Recently, the IPA blog and the Ghana Diary blog brought up an interesting discussion about the term “in the field.” They questioned its appropriateness. The core of the argument was that the phrase creates a sense of otherness. Specifically, if you’re a local partner in a development project, how do you feel when your own home is referred to as “the field”? What does that say about the true nature of your partnership?
I think I agree with Noompa at Ghana Diary. It’s hard to disagree with the scenario that he lays out: it is alienating in the word’s truest sense to hear your own territory referred to as the intimidating unknown.
It has always seemed silly to me when people refer to my own “field experience.” I’ve spent eight out of the last ten years of my life living in Central Asian capitals. I’ve spent more of my adult life in Tashkent than any other city. And let me stress that I have been living in capitals. I’ve been in houses and apartments, often nicer than anything I lived in as a grad student. I’ve had heat, hot water, and even air conditioning on a mostly-regular basis. DC felt a whole lot more like roughing it than Central Asia ever has.
Calling time in the developing world “field time” implies two things to me: that it is temporary, and that it is difficult. Both of those are often false.
But is “the field” a problematic term that serves a useful purpose? Are there other, better ways to convey the idea? I think there are. I suspect it’s one of those catch-all terms that serves less purpose than we think.
I mentioned a while ago that I no longer use the word “beneficiaries” unless I am contractually obligated to do it. It has been a hard transition, as a writer. There’s no real synonym for beneficiaries. Instead, every time I am writing, I have to stop and think about who the person or group I am referring to really is. Someone who has benefited from an intervention? Partner NGO? A physician we trained? It takes time, but I think the thought and effort has made me better at what I do.
Dumping the term “field” might work the same way. Julian Jamison’s field research in North Gulu has nothing to do with my cushy life in Dushanbe or Ashagabat. Lumping the two things together is intellectually lazy. Doing the work to think of better vocabulary wouldn’t hurt.
So, for me, it comes down to this question: is there a non-lazy use for the term “in the field”? If so, what is it?
————-
Chosen because it’s a field, and it’s in upstate New York, where I grew up.
I enjoy your discussions on vocab!
I think like many of these terms, there are appropriate uses but it is all too easy for the usage to become corrupted. I’m with you on the inappropriateness of calling living in a nice apartment in a capital city “field experience”. On the other hand I’ve spent quite a lot of my career managing projects, and managing them from within the country they’re operating as opposed to the (UK in my case) head office are quite different things. I wish more directors of NGO HQs had more time in those jobs, whether it’s called the field or not, because I think it gives a good sense of what doing the job entails. (As a parenthesis, I’ve often come across the term “in-country” rather than “in the field”, which makes me wince just as much even though it doesn’t have the same alienating connotations).
When is the word “field” appropriate? I think it’s OK to talk about “fieldwork” when referring to data collection; I’m not sure it inherently has bad connotations and so I agree that your Gulu example works. But it is tempting to avoid it anyway I think, just in case it is misunderstood! I’ve earned myself looks of horror when using terms like that ironically, but when the irony wasn’t grasped.
I also think beneficiary isn’t always inappropriate, if its usage is properly qualified and explained. For me the biggest question mark for the term beneficiary is that the “benefit” is often assumed. To take your example of a physician being trained… attending training isn’t the same as benefiting it. It depends if the training was any good!
(Final parenthesis, did you see the Economist article on NGO-speak: economist.com/node/18014068 >It’s amusing enough but I think it may have the unfortunate impact of writing off some fairly meaningful concepts)
I think you (and the other blogs you link to) make some important observations. I too think “the field” reveals something problematic about the the approach of development agencies, but I see it a bit differently.
“The field”, it seems to me, is often used as a shorthand for “the real world”. That is to say, the field is a world apart from that which exists in project reports, policy briefs, research papers, conference calls, and funding proposals. It’s a universe in which we’re not free to mold reality to the convenient point we may be trying to make at a given moment. The distinction is not between developing and developed or rich and poor countries. Rather, it’s about the distance between the general and the specific, or the theoretical and the empirical.
The notion of “the field” is problematic in the world of development because it reveals the great distance between the place were ideas about development take shape and the point at which they reach their “beneficiaries”.
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Ian Thorpe and The Curator, Matthew Greenall. Matthew Greenall said: RT @alanna_shaikh I am starting to wonder if I ever write about anything but vocabulary http://bloodandmilk.org/?p=1757 >nice, on aid vocab […]
Matt – I agree with you. I have actually met people who couldn’t handle Dushanbe – educated, competent people who couldn’t face life without high speed internet and a reliable supply of diet coke. Experience in the areas where aid projects work makes a huge difference in your skill set. I just don’t know what to call it…
I think you get to the heart of what I was trying to say with your discussion of the capitals you’ve lived in. Sure, a lot of people use “field” in a harmless way that is not meant to carry any baggage with it. But that doesn’t mean it doesn’t- how many people could conceive of a cushy lifestyle in the field? At the end of the day, the field is implicitly means poor people, disease and crap living conditions- how can we hope to do something about the problems when through our discourse, we assign those problems a fixity?
[…] IPA blog as well. Don’t forget to click on the Julian Jamison link. Alanna Shaikh also has some thoughts; I am referred to as a “she” there though. Must be my sensitive […]
Noompa – just fixed your gender in the post. Sorry! Really not sure why i made that assumption.
Yes, I find this term ‘the field’ quite grating as well. I give a pass to our ag livelihoods ppl when they use it though, whose work actually involves a lot of talking to farmers & farmers co-ops, in and about and around their fields!
I realised a while ago that in my own mind at least I’ve been using ‘the world’ in its place, on account of the unreality and ability to float above and take everything for granted I usually feel on returning back to HQ in the UK. Not that that isn’t without its own essentializing ‘authenticity’ if you worry about it too much.
Beneficiaries? Alas my job is pretty donor facing so there is no escaping the word in written form. But where I can, it is people.. farmers… villagers… communities. What the people we work with/for call themselves in other words!
I always liked “on the ground” – to contrast with “in an office”. I know a lot of our work gets done in offices / classrooms / operating rooms / clinics, but I like the implication of standing next to our colleagues on their turf.
Thanks Alanna- an honest mistake with an ambiguous moniker.
It perplexes me that so many people are willing to brush this aside as just semantics. At best, I find that people say “well, of course I don’t use the field in that sense”, but that misses the point as well. There are people who just have an Orientalist take on these things, it’s true! Not all of them mean to be offensive- many are just a product of the discursive environment in which they grew up. Still, that doesn’t justify perpetuating said discourse.
And yes, discourse matters (this is coming from a quantitative data nerd).
Couldn’t handle Dushanbe! I remember when there was only one place in the whole city that had wifi, Coca Cola was impossible to find, there were no Chinese minibuses, the President only had one palace, and it got so cold that they had to keep newborn babies warm in the maternity hospital with plastic bottles filled with warm water. Loved (nearly) every minute of it.
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by IPA, Medicus Mundi Int.. Medicus Mundi Int. said: Is there a non-lazy use for the term “in the field?” asks Alanna Shaikh on her Blood and Milk blog http://bit.ly/hYMGtb […]
[…] and proper usage of “the field” in the context of research. Roughly in order, see here, here, here, and here, with most of the back & forth taking place on the IPA blog at the end. Lots of […]
I do see problems with how the term “the field” is currently used. However, I’ve always seen the term as coming originally from the natural sciences (and then passed along to the social sciences and eventually the intl development world). In the natural sciences “the field” is any place you are doing research or collecting data. Therefore, even your own backyard or your own city can be “the field.” If one views the term in this sense, then I don’t think it is offensive. However, regardless of how the term may have originated, I certainly think negative connotations can be added to the term with changes in its usage over time, which seems to be the case in the NGO/intl development world.
I agree that the way the term is generally used in the NGO/intl development world is basically lazy–I think there must be (and should be) more specific terms to describe what we are really trying to talk about. I had the experience working in an HQ where the VP of Programs used to talk about “the field” and it always confused me, until I realized he was always just referring to the staff working in Country Offices in the capital cities of where we worked (unfortunately, this was the only kind of “field experience” he had). This was confusing to me, because when I would think of “the field,” I would always think of the places where we were actually implementing our programs (and the staff that worked in those areas to implement the programs). Overall, most of my “field experience” has not been sitting in a head office in a capital city somewhere, but actually working out in the areas where the programs I support are being implemented. In these places, I haven’t had hot water (or even running water), a nice apartment or local grocery store, etc. I think this kind of “field experience” is quite different from the “field experience” many of my colleagues in the Country Offices in capital cities have had (not only in terms of living situation), so I do wish that there were better terms to distinguish between the two.
These arguments frustrate me considerably. Are we really arguing about connotations? There are numerous other topics that could/should be discussed other than whether or not asking an individual if they are okay with the label that has been used for decades is okay to call them by. Call me insensitive to Politically Correct terms, but I feel like this particular blog is taking away from the intentions of this website.
This quote came straight from the “ABOUT THIS BLOG” page on this website.
.
“You should not seek change lightly. International development programs should be efficient, effective, and evidence based. They should be implemented by professionals who know what they are doing. They are not easy to run. They are genuine, difficult work, done to make this world a better place to be. International assistance deserves and requires serious thought.” —-I don’t think getting upset about “name-calling” is what this mission statement is about, nor affects it in any way.
According to these guidelines set forth by this website, in my opinion, I feel we are discussing wrong issues. This discussion is taking necessary focus away from real issues and placing that focus on unnecessary sentiments because a few “degrading” term’s such as, “the field,” are enough to impede the work of the people offering help.
Eric–I can see the idea, although very abstract, of how “the field” can be represented as far off goal from the point where you receive the money and you put it into implement. Yet, I do not think you can deny that that same term is very identifiable with some beneficiaries when it comes to raising money.
Noompa–I think you are overestimating that being “in the field” still carries a ton of weight. If we were to change the term, would that fix this whole issue? Doubtful. This is still the same expression that has been used for decades now. You are in the minority of people that are sensitive and pessimistic towards this phrase for no reason, while the majority public doesn’t think twice about it.
Ali–I realize that every term can bear a negative connotation if used wrongly, but it is undeniable that it has been used for sometime now.
Why all of a sudden have people become sensitive to it? Why are we even discussing this on this website? Is the general public looking at this label with skepticism? Or are some just losing their sense of appreciation?
I like your recognition of the othering inherent in terms like ‘field’ and ‘beneficiary’. But why stop there? The language of international development is full of terms that I’ve never heard used with reference to any people who live in the place I grew up: ‘aid worker’; ’empowerment’; ‘ownership’; ‘participatory’; ‘livelihood’; ‘community-based’; ‘cash-for-work’; ‘female-headed-household’; ‘capacity building’; ‘income-generating activity’; ‘vulnerability mapping’; ‘community-based organization’; ‘civil society participation’; and, of course, ‘expat’.
Some terminology differences get dismissed as differences of dialect — harmless synonyms like like ‘NGO’, ‘non-profit’ and ‘charity.’ But for many of these there is a difference. Asking someone’s opinion because ‘participation promotes ownership’ is, like calling someone’s home ‘the field’, not merely confusing but sort of insulting. I think, unlike Anthony, that it is worth asking what it means that we’re constantly going around being insulting/condescending to people.
Othering isn’t a sloppy practice; it’s inherent in the business itself. Some of these terms cold be swapped out for non-othered alternatives. But others can’t be. Imagine any development document, project or policy with all of its othering excised — starting with “beneficiary” and “field” but not stopping there. What’s left? Sometimes nothing: the activity can’t exist without the polarity of local and foreign. Sometimes it’s just a radically different activity.
One thing that surely isn’t left in a non-othered development project is the role and status of ‘expat aid worker.’ The institution of foreign aid work is an independent factor in the production and reproduction of othering. It’s enough to make one quit.
I am not sure that I agree that the term field is alienating (or at least I have never seen it that way). I think it’s a way for people to say that they have worked in the places where their organization’s activities are, they understand (or at least experienced) the context, perhaps met the end beneficiaries (for lack of a better term). I think the biggest problem with the term is when it is used as some kind of weapon to prove oneself to others who have not been to the field. In this case it’s not the term, but the way it’s used or the person who is using it.
I do agree that discussing vocabulary is important, but I also think that we can get carried away with it. The biggest worry that I have about lengthy discussions about vocabulary is that when we stop using a very common term (like field, beneficiary) we often look for other synonymous terms, and wind up replacing labels with more labels. If we do that here, this will lead to a repeat of this same discussion a few years from now.
Anothony, I there were a number of points in that blog, its not just about nit picking or being PC:
“I suspect it’s one of those catch-all terms that serves less purpose than we think.”
As a development workers, the standard of our work relies upon us being able to produce the quality programming and analysis, which depends on our ability to understand to the best of our ability the people, systems and context in which we work. And yet there has developed a whole range of terms and phrases which are now standard within the sector. As you say, the “field” is easily identifiable as the place where projects are implemented, but too often it is drawn on “lazily” to cover up the fact that a lot of the time we don’t know what we’re talking about.
In my own NGO, the word “community” is used every time a staff member wishes to refer to the population in which “beneficiaries” live, who I suppose live altogether in the “field”. But that means nothing more than “those guys” who “receive our support” and “live in that place where we implement our programme”. When you are raising money, do you use the “field” to evoke a particularly identifiable reaction from the donor, or because you wish to describe the implementation area?
So in the same way as Blood & Milk, I always try to come up with a non-lazy word that can replace the word “community”.
Its about identifying the people who are targeted by projects by actually analysing and representing who they are, as opposed to associating them with a word that is too loaded with what other people think about them.
[…] that I am simply scraping the tip of the iceberg. To these views I have a fair amount of sympathy. One of the best comments so far has come from “Bradford” on Blood and Milk: Othering isn’t a sloppy practice; […]
Good discussion! I’m not sure where I stand yet, so example usage fodder to think on:
In Lao (where i’m coming from) language, “the field” is called sanam. Sanam literally means field, as in big piece of land… and people working in development use Sanam in Lao in pretty much exactly the same way you’re talking about using The Field in English.
I now work in the capital, and from here, everything happening at the project site is “the field”, including working at the site office. When at the site office, everything happening in project villages is “the field”. However, when at the site office, going to government meetings/district capitals is not “the field” (it is when you’re in the capital tho).
So it seems like here “the field” as used by english speakers and lao speakers has come to mean a place of work more remote, more small (or less important? eek) then where you are. It’s a place where “beneficiaries” usually are (but not always), a place far away?
Or a place where you’re not at home? Our staff have homes (w/families) at the site office location even though they’re not from there so that might be why they don’t call the site office “the field” but consider even the village 15 min from the office “the field”?
Kelley – interesting point…my Dushanbe-dwelling Tajik colleagues refer to travel to project sites either as “on travel” or they name the specific place. However, when we are talking about non-Dushanbe Tajikistan as a whole, they say “the village” to connote rural/other/far awayness.
Catee – even if all we do is end of with a synonym that becomes equally useless in a couple of years, it seems to me that forcing us to stop and think is worth the effort.
My Kenyan colleagues in Mombasa used the term “the field” to refer to work on-the-ground in the villages, versus being “in the office.” However, the HQ in the United States used the term “the field” to refer to country offices like those in Mombasa. So my experience matches up with those of most other people here.
They similarly would refer to any other rural area that was not a project site where they were actively working as “the village,” as in “Fred left for the day, he went back to the village” (meaning where he was born).
I think that “on-the-ground” is a better term in general, though perhaps still not ideal. It does suggest being physically present at a project site. And it has the added benefit of having a (as I see it) positive connotation, since being a perpetual HQ staffer is then presented as being “ungrounded,” with it’s obvious negative connotation.
I agree that we can take these types of discussions too far. But when you have seen a lot of paternalism and condescension in the aid world, even among local/national staff, you do have to wonder if some of our terms of reference are reinforcing it.
I disagree with Bradford regarding the other terms that he seems to be saying are unique to ID. While things like empowerment and ownership are just ridiculously overused, like “synergy” was in corporate meetings ten years ago, they are not actually unique to ID. If you work on community development or organizing in the United States, you’ll come across uses of “participatory” and “empowerment” and others. But you’ll never hear a Chicago-based community organizer or social worker refer to the South Side as “the field.”
I often wonder what to do about this! I used to distinguish urban vs. rural (with urban being not so difficult and rural being more difficult). But then I spent a year in rural Kenya with frequent travel to Nairobi, and Nairobi was WAY more difficult in most aspects than my little agricultural town. The Kenyan staff at our research office always said “we’re leaving for the fields” to mean they were going out of town into the farms, so I guess it’s all relative. Now I’m in grad school, and (as Aly points out) I mostly hear this term used to indicate field research as opposed to research done at the university. For some, their “field work” is in developing countries, but other people study communities in our city and elsewhere in Canada, which makes me feel like maybe it’s not such an alienating term. Generally, however, I agree with you that trying to be more specific is the best approach. (Added benefit: we’ll all improve our vocabularies!)
It is wonderful to see such a lively discussion of the vocabulary we use on a daily basis. It seems that “the field” is another great example of what Andrea Cornwall referred to in an article as both a “buzzword” and a “fuzzword.” Development is full of words that we all pretend to agree upon but in reality use for very diverse purposes. I myself work primarily in “education” and “schooling” which is rife with this issue (are we developing laborers? critical thinkers? democratic citizens?) especially when “education” is then connected with “development.”
I am saddened to see a few posts that adopt such positivist (dare I say almost anti-intellectual?) viewpoints toward this discussion. It set off the same alarm bells that rang when I heard a grad school classmate say that “We don’t need philosophers anymore.” I don’t think time spent trying to see another’s viewpoint is ever a waste in this world. Some of our world’s greatest challenges come down to being issues between people and figuring out how to thrive together, and if the solutions don’t come from a little philosophy and a lot of listening and reflecting, then I’m not sure where else to look.
(I purposefully never used the word “problem” in that preceding paragraph…a discursive habit I picked up by really listening to the vocabulary used by Cubans during my research there. I observed how much more positively they approached educational issues and really took it to heart. Changing my vocabulary changed my perceptions.)
Thank you to all who are discussing this. I will definitely think more deeply about my verbal, theoretical, and personal relationship to my future “in country” “on the ground” “in the field” work.
This is very interesting discussion. Working in Dushanbe too, I always have a problem with numerous development buzzwords. Oftentimes, they totally loose meaning once they are translated. Even worse, in Russia, I heard NGO workers using conformist literal translation of the word that sounded very rustic but basically meaningless.
However, as for the “field time”, I think what those who ask for it actually require is familiarity with the context. It can come in different ways – sometimes through really rough experience, sometimes through quite pleasant meetings.
Kate made a good point about “problems”. It was a policy in one Ghanaian NGO. It could make such difference – turning a constructive discussion into a turbulent flow of complaints.
P.S. Tamale STC station has really great kenkey. And by the way, it IS magic, but I think it takes time to realize.
As many wrote before me, I tend to understand being “in the field” when one lives in a more remote location, usual with less comfort (it can be physical but also in terms of a new set of social rules one has to obey), and more interactions with society well beyond the national elites you may meet as a HQ staff in a capital.
I think the negative connotations often come with the rest of the sentence but that the term pe se can be used in an intelligible (and intelligent) manner (this applies to all the ID jargon – words have a meaning, it is not their fault if everyone abuses them and is lazy).
Of course, if you want to boast about field experience (as many of us do), chose your audience carefully: there is always someone “more in the field” than you. Something like: New York < Belgrade < Accra < Mbuji Mayi < Sar-e-Pol < random village in a very hot and dusty war zone where you get regular malaria and insurgents. Always fun to sit aside and observe…
This said, it would be fun if my local colleagues would say: "Man, I just came back from a training in Germany, I LOVE being in the field!"
“In the field” like so many terms in the world can be taken in a postive or a negative context. I have to agree if that is your home or country that someone was talking about, it would be very discouraging. In my opinion it is more negative than it is positive and could potentially cause more damge by discouraging and bringing people down, when we want to help them or build them up. “In the field” I think will become one of those terms, that we have to find something else to describe it so that we are “politically correct.”
I think that there is a good point made here. I agree with Alanna in that “the field” does often imply difficult and temporary work. Consider the work of a lab researcher. Going out into “the field” to collect data. This isn’t where they are working permanently and it can be thought to be harder than the work within the office or lab. I really like Mark’s comment. He brought up “on the ground” verse “in an office.” I would make an argument that “on the ground” would be a good term to replace “in the field” with. I think “on the ground” gives implications obviously, but I think that they are more accurate. This term implies that instead of sitting in a cozy office the individual is in the atmosphere of the work and seeing what is really going on. It doesn’t imply that the work is hard. It doesn’t imply that you will soon leave the area to go into an office. It simply implies that instead of sitting at a computer all day in a cubical you are out doing something different. You are out in the environment. People should be careful about terms that they use to identify particular situations today. “The field” is a term that really is increasing the gap we “see” between developed and developing nations.
This is a very interesting topic because I never thought of “in the field” being a derogatory term. “In the field” in my opinion, simply meant traveling to a developing area, collecting data, research, helping the native people where necessary. The “Planners v. searchers” debate in development is somewhat related to the topic. The searchers travel to the developing area and use a bottom-up approach to help the local people. The “in the field” people are most likely (but not always) the searchers. I understand the negative connotation that “in the field” might have, so for lack of an original term perhaps the term “searcher” would be a better fit?
I live in Cairo and have a good internal laugh when some fresh-faced NGO workers start referring to Cairo as “the field”. [I believe I’ve recently began to externalize said laugh]. Though I nevertheless think of it as condescending. But then, when my colleagues travel to the villages in the South, the term resurfaces.
I’m going through some places I’ve worked in and wonder whether they would fall under the common definition of field. Banda Aceh? Probably. Vienna? Not so much…
New Orleans post-Katrina? Yep. [if any Americans are vexed that I think of their country as “the field”, sorry. ;]
I’d go with the definition that the field is just a less comfortable place than the one you usually work in..
This is a great discussion & I know I’m way late… I wonder whether the aid/development industry should revisit its language every few years or so. Several people have brought up other buzzwords that can seem to lose all meaning when repeated over and over. Empowerment comes to mind, I think Bradford’s list is pretty good. Even if the words get replaced or recycled, it’s the process that matters here. Taking some time to think as Alanna suggests should help clarify in our own minds what we mean, and make the actual work better. I’m all for “reflection.”
Yeah Nathan, I’m even later. I’m really enjoying Bradford’s lexicon of fake words used in the realm of development. In such a world where the definitive seems evasive these ambiguous and even somewhat discomforting buzzwords well and truly fit. When it comes right down to it, I think we all know that these words are quite understandable; however, the discomfort comes from the fact that we label a place where people with whom we are essentially identical live and work as ‘the field’ as opposed to its country and town like we would see fit to call somewhere in the North. I’d say ‘the field’ is where you are definitively outside of your comfort zone, in a place extremely different from places you are used to. We’re over-thinking what we under-think.
Words get politicised because these are the words we use in academia — this is also the space in which these words are debated. The academe is so often removed from the communities we work with that playing semantics can be pointless. While I agree that the words we use are important and there is certainly a place to have such discussions, “in the field”, for me, ultimaely means “not in a classroom”.
[…] blog ‘Blood and Milk,’ Alanna Shaikh initiates a provocative discussion about the term “the field.” The crux of her argument is that calling time in the developing world “field time” […]
[…] a few bloggers have discussed, a reference to “the field” often carries connotations of exotic other-ness. […]
[…] a few bloggers have discussed, a reference to “the field” often carries connotations of exotic other-ness. […]