Page 123 - Prathima Volume 12

A Review of Postcolonial Scholarship: Conducting Research on Culture and Society
ethnographic research. In contrast, the feminist anthropologist, Kiren Narayan (1993)
argues against the distinction between native and non-native anthropologists and
further recommends that we should look at how each anthropologist does ethnography
in terms of shifting interpenetration of communities and power relations. In particular,
she suggests removing this binary oppositional view in doing anthropology. In
general, there is a dilemma of the personal and intellectual categories between these
two, but insider-outsider binarism has to merge into one to study anthropology.

For this, Narayan (1993) clarifies that native anthropologists can represent
anthropology through “authentic insider's perspective” that will even incorporate
“personal narrative into a wider discussion of anthropological scholarship” (1993,
p.672). Nevertheless, it is all about positionality and reflexivity; positionality explains
how one is situated in relation to participants in their work, and reflexivity denotes that
researchers position themselves in terms of the research being conducted by
identifying who they are and their relationship to the project or community. In this
circumstance, native anthropologists should gain the position of “enactment of
hybridity” meaning anthropologist being bicultural in writing anthropology. People
who get professional training in a disciplinary fellowship of discourse are entitled to
have the position of a native anthropologist. When a native becomes a trained
anthropologist, he would have a better understanding of native ways of thought. Thus,
native enterprise helps to revise anthropology to balance power and representations.
Interestingly, Narayan (1993) brings in the concept of multiple identities in which a
person may have many ways of identification in terms of religion, region, class, and
country affiliations.

Following Narayan (1993) there is much talk in the methodological literature about
the 'native' anthropologist – especially about whether the 'native' anthropologist really
is still 'native' once they, like me, have started doing ethnographic fieldwork. Some
would claim that the very act of doing ethnography is so alienating and separates a
person from everyday life to such an extent, that many of the supposed advantages of
reflexivity are inevitably lost. However, these claims are not always true, because
native anthropologists do not need to be alienated from everyday life, but they should
acknowledge the worth of reflexivity rather than omitting them in their research. At the
same time, native anthropologists should learn unfamiliar forms of life, which they
identify in their field. At the end of the day, they will be able to maintain a balance
between reflexivity and disciplinary knowledge (anthropological theories). Finally, I
would point out some anthropologists engage in digital ethnography or use cultural
mapping or visual research to reduce or enhance the problem of positionality raised
here. Therefore, I will devote the following sections to discuss the salient features of
digital ethnography and cultural mapping in anthropological research.

109