The politics of identity and methodology in African development ethnography

Introduction

By the time I was taking my first steps into the field in Ethiopia, a number of questions came across my mind, most of which concentrated on how I would be able to undertake valid and credible research. Valid research provides ‘the most plausible’, extensive and comprehensive interpretation of an issue of interest and it is also ‘convincing, credible and cogent’ (Flick, 2006; Skeggs, 1997: 32–33). How could I produce field research of such quality, and how should I interact with the participants of my research? More importantly, I was concerned because I aimed at examining microfinance (MF), one of the key development strategies of Ethiopia, from a critical neo-Marxist and a feminist theoretical position. Hence, I confronted a number of unsettling questions as to how I would approach the staff of Amhara Credit and Savings Institution (ACSI), a MF institution (MFI) located in the Amhara region of Ethiopia, and how I would negotiate my identity with the credit clients of the organization. Also, how I would be able to ethically legitimise my power position in the research process.

This article illustrates the author’s experiences in the process of undertaking fieldwork for a PhD thesis on ACSI and its credit clients, and it seeks to contribute to the arguments for a situated knowledge. The article exemplifies how the interplay of researchers’ methodological orientation and the conceptualization of political and cultural identity affects the research process and the interpretation of African researchers who undertake research on development projects in Africa. Taking a reflexive stance, the article demonstrates how my political and cultural identity and my methodological orientation, my interest in drawing on neo-Marxist and feminist frameworks, complicated the process of my interaction and identity negotiation with the participants of my research. Through the elucidation of my specific research experience, the article seeks to demonstrate the complexity of researchers’ identity and the simplicity of the traditionally assumed polarized and dichotomized ‘insider/outsider’ status of researchers. The article exemplifies how several orders of power, in particular institutional, political, ethnic and gender, influence the subjectivity of African development researchers.

The historical debates on ethnographic representations

Diane Lewis wrote,

Anthropology emerged from the colonial expansion of Europe. Colonialism structured the relationship between anthropologists and the people they studied and had an effect on methodological and conceptual formulations in the discipline. For example, the role of ‘objective outsider’ with its resultant professional exploitation of subject matter can be viewed as an academic manifestation of colonialism. (Lewis, 1973: 582)

Since anthropology flourished simultaneously with the process of colonization, anthropologists found themselves as agents in the colonial system establishing links between the Westerners and ‘natives’ (Lewis, 1973: 582–583). Researchers assumed ‘power over’ the participants of research, and the purpose of the studies was to produce knowledge about the ‘unknown’ and the ‘traditional’ culture and lifestyle, largely with the instrumental purpose of assisting the success of the colonial project. However, post-colonial ethnography brought reflexivity, a much deeper and critical examination of the ‘self’, as salient as other substantive components of the research. The exposition of the cultural, socio-economic and political locations of researchers emerged as crucial criteria for the evaluation of the validity and credibility of research (Duneier, 1999; Fine, 1992; Reinharz, 1992; Skeggs, 1997).

Contemporary ethnographers commonly elucidate how their cultural and political ideology and praxis impact their interaction and interrelation with the participants of their research. The broader macroeconomic, sociocultural and political environments within which the relationship between the researcher and the researched develops and evolves have also been considered central (Arendell, 1997; Best, 2003; Long, 1999; Neilsen, 1990). These transformations prevailed hand in hand with and have been informed by the advent of feminist and post-modernist critical ethnography as well as the increasing criticism against the traditional positivistic ‘value free’ ethnography (Reinharz, 1992; Twine and Warren, 2000; Van Maanen, 1995; Wolf, 1996).

Contra to the objectivism and ‘value free’ analysis emphasized in the positivistic tradition, feminists and post-modernists highlighted the locatedness of researchers. Through highlighting the situatedness and subjectivity of researchers, feminists and post-modernists opened up new theoretical landscapes in ethnographic research. They underscored how subjectivities that relate to the economic, social, political and cultural capital (status) of researchers affect the process of identity negotiation, their interaction with the participants of research, and their findings. Their analysis highlighted the importance of demonstrating the manner in which power relations operate, and how inequality manifests between researchers and researched. In this regard, they reflected how the social construction of class, gender, race, sexuality, educational background, life chances and so on affect knowledge production (Behar, 1993; Kusow, 2003).

The reflexive turn has also transformed the notion of the ‘self’ and the ‘other’ in the research process. Post-modernist and feminist ethnographers have argued that the conception of ‘self’, the researcher, connects and overlaps with the researched, in multiple ways. The conceptualization of the ‘self’ and the ‘other’ as a ‘distinct binary opposition’ has been under scrutiny (Narayan, 1993; Parameswaran, 2001). Also, there has been an increasing realization that neither researchers nor the researched have fixed identities and also neither the ‘insider’ nor ‘outsider’ positions are permanent locations, rather they are contextual, changing from time to time and place to place (Karim, 1993; Lofland and Lofland, 1995; Okely, 1996; Sherif, 2001).

Theoretical orientation

The topic of my research was group-based MF, and MF refers to a small-scale financial service, including the provision of small loans and savings services to low-income clients who are generally regarded as poor (Bornstein, 1996; Elahi and Danopoulos, 2004; Ledgerwood, 1999). Unlike conventional financial institutions, group-based MF organizations commonly provide loans to the poor women who lack sufficient assets to serve as collateral or the competence in undertaking transactions for utilizing banking facilities. However, the premise of MF rationalizes the possibility of banking on the poor women, assuming the pertinent social capital as collateral (Ito, 2003; Mayoux, 2001; Woodworth, 2008).

In the widely disseminated neo-liberal and functionalist analysis, group-based MF is assumed to help empower women through helping them create and run small enterprises that ultimately help them generate income (Dichter, 2007; Robinson, 2001). Group-based MF is also thought to make a significant contribution in enabling women to build social capital through their participation in networks of borrower groups and through exchange of information with each other (Dowla, 2006; Woodworth, 2008). However, contra to this neo-liberal and functionalist analysis, which dominates the MF literature, the theoretical position of my proposed research was to construct a critical sociological and anthropological perspective to MF. The aim of the project was to critically examine the popular and ‘emerging trends’ and conceptualization of MF.

The research developed a critical framework, not only to examine critically the social capital concept, but also its application as a means for the legitimization of group-based MF programmes. Contra to Robert Putnam’s (1993, 2000) functionalist analysis of social capital, which explains social capital as a means of social integration, the thesis utilized Bourdieu’s sociological oeuvre, which was developed from within a broadly neo-Marxist framework, and aimed at demonstrating the contradictions and conflicts that are embodied in associations, links and networks (social capital) (Bourdieu, 1996, 1999; Bourdieu and Wacquant, 1986). In addition, drawing on Pierre Bourdieu’s theoretical frameworks and feminist critical analysis, the research constructed a cultural theoretical framework and utilized it to critically examine the common simplistic association of MF with the economic, social and political empowerment of women. Hence, through the construction of a sociological and anthropological framework, the research aimed at contributing towards a more ‘adequate’ and critical theoretical understanding of MF.

Background to the ‘field’: MF in Ethiopia

In a similar way to many of the sub-Saharan African countries, following the fall of the socialist Derg regime (1974–1991), Ethiopia adopted a free market political economy. The country endorsed and implemented many of the ethos of neo-liberalism, including privatization, currency deregulation, cuts in subsidy and so on, largely through the imposition of the global financial institutions, in particular, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank (Carmody, 2007; Stiglitz, 2002). However, the government of the country, in particular local governments, has also been actively involved in the designation, administration and implementation of the majority of development initiatives and programmes in the country. Government intervention in designing economic development policies has been rationalized with the intent of managing the negative consequences of free market economic policies (Stiglitz, 2002).

In Ethiopia, the government also actively intervenes in the MF industry. The largest proportion of the seed capital, which enabled the establishment of the biggest MFIs, such as ACSI, was provided by the government of the country. Local governments also directly intervene in the administration of MFIs (Amha, 2008). For example, in the case of ACSI, three of the eight elected board members of the organization are representatives of the local government. Although it is claimed that it is an independent private company, the organization is remotely controlled by government.

ACSI’s policy and practice reflects the government’s interests, and often the organization’s ‘success’ in providing its services to more than half a million people in the Amhara region is projected as exemplary achievements of the government. In fact, as is the case in many parts of the world, in Ethiopia, MF is one of the ‘hyped’ developmental policies, considered a best development strategy not only to help reduce poverty but also to empower women (Ageba, 2001; Amha, 2008). The overstatement of MF’s value is not limited to policy circles, but it is disseminated at regional and local levels in the most remote areas of the Amhara region. Critics of MF are considered cynics, who are sceptical of the poor’s capability and willingness to bring about their own development. MF is widely rationalized and accepted as a best means of providing a sustainable financial access to the ‘active poor’. Hence, my critical methodological orientation that informed my research interest did not easily corroborate with the wider popularity of this development venture.

Entering the field: interaction with the staff of ACSI

My research plan was to study MF within the context of the institution, ACSI, and from the point of view of its credit clients. ACSI provides its services in the 10 Administrative Zones of the Amhara region, and the field research was undertaken in North Showa Zone in the summers of 2008 and 2009. North Showa is composed of 28 Woredas (districts), and the research was undertaken in the Woreda (district) of Angolela Tera, a predominantly rural area. The fieldwork was done ‘top–down’, namely, first interviewing ACSI’s officials in the head office, branch offices and sub-branch offices, respectively. Then, most of the research time was dedicated to interaction and discussion with ACSI’s clients in the target area of the research. ¹

In fact, the basic challenges facing ethnographers are the problems of locating the subjects of the study, gaining access to settings and securing cooperation for the undertaking of the research (Foley, 2002; Shaffir, 1999; Woods, 1996). Field research outcomes are fundamentally influenced by the degree to which the subjects of the field research are knowledgeable about and interested in the research objectives (De Laine, 2000; Shaffir, 1998). I was aware of the fact that ACSI’s staff have extensive knowledge of the MF industry. Hence, the key question was would they be interested in the aim of my research, and in particular, would they be tolerant of my critical research orientation? Would I be considered by my research participants, as I initially assumed, to be someone who belongs to them (‘insider’)?

Qualitative researchers ‘traditionally’ locate themselves as either ‘insiders’ or ‘outsiders’ to their research domain and the research settings (Bonner and Tolhurst, 2002). The ‘insiders’ are often assumed to be those who identify a study group to which they belong, whereas outsiders are often thought to be those who study groups to which they do not belong. It is not uncommon for researchers implementing qualitative methods to investigate a group, team or culture they belong to, and often, they assume an insider or ‘native’ status (Hewitt-Taylor, 2002). Being ‘insider’ is often thought to be advantageous because ‘native’ researchers can better understand the group in which they belong (DeLyser, 2001; Harklau and Norwood, 2005).

In fact, the most important question for me at that time was whether my assumed ‘insider’ status would assist me in the process of ‘identity negotiation’? In order to carry out the research, I needed to gain a seal of approval from the head office (located in Baher Dar, the capital city of the Amhara region), and also from the branch office of ACSI, located in Angolela Tera (my field research site). However, before reflecting on my experience regarding the process of identity negotiation, it is important to reflect on the concepts of identity and identity negotiation and how they are related to each other.

Identity in sociological terms is often considered a historical product of a persistent negotiation process influenced by a range of socio-economic, cultural and political contexts. Collectively (socially) shared knowledge about group identity precedes and shapes the individual’s understanding of his or her own social identity (Duveen, 2001). Identity is also understood as inherently a dynamic communication process located within four different ‘frames’: within the individual, within relationships, within group and also communicated between relational partners and group members. In the first frame, identity is understood as something personal, rooted in the person’s self-awareness, self-concept and self-consciousness. Second, identity incorporates the enactment of the identity to others through interaction and the communication process. The verbal and non-verbal (symbolic) messages and the signals that the person communicates express the person’s identity. Third, identity manifests in the process of our interaction and relationship with others and also how the interactions and the relationships evolve. Finally, identity emerges in the collective, in the communal frame, as ‘public memory of a group’ that in turn binds the members together, and hence, it emerges in the form of shared value systems of the members of the collective (Hecht et al., 2003).

However, identity negotiation is often understood in sociology and social anthropology as a bidirectional process by which the individual and society interact to agree on the identity and meaning of the individual (Swann, 1987). According to Goffman’s theory of the interaction order, the primary concern in social interaction is the establishment of a ‘working consensus’ or an agreement regarding the roles each individual assumes in the process of interaction (Goffman, 1983). Individuals identify and belong to many social groups, and hence, the notion of identity negotiation refers to the ways individuals manage the diversity of identity. In fact, identity negotiation is a central theme in qualitative research in general, and in ethnographic research in particular, because it impacts the process and product of research. The process of identity negotiation challenges the notions of researchers’ objectivity and neutrality (Henry, 2003; Wolf, 1996).

Ethnographic research ideally involves the ethnographer as research analyst and also as a research tool (LeCompte et al., 1993: 91–92). Owing to his or her personal involvement in the research process, the researcher ideally faces problems related to the management of identity. The research participant might consider the researcher as a threat (Hammersley and Atkinson, 1995). The research participants might mistrust the researcher’s interest and become reluctant to disclose information (Erickson, 1992: 212). More importantly, the researcher enters into a range of pre-existing socio-economic, cultural and political relations, which are marked not only by cooperation but also by conflicts and contradictions, of which the researcher is sometimes oblivious. This might make it difficult for the researcher to secure an accepted identity (Grills, 1998).

Indeed, in the course of identity negotiation with the staff of ACSI, the difference in the knowledge (the politics of development) that I intended to select and interpret, and the nature of information that the staff of ACSI were interested in communicating, became evident. I was interested in generating a comprehensive account of the group-based MF project, not only its prospect to facilitate social integration and women’s empowerment but also the problems and discontents that it generates and reproduces. However, the staff of ACSI were interested in highlighting its virtues and positive prospects. My research objective (which rested on neo-Marxist and feminist methodologies) mismatched with the politics of MF in Ethiopia (which is informed by neo-liberal and functionalist perspectives), and that affected my interaction with the staff of ACSI. My methodological preference shaped and structured the configuration of power relations and resulted in the scrutiny of my cultural, political and economic position and location. In other words, in entering the field and in communicating with the staff of ACSI, in the process of identity negotiation, I faced a number of questions that were targeted at locating my identity and that challenged my assumed ‘insider’ status. That also ultimately impacted the extent of my success in gaining access to information.

I was born and raised in Addis Ababa, the capital city of Ethiopia, and Amharic, the language of the participants of my research, is my mother tongue. I used to assume that my knowledge of the Amharic language and my cultural affiliation to this ethnic group would give me an ‘insider’, privileged position to undertake research and generate in-depth information and thick description. However, the types of questions that I was asked by the participants of my research made me feel like, if not ‘outsider’, in between the ‘insider’ and ‘outsider’ positions. My experience in doing the research informed me of the fluidity and the contextualized and temporal nature of insider/outsider positions that change from time to time and from place to place. Contrary to my initial assumptions, negotiating my identity with the staff of ACSI emerged to be one of the most difficult parts of my field research. My ability to ethically legitimise my research was markedly influenced by my critical research orientation. My critical methodological preference resulted in the scrutiny of my cultural capital, ethnicity, life chances and institutional affiliation and eroded my assumed ‘insider’ position. More than in the head office, in the branch office of ACSI, my research objectives were questioned, critiqued and, in part, resisted.

The most frequent question I was asked by the staff of ACSI was why I wanted to undertake research on the organization? Ironically, my response to this question was not convincing enough. ACSI is one of the largest MFIs in Africa, and, according to many economic assessments and evaluations, such as the reports of micro-rate, ² it is considered one of the few sustainable financial institutions that succeeded in providing small financial services to the poor in remote areas of Ethiopia. I was interested in examining to what extent the financial sustainability of the organization reflects achievement in actual poverty reduction, and facilitation of social integration as well as women’s empowerment. I was interested in recording the voices of the clients of ACSI and the staff of the organization regarding the achievements and problems of ACSI’s MF service. However, my research questions created an atmosphere of uneasiness and insecurity on the part of ACSI’s staff and that resulted in the interrogation of my identity.

Frequently, I was asked, you are not from this region and you are not Amhara, are you? In fact, in Ethiopia in general and in the Amhara region in particular, the politics of identity is defined on an ethnic basis (Aalen, 2011). In the local power politics, ethnicity plays a central role, and hence, the success of individuals in furthering their interests, be they economic, political or academic, is dependent on their ethnic origin, identity and location. However, while my mother, who raised me, is Amharan, my father belongs to the Oromo tribe. While I could easily identify as Amharan because of my knowledge of the language and my cultural affiliation, what is often considered important in the definition of ethnicity is the father’s genealogy. Because my surname is an Oromo name, it was assumed that I was Oromo, and hence, I faced stronger scrutiny and questioning. However, the scrutiny of my ethnic identity was found important not just because I was assumed to be from the Oromo tribe, but because I was there to critically examine the widely accepted MF project. My critical methodological orientation brought about the critical examination of my ethnic identity, which emerged to be crucial for the solicitation and acquiring of information.

The other key variable in the scrutiny of the location of my identity was my institutional affiliation. I was frequently asked why have you come such a long way to study ACSI? For which organization are you working? My response that I was a PhD student, and I was hoping to undertake research in order to generate an academic thesis, was not convincing enough. Most of them assumed that I was on a bilateral (government-to-government) scholarship and asked me about which government organization I was working before I went abroad? When I responded ‘I was not working for the government’, the level of their insecurity increased.

Rather than the bilateral scholarship programme, the typical channel of scholarships to students of many developing countries, I secured a PhD scholarship independently. This indirectly informed the staff of ACSI that I was not affiliated to any of the governmental institutions of Ethiopia. Most of them asked me, did you travel all this distance covering the cost from your own pocket? If you were not working for a government organization, you are not on scholarship, is that not right? Such questions were common, and I often responded that my field research was supported by a university scholarship; I hope you would also support my research objective. However, the fact that I was not attached to the government made the participants of my research uncomfortable. They established a connection between my independent international student status and my critical methodological orientation, which aimed at uncovering not only the positive side but also the downside of MF projects.

If I had been affiliated to one of the governmental organizations, and the beneficiary of the bilateral scholarship programmes, they could have more easily trusted my academic interest, and hence, I would have been relatively less suspected and scrutinized. However, independent PhD students, those who are not recruited and supported by the government in their pursuit of international scholarship, can easily openly criticize any development project, including MF projects. In fact, conformity to the governing political order of the country is a key obscure criterion for securing a bilateral scholarship. Neither academic excellence nor seniority (fulfilment of the traditional criteria) is enough for gaining access to a bilateral fellowship in the context of Ethiopia. Political allegiance is the main recruitment requirement. However, the political background of independent researchers is not immediately accessible. They are considered ‘aliens’ to the logic of the governing politics, and hence, they are regarded as, to say the least, suspect, and in some cases, a threat.

A number of factors make independent Western-educated African scholars to be considered threats to the endorsed development imperatives. Their international exposure provides them with first-hand experience of alternative development policies and practices. This helps them to play a pivotal role in discerning the rhetoric from the reality of local development policy and praxis. They are relatively mobile and have international exposure and contacts, and hence, the findings of their research can be circulated to wider audiences. In addition, they do relatively well with the issue of the production of ‘legitimate knowledge’. This is to say that unlike the traditionally assumed ‘outsiders’, overseas researchers, their interpretations can be assumed to be relatively less biased or loaded with a hidden political motive, which is the main critique against many of the colonial and post-colonial accounts produced by White Western ethnographers.

Nevertheless, my critical research orientation resulted in the critical examination of my identity and the suspicion of my research motives. That suspicion resulted in bureaucracy and resistance to my efforts to solicit information. More than in the head office of ACSI, the ‘gatekeepers’ ³ that I met in the branch and sub-branch office of the organization made it difficult for me to gain access to the MF policy documents and reports of ACSI. However, the branch and sub-branch offices were crucial for enabling me to generate detailed information about the MF project of ACSI. For example, in order to understand the role of MF in facilitating social integration (help the building of social capital), I was interested in critically assessing problems and conflicts that might have occurred in the formation of micro-groups, and the mechanisms utilized in addressing such conflicts. The fundamental question that I was asked was the reason why I was interested in questioning problems rather than focusing on the achievements of the organization.

Unlike my expectation, which was rooted in my assumed ‘insider’ position, winning the consent of ACSI’s ‘gate keepers’ was very challenging and at times frustrating. However, this is not to say that I was entirely rejected. Some internalized and accepted my research objectives, and demonstrated willingness to support my academic interest. However, their willingness was largely restricted to providing information regarding the achievements and strengths of the organization, and they were reluctant to demonstrate problems, weaknesses and failures to achieve pre-designed objectives. In particular, gaining access to documents and institutional reports was the most challenging. For instance, I was not allowed to examine the monthly reports of ACSI’s field officers, the practitioners and implementers of the organization’s MF policies. On many occasions, my critical methodology was considered as a potential threat to the politics, the system, the institution and the interests of the employees.

Interaction with the clients of ACSI

Finding your way through the forest of human interaction requires a blend of science and humanism. (Fetterman, 1991: 87)

After communicating with ACSI’s staff in the head office, branch office and sub-branch offices, the main issue was establishing initial contact and securing the cooperation of the micro-clients of the organization. In fact, communicating with ACSI’s clients and winning their trust was as challenging as approaching its staff. Despite my success in identifying key research sites (villages, markets, centre meetings) ⁴ and communicating with a few of the villagers, from the first day I started my interaction, I had to provide answers to a series of questions from my informants. Many of my informants’ questions were aimed at locating me. The people were interested in knowing why I wanted to study MF, why I chose to study their villages and, more importantly, how I was connected to ACSI. I was not only interviewing my informants, but they were actively engaged in interviewing me (see Harrington, 2003; Ram, 1999; Van Maanen, 1991).

From the outset, I did my best to help the participants of my research understand my academic objective and my researcher status. However, especially during the very first few weeks, a significant number of the villagers were uncomfortable with my questions about ACSI, and were reluctant to relate their experiences as clients of the organization. The most common fear of the people seemed to be whether the information that I gathered would be accessed by ACSI’s officials. While ACSI’s staff were interested in reflecting and projecting the positive and constructive gloss on MF, the clients of the organization who participated in the research were concerned about the confidentiality of the information they provided. The most common question that I was asked by my informants was ‘You mean, what we say will make it into your study?’ It was hard at times to be completely honest with my informants, with the staff of ACSI and, even in exceptional circumstances, to adhere to the ethics of doing field research:

Yes, I said, your opinion and experiences are central to this research.

Then how can you expect us to tell you the truth? If you are going to show the information to ACSI’s officials, then why do you expect us to give you honest information? Do you think we are fools? You know what follows from offending authorities and some of us want the loans. We do not want everything we say to be documented.

My critical methodological orientation that informed my research questions produced fear and anxiety in my research participants.

But undoubtedly, what my research participants said was important to me, to the research and even probably to ACSI, if my research outcomes were to contribute to informing policy. But their questions made me reflect on the ethics of doing field research, which I had read about before going out to the field (Grills, 1998). I said, ‘Of course, what you say and what I find important for the development of my research will be documented. But I promise that none of the staff will know the identity of the informants’. However, this made me think of Stacey’s (1988: 23 cited in De Laine, 2000: 210) claim that fieldwork is ‘potentially treacherous because of intrusion and intervention into a system of relationships that the researcher is free to leave’. In fact, most of them were doubtful, particularly in the first 4 weeks. They refrained from telling me the problems they faced in accessing loans, in forming micro-groups and in making repayments. But gradually, they related to me their experiences, their achievements and the challenges facing them as micro-entrepreneurs, in particular during coffee ceremonies, which are popular informal community gatherings, where day-to-day problems are discussed.

In fact, in the course of the research, I came to realize that what informants tell a researcher at the beginning of their contact can be incomplete. For example, none of my interviewees were comfortable in telling me their problems and saying anything negative about ACSI’s practices during the first 4 weeks of my research time. However, from time to time, when I became more familiar with the ways of life of the people and their culture, I was able to question them more directly. At the same time, my informants came to trust that I was a harmless researcher. Hence, they became comfortable with sharing their achievements as well as the problems facing them as micro-entrepreneurs. I made more frequent visits to some of the villagers, and I began to be invited for coffee and that opened the door for penetrating more deeply into the cultural ideology of the people.

However, not all clients of ACSI and non-clients with whom I tried to communicate were easily approachable. For example, five of ACSI’s clients that I met in my research site were in no way interested in being questioned by a stranger, and hence, I failed to obtain their consent. While some were flattered and pleased that I was interested in them and their way of life, some others were curious as to why I needed to study them, and they were not convinced by my reasons. Some of the clients of ACSI were even amazed and unhappy about the fact that I was questioning and transgressing the obvious and accepted norms of their community. My critical methodological orientation that informed my research questions contradicted with the cultural ideology and practice of the participants of my research. For example, during an interview with a 55-year-old woman, I was asked a difficult question.

Such questions and answers were common throughout the period of my fieldwork. Sometimes the questioning and answering process was tiresome to the extent that it made me feel irritated and to question myself ‘Am I here to be interviewed?’ However, I was quick enough to learn that my dedication to answering every question that they asked me helped me gain their interest in answering my critical questions (see also Loftsdottir, 2002). In fact, I was invited for coffee from one house to the next, and the establishment of a healthy question and answer atmosphere (dialogue) made the research process easier and the relationship between my respondents and myself healthier. As I was interested in learning about the MF services, which ACSI provides, they were equally interested in knowing about the ‘white land’ and its people. My experience of studying in Ireland opened the door for mutual exchange of information. Gradually, the clients of ACSI trusted my intention, and they disassociated my aims and intentions from the objectives of ACSI. I narrated my experiences in Ireland, and they narrated the stories of their day to day lives.

As my respondents were the centre of my attention, they made me the centre of their attention. I was asked various questions about the ‘white people’, some of which originated from ‘myths’, which widely circulate in the Amhara region. For example, a significant number of my informants believed that a white man never commits to marrying a woman. While men are often portrayed as polygamous, women are often thought of as uncontrollable and having the characteristics of men. A large number of the men were interested in knowing the reasons why white people are wealthy, and in particular, they were interested in knowing about the nature of farming in the ‘land of the whites’. Many people asked me why whites eat pork, which according to Ethiopian Orthodox Christians, is impure as it comes from an unclean animal. Some of my informants, with whom I spent a longer time, asked me personal and racially rooted questions. For example, do whites welcome you into their homes, call you for coffee, eat with you in your house and go out with you in public? In addition to the adults, children asked me about soccer in ‘whites land’. They related to me their dream of having a proper soccer ball, to replace their handmade plastic balls, which they make from plastic bags and worn-out socks. They asked me about the games that children play in the ‘whites land’, whether they play akukulu (hide and seek) and other similar games and that made me ask myself, ‘will a time come when they have access to computer games?’

Conclusion

This article drawing on the experience of ethnographic research undertaken on ACSI and its credit clients provided a reflexive account of an ethnographic research process. The article, supporting the argument for situated knowledge, exemplified how different power orders influence the objectivity of ethnographic research undertaken by African development researchers. It discussed how subjectivities that relate to political, ethnic and institutional organization and relations affect the process of knowledge selection, communication and interpretation. It represented the complexity of the construction and negotiation of identity of an African ethnographer and the political nature of development research. Moreover, the article sought to break up the traditional dichotomous (binary) understanding of ‘insider/outsider’ positions and challenged the traditional ‘insider’ position attributed to African development researchers. It illustrated the fluidity, the temporal and the contextual nature of ‘insider/outsider’ locations. It represented the contingent nature of researchers’ identity and research participants’ understanding of the research objectives.

The article typified that African development ethnographers’ interactions with participants of research could be affected by their methodological preferences. The methodological orientation of African researchers affects the process of identity negotiation and power relationships between researchers and participants of research. The article exemplified that the methodological orientation of African development researchers impacts upon the depth and breadth of knowledge they generate. It demonstrated how the utilization of a critical methodological orientation results in the scrutiny of researchers’ ethnic origins, institutional affiliations and cultural biographies. It illustrated how the mismatch between the research orientation of researchers and the interest of the participants of research can result in the questioning, resistance and rejection of the research objectives. The article also indicated that, in some cases, reciprocity, mutual exchange of information, whereby researchers become both the object and the subject in the research process, resolves problems that relate to the methodological orientation of researchers.