Glance at Annie Dillard.” Antioch University Los Angeles, Summer 2001.

Shostak, Marjorie. Nisa: The Life and Words of !Kung Woman. New York: Vintage Books, 1983.

Slater, Lauren. Lying. New York: Random House, 2000.

Twain, Mark. Life on the Mississippi. New York: Penguin Books, 1984. 

Partnership as process: building an institutional ethnography of an inter-agency aquaculture project in Bangladesh

Partnership as process: building an institutional ethnography of an inter-agency aquaculture project in Bangladesh

David J. Lewis 

[Development as Process: Concepts and Methods for Working with Complexity" edited by D.Mosse, J.Farrington and A.Rew, London: Routledge, 1998.]

 
1. Introduction

This chapter presents research into inter-agency project relationships. A process view of projects was central to the methodology which was adopted during the study and this generated a set of distinctive insights and problems. At a conceptual level, ideas about process also contributed to the widening of our understanding of the nature of ‘partnership’ between agencies in projects. The roots of the present case study can be traced back to research undertaken during 1990-92 by the Overseas Development Institute (ODI), which investigated government and non-governmental organisation (NGO) linkages during efforts to promote technical change in the agricultural sector using case studies collected in Asia, Africa and Latin America. The research concluded that while collaboration between NGOs and government agencies was certainly taking place and in many cases generating potentially useful new approaches and insights, there was no straightforward ‘functional’ division of agency roles and that social, political and historical contextual factors in different countries were crucial determinants of linkage effectiveness (Farrington and Bebbington, 1993).

The South Asia portion of the research, which was documented in Farrington and Lewis (1993) attracted attention from one of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) centres, the International Centre for Living Aquatic Resources Management (ICLARM). ICLARM decided to develop with ODI a joint research project in order to study inter-agency linkages in aquaculture. With assistance of ‘holdback’ funds from the then Overseas Development Administration (ODA), a joint project was designed to build on the ODI research using ICLARM’s involvement in aquaculture research and extension in Bangladesh as a case study. With the Government of Bangladesh and several NGOs, ICLARM was at that time seeking to develop sets of institutional linkages or ‘partnerships’ of the types analyzed in the ODI research project.

The objectives of this joint research project (which is referred to in this paper as the ODI research) were twofold:

1. The primarily objective was to suggest institutional arrangements through which mechanisms could be created and sustained to promote effective aquaculture research and extension;

2. The secondary objective was to document ICLARM’s inter-agency aquaculture project in order to draw general lessons and produce guidelines to assist with future project planning.

Before moving on to discuss the project and the associated research, it is first necessary to make some introductory remarks about aquaculture in Bangladesh. Despite impressive increases in agricultural production in recent years such that the country is now approaching foodgrain self-sufficiency, a still increasing population has placed enormous pressure on natural resources. In the absence of new cultivable land and limited opportunities to further intensify agricultural production, aquaculture has become an important development strategy because it is widely perceived that Bangladesh contains a wealth of un- or underutilized water resources (Lewis, Wood and Gregory, 1996).  

Although fish is central to the diet of most Bangladeshis, the decreasing availability of wild fish resources in rivers and floodplains has focused attention on the potential of village ponds and roadside ditches as possibly underutilised resources for aquaculture. Although some large landowners have traditionally undertaken extensive fish rearing practices in the countryside, more intensive aquaculture practices are new to many poorer farmers. The government’s strategy for aquaculture is primarily production oriented, while most of the NGOs favour the promotion of aquaculture as a potential income generation activity for the landless and marginal households. In the promotion of aquaculture as with much of Bangladesh’s development effort, the role of external resources and foreign donors is very pronounced.


2. The ICLARM project

ICLARM has in recent years been engaged in a consecutive, linked series of short aquaculture projects with the Government of Bangladesh, predominantly funded by USAID. The current project seeks to develop and provide low cost, low input aquaculture technologies mainly in the form of an extension message detailing appropriate pond management techniques including fish stocking densities, feeding regimes, pond preparation and appropriate species mixes which can be readily used by low income rural households towards their income generation activity portfolios. A key structural component of the project is a complex framework of institutional partnership between government agencies, NGOs and international researchers. Training is being provided to government extension workers and NGO field staff who pass on the training to farmer groups who are seeking to pursue aquaculture as part of a range of income generation activities supported by credit provided by NGOs. Women who own little or no farm land form the ‘target group’ of many Bangladeshi NGOs.

The origins of the ICLARM project can be found in informal links between a number of BRAC field staff and members of the Fisheries Research Institute (FRI) which emerged during the late 1980s when BRAC was starting its aquaculture programme and required some technical assistance. ICLARM was already in contact with FRI. At the same time, USAID was looking for ways to improve the effectiveness of its work in strengthening national agricultural research institutes (including FRI) in Bangladesh. A workshop was held in 1991 between all these agencies and 31 NGOs and the idea to work towards involving NGOs in the wider aquaculture extension effort in Bangladesh was born. What resulted was an inter-agency project entitled "Technology Transfer and Feedback Through NGOs" which was funded by USAID. Phase I ran from 1992-93 and Phase II continued from 1993-94, although this phase was later extended owing to delays until 1995. This project, which we shall term the ICLARM project, is the subject of the present paper.

The ICLARM project involves government agencies and Bangladeshi NGOs and is designed to strengthen FRI’s aquaculture research capacity and responsiveness to farmer needs along with the capacity of the wider extension system which now encompasses both government and NGOs as extension agents. There are three different government agencies taking part in the ICLARM project. The Fisheries Research Institute (FRI) is the public sector research body responsible for aquaculture and is based in Mymensingh. FRI is a comparatively new research institution without access to adequate resources and with relatively low staff morale, but was judged by ICLARM to have the potential to make a contribution to developing relevant technologies if it is provided with suitable financial support from USAID and ‘technical backstopping’ by ICLARM. 

The Department of Fisheries (DoF) manages the national country-wide extension service but it too lacks sufficient personnel and resources, with only one Fisheries Extension Officer in each Thana, the local government unit which in some areas may contain around a quarter of a million people. The project seeks to bring NGO fieldworkers into a collaborative relationship with DoF staff, although the DoF is driven more by production targets than by a poverty focus. Finally, the Bangladesh Agricultural Research Council (BARC) is the apex body which coordinates research and evaluates the project, although in practice BARC appears to lack a clear function within the project because it has only limited capacity to monitor activities in the field.

For the past decade many of Bangladesh’s NGOs have been involved in promoting aquaculture among their organised groups of landless and marginal farmers by providing credit and technical support. Along with the three government agencies described above there are five Bangladeshi NGOs involved in the ICLARM project. In order to overcome the constraints of the government extension system the project has invited NGOs to act as additional extension agents, working in partnership with the DoF, to distribute the technology to their own target groups (usually landless farmers with an emphasis on women). The NGOs are also invited to provide feedback on adoption results and research needs to the scientists and trainers at FRI. NGO field staff are trained by FRI and ICLARM personnel alongside DoF so that this training can then be passed on to the farmers by further demonstration and training. In addition, the NGOs provide credit to their group members. The NGOs involved are the Bangladesh Rural Advancement Committee (BRAC), Proshika (which are the two largest national NGOs in the country), and three smaller local NGOs: Banchte Shekha and Jagorani Chakra which are based in Jessore in the south of the country and Thengamara Mohila Sabuj Sangha TMSS which is active in Bogra in the north.

For the ICLARM project, the development of collaborative linkages between government researchers and NGOs is central to the idea of developing low input and low cost aquaculture practices which can then be adopted and sustained by low income rural people, who can also provided feedback through the NGO field staff and DoF extension workers to the scientists. Each NGO group maintains a detailed pond data book for this purpose. The key assumptions are that NGOs need technical assistance in their aquaculture programmes, which can be met by specialised training, and that NGOs have comparative strengths in developing links at the grassroots (Gupta and Shah, 1992).


3. Theoretical issues

Recent theoretical work in the social sciences has explored the different kinds of knowledge and forms of representation embodied in development projects. Drawing on Foucault’s (1971) theoretical perspective on the ways in which knowledge is historically, politically and socially constructed as ‘discourse’, the anthropologist James Ferguson (1990) showed how a World Bank funded livestock project in Lesotho first needed to construct and represent a rural development ‘problem’ which could then be ‘solved’ by a project intervention. However, Ferguson argued that this constructed reality, or discourse, which was needed to justify having the project, did not necessarily correspond with local realities and indeed was instead driven by the wider structures of institutional power in which external agencies were engaged in interventions in Lesotho’s economic and social life.

This perspective is useful for two reasons. Firstly, it opens us up to the possibility that there is far more taking place in development projects (which may of course either assist or constrain its official objectives) than is normally described in the official project literature. If these insights can be rendered more visible to project actors, it is possible that more might be learned about project progress and potential. Secondly, it suggests that multiple realities can be expected to co-exist within a project among the different participating agency actors, acknowledgement of which may help to explain the different motivations for becoming involved in projects and the likelihood that there will be unintended outcomes. 

All this indicates that the conventional and still common view of projects as linear, controlled systems misses fundamental aspects of their nature, origins and character and that more information can be uncovered which might promote a higher level of institutional learning. In particular, efforts to understand ongoing efforts to negotiate different interests and reconcile conflicts may offer the key to improved performance. In a recent article Long (1996: 57-58) writes 

 The interactions between government or outside agencies involved in implementing particular development programmes and the so-called recipients or farming population cannot be adequately understood through the use of generalised conceptions such as ‘state-peasant relations’ or by resorting to normative concepts such as ‘local participation’. These interactions must be analyzed as part of the ongoing processes of negotiation, adaptation and transfer of meaning that take place between the specific actors concerned.

Long is making the case here for a methodology which he calls ‘interface analysis’, but his comments are also relevant to the ‘process’ view which we have adopted in this research which is discussed later in this paper.


4. The discourse of ‘partnership’

It is only relatively recently that governments and donors have ‘discovered’ NGOs and brought them into more prominent roles within development projects (Edwards and Hulme, 1995). The Government of Bangladesh has been explicitly committed to working with NGOs as ‘development partners’ since the Fifth Five Year Plan which was drawn up in 1990. 

However the language of partnership is a flexible one and as we have seen it can also be viewed as a Foucaultian discourse produced by prevailing configurations of institutional power and influence as development agencies, both government, NGO and International Agricultural Research Centre (IARC) compete for resources and status in relation to external resource provision. Bangladesh is one of the most aid dependent countries in the world with foreign assistance making up almost 8% of GDP. What this means is that reference to partnerships, linkages and other collaborative arrangements may not be as straightforward as they seem since they are likely to be linked to the wider resource negotiations among agency actors. For example, Biggs and Neame (1995) argue that linear models of development tend to obscure the fact that NGOs are not individual agencies but operate in a wider context based around negotiations with wider formal and informal networks and coalitions with other agencies. The negotiation process can be used by NGOs (and other agencies) to challenge the perceptions of donors and government and, of course, vice versa. 

Two examples drawn from the ICLARM project are relevant here:

1. The agency motives for becoming involved in partnership (in terms of what each may want to get out of the relationship) may well differ between the participating agencies. For example, while ICLARM views NGOs as carrying out the role of extending aquaculture technologies to the farmers and providing feedback, the NGO Proshika has agendas of its own, such as seeking to influence farmers and researchers towards more organic aquaculture technologies.

2. Arrangements in practice may differ from those described in the project literature. For example, while the DoF has the mandate for aquaculture extension across the country, in practice it does not have the staff to perform this role, but does not necessarily want to be seen to delegate this task to NGOs because they are competing for similar scarce resources and legitimacy. 

There are also contested assumptions behind the centrality of FRI to ICLARM’s work in Bangladesh. Although this relationship clearly has its roots in ICLARM’s mandate as an international research organisation to make links with and try to strengthen the ‘appropriate’ national research institution concerned with aquaculture research, two problems emerge with such a strategy. 

The first relates to doubts in some quarters over the effectiveness of FRI as a research institution and over its operating style, both in terms of prevailing resource scarcity and institutional culture which make the envisaged shift to farmer-centred aquaculture research unlikely. The second is that further doubts exist as to the overall importance of technical constraints to aquaculture, which can be solved through scientific research through projects such as this one, as compared with the social and economic ones (Worby, 1994; Lewis, Wood and Gregory, 1996).

It is tempting therefore to suggest that ICLARM and FRI need each other far more for the individual institutional survival of each agency than the average low income farm household in Bangladesh needs new technology for aquaculture. FRI clearly needs a donor patron, as do many such agencies in Bangladesh. Farmers at the village level trying to get more involved in aquaculture, on the other hand, are struggling with issues such as access to secure pond rights, the timely supply of appropriate aquaculture inputs and less than adequate access to credit and markets and these are discussed in more detail below.

The more that can be uncovered about these discourses the more we can assess the practical basis for partnership and the constraints within the project which may be distorting it. The ODI research suggested that in some cases the basis for partnership linkage was misplaced, while at the same time other opportunities for complementarity between agencies and projects was occasionally missed. For example, the ODA’s Northwestern Fisheries Project, which is an aquaculture research and extension project with many commonalities and possible lessons to share with the ICLARM project (it has developed links with thirteen NGOs), has no formal link with FRI and has now shifted its original objectives from production and research to the extension of existing technologies. Nor does there appear to be a particularly high level of mutual learning taking place between ICLARM and ODA in Bangladesh.

Another feature of the potentially distorting effect of the dominant agency discourse is that it becomes ‘necessary’ for aquaculture to be represented primarily as a technical problem (because both of the key institutional partners have a research mandate) even when there is growing research evidence and NGO experience which point to the fact that constraints on the intensification of aquaculture in Bangladesh are primarily social and economic. These constraints include the poor availability of inputs, conflicts around multiple pond use, difficulties with the secure leasing of ponds, the high level of investment risk to which low income villagers are highly averse, complexities of gender in the decision of labour and profit within households, and class and patronage issues in which pondowners may reclaim their ponds once they are shown to be profitable (Worby, 1994; Lewis, Wood and Gregory, 1996). These stark realities contrast with the official picture of Bangladesh as a country dotted with hundreds of thousands of un- or underutilized ponds with the potential for massive increases in aquaculture production.



5. The research methodology

The ODI research project secured funding from ODA’s ‘holdback’ facility, began in March 1994, and was scheduled to run for two years. The basic research plan was that ODI would first document the history of the ICLARM project, with particular reference to decision-making processes, successful and unsuccessful partnership linkages, and agency expectations and perceptions of project activities. This can be likened to the idea of building an ‘institutional ethnography’ of the project, a term employed by Escobar (1995) to describe the detailed documentation of processes and relationships using anthropological methodologies and insights. The idea then was to develop and implement, with project participants and beneficiaries, the necessary ‘course corrections’ which would address perceived problems and constraints.

The original intention of the ODI research and documentation project was to hold three workshops with ICLARM project participants followed up by semi-structured group and individual interviewing. The initial workshop discussions and interviews were recorded in order to provide a ‘benchmark’ of assumptions, attitudes and experiences against which lessons can be debated, successes and failures acknowledged and solutions evolved. Participant observation techniques were also to be employed both around the project office and on field trips to localities where the new technologies were being introduced to farmers by NGOs, government and project staff. In addition project documentation was to be consulted, an alternative history of the project drawn up to include planned as well as unplanned outcomes and comparative discussions with other agencies involved in aquaculture.

The concept of ‘project as process’ was fundamental to the study and underpinned the selection of a form of process monitoring to document expectations and activities and to plan course corrections. The methodology of process monitoring and research, a loose and evolving set of alternative approaches to conventional monitoring, differs from what has sometimes been termed the ‘blueprint’ view of projects, which relies upon the linear planning and design of projects often as closed systems. By contrast, process monitoring and research rests on the assumption that projects are open systems in which solutions to problems can arise through experimentation and practice rather than through design. Development is seen as a dynamic process which may be perceived in different ways by different social and institutional actors and is likely to generate important unplanned outcomes (Mosse, this volume). 


6. Understanding the ICLARM project in terms of process

As we have seen, the ICLARM project is in reality a series of projects aimed at developing and introducing sustainable aquaculture technologies. These projects have been extended and adjusted as experiences (and available funds) have allowed. As such they may be viewed as an entry point to both understanding and approaching a range of important issues around aquaculture and inter-agency partnership more generally. The problems and unintended outcomes, we would argue here, may be of value and should therefore be documented rather than lost or omitted from project documentation. This is one of the advantages of using process documentation of this kind.

Much of the ODI project was spent discussing the original intentions of the ICLARM project and comparing these intentions with what actually worked out in practice. The partnership linkages within the project were categorised and levels of partnership were identified. Through interviews with key project staff efforts (some of which remained unfinished, which is explained in section 7 below) were made to understand how these linkages had functioned, the constraints which existed and possible ways in which constraints could be overcome. 

Some of these linkages proved effective, others weak. They are classified in a preliminary way in Table 1 below. For those linkages which were categorised as weak, possible corrective action was discussed. For example, when tensions between large and small NGOs, and with local DoF extension staff were identified, the feasibility of strengthening, through lobbying and negotiation, the Association of Development Agencies in Bangladesh’s (ADAB) regional Aquaculture Forum was investigated, albeit with mixed results. However, each of these linkages and subsequent attempts at course correction helped to throw more light on the overall partnership issue.

Although the ODI project did not run long enough to reach its projected conclusion, indicative findings were emerging. The ICLARM project had achieved many of its objectives which are to provide NGOs with the opportunities to gain access to technical assistance with their aquaculture programmes, to report back adoption problems encountered by the farmers with whom they work and to begin to form ties with government agencies in aquaculture for the first time. By late 1994 a total of 3,563 farmers (of which 2,029 were women) had been trained, 900 ponds had been cultivated and the technology is clearly effective where it is ‘properly’ applied.

In particular, the feedback loop from the farmers through NGOs to researchers has been strengthened. Modifications have been made to the original ICLARM project’s uniform technology package which has now been redesigned into several options in order to take account of different agro-ecological priorities based on feedback from farmers via participating NGOs in different agro-climatic areas (ICLARM, 1994). Furthermore, NGOs and government researchers are now, perhaps for the first time, talking to each other about aquaculture. On paper the stated objectives have been largely met. But once we take a view of the project as embedded in a wider system of relationships and discourses some other outputs would clearly be desirable in key areas. As one might expect there are still certain areas of weakness:

1. Inter-agency links may not last beyond the cessation of ICLARM’s ‘technical backstopping’ support and motivating work and donor funding provision;

2. The ‘institutional culture’ within government agencies such as FRI remains essentially top down and oriented primarily around the old ‘technology transfer’ model. Participatory language is being assimilated much more rapidly that it is being put into effect, and the attitudes of some junior staff are becoming more open, but these have little influence in the absence of support from their superiors;
 


 
3. The relations between national and local NGOs are often weak and under-coordinated. Large NGOs tend to be well-resourced and require little but the most specialised occasional technical help; smaller NGOs need both resources and basic technical advice and training. Attempts to strengthen links through the ADAB Aquaculture Forum, established by the national NGO umbrella organisation, remain tentative at best, partly because the interests of larger NGOs tend to be represented within ADAB over those of smaller NGOs and many smaller NGOs do not become members of ADAB and are therefore excluded from any benefits which may arise; 

4. There has been a relatively low level of coordination between and exchange of lessons learned between ICLARM and ODA, which operates a large project in Bangladesh with at least some common interests;

5. Farmers may now be seen by some government research agencies as being capable of testing or adapting technologies which are passed down to them, but not yet as a force for significantly guiding research agendas;

6. Problems faced by low income farmers in the sustainable adoption of aquaculture technologies remain acute and primarily social and economic rather than technical in character.

Nevertheless, serious though these problems are, they do constitute an agenda for action for agencies and projects willing to confront them. Thus a constructive agenda for practical action in the form of creating or expanding ‘room for manoeuvre’, can be generated by the type of process view taken by the ODI research.


7. Emerging issues

This analysis led to several initiatives, evolved either by the ICLARM or the ODI projects (or jointly), for learning more widely from projects and achieving course corrections. The main issues which emerged are summarised in this section. 

Firstly, the contingencies of project reporting do not necessarily lead to the interrogation of all available evidence (by project partners) which relates to partnership performance or to the internalisation of any lessons learned. The involvement of a third party in process documentation, in this case ODI, can play a useful role in this respect. Secondly, partnership only makes sense if can be shown to have achieved certain outcomes which would not have been possible by partners singly. Sometimes the rhetoric or ‘discourse’ of partnership can be used to command attention and resources in itself, and this may suit a variety of wider interests and political objectives. Process documentation can encourage project participants to confront any gaps between what they say they are doing and what they actually do. 

Thirdly, the process of building an institutional ethnography of a project can generate new, supplementary activities aimed at correcting limitations. Sometimes these arise from unintended outcomes. But many agencies within a resource dependent environment find it difficult to confront preconceptions and organisational jealousies and improve communication and therefore performance within the project. This is one reason why the ODI research exercise ended prematurely. However, the issue of NGOs beginning to provide an input into the formulation of a new fisheries policy is a valuable unintended outcome. Also as we saw, agencies decided after the first workshop to take a more proactive role in strengthening the fledgling (and in some areas dormant or sidelined) NGO Aquaculture Forum.

A set of guidelines for the future is being developed through which projects can explore partnership issues more fully and through which the value of partnership can be assessed based on results. These guidelines, containing the experiences distilled from this project, will it is hoped be of value to ICLARM and ODA when planning and implementing future projects (Lewis and Ehsan, 1996).

Finally, an essentially top-down vision of ‘technology transfer’ lives on in many agencies, particularly those of the government. As we have seen, it is by no means clear that technological constraints are important in the development of aquaculture. But modifications to the institutional culture of government agencies (in particular) and also to NGOs in order to make them more responsive to farmer needs and to pursue more flexible working strategies through partnership will require longer term solutions. However this ‘action research’ is beginning to show that intra-project, inter-agency workshops and group discussions with a third party can be creative in moving agency culture towards this goal.


8. Reflections on the methodological problems encountered

During the course of the ODI research it became apparent that we had underestimated the methodological difficulties likely to be encountered during research and documentation by a ‘third party’. There were several factors at work here which need to be outlined:

1. Bangladesh is a country in which local organisations and institutions, both NGOs and government, compete for funding and credibility within a highly resource dependent context. Alliances are constructed between individual agencies and these can sometimes take on a patron-client character. However we may describe them, such relationships are highly sensitive and therefore likely to resist outside documentation efforts which may be perceived as interference. Indeed such documentation may exacerbate tensions within the project. 

2. The above set of problems is not only limited to local or national agencies. International research organisations such as ICLARM are under strong external pressure from their funders to demonstrate the centrality of their research agendas to national policy priorities and may understandably be more prepared to document the ‘strong’ aspects of their programmes rather than the weaker ones. Tensions between headquarters and field staff were felt in terms of varying degrees of identification with the ODI research. This was true in spatial terms given the distance involved between the ICLARM headquarters and the Dhaka project office and in temporal terms in that some of the initial understanding of the project was lost when a senior ICLARM staff member and co-designer of the ODI research project left.  

3. As part of the drive among key project actors to ensure the institutional survival of both the agencies and the institutional linkages which hold projects together, there was a tendency by the ICLARM project to view insights generated by the ODI research as already understood and being addressed. Of course in many cases this was true, but the desire by the project to ‘own’ its problems as well as its achievements made it difficult to work together with project actors in devising and implementing appropriate course corrections.

4. Further problems revolved around different versions of reality being contested; tensions between insider and outsider researchers and project staff; questions of status between junior researchers and senior staff members; tensions between ‘researchers’ and ‘researched’; and the general (and understandable) difficulty that most people have about being open about ‘bad things’.

These problems eventually led to a situation in which the envisaged methodology was unable to take account of the ‘political’ complexities of inter-agency projects in Bangladesh, let alone the subtleties of the key research questions. Resistance to the ODI documentation project by certain project actors took the form of negotiation and conflict about the direction the research should take, occasional lack of co-operation in providing introductions between researchers and key power holders which would facilitate smoother running, questioning of the legitimacy of ODI suggestions for possible ‘course corrections’, the suggestion that the ODI research had deviated from its original objectives, and finally the demand that the project should end earlier than planned because of the danger that project activities, and the legitimacy of certain key actors, might be threatened.

As a result of these difficulties, only the first of the three projected workshops was held which served to introduce the purpose of the ODI project and highlight ongoing achievements and problems. This workshop served its purpose in generated a wealth of basic data which was then followed up through several field trips and individual semi-structured interviews with ICLARM project actors. However there remained a basic unease among some project staff that the presence of outsiders (which has not been indicated in the original project documents agreed by ICLARM and the Government of Bangladesh) might destabilise the precarious relationships among the different government agencies, donors and NGOs. This concern was to some extent born out and on more than one occasion sensitive or inaccurate information was used by certain actors for ‘political’ purposes, occasionally generating an extra burden for project managers.

The difficulties experienced in the deployment of this process monitoring and research methodology and indeed the partial failure of the documentation project itself, does, however contain several useful insights about:

1 The workings of inter-agency projects in Bangladesh against the backdrop of competition for scarce resources. 

2 The discourse of ‘partnership’ and the ways in which this is translated into practice.

3. The ways in which the ‘problems’ of aquaculture has been constructed in Bangladesh by development agencies along with their ‘solutions’.

4. The means through which the rhetoric of participation can be assimilated relatively easily into a ‘technology transfer’ of technology model.

In this way the tensions generated by the research methodology created a set of very real practical problems; but at the same time they helped to produce some valuable insights into project processes. Few of these issues are raised in the official project literature but can be usefully explored in supplementary work carried out specifically for that purpose such as the type of process monitoring we have attempted here. As Escobar (1995) has written

 ... a textually mediated discourse substitutes for the actual relations and practices of the "beneficiaries", burying the latter’s experience in the matrix that organises the institution’s representation.

On one level this view is supported by the present study in that the project tends to claim and represent a level of participation which goes well beyond the actual relationships which exist both with people at the pondside and at the institutional level within the different participating agencies. But we have tried to move beyond this here; unlike Escobar, who presents an ultimately pessimistic picture, we believe that the dominant discourse is not monolithic but may contain some opportunities for ‘room for manoeuvre’ through improving the space for negotiation and transparency (Gardner and Lewis, 1996).

In more practical terms the main lesson which emerges is the need for sensitivity while conducting process documentation and research, particularly with regards to the role of the external agent or agents carrying out the monitoring. This external agent requires a wide range of skills in this area, such as the ability to build trust among all sections of the project and the various participating agencies, displaying an awareness of the often unavoidable contradictions implied by different actor perspectives and maintaining a respect for the hard work put in by many of the staff involved. In the case of the present research, we were not entirely successful in ensuring that these skills were always put into practice.


9. Conclusions

Despite the practical problems encountered in the research, the process documentation and research methodology which was developed during this study can be seen to have generated a range of useful insights about the inner workings of development projects, and the fields of power and discourse with which they are surrounded. On a practical level the study also provides some important clues to potential future progress around both aquaculture in Bangladesh and inter-agency partnerships more widely. While ‘active’ partnerships are difficult to create and maintain within a resource dependent context such as Bangladesh and while different analyses and prescriptions for promoting aquacultural development are also in competition with each other, there may be significant areas of ‘room for manoeuvre’. Some agencies are clearly getting closer to confronting some of the key issues which might generate the conditions under which economically marginal households can improve their income and nutrition. 

However, the resource dependency issue does not only mean that the sustainability of agency linkages is questionable, but also calls into question the nature and the focus of the technological prescription offered by many projects of this kind in Bangladesh. This is because external resource flows may help to determine the ways in which ‘problems’ are constructed, just as they help to structure the form in which interventions are made. The process documentation approach used in this study helps to throw the operation of these wider forces into relief in the context of aquaculture.

There are difficult decisions ahead for development practitioners working in aquaculture in Bangladesh. Research and extension initiatives will need to become more participatory, less top-down and ideally will move beyond narrow definitions notions of farmer feedback towards models in which farmers can actually influence research agendas rather than simply commenting on technologies which are presented to them. There is also a need for development agencies to ‘grasp the nettle’ of addressing important social and economic constraints in ways which transcend an invocation of the assumed NGO abilities to reach farmers within what might be termed an ‘instrumentalist’ perspective of government and NGO relationships. By carrying out further process documentation of the kind described here, it is hoped that the disequilibrium which is likely to be generated may hold more in the way of creativity and solutions than destructiveness and contradiction. Active partnerships between NGOs and government and IARCs may yet unlock more of this potential.
 
 References

Biggs, S. and Neame, A. (1995) Negotiating Room for Manoeuvre: Reflections Concerning NGO Autonomy and Accountability Within the New Policy Agenda. In edited M. Edwardes and D. Hulme Non-Governmental Organizations - Performance and Accountability: Beyond the Magic Bullet. London: Earthscan.

Dawson, P. (1994) Organizational Change: A Processual Approach. London: Paul Chapman.

Escobar, A. (1995) Encountering Development: the Making and Unmaking of the Third World. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

Farrington, J. and D.J. Lewis with S. Satish and A. Miclat-Teves (eds, 1993) NGOs and the State in Asia: Rethinking Roles in Sustainable Agricultural Development. London: Routledge.

Ferguson, J. (1990) The Anti-Politics Machine: "Development", Depoliticization and Bureaucratic Power in Lesotho. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Foucault, M. (1971) ‘The order of discourse’ in R.Young, ed. Untying the Text: A Post-Structuralist Reader. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Gardner, K. and Lewis, D.J. (1996) Anthropology, Development and the Post-Modern Challenge. London: Pluto. 

Gregory, R. and Kamp, K. (1996) Aquaculture extension in Bangladesh: Experiences from the Northwest Fisheries Extension Project 1989-92. Dhaka: ODA BAFRU/Department of Fisheries.

Gupta, M.V. and Shah, M.S. (1992) NGO Linkages in Developing Aquaculture as a Sustainable Farming Activity - A Case Study from Bangladesh. Paper presented at Asian Farming Systems Symposium, Colombo.

ICLARM (1994) Proceedings of the Workshop on Technology Transfer Through NGOs and Feedback to Research. Workshop notes, 20-21 March.

Lewis, D.J., Wood, G.D. and Gregory, R. (1996) Trading the Silver Seed: Local Knowledge and Market Moralities in Aquacultural Development. London: Intermediate Technology Publications and Dhaka: University Press Limited.

Lewis, D. and K. Ehsan (1996) Guidelines towards promoting ‘active’ inter-agency partnerships in sustainable development: lessons from an aquaculture project in Bangladesh. ODI/ICLARM Report to Overseas Development Administration, London.

Long, N. (1996) Globalization and localization: new challenges to rural research. In The Future of Anthropological Knowledge edited by Henrietta L. Moore. London: Routledge.

Mosse, D. (1996) Process monitoring and process documentation: evolving methods for social research and development practice - cases and issues. First draft, Centre for Development Studies, University of Swansea.

Noble, F. (1995) NGOs and the Aquaculture and Fisheries Forum of ADAB. In Pond Fisheries in Bangladesh edited by W.A.Shah. Dhaka: Environment and Resources Analysis Centre.

Worby, E. (1994) Hitting Hairs and Splitting Targets: Anthropological Perspectives on Fish Culture Technology Transfer Through NGOs in Bangladesh. Rockefeller Foundation conference paper, Addis Ababa, mimeo.