Resultado de Encuestas de Ahorro de Energía

Ethnographic methods have been subject to much conjecture within academic discourse, relating to the influence of the researcher on the information retrieved and conclusions drawn. In particular there have been strong feminist critiques of any claim to objectivity, and a shift towards what Emerson (2001) refers to as the ‘reflexive turn’. It is thus increasingly recognised that all knowledge is situated, with the researcher involved in a form of co-production, gaining an understanding through a specific interactional episode rather than uncovering some objective truth (Denzin and Lincoln, 1998; Sandy and Dumay, 2011). As Denzin (1997: 220) notes, there are

no “stories out there waiting to be told and no certain truths waiting to be recorded; there are only stories yet to be constructed”. I acknowledge that my position within the community was an important influence on the information retrieved. The interview participants had their own imaginaries of me that may have influenced their responses. For example, I highlight in Chapter Six how my status as a researcher resulted in some Kichwa participants feigning ignorance in relation to volunteer tourists being in the community, as a way of expressing their dissatisfaction with how the project was being operated. With the aim of reducing the distance between myself and indigenous host members, I wore casual clothes, tried to present a friendly and open persona, and tried to involve myself in the community as much as possible. I hoped this would help bridge some of the divide between myself and the subjects of the study. It would have been desirable to spend an extended period within the community, although, due to time constraints, I was limited to spending two months in each community. My identity within both communities appeared to be fluid, being called, on different occasions, an ‘academic’, ‘volunteer’, ‘tourist’, or simply being a ‘foreigner’. Rather than hide this in any way, I openly highlight in Chapter Six how my positionality may have influenced the participants’ responses at different moments.

In addition, my position in the community was influenced by my access being secured through the Quito-based NGO. As a consequence, whilst in the Kichwa community I stayed in accommodation provided by one of the project members, whilst in the Tsa’chila community I stayed in a specifically built cultural centre. The result was that I stayed with, and had the closest relationships with, the middle-class community members who participated within the volunteer project. By basing myself with these families, I may have increased the distance between myself and the more marginalised members of the community. During my time in both communities, I did consider the possibility of staying with some community members who were not part of the project. Ultimately, this was rejected for a number of reasons. Firstly, I had not indicated this on my risk assessment form, which I had submitted for institutional approval to the University of St Andrews. Secondly, we had previously visited homes of indigenous members not involved in the project, and on these instances my translator looked considerably ill at ease. It was apparent that the different level of hygiene and hospitality made her extremely uncomfortable. As a result, I felt that it

91 was not appropriate to ask her to stay in alternative accommodation, which may make her less comfortable. Thirdly, my research had made me aware of the hostility and competition between families, therefore by choosing to leave one family and stay with another; I was concerned I could cause additional conflict. Finally my hosts had been extremely welcoming throughout my stay, and grateful that I was staying with them. I thus did not want to disappoint them by leaving. Throughout the thesis, I openly highlight how my positionality may have influenced the participants’ responses.

The difficulty of conducting research as an outsider in a community, within a different cultural context, is well documented within the literature. The result has been a shift, at least in rhetoric, from top-down research such as Rapid Rural Appraisal (RRA), to bottom-up Participatory Action Research (PAR) or Community Based Participatory Research (CBPR). This shift can be seen as a response to damming critiques such as that by Goldstein (2000: 521) that:

“There is exploitation inherent in any research relationship; serious power differentials separate the researcher from the researched.”

Participatory research recognises that participants should have an active role in controlling and directing the research, therefore generating and analysing data themselves, rather than relying on an ‘expert’ perspective. The movement towards participation and empowerment of people within communities is therefore appealing. However, there are number of concerns, such as who speaks for the subject of study, at what stage are they brought into process, and which knowledge is valued (Wallerstein and Duran, 2006). Participatory methods are therefore no panacea for conducting research in different contexts. The nature of this doctoral research thesis, and its limited time frame, resulted in participatory methods not being used, and I therefore recognise that my positionality has an important influence on the thesis.