Challenges and dilemmas: fieldwork with upland minorities in socialist Vietnam, Laos and southwest...

Challenges and dilemmas: fieldwork with uplandminorities in socialist Vietnam, Laos and

southwest Chinaapv_1419 121..134

Sarah TurnerDepartment of Geography, McGill University, Montréal, Canada.

Email: [email protected]

Abstract: The Chinese, Vietnamese and Lao spaces within the upland Southeast Asian massif,sheltering over 80 million people belonging to geographically dispersed and politically fragmentedminority populations, have only recently reopened to overseas academic endeavours. Undertakingsocial sciences research there among ethnic minority groups is underscored by a specific set ofchallenges, dilemmas, and negotiations. This special issue brings together Western academics andpost-fieldwork doctoral students from the realms of social anthropology and human geography, whohave conducted in-depth fieldwork among ethnic minorities in upland southwest China, northernVietnam, and southern Laos. The articles provide insights into the struggles and constraints they facedin the field, set against an understanding of the historical context of field research in these locales. Inthis unique context that nowadays interweaves economic liberalisation with centralised and authori-tarian political structures, the authors explore how they have negotiated and manoeuvred accessto ethnic minority voices in complex cultural configurations. The ethical challenges raised andmethodological reflections offered will be insightful for others conducting fieldwork in the socialistmargins of the Southeast Asian massif and beyond. This specific context is introduced here, followedby a critique of the literature on the core themes that contributors raise.

Keywords: China, ethnic minorities, fieldwork, Laos, Southeast Asian massif, Vietnam

The topics at the heart of this special issue inter-weave the professional, political and private,bringing together all the messiness, compro-mises and ethical dilemmas that make up socialscience fieldwork in the Global South. These arebrought into even starker reality because of thespecific circumstances surrounding everyday lifeand practices in China, Vietnam and Laos, espe-cially for ethnic minorities. The human geogra-phers and social anthropologists writing for thisspecial issue are all actively engaged in researchwith ethnic minorities in socialist Asia, either asgraduate students or professors. All of us havespent extended periods of time in our field sites,located in Figure 1, either for continuous periodsof fieldwork or during repeat visits, the latterin part reflecting the realities of fieldwork insocialist countries. Each article here brings to thefore the positionalities of the authors in the field,and questions their subjective gazes, as well asdebates over representations of ‘the other’ and

the importance of reflexivity in social scienceresearch. In doing so, we do not shy away fromdeliberating over the mistakes that we havemade along the way and the rewards that can begained from such critical reflection. We hopethat this collection can act as a partial roadmap, providing directions to help ease noviceresearchers – or those more experienced else-where but new to this region – into and throughtheir fieldwork experiences, in turn allowingfor richer and more meaningful encounters andinteractions in the field.

The principal organising theme of this spe-cial issue concerns the dilemmas that arise,the negotiations one must undertake, and thepossible solutions that can be followed whenundertaking fieldwork among ethnic minoritiesin socialist China, Vietnam and Laos. Whilethe terms socialist and postsocialist are oftenused interchangeably in relation to the People’sRepublic of China, the Socialist Republic of

Asia Pacific Viewpoint, Vol. 51, No. 2, August 2010ISSN 1360-7456, pp121–134

© 2010 The AuthorJournal compilation © 2010 Victoria University of Wellington

doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8373.2010.01419.x

Vietnam, and the Lao People’s DemocraticRepublic, there are important political differ-ences with postsocialist Eastern Europe and theformer USSR where state socialism collapsedin the late 1980s and the shift towards marketintegration and capitalism occurred rapidly.Economic reforms have been far more gradualin China (beginning in 1978), Vietnam (c. 1986)and Laos (1986), while the socialist govern-ments in all three countries have maintained afirm grip on centralised, political control and all

remain single-party states. Reflecting this politi-cal nature and highlighting these differenceswith postsocialist Europe, in this issue we con-tinue to refer to China, Vietnam and Laos associalist. A further specificity of our work con-cerns the everyday realities that upland ethnicminorities in these three countries continueto experience. The participants in our researchare not necessarily those in positions of politicalpower nor financial wealth; yet nor are theypassive victims of the changing circumstances

Figure 1. Locations of fieldwork in the Southeast Asian massif discussed in this special issue

S. Turner


122

that entwine economic liberalisation with cen-tralised and authoritarian political structures.Frequently, they quietly contest ‘the rules’ of thelowland ruling majorities; these ethnic minori-ties are well aware of the malleability of culture,history and social relations.

Not surprisingly, socialist rule in these threecountries plays a substantial part in shapingthe experience of our fieldwork within. Many ofthe authors in this special issue have also under-taken fieldwork elsewhere, in Indonesia, Malay-sia, India, Thailand, the Philippines, PacificIsland States, and further afield. This providesspace for the authors to reflect upon howsocialist rule impacts upon field relationships,working conditions and perceptions. Ofconcern are debates over how to establishand maintain positive relationships in the fieldwith ethnic minority informants (who may alsobecome friends), political gatekeepers, andlocal researchers, as well as how to generateand sustain trust. Working with ethnic minori-ties often raises a strong desire to help rightwrongs and support local customs, perhaps indirect opposition to the majority’s wishes. ‘Pro-fessional detachment’ is not really an optionnor a goal for any of the authors, although weponder over and explore the quandaries raisedin trying to balance empathy with observation,and scholarship with advocacy.

However, let us start with the pragmaticissues. To be allowed to undertake officiallyauthorised social science fieldwork in the con-temporary political climate in China, Vietnamor Laos, one must have the correct ‘red stamps’.Beside the political symbolism embedded inthis very colour, these stamps must adorn lettersand authorisations provided by all levels of thestate apparatus in order to confer to the bearerthe proper credentials. Such negotiations taketime and patience and can be extremely stress-ful, especially for those on limited researchfunds. Most frequently, gaining such author-isation entails being linked to either a stateresearch institute or a local university. Thosenew to the field usually gain access to theseinstitutions via colleagues’ suggestions or super-visors’ pre-established contacts, although it ispossible – though not always successful – togain access through more direct meetings, suchas ‘cold calling’ an institute in the hope thatsomeone will be willing to help out a new-

comer (see Scoggin, 1994). Often, fortuitousmeetings help pave the way, as noted by Cornetand McKinnon (this issue). There are a numberof compelling reasons why it is important tohave official permission to undertake fieldworkin China, despite the drawbacks also attached(Hansen, 2006). Gros (this issue) notes howhe came to this realisation while in the fieldreflecting upon the problems a lack of authori-sation was going to cause not only him, but alsothose he wanted to interact with.

There is also the possibility of gaining accessto field sites via non-governmental organisa-tions (NGOs) working in potential field siteareas, through both authorisations and logisticalsupport. This raises a different set of concernsand ethical dilemmas (see Daviau, this issue), asNGOs have their own specific research agendathat they expect employees or consultants tofollow, or may lay claim to research resultsafter fieldwork and analysis. Participatory learn-ing and action projects, and participatorygeographic information systems, involve col-laborative research with local researchers andare another potential trajectory for research,moving away from more traditional ethno-graphic studies. The benefits and downfallsof taking such an approach in socialist stateswhere authorities often remain cautious of thosewanting to undertake long-term fieldwork areconsidered here by McKinnon.

What one might consider the first hurdleto reaching ‘the field’ – gaining a research visaand the required official permissions – is thensoon followed by a range of other anxieties andcoping strategies. Of the three countries underscrutiny, fieldwork procedures and practices forforeign researchers in China are the best docu-mented to date (see, for example, Thurston andPasternak, 1983; Curran and Cook, 1993; Rofel,1993; Herrold, 1999; Pieke, 2000; Heimer andThøgersen, 2006).1 This relative wealth of reflec-tion regarding China-based fieldwork is not sur-prising given the country’s size and the fact thatit ‘opened up’ again to outside social sci-ence researchers before either Vietnam or Laos.Albeit, the initial acceptance of (US) researchersin 1978 by the Chinese Academy of SocialSciences was curtailed in 1981, at the expulsionof a US graduate student, and fieldwork there-after was significantly restricted for quite sometime (see Thurston and Pasternak, 1983; Pieke,

Fieldwork challenges and dilemmas


123

2000; Harrell, 2007). Nevertheless, discussionson fieldwork specifically among ethnic minori-ties in China are far less common, with Smith(2006) working in Xinjiang Uyghur Auto-nomous Region, Hansen (2006) working withNaxi and later Han migrants to ethnic mino-rity regions, Yeh (2006) working in Tibet, andHarrell (2007) working among a number ofethnic minorities in southwest China, especiallythe Yi and Nuosu, being among the few aca-demic authors who explicitly discuss fieldworkprocedures and reflect upon their experiencesamong ethnic minorities in that country.

In comparison, there is very little written onfieldwork practices in Vietnam with any ethnicgroup, beyond Bertrand (1994) and Scott et al.(2006) working predominantly with the Kinhmajority. Bertrand (1994) explores the condi-tions of fieldwork in the early 1990s, consideringthe differences between undertaking fieldworkin the North versus the South, suggesting thatwhile local authorities in the North follow direc-tives from the capital diligently, local leaders inthe South ‘make their own law’. He then analy-ses the role of local gatekeepers and the admin-istrative obstacles to undertaking fieldworkwith coastal sampan dwellers. Scott et al. (2006)profile the conditions that they met when carry-ing out fieldwork as graduate students in threedifferent locales in Vietnam in the late 1990s,focusing upon the procedures that they wererequired to follow and the gatekeepers andbureaucratic hurdles that they faced along theway. These three authors, likewise, observe thelack of publications on fieldwork in Vietnam,noting instead that authors tend to makepassing reference to research procedures andconditions, such as Marr (1993), Fforde (1996),Kerkvliet (1995) and Forbes (1996). Increasinglyhowever, as the country opens up to Western-based researchers, more doctorate and master’stheses are being completed in which studentsconsciously reflect upon their fieldwork experi-ences with ethnic minorities, such as Sowerwine(2004) and Schoenberger (2006).

Turning to Laos, the cupboard is bare.Outside this special issue, Vandergeest et al.(2003) analyse approaches to research, des-cribing a North–South collaboration with theNational University of Laos, yet with a focus oninstitutional capacity building and no mentionof fieldwork per se. Indeed, Enfield (2010)

stresses the need for far more sustained fieldresearch residence in Laos, although a smallnumber of graduate students have recentlyaccomplished this. Still to be published arenuanced reflections upon such fieldwork, a voidthat Daviau helps to fill in this issue.

One might think that turning to works onpostsocialist Eastern Europe and the formerUSSR and the growing body of literature on thetrials and tribulations of undertaking fieldworkin such locales, as discussed by Hörschelmannand Stenning (2008), the contributors to theedited collection by De Soto and Dudwick(2000), and Hann et al. (2002), among others,could be insightful.2 Although important andinteresting in their own right, I did not findthese of direct use for researchers about to stepinto the socialist Asia realm because of verymarked dissimilarities in political-economicand social context and institutional settings, asnoted earlier.

To further understand the specific contextsin which the researchers of this special editionare engaged, next I briefly introduce the ethnicminorities or ‘subjects’ of our research. Then Iturn to define and review the core elementsconsidered in this special issue – beyond the‘nuts and bolts’ of physically getting to a fieldsite – including positionality and reflexivity,power relations and the role of gatekeepers, andethical dilemmas. Here I focus upon what hasbeen written previously on these elements,albeit limited, in relation to fieldwork in China,Vietnam and Laos. A conscious decision wasmade to focus this special issue upon the expe-riences of Western researchers. This is becausethe experiences reflected upon here are so verydifferent from those encountered either by localresearchers undertaking fieldwork in their owncountry, or those travelling from these socialistcountries to the Global North (as highlightedin Bamo Ayi et al., 2007). We hope that com-panion works that go beyond our approach willbe available soon, and my article in this issue,focusing upon the voices of Chinese and Viet-namese research assistants, is perhaps a bridgebetween these.

Meeting our informants

According to the latest censuses available in thethree countries studied here, there live over 110

S. Turner


124

million people belonging to ethnic minoritygroups in the whole of China,Vietnam and Laos.Our fieldwork has concentrated in the south-western uplands of China, the northern uplandsof Vietnam, and upland Laos, located withinwhat has been called the Southeast Asian massif.This area incorporates the uplands over roughly500 metres elevation (shown in grey in Fig. 1),encompassing ‘the high ranges extending south-east from the Himalayas and theTibetan Plateau,and all the monsoon high country drained bythe lower Brahmaputra, the Irrawaddy, Salween,Chao Phraya, Mekong and Red Rivers and theirtributaries’ (Michaud, 2009: 27).3 In the part ofthe massif shared by China, Vietnam and Laos,there live approximately 70–80 million ethnicminority individuals.

Since 1981, China has officially recognised55 groups of ‘minority nationalities’ (shaoshuminzu). Twenty-nine of these are indigenous tothe southwestern area of China that lies withinthe Southeast Asian massif, with a populationthere of over 59 million. In Vietnam, there are53 (since 1979) groups of ‘national minorities’

(các dân tocˆ�

thieuˆ?

so), and those living in theuplands number over 8.5 million (MacKerras,2003; Michaud, 2006). In Laos, of the 49 ethnicgroups (sonphao) now recognised by the LaoFront for National Construction (LFNC), 47 areminorities totalling 2.5 million people (Ovesen,2004; National Statistics Centre, 2005).

It has been suggested by Goudineau (2000)that the shared state ideologies regarding ethnicminorities of China and Vietnam, are alsoreflected in Lao political strategies.4 In China,after the death of Mao Zedong in 1976 andDeng Xiaoping’s rise to power, national minori-ties (shaoshu minzu) had their cultures recogn-ised again. Official ethnic minorities are nowawarded certain ‘affirmative action’ measures,such as exemption from the one-child policy,fewer taxes and preferential university admis-sion (Gladney, 2004; Michaud, 2009). Never-theless, at the same time, while primaryeducation may be available in local ethnicminority languages, one must be fluent in Man-darin to access higher education as well asnumerous off-farm employment opportunities.As Michaud (2009: 34) notes ‘such necessitiesact as powerful incentives for cultural inte-gration of the younger generations into Han

society. Indeed, official recognition only partlymasks a national policy of slow but steady cul-tural integration’.

In Vietnam, Ðoi?

mo i�´ , the Economic Reno-vation decreed in 1986 at the Sixth NationalCongress, and implemented over the followingyears, has generally reduced the level of stateauthoritarianism. A policy of ‘selective culturalpreservation’ appears to best describe the state’sapproach to ethnic minorities, with cultural per-formances, material culture and tourist itemsbeing seen as worthy of preservation (especiallyon VTV5, the state-run television channel espe-cially directed at ethnic minority viewers). Con-currently, ‘unsavoury’ practices such as slashand burn/swidden agriculture and certain ritualand shaman expenditures are strongly discour-aged. Yet as a whole, upland ethnic minoritiescontinue to be little understood by lowlandKinh, often characterised as being ‘backwards’or ‘lazy’ (van de Walle and Gunewardena,2001; Koh, 2002; Sowerwine, 2004).

In Laos, a relocation policy for ethnic minori-ties (discussed further by Daviau, this issue) is atthe heart of the government’s plans for uplandnon-Lao settlements. Such policies ‘result inthe implicit confirmation of ethnic Lao politicaland cultural superiority’ (Ovesen, 2004: 214).Ovesen (2004: 222) continues to note that ‘theofficial view tends to be that non-Lao traditionsare archaic and not conducive to improving thesocio-economic conditions of the group inquestion’ (see also Stuart-Fox, 1991). Given thatthese are the contexts in which our fieldwork iscarried out, the themes reviewed next and thenexpanded upon in our articles are not entirelysurprising.

Pre-field preparation: Reflecting uponpositionality, power relations andethical dilemmas

Positionality and reflexivity

Debates over positionality and reflexivity havebeen growing in critical discussions of thepolitics and ethics of fieldwork among socialanthropologists and postcolonial and feministgeographers since the 1980s.5 Positionalityinvolves the recognition that ‘all knowledge isproduced in specific contexts or circums-tances and that these situated knowledges are



125

marked by their origins’ (Valentine, 2002: 116).Hopkins (2007: 391) proposes that such posi-tionality is inclusive of one’s race, class, gender,age, sexuality, disability as well as life experi-ences. Yet I suggest positionality is more thanthese characteristics. It can also include philo-sophical perspectives and ways of viewing theworld, political leanings, and specific combina-tions of these, such as having the same genderand sense of humour as the informants, butbeing very different in terms of ethnicity andsocial class. In turn, England (1994: 82) definesreflexivity as ‘self-critical sympathetic intro-spection’ coupled with ‘the self-consciousanalytical scrutiny of the self as a researcher’.

While such concerns with establishing self-conscious positionality via reflexivity in socialscience research are echoed by many, includ-ing McDowell (1992), Katz (1994), Radcliffe(1994), Moss (1995) and Rose (1997), it is stillrelatively uncommon for field researchers todocument the practice of these considerationsin their published work. This is certainly thecase with regard to socialist China, Vietnam andLaos where, until this special issue’s contribu-tions, reflexivity regarding the positionality ofresearchers engaging with ethnic minorities wasrare. The benefit of such a reflexive approach toresearch, England (1994: 89) argues, is that it‘allows the researcher to be more open to chal-lenges to their theoretical position that field-work almost inevitably raises’.

Turning to specific features of the positionalityof Western researchers in Vietnam, Scott et al.(2006) noted that being female facilitated easyrapport with female respondents; yet resulted infar less socialising with males. However, at thesame time, their ‘foreignness’ did still grant themsome invitations to male circles, placing themin a somewhat ambiguous gender role. Smith(2006) researching with Uyghur in China alsoreflects upon how she negotiated her positional-ity depending on who she was interacting with,as best summarised in this quote:

Keen to avoid being channelled into activitiesconsidered suitable for women, I re-negotiatedmy role afresh depending on the gender, edu-cational and religious (nominal or observant)background of companions. With rural menand most women, I was the epitome of femalemodesty. With educated men, I played upmy Western image and academic status. This

enabled me to assume a neutral role vis-à-vismen, and to observe from the men’s side of theroom at Uyghur weddings, where guests areconventionally segregated. I was thus includedin the ‘male fraternity’ closed to the society’sfemale members. I gained perhaps greateraccess than a male researcher, who would havehad access to male domains but only limitedaccess to female domains (Smith, 2006: 143).

Our positionality is commonly influenced bythose to whom we have access in the field. Forinstance, Svensson (2006) researching culturalheritage in China quickly realised that shewas not going to have fruitful interviews withlocal residents if she had been observed initi-ally talking and walking around a village orneighbourhood with party secretaries and localofficials. She was indeed being positioned byfuture interviewees. Likewise, Cornet (this issue)quickly realised that just having a government-sanctioned research permit made local villagerssuspicious of her motives, associating her withthose they were in conflict with. Moreover, asCornet and Gros show, we cannot jump to theconclusion that a clear binary exists between thelowland, ethnic majority and ethnic minoritiesand how they will position outside researchers;state employees are often ethnic minorities inremote villages, adding extra complex layers ofpositionalities and power relations.

Power relations and gatekeepers

Feminist geographer Kim England suggeststhat relationships between researchers and theresearched can lie anywhere along a spectrumfrom ‘reciprocal’ to ‘potentially exploitive’while, at the same time, continuing to be ‘inher-ently hierarchical’ (England, 1994: 82, 86). Rela-tionships in the field are a result of specific powerstructures which are highly contingent onone’s own positionality, along with that of one’sresearch collaborators and interviewees, aswell as the time available and context. Certainly,specific circumstances can render the researcher‘quite helpless’ (Wolf, 1996: 22), such as whenattempting to gain permission from authoritiesto undertake interviews (see Bonnin; Cornet;Daviau; and Gros), when interviewing powerfulactors (Bonnin; Cornet), or when observing whatone believes to be inappropriate behaviour orsocial injustice (see Bonnin this issue). Yet then

S. Turner


126

again, a researcher from the Global North isfrequently in a position of relative power withregards to ethnic minority interviewees. Re-searchers commonly have more educationalqualifications, an ability to access research fundsbeyond local norms, the freedom to leave thefield as they wish, and a capability to decide howresearch results will be portrayed and dissemi-nated (see Svensson, 2006).

Such power relations are closely intertwinedwith the role of gatekeepers, defined by humangeographer Hay (2000: 114) as a person whocontrols ‘opportunities to interact with others inthe chosen research site’. This is a fairly narrowdefinition however, albeit one that does reflectsome of the situations we have found ourselvesin, having to negotiate with authority figuresand try to manoeuvre around a host of obstaclesto access field sites and interviewees. Yet, morerecently, a broader definition of gatekeepers hasbeen suggested, including ‘those who provide –directly or indirectly – access to key resourcesneeded to do research, be those resourceslogistical, human, institutional or informational’(Campbell et al., 2006, 98), reflecting the posi-tive aspect that gatekeepers can also bring toone’s fieldwork experiences (see also Helleret al., 2010).

Hansen (2006), describing fieldwork withethnic minorities in southwest China, notes thatclassical participant observation is frequentlyjust not possible because of local gatekeeperdecisions. She remarks:

Ethnographic fieldworkers in China are facedwith a number of challenges which may notbe specific for China only, but which certainlyare distinctively different from fieldwork inmany other parts of the world. Practical cir-cumstances such as the political restrictions onresearch topics, limited access to data, closedareas, and control of researchers’ movements,have forced anthropological fieldworkers todevelop other ways of studying social life andculture than the ‘traditional’ fieldwork methodwhich Malinowski so tellingly called ‘partici-pant observation’ (Hansen, 2006: 81; see alsoMichaud, this issue).

As noted by Cornet and Gros (this issue),protocols are such that a research proposal isusually presented to Chinese university officials– often one’s initial gatekeepers – who then

liaise with the local government and facilitatefield access, as well as providing an officialresearch assistant – for a fee. Gatekeepers at allstages of this process may or may not agree tothe research being proposed and the processesone then wants to follow in the field. This canresult in research proposals needing to be made‘more palatable’ for local authorities, as alsonoted by Daviau in Laos and Bonnin in Vietnam(this issue). Some of these negotiations, toldfrom ‘both sides of the coin’ – the Westernacademic and his Chinese counterparts – arealso explored thoughtfully by Bamo Ayi, Harrelland Ma Lunzy (2007) in their collaborativebook on fieldwork experiences in Liangshan YiAutonomous Prefecture, Sichuan.

Herrold (1999), in a field note on research inGuizhou, southwestern China, details furtherhow the Western researcher can be at the mercyof local gatekeepers and protocol. After threemonths, she was finally allowed to stay over-night in local hamlets around Caohai NatureReserve without a ‘minder’, resulting in far morerewarding dinner conversations than formalinterviews. She also notes the role of herdelegated driver as an additional (perhapsnon-intentional) gatekeeper, as a typical day ofinterviews was governed by his need to detour,sleep, eat, and so on. She provides an entertain-ing example of a typical ‘day in the field’ thathighlights the frustrations faced when operatingwith local gatekeepers and ‘minders’. Similarly,Gros (this issue) explains how, over time, localofficials came to be less wary of him (see alsoMueggler, 2001). This was likewise found to bethe case for Bonnin in Vietnam (this issue), whowas finally able to undertake research withself-selected research assistants, rather thanthose appointed by the state. Interestingly, itdoes seem that wishing to do fieldwork in‘remote’ areas with ethnic minorities can aidone’s ability to work (after a while) without stateappointed research assistants; Gros’ assistantsdid not want to get snowed in over winter inthe Dulong Valley, and Bonnin’s state-assignedassistants were often too homesick, bored orconcerned about being in an area ruled bymalevolent ghosts to stay that long. This alsodepends, of course, on official views of whatareas are politically sensitive.

Smith (2006), recalling fieldwork proce-dures in Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region,



127

Western China, in 1995–1996 considered localauthorities and informants to hold much of thepower in the research process, consideringherself at their mercy to access sites and data.She nevertheless explains how she bargainedwhere she could and gained remarkable access,considering that she had arrived in an ethno-politically charged environment with researchinterests in Uyghur-Han relations while a doc-toral student. She reports that ‘a letter of intro-duction to a named cadre and a fee of £5000gained me a research visa (code F) and affilia-tion to the Xinjiang Academy of Social Sciences,located in north-west Ürümchi’ (Smith, 2006:137). She adds that while the academy ‘seemedbent on keeping my research indoors and firmlyaway from Ürümchi’s Uyghurs’, she was able tonegotiate a trip to the south of the province ‘asa tourist’; here, her identity as a young femaleworked to her advantage, as she assumed shewas perceived as non-threatening. As such, attimes she saw merit in downplaying her officialresearcher role, much like Hansen (2006).

Solinger (2006), working in China on localeconomic, migration and employment ques-tions, mostly with Han Chinese, details interest-ing strategies regarding how she was able to‘interview up’, and hence, obtain informationfrom potential ‘information gatekeepers’. Priorto interviewing state officials, she gatheredextensive knowledge about the intervieweeand their work, including details of accomplish-ments and experiences. Showing such knowl-edge and ‘stroking egos’ whenever possible, sheargues, meant that her interviewees opened upeasily. Nevertheless, she noted at other times,it paid to appear naive or ignorant. She thussuggests to ‘appear at once knowledgeable butignorant, knowing and not knowing’ (Solinger,2006: 161). The benefits of this chameleonapproach are also reflected in the commentsmade by Chloe and Vi, two research assistantswho discuss with me in this issue how theydevised careful strategies to address specificinterviewees; this also speaks to an array ofethical dilemmas.

Ethical dilemmas

More often than not, as academics undertakingfieldwork, we are required to submit ethics cer-tificate applications that consist of a review of

our proposed field methods by an institutionalreview board. Clearly, however, ethical field-work goes beyond such a routine procedureor ‘ethics for ethics’ sake’ (Boyd et al., 2008: 38;see also Hay, 1998; Guillemin and Gilliam,2004; Berg, 2007). Ethics in practice appealsto reflexive methods that guide one’s morallybased decisions and allow the researcher to besensitive to the ethical dimensions of fieldworkpractice. In turn, this helps us to be prepared –as much as possible – to cope with ethical con-cerns that may arise (Gold, 2002).

As Thurston (1983: 9) rightly contends, theethical dilemmas of undertaking fieldwork inChina (and I would add Vietnam and Laos)‘are weighty’. Maintaining one’s access to thefield, especially over repeat visits, as an over-seas researcher can lead to compromises overthe data published and thus debates over theintegrity of academic research. If one publishesfindings that are offensive to the governmentconcerned, and a senior government officialreads it, it is highly likely that access will bedenied – for either the researcher, or thoseassociated with that specific researcher or,indeed, for future scholars from the samecountry, as noted earlier. The problem is oftenknowing what exactly are considered contro-versial findings, as these can shift on an almostweekly basis, dependent on factors often farremoved from the researcher’s gaze andcomprehension.6 As Svensson (2006) notes, inChina, topics that one might not immediatelyconsider as sensitive, suddenly become so ifthey relate to difficult political decisions, to eco-nomic interests, or if there have been open pro-tests, even if miles away from one’s field site.Curran and Cook (1993) furthermore note therisks entailed for Chinese researchers when theiroverseas collaborators publish critical researchinternationally.

These dilemmas, in turn, point to concernsover the safety and well-being of intervieweesin their research participation.7 In China, asHansen (2006) maintains and Cornet and Gros(this issue) expand upon, locals, especiallyethnic minorities, are frequently subjected toinvestigations into their private lives by stateresearchers and government representatives(also reported by Daviau in the Lao context).Over time, locals have come to realise that suchinvestigations can have serious, negative conse-

S. Turner


128

quences on their lives and livelihoods, includ-ing ‘loss of illegally cultivated land, childrensent to school, birth control’ and so on (Hansen,2006: 82). Because of such historical state inter-vention, Hansen contends that any current dayresearcher ‘is walking in the footsteps of theCommunist Party’ (Hansen, 2006: 81); a phraserepeated by both Cornet and Gros (this issue),reflecting its pertinence. Essentially, Hansen(2006) reminds us to question who we are andhow we are positioned when we arrive in thefield with a letter of invitation or a researchassistant from a powerful institution, and theunforeseen consequences that this and ourquestions may have.

Svensson (2006), writing on urban redevelop-ment and cultural-built heritage in Han Chinesecities, comments upon relationships with inter-viewees who may build up expectations, basedin part on the empathy shown by the researcher.As she notes, ‘it is natural during interviewsto be sympathetic and attentive to the inter-viewees’ concerns. But it can feel very unsatis-fying to leave an interviewee/field site after along and sympathetic interview without offeringany help’ (Svensson, 2006: 269). She continuesto question the degree to which genuine friend-ships, and all the expectations that these canbring with them, can be formed in the field,raising concerns mirrored in this issue byBonnin in Vietnam.

Ethical concerns can also arise over what isappropriate or adequate compensation for inter-viewee’s time (see Head, 2009). This can easilyalso become a juggling act with the hospitalitythat interviewees wish to show. Frequently,when interviewing with ethnic minorities,Western researchers are treated to food anddrink, which can consume sizable amountsof locals’ incomes. Such offering often includelarge amounts of alcohol, again using up con-siderable family supplies (see Svensson, 2006;Fiskesjö, 2010). Hence, interview schedulescan take on careful timetabling dimensions toavoid meal times, something Christine Bonninand I have frequently negotiated while inter-viewing in northern Vietnam. When arrivingwith food as recompense for a family whom wewished to interview, we always hoped that itwould remain with them for a later meal, ratherthan being immediately prepared to be con-sumed by us; a delicate negotiation that we

sometimes managed to accomplish, sometimesnot. Gros (this issue) also discusses concernsover consumption, this time in relation to theDrung customary New Year festival and delib-erations over whether, after state pressure hadall but extinguished it, it should be reinstated,with all the ‘counter-productive’ consumptionthat it entails.

Svensson (2006) admits to feeling uncomfort-able with the wealth differential she encoun-tered with interviewees in both urban and ruralChina (see Smith, 2006). As with our contribu-tors here, she was often asked questions abouther salary, or the price of an item of her cloth-ing. She concludes that there are a host of chal-lenges and problematic situations researcherscan find themselves in, which always requirenegotiations over one’s positionality and levelof involvement versus neutrality or detachment.Only the most insensitive of us, she holds, willnot be impacted by our time in the field andwill not question the success of our fieldwork.Careful reflexivity is, therefore, essential indeciding how one is going to deal with and findsolutions to such ethical concerns. Some suchsolutions are proposed in the articles that con-tribute to this issue of Asia Pacific Viewpoint.

Entering the field

The contributors to this issue, three women andfour men, bring with them diverse positiona-lities. We span three nationalities (Canadian,French and New Zealand), and range in age,experience and seniority in academic positionsfrom post-fieldwork doctoral students, to newlyhired permanent researchers, to mid-career andretired professors. Among us, we speak English,French, Mandarin Chinese, Vietnamese, Lao,Tarieng, Drung, Thai, and a few other Asian andEuropean languages not associated with thisissue. We have been trained as cultural anthro-pologists and human geographers in a widerange of university settings, with a diversity oftheoretical backgrounds. Such positionalitiesenrich the following articles. They let us explorethe breadth of fieldwork experiences on theground with ethnic minorities in socialist China,Vietnam and Laos, and how we have learnt tonegotiate different environments and circum-stances, trying to find workable solutions for allthose involved.



129

We start the special issue with Candice Cor-net’s work in the remote Guizhou province,southwest China, in a village where ethnicminority Dong are coming to terms with thepotential uneven returns from cultural tourism(see Fig. 1, number 1). She introduces us to thehierarchic maze of the Chinese administrationthat she traversed to gain field site access, andreflects on working with different state researchassistants. She analyses the impacts of her posi-tionality, first as a young female, and later asa mother bringing her small daughter to thefield. Further to China’s southwest, StéphaneGros, researching with the Drung in north-western Yunnan province on the Burmeseborder (Fig. 1, number 2), then leads us throughan account of a ‘blunder’ in his research as heinadvertently involves locals in a debate overwhether the local New Year’s celebrations,banned for almost 20 years, should be heldagain or not. He reflects on the degree to whichresearchers can meddle, from a methodologicalpoint of view, in interlocutors’ lives in suchcircumstances and the extent to which weinfluence our fieldwork surroundings. JohnMcKinnon, also in Yunnan, but this time tothe southeast on the Vietnamese border (Fig. 1,number 3), takes us from ethnographic-styleresearch to a participatory research exerciseregarding mapping land use change and envi-ronmental challenges in two adjacent villagesof Hani ethnicity. In describing the complexitiesencountered in implementing a participatoryframework and the ambiguities of the outcomesengendered, he suggests that privileging localcoherence and celebrating such participatoryapproaches should not be done at the expenseof ignoring the intricacies of on-going behav-iours that may be contradictory in a rapidlychanging context. For all the goodwill we maybring with us, we must acknowledge and acceptthe local agency of those with whom we work,and concede that all may not go as planned.

With this in mind, we then cross the borderinto Lao Cai province, northern Vietnam whereChristine Bonnin illustrates a range of ‘messyfieldwork’ concerns that came to light duringher research among ethnic minority market-place traders, including Hmong and Yao(Dao) (Fig. 1, number 4). Like Cornet and Gros,Bonnin traces the official procedures needed forher to gain entry to the field, all the way from

the national level Vietnam Academy of SocialScience to the local hamlet, detailing how theseofficial lines can blur over time. She documentsthe gatekeepers whom she met and how sheworked to appease them while continuing toadvance her work. She concludes by highlight-ing the personal and ethical dilemmas that onemust face when friendships are made in thefield and expectations raised.

We then head further south again to theSekong and Attapeu provinces in Laos acrossthe border from central Vietnam. Here, SteeveDaviau reflects on fieldwork with the ethnicminority Tarieng living in the Annam Range(Fig. 1, number 5). He compares the researchpractices and field access procedures that hefollowed as a consultant working for differentNGOs in the region, to those he negotiatedwhen he returned to the field as a graduatestudent with all the required official permis-sions. Working with an ethnic minority groupdemeaned for decades by the socialist state, hestresses the need to create a discursive spacethat allows for Tarieng voices to be heard andtheir agency recognised.

In an attempt to give agency to othersinvolved in the research process, I then reporton interviews with two local research assistantswho were part of the fieldwork being reflectedupon here; Chloe, working with CandiceCornet in China, and Vi, working with Chris-tine Bonnin in Vietnam. I interviewed bothassistants after their extended fieldwork periodsand invited each to contemplate the processfrom their own points of view. They reflectupon how they managed unusual and oftendifficult situations in the field and how theirpositionalities played into specific copingstrategies. They then provide us with pertinentsuggestions regarding how Western researchersshould prepare for working alongside localassistants, as well as helpful advice for futureassistants working with overseas researchers inthese locales.

In a final research note, Jean Michaud reflectsupon his journey from graduate student living inNorthern Thailand studying the impacts of trek-king tourism in a Hmong village, to anthropol-ogy professor and supervisor researching ethnicminorities in Laos,Vietnam and China. He notesthe on-the-ground differences between under-taking fieldwork in democratic Thailand versus

S. Turner


130

socialist China, Vietnam and Laos. He alsopoints out how trust is so important to maintain-ing positive research relations in the latterthree countries. This notion of trust, implicitor explicit in all the articles here, reveals itselfin numerous ways. It weaves together inter-viewees, government officials, student resear-chers and professors to create the confi-dence needed to embark upon safe and viablefieldwork.

In sum, the authors in this special editionhighlight the approaches that can be taken toacquire the necessary permits and red stamps towork in what are often sensitive locales andthe numerous gatekeepers that one may meetand need to negotiate with to access minorityvoices. Furthermore, we call attention to theethics involved in completing fieldwork withpeople who are often misunderstood bymembers of the dominant ethnic group in theircountry of residence. Being an ethnic minorityhere plays a decisive role in one’s everyday life,impacting directly on social relationships, cul-tural practices and political power. Throughout,the authors emphasise the reflexive stance weall need to take while considering the social,economic and political positions our inter-viewees are placed in, and the multiple posi-tionalities that we find ourselves taking onwhile in the field. As such, it is the hope that thisspecial issue can prepare and inform those whowish to undertake research with ethnic minori-ties in the uplands of China, Vietnam and Laos.While some of the concerns, dilemmas andsolutions raised here will resonate with thosewho have undertaken fieldwork elsewhere inthe Global South, there are unique elementsof fieldwork with minorities in these socialistlocales. The authors are optimistic that thosereaders who venture to research in these areaswill find it as rewarding – despite or perhapsbecause of the challenges – as we do.

Acknowledgements for the special issue as awhole and this article

Steeve Daviau and I would like to thank the fouranonymous reviewers who kindly helped withthis special issue, providing contributors withdetailed, constructive feedback. We would alsolike to acknowledge the outstanding researchassistance of Stephanie Coen (UBC) and

Bernard Huber, Lindsay Long, Karen McAllisterand Thomas Kettig (McGill). I would also like tothank Stéphane Gros, Jean Michaud and JanineWiles for in-depth comments on earlier draftsof this article.

Notes

1 Bin Liang and Lu (2006) also provide an interestingoverview of the dilemmas faced when undertakingcontemporary ethnographic fieldwork regarding crimi-nology in China, approached from the US academicperspective.

2 Other interesting postsocialist edited collections, albeitthose that reflect even less on fieldwork conditions,include Burawoy and Verdery (1999), Berdahl et al.(2000), Kuehnast (2000), Bönker et al. (2002), and Hann(2002), as well as articles or chapters by Kürti (1999,2000), Wolfe (2000), Humphrey and Mandel (2002),Muršic (2002), Caldwell (2005), Hann (2005) and Chariand Verdery (2009). Articles regarding Cuba that doreflect upon fieldwork concerns include Reid-Henry(2003) and Michalowski (2006).

3 See van Schendel (2002), Scott (2009) and Michaud(2010) for recent debates over the terminology ofthis region, also termed by van Schendel and Scott as‘Zomia’, albeit a name they use to describe differentland areas and populations within.

4 For a review of the historical development of policiesregarding ethnic minorities in each of the three coun-tries, see Michaud (2009). For China, also see Gladney(2004); for Vietnam, see McElwee (2004); and for Laos,see Ovesen (2004).

5 Early writers in this field include, among others,Mohanty (1988), Harding (1991), Keith (1992), Duncanand Sharp (1993), Probyn (1993), England (1994),Kobayashi (1994), Madge (1994), Nast (1994), Haraway(1996), and Wolf (1996). Since the early 1990s, thenumber of relevant articles has continued to grow and Ido not list all who have followed here.

6 For example, I was once stopped, held for 2 hours in abackroom, and my belongings thoroughly searchedupon entering Vietnam for no reason I could compre-hend. Later, I heard that there had been recent US mis-sionary activity in the Vietnam Central Highlands thatthe government frowned upon. I can only surmise thatperhaps the airport immigration officials were told tolook out for repeat visitors from certain countries.

7 Skidmore (2006) working in Burma, raises a number ofsimilar ethical concerns including the safety of her infor-mants after she left the country with her research data.Her interviewees were especially anxious as to how shemight then write up her results. She noted that severalrecorded their conversations themselves, as well as herdoing so, as a safety measure.

References

Ayi, B., S. Harrell and M. Lunzy (co-authors) (2007) Field-work connections. The fabric of ethnographic collabo-



131

ration in China and America. Seattle, Washington:University of Washington Press.

Berdahl, D., M. Bunzl and M. Lampland (2000) Alteringstates: Ethnographies of transition in Eastern Europeand the Former Soviet Union. Ann Arbor, Michigan:University of Michigan Press.

Berg, B.L. (2007) Qualitative research methods for the socialsciences. New York: Pearson Education.

Bertrand, D. (1994) Viêt Nam 1993: Notes sur des condi-tions de terrain, Péninsule 25(28): 71–77.

Bönker, F., K. Müller and A. Pickel (eds) (2002) Postcom-munist transformation and the social sciences: Cross-disciplinary approaches. Lanham, Maryland, Oxford:Rowman and Littlefield.

Boyd, W.E., R.L. Healey, S.W. Hardwick et al. (2008)‘None of us sets out to hurt people’: The ethical geog-rapher and geography curricula in higher education,Journal of Geography in Higher Education 32(1):37–50.

Burawoy, M. and K. Verdery (1999) Uncertain transition:Ethnographies of change in the postsocialist world.Lanham, Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield.

Caldwell, M.L. (2005) Newness and loss in Moscow:Rethinking transformation in the postsocialist field,Journal of the Society for the Anthropology of Europe5(1): 2–7.

Campbell, L.M., N.J. Gray, Z.A. Meletis, J.G. Abbott and J.J.Silver (2006) Gatekeepers and keymasters: Dynamicrelationships of access in geographical fieldwork, Geo-graphical Review 96(1): 97–121.

Chari, S. and K. Verdery (2009) Thinking between the posts:Postcolonialism, postsocialism, and ethnography afterthe Cold War, Comparative Studies in Society andHistory 51(1): 1–29.

Curran, D.J. and S. Cook (1993) Doing research inpost-Tiananmen China, in C.M. Renzetti and R.M.Lee (eds), Researching sensitive topics, pp. 71–81.Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications.

De Soto, H.G. and N. Dudwick (2000) Fieldwork dilemmas:Anthropologists in postsocialist states. Madison, Wis-consin: University of Wisconsin Press.

Duncan, N. and J.P. Sharp (1993) Confronting represen-tation(s), Environment and Planning D: Society andSpace 11(4): 473–486.

Enfield, N.J. (2010) Language and culture in Laos: Anagenda for research, The Journal of Lao Studies 1(1):48–54.

England, K. (1994) Getting personal – Reflexivity, position-ality, and feminist research, Professional Geographer46(1): 80–89.

Fforde, A. (1996) Vietnam – A transitional society?Comparisons with China. Canberra: Research Schoolof Pacific and Asian Studies, Australian NationalUniversity.

Fiskesjö, M. (2010) Participant intoxication and self-otherdynamics in the Wa context, The Asia Pacific Journal ofAnthropology 11(2): 111–127.

Forbes, D. (1996) Asian metropolis: Urbanisation and theSoutheast Asian city. Melbourne: Oxford UniversityPress.

Gladney, D.C. (2004) Ethnic identity in China: The risingpolitics of cultural difference, in S.J. Henders and M.

Lanham (eds), Democratization and identity. Regimesand ethnicity in East and Southeast Asia, pp. 133–152.Oxford: Lexington Books.

Gold, L. (2002) Positionality, worldview and geographicalresearch: A personal account of a research journey,Ethics, Place and Environment 5(3): 223–237.

Goudineau, Y. (2000) Ethnicité et déterritorialisation dansla péninsule indochinoise: Considérations à partir duLaos, Autrepart 14: 17–31.

Guillemin, M. and L. Gilliam (2004) Ethics, reflexivity, and‘ethically important moments’, Research QualitativeInquiry 10(2): 261–280.

Hann, C.M. (ed.) (2002) Postsocialism: Ideas, ideologies andpractices in Eurasia. London, New York: Routledge.

Hann, C.M. (2005) Postsocialist societies, in J.G. Carrier(ed.), A handbook of economic anthropology, pp.547–558. Cheltenham, UK, Northampton, Massechu-setts: Edward Elgar.

Hann, C.M., C. Humphrey and K. Verdery (2002) Introduc-tion: Postsocialism as a topic for anthropology inves-tigation, in C.M. Hann (ed.), Postsocialism: Ideas,ideologies and practices in Eurasia, pp. 1–29. London,New York: Routledge.

Hansen, M.H. (2006) In the footsteps of the communistparty: Dilemmas and strategies, in M. Heimer and S.Thøgersen (eds), Doing fieldwork in China, pp. 81–95.Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.

Haraway, D. (1996) Situated knowledges: The sciencequestion in feminism and the privilege of partial per-spective, in J. Agnew, D. Livingstone and A. Rogers(eds), Human geography. An essential anthology, pp.108–128. Oxford: Blackwell.

Harding, S. (1991) Whose science? Whose knowledge?Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press.

Harrell, S. (2007) A white guy discovers anthropology, in B.Ayi, S. Harrell and M. Lunzy (co-writers), Fieldworkconnections. The fabric of ethnographic collaborationin China and America, pp. 23–28. Seattle, Washington:University of Washington Press.

Hay, I. (1998) Making moral imaginations. Research ethics,pedagogy, and professional human geography, Ethics,Place and Environment 1(1): 55–75.

Hay, I. (2000) Qualitative research methods in human geog-raphy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Head, E. (2009) The ethics and implications of paying par-ticipants in qualitative research, International Journalof Social Research Methodology 12(4): 335–344.

Heimer, M. and S. Thøgersen (eds) (2006) Doing fieldworkin China. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.

Heller, E., J. Christensen, L. Long et al. (2010) Dear diary:Early career geographers collectively reflect on theirqualitative field research experiences, Journal ofGeography in Higher Education (in press).

Herrold, M. (1999) The cranes of Caohai and other inci-dents of fieldwork in Southwestern China, Geographi-cal Review 89(3): 440–448.

Hopkins, P.E. (2007) Global events, national politics, locallives: Young Muslim men in Scotland, Environmentand Planning A 39(5): 1119–1133.

Hörschelmann, K. and A. Stenning (2008) Ethnographies ofpostsocialist change, Progress in Human Geography32(3): 339–361.

S. Turner


132

Humphrey, C. and R. Mandel (2002) The market in every-day life: Ethnographies of postsocialism, in R. Mandeland C. Humphrey (eds), Markets and moralities: Eth-nographies of postsocialism, pp. 1–18. Oxford, NewYork: Berg.

Katz, C. (1994) Playing the field: Questions of fieldworkin ethnography, Professional Geographer 46(1):67–72.

Keith, M. (1992) Angry writing: (Re)presenting the unethicalworld of the ethnographer, Environment and PlanningD: Society and Space 10(5): 551–568.

Kerkvliet, B.J. (1995) Village-state relations in Vietnam:The effect of everyday politics on decollectivization,The Journal of Asian Studies 54(2): 396–418.

Kobayashi, A. (1994) Coloring the field – Gender, race,and the politics of fieldwork, Professional Geographer46(1): 73–80.

Koh, P. (2002) Perception and portrayal of minoritiesin Vietnamese communist ethnology (1954–2001).Unpublished MA thesis, Department of History,National University of Singapore.

Kuehnast, K. (2000) Ethnographic encounters in post-SovietKyrgyzstan, in H. DeSoto and N. Dudwick (eds), Field-work dilemmas: Anthropologists in postsocialist states,pp. 100–118. Madison, Wisconsin: University of Wis-consin Press.

Kürti, L. (1999) Cameras and other gadgets: Reflections onfieldwork experiences in socialist and post-socialistHungarian communities, Social Anthropology 7(2):169–187.

Kürti, L. (2000) Uncertain anthropology: Ethnography ofpostsocialist Eastern Europe. A review article, Ethnos65(3): 405–420.

Liang, B. and H. Lu (2006) Conducting fieldwork in China:Observations on collecting primary data regardingcrime, law, and the criminal justice system, Journal ofContemporary Criminal Justice 22(2): 157–172.

McDowell, L. (1992) Doing gender: Feminism, feministsand research methods in human geography, Transac-tions of the Institute of British Geographers 17: 337–350.

McElwee, P. (2004) Becoming socialist or becoming Kinh?Government policies for ethnic minorities in thesocialist republic of Viet Nam, in C.R. Duncan (ed.),Civilizing the margins. Southeast Asian GovernmentPolicies for the development of minorities, pp. 182–213. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press.

MacKerras, C. (2003) Ethnic minorities in China, in C.MacKerras (ed.), Ethnicity in Asia, pp. 15–47. London:Routledge Curzon.

Madge, C. (1994) The ethics of research in the ‘ThirdWorld’, in E. Robson and K. Willis (eds), Postgraduatefieldwork in developing areas: A rough guide, pp.91–102. London: Institute of British Geographers.

Marr, D.G. (1993) Education, research and information cir-culation in contemporary Vietnam, in W. Turley andM. Selden (eds), Reinventing Vietnamese socialism:Doi Moi in comparative perspective, pp. 337–358.Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.

Michalowski, R.J. (2006) Ethnography and anxiety: Fieldwork and reflexivity in the vortex of U.S.-Cuban rela-tions, Qualitative Sociology 19(1): 59–82.

Michaud, J. (2006) Historical dictionary. Peoples of theSoutheast Asian massif. Lanham, Maryland: ScarecrowPress.

Michaud, J. (2009) Handling mountain minorities in China,Vietnam and Laos: From history to current concerns,Asian Ethnicity 10(1): 25–49.

Michaud, J. (2010) Zomia and beyond, Journal of GlobalHistory 5(2): 187–214. (Special issue)

Mohanty, C.T. (1988) Under western eyes: Feminist schol-arship and colonial discourses, Feminist Review 30(1):61–88.

Moss, P. (1995) Embeddedness in practice, numbers incontext: The politics of knowing and doing, Profes-sional Geographer 47(4): 442–449.

Mueggler, E. (2001) The age of wild ghosts. Memory,violence, and place in Southwest China. Berkeley,California: University of California Press.

Muršic, R. (2002) In the arms of the sublime objects ofdesire: On politics and anthropology/ethnology inSlovenia, in P. Skalník (ed.), A post-communist millen-nium: The struggles for sociocultural anthropology inCentral and Eastern Europe, pp. 147–165. Prague: SetOut.

Nast, H.J. (1994) Opening remarks on ‘women in the field’,Professional Geographer 46(1): 54–66.

National Statistics Centre (Laos) (2005) Population census2005. Vientiane: National Statistics Centre.

Ovesen, J. (2004) All Lao? Minorities in the Lao People’sDemocratic Republic, in C.R. Duncan (ed.), Civilizingthe margins. Southeast Asian Government Policies forthe development of minorities, pp. 214–241. Ithaca,New York: Cornell University Press.

Pieke, F. (2000) Serendipity: Reflections on fieldwork inChina, in P. Dresch, W. James and D.J. Parkin (eds),Anthropologists in a wider world: Essays on fieldresearch, pp. 129–150. New York, Oxford: BerghahnBooks.

Probyn, E. (1993) Sexing the self. Gendered positions incultural studies. London, New York: Routledge.

Radcliffe, S. (1994) (Representing) post-colonial women:Authority, difference and feminisms, Area 26(1):25–32.

Reid-Henry, S. (2003) Under the microscope. Fieldworkpractice and Cuba’s biotechnology industry: A reflex-ive affair? Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography24(2): 184–197.

Rofel, L. (1993) Where feminism lies: Field encounters inChina, Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies 13(3):33–52.

Rose, G. (1997) Situating knowledges: Positionality, reflex-ivities and other tactics, Progress in Human Geography21(3): 305–320.

Schoenberger, L. (2006) Crossing the line: The changingnature of highlander cross-border trade in NorthernVietnam. Unpublished Masters’ thesis, Department ofGeography, McGill University, Montreal.

Scoggin, M. (1994) Gaining Entrée: 101 ways to knock onyour subject’s door, China Exchange News 22(3):22–25.

Scott, J.C. (2009) The art of not being governed. An anar-chist history of upland Southeast Asia. New Haven,Connecticut, London: Yale University Press.



133

Scott, S., F. Miller and K. Lloyd (2006) Doing fieldworkin development geography: Research culture andresearch spaces in Vietnam, Geographical Research44(1): 28–40.

Skidmore, M. (2006) Scholarship, advocacy and the politicsof engagement in Burma (Myanmar), in V. Sanford andA. Angel-Ajani (eds), Engaged observers, anthropol-ogy, advocacy and activism, pp. 42–59. New Brun-swick, New Jersey, London: Rutgers University Press.

Smith, J.N. (2006) Maintaining margins: The politics of eth-nographic fieldwork in Chinese central asia, The ChinaJournal 56: 131.

Solinger, D.J. (2006) Interviewing Chinese people: Fromhigh-level officials to the unemployed, in M. Heimerand S. Thøgersen (eds), Doing fieldwork in China, pp.153–167. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.

Sowerwine, J.C. (2004) The political ecology of Yao (Dzao)landscape transformations: Territory, gender and liveli-hood politics in highland Vietnam. Unpublished PhDthesis, Department of Wildlife Resource Sciences, Uni-versity of California, Berkeley.

Stuart-Fox, M. (1991) The constitution of the Lao People’sDemocratic Republic, Review of Socialist Law 17(4):299–317.

Svensson, M. (2006) Ethical dilemmas: Balancing distancewith involvement, in M. Heimer and S. Thøgersen(eds), Doing fieldwork in China, pp. 262–282. Hono-lulu: University of Hawai’i Press.

Thurston, A.F. (1983) The social sciences and fieldworkin China, in A.F. Thurston and B. Pasternak (eds), The

social sciences and fieldwork in China: Views from thefield, pp. 3–36. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.

Thurston, A.F. and B. Pasternak (eds) (1983) The socialsciences and fieldwork in China: Views from the field.Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.

Valentine, G. (2002) People like us: Negotiating samenessand difference in the research process, in P. Moss(ed.), Feminist geography in practice: Research andmethods, pp. 116–132. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

van de Walle, D. and D. Gunewardena (2001) Sources ofethnic inequality in Viet Nam, Journal of DevelopmentEconomics 65: 177–207.

van Schendel, W. (2002) Geographies of knowing, geogra-phies of ignorance: Southeast Asia from the fringes,Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 20(6):647–668.

Vandergeest, P., K. Phanvilay, Y. Fujita et al. (2003) Flexiblenetworking in research capacity building at theNational University of Laos: Lessons for north-southcollaboration, Canadian Journal of DevelopmentStudies 24(1): 119–135.

Wolf, D.L. (1996) Feminist dilemmas in fieldwork. Boulder,Colorado: Westview Press.

Wolfe, T.C. (2000) Cultures and communities in the anthro-pology of Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union,Annual Review of Anthropology 29: 195–216.

Yeh, E.T. (2006) ‘An open Lhasa welcomes you’: Dis-ciplining the researcher in Tibet, in M. Heimer andS. Thøgersen (eds), Doing fieldwork in China, pp.96–109. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.

S. Turner


134

Challenges and dilemmas: fieldwork with upland minorities in socialist Vietnam, Laos and southwest...

Documents

Transcript of Challenges and dilemmas: fieldwork with upland minorities in socialist Vietnam, Laos and southwest...