research

Starting fieldwork in Jogyakarta, Java

I’ve just arrived in Jogyakarta, and am happy to find that my original instinct about doing research here was spot on. Since leaving Jogya last year, I’ve slowly been doubting the value of going so far away to do my research, especially since the usual model for Honours is to read a lot and carry out some fieldwork in Canberra or close by. People warned me about the potential problems of choosing to do research in Indonesia: what if my fieldwork fell through, what if I didn’t have enough people to talk to (!), what if I needed more data and couldn’t afford to fly back. Actually, I think the biggest obstacle this year has been spending the initial 4-5 months in an environment where no-one actually knows about my research. It has been quite confusing to consult people who raised concerns that I now know were superfluous, and to talk to people who knew about community issues, or environmental issues, or knowledge systems, or interdisciplinary work, but not about how those issues manifest in disasters. ANU is good at organisational disasters, or institutional and policy perspectives on disasters, but in terms of disaster response from a practical perspective, there’s not much happening in Canberra - even the organisations like Oxfam or Caritas have their head offices in Melbourne or Sydney. That leaves me sifting through the disaster literature extant in Chifley and Hancock libraries, reading through online journals and blogs, feeling quietly stressed with the perennial difficulty of finding what is worth researching. Being relatively new to this area, everything is interesting to me and I don’t have the experience to tell what issues are important and current, and what issues are trivial. I don’t even know what questions to ask.

So after several months of trying desperately to get a grip on the issues, I arrive here and find that any half-question I have is answered immediately, in depth, with reference to practical examples. It is extraordinary living with a gatekeeper into this community of disaster work and the humanitarian sector: one primary informant who I live with and follow around everywhere (into meetings, interviews, his consulting work, national workshops, fieldtrips etc). Like I remember from my previous trips, Dave’s world (and thus mine here) is full of exceptional people (from INGOs, LNGOs, academics, local communities etc.) with a wealth of experience, opinions, ideas, and concerns but often with little time or space to write about them.

The more people I meet, the more I appreciate the space that I have been given in which I am allowed to just think, read, research, think, write … Many people I meet here are trying to fit that into their packed lives, and it really is difficult. In this sense, I feel like I have it easy. Universities have a lot going for them - access to research tools and resources, a supportive environment for analytical and conceptual thought, rigourous and considered methodology, a supportive research community etc.

Because of this opportunity, and because of the lengths that people have gone to to help me, I feel compelled to use this time to do something that is of some use to this community of practitioners. I get my strength from the idea of engaging with people and doing something meaningful, even if in a small way; hence the blog. Having been at uni since 2001, and with an excellent supervisor to keep me on track, I’m confident of satisfying the Honours requirements. The issue of more concern is that I end up dong stupid research - which, judging from the years of watching my friends go through Honours, is a very real concern. I’m very aware that honours research is primarily intended as a learning experience for undergraduates, and a stepping stone to “real” research or a “real” job. So people keep telling me. As long as I can demonstrate the ability to research and justify my research in an academic context, frankly, there are many silly topics that would easily earn me my PhD scholarship… At the start of the year, someone told me to be very clear that realistically, the sole purpose of the Honours year is to produce a piece of research for two examiners. Uh, well … that’s a bit boring! As if I would spend an entire year driven by the prosaic goal of passing Honours. Life’s too short, you know?

It’s quite ironic that it was the same person who introduced me to Vickers’ idea that humans are not trying to seek an endless series of goals, but are driven by the act of experiencing and maintaining relationships, ie the process not the goal. From my perspective, this research is not about what Honours is; it’s about my opportunity for me to spend a year researching and writing, and what I can do with that. And there’s so much to do here! So instead of working on becoming a superbrain, sitting in a library in Canberra, reading everything possible on the topic and beyond, I’ve made the methodological choice to forgoe the opportunity to develop a really deep understanding of the literature, and instead spend time talking to people and engaging with their opinions and experiences. Val Brown makes a point about knowledge moving from an emphasis on analysis towards an emphasis on synthesis in her upcoming book, Leonardo’s Gift. Not being an established expert in one field, I think that’s an easier decision for me to make.

In any case, since this is a new-ish area, there’s actually not that much quality written material out there on the topic - although lots in the human medium. Humans are amazing at filtering information and experiences, and creating exciting stories out of it. Since I get to choose, I’d rather be on the production side, helping to bring that material into a written medium, instead of only looking for pale copies of those stories on paper.

© Kim Williamson 2008