collaborative   research   approaches   and   broader   collaborative  

When  We  Disagree   actions;   and,   significantly,   offering   creative   ways   to   think  
  through   and   act   upon   “collaboration”   as   transformative  
On  Engaging  the  Force  of  Difference  in   praxis   (see   Lassiter   2008a   for   individual   essays   that   take   up  
these   particular   trends   in-­‐depth;   for   other   collections   that  
Collaborative,  Reciprocal,  and  Participatory  
develop   similar   points,   see,   e.g.,   Colwell-­‐Chanthaphonh   and  
Researches   Ferguson  2007;  Field  and  Fox  2007;  Kerber  2006).    
  This   recent   growth   has   given   rise,   as   well,   to   several  new  
 

Luke  Eric  Lassiter   and   different   visions   for   doing   collaborative   research   (see,  
Marshall  University  Graduate  College   e.g.,   Austin   2004;   Bhattacharya   2008;   Foley   and   Valenzuela  
 
 
2005;  Lamphere  2004;  Wali  2006),  including  my  own  Chicago  
th
©  2008.    Paper  presented  at  the  107  Annual  Meeting  of  the   Guide   to   Collaborative   Ethnography   (Lassiter   2005a).     But  
American  Anthropological  Association,  San  Francisco,   these  ideas  and  strategies  represent  only  the  beginning  of  the  
California.   work   necessary   for   charting   the   fullest   implications   of  
  collaboration   for   future   trajectories   of   anthropological  
  practice,  as  noted  by  a  number  of  anthropologists—Les  Field  
I   wish   to   make   a   very   simple   point   in   this   brief   paper:   that   and   Richard   Fox’s   recently   edited   volume,   Anthropology   Put  
those  of  us  who  are  engaged  in  collaborative  researches   are   to   Work   (Field   and   Fox   2007),   immediately   comes   to   mind.    
at  a  critical  juncture,  one  where  we  may  have  the  opportunity   For  ethnography  at  least,  George  Marcus  (2008)  suggests  that  
to   inform   in   forceful   ways   the   re-­‐   conceptualization   and   while   practices   of   collaboration   are   now   widely   taken   for  
articulation   of   “collaboration”   at   a   time   when   collaborative   granted   in   ethnographic   fieldwork,   the   broader   role   and  
research   appears   to   be   taking   on   a   more   central   role   in   our   function   of   field   collaborations   have   changed   markedly.    
field.   A   monumental   task   indeed;   but   fortunately,   that   work   “Anthropologists,”   observes   Marcus   (2008:7),   “confront   the  
has  already  started.   ‘other’   (now   ‘counterpart’)   in   the   expectation   of  
  collaboration,   and   in   their   appeal   for   funds,   etc.,   in   their  
Collaborative  Researches,  Now  and  Then   relation   to   dominating   and   patron   institutions,   they   should  
  represent   themselves   as   collaborators   or   themselves  
The   past   several   years   have   witnessed   a   proliferation   of   a   organized   in   collaborations.     This   is   all   very   different   from   the  
wide   range   and   variety   of   researches   between   and   among   way   in   which   collaboration   has   been   embedded,   neglected,  
anthropologists   and   the   people   with   whom   we   work   (see,   and   redeemed   in   the   traditional   practice   of   ethnography.    
e.g.,   Ayi   et   al.   2007;   Brown   and   Peers   2006;   Ferguson   and   Collaboration   instead   is   a   key   trope   for   condensing   a   whole  
Colwell-­‐Chanthaphonh   2006;   Field   2008;   Marcus   and   complex  of  new  challenges.  .  .”  (Marcus  2008:7-­‐8).  
Mascarenhas   2005;   Rappaport   2005).   Variously   called   Marcus,   among   others,   has   focused   attention   on  
“collaborative,”   “reciprocal,”   and   “participatory”—among   outlining  the  potentials  for  these  contemporary  collaborative  
other   things—such   approaches,   of   course,   are   not   entirely   practices   within   the   realm   of   fieldwork   projects   with   elites,  
new:  they  have  precedence  with  previous  periods,  including,   experts,   and   professionals   in   corporate,   techno-­‐scientific,  
among   others,   the   early   Americanist   school   (see,   e.g.,   Darnell   political   and   like   contexts   (see,   e.g.,   Holmes   and   Marcus  
2001),   the   action   anthropology   of   Sol   Tax   (see,   e.g.,   Bennett   2005a,  2005b,  2006),  but  (re)conceptualizing,  making  explicit  
1996),   the   applied   collaborative   anthropology   that   gained   and   expanding   ethnographic   practice   along   these   lines—
traction   in   the   1970s   and   80s   (see,   e.g.,   Schensul   1973;   Stull   “refunctioning”   it   in   Douglas   Holmes   and   George   Marcus’s  
and   Schensul   1987),   the   feminist   ethnography   that   surfaced   terms   (see,   e.g.,   Holmes   and   Marcus   2008)—is   not   just  
in   the   1980s   and   90s   (see,   e.g.,   Lawless   1993;   Stacey   1988);   limited   to   these   kinds   of   research   partnerships.     Indeed,  
and   the   participatory   approaches   emergent   in   Latin   America   collaborative   research   is   poised   to   transform   ethnographic  
for   the   last   several   decades   (see,   e.g.,   Rappaport   2008).     In   practice   on   so   many   different   levels   precisely   because   so  
this   latest   incarnation,   however,   anthropologists   are   again   many   different   and   diversely   situated   ethnographers   are  
theorizing   anew   collaborative,   reciprocal,   and   participatory   theorizing  these  potentials  in  such  a  broad  range  of  research  
researches   in   original   and   innovative   ways,   which   includes,   contexts   (cf.   Lassiter   2008a,   FC).     A   growing   number   of  
but  is  certainly  not  limited  to,  mapping  more  explicit  linkages   ethnographers,   for   example,   contend   that   collaborative  
between   current   collaborative   practice   and   historical   streams   ethnographic   practices   are   uniquely   positioned   to   advance   a  
of   collaborative   anthropologies;   charting   new   opportunities   more  politically  engaged  anthropology  (see,  e.g.,  Cook  2008;  
for   co-­‐interpretation   and   theorization   that   extends   outward   Hale   2006,   2007;   Hemment   2007;   Rappaport   2008),   one,   in  
from   fieldwork   contexts   and   into   broader   fields   of   theoretical   turn,  potentially  transformative  not  just  for  ethnography  but  
anthropology;   interrogating   the   deeper   complexities   of   for   anthropology   more   generally.     As   Joanne   Rappaport  
collaboration,  especially  those  that  move  toward  articulations   (2007:39)   suggests,   collaboration   in   such   research   contexts  
of   the   actual   and   complicated   challenges   of   collaboration;   now   not   only   makes   possible   “a   deeper   commitment   to  
augmenting   the   multiplicity   of   connections   between   politically   inspired   research,   but   also   leads   .   .   .   scholars   to  
rethink   their   own   craft,   to   roam   beyond   the   academy   in   complicit   with   the   agendas   of   our   research   collaborators,  
search   of   theory   and   method,   to   embrace   a   new   layer   of   whoever  they  may  be”  (Lassiter  2008a:ix).  
interlocutors,  and  to  rethink  the  ways  in  which  they  reflect  on   Such  assumptions  may  reflect  certain  kinds  or  aspects  of  
themselves   and   others.     In   short,   collaboration   cannot   be   collaborative  research;  and  the  narrative  strategies  we  deploy  
seen  as  a  paternalist  application  of  anthropological  skills  in  a   oftentimes   push   toward   representing   successful   collaborative  
practical  context;  it  must  be  seen  as  an  innovative  vehicle  for   projects   and   partnerships   via   tropes   of   agreement   and  
revitalizing  anthropology  in  the  twenty-­‐first  century.”   accord.     But   in   practice,   rather   than   pushing   toward  
  homogenization  of  divergent  knowledge  systems   that   may   be  
“Suspicions  of  Collaboration”  and  the  “Force  of  Difference”   perceived,   paradoxically,   to   be   essentially   at   odds,   engaging  
  in   “thick”   collaborative,   reciprocal   and   participatory  
All  of  these  new  ideas  and  strategies  for  collaboration  are  still   researches   often   requires   us   to   work   across   difference   in  
emergent,  of  course;  but  one  thing  seems  clear  at  this  point:   much  more  complex  and  complicated  ways.    
collaboration   is   becoming   a   central   and   driving   idea   in   To   be   sure,   agreement   and   accord   is   essential   to   the  
contemporary   discussions   of   anthropological   theory   and   success   of   any   collaboration;   and   differences   between   and  
method.   Given   this   current   state   of   affairs,   and   given,   too,   among   collaborating   parties   can   indeed   fracture   (or   even  
that   there   has   been   much   discussion   and   development   in   end)   any   given   partnership   or   project.     But   I   am   much   more  
collaborative   methods   and   approaches   of   this   type   at   least   interested  here   in  how  differing  voices,  perspectives,  values,  
since   the   1960s   and   70s,   a   good   many   anthropologists   still   and   agendas   get   played   out   (and   thus   negotiated)   in  
seem  skeptical  of  “collaboration,”  and  just  how  (and  if)  it  can   successful   collaborative   research   partnerships   and   projects  
(or  will)  transform  anthropological  praxis  as  it  promises  to  do   (built   as   they   are   on   some   level   of   agreement);   and   how  
in  some  quarters  (Foley  and  Valenzuela  2005).    Briefly,  these   these   differing   voices,   perspectives,   values,   and   agendas  
“suspicions   of   collaboration”   seem   to   take   two   main   forms   actually  strengthen  (rather  than  compromise)  the  foundation  
(ones   that   I   presume   are   familiar   to   most   collaborative   upon   which   collaborative   projects   are   built   and   sustained  
researchers).     In   one   sense,   collaborative   researches   are   over   time.     In   this   way,   collaborative   researches   indeed  
perceived   to   call   up   tensions   between   divergent   and   materialize   and   develop   via   the   momentum   of   agreement  
competing   systems   of   knowledge—one   perceived   to   lean   and   accord;   but   they   also   move   forward,   dynamically,  
*
toward   validity   and   reliability   (that   of   the   “researcher[s]”);   through  “force  of  difference.”      
the   other   perceived   to   lean   toward   invalidity   and   unreliability   By   “force   of   difference,”   I   mean   to   highlight   how  
(that   of   the   “research   participant[s]”).     To   collaborate,   in   differences—which  may  often  surface  as  disagreement  or  via  
accordance   with   this   suspicion,   is   to   compromise   other  expressions—exert  force  not  in  the  metaphysical  sense  
academically-­‐situated   systems   of   knowledge,   a   compromise   or  even  in  the  sense  of  using  power  physical  or  otherwise  to  
akin   to   “cooperating   with   enemies.”   In   another   but   closely   resist   or   coerce;   but   force   in   the   sense   that   shepherds   the  
related   sense,   collaborative   researches   engaged   as   a   “joint   energy   or   capacity   to   create   change   in   perspectives,   ideas,  
intellectual  effort”  with  interlocutors  or  research  participants   knowledge,   and/or   action   in   the   course   of   carrying   out  
are  perceived  to  tend  toward  agreement  and  homogenization   specific,   collaborative,   reciprocal   and   participatory   research  
of   divergent   systems   of   knowledge   (with   disagreements   partnerships   and   projects—indeed,   the   very   dynamic   that  
and/or   competing   versions   of   the   past,   for   example,   focuses  much  collaborative  researches  in  the  first  place.      By  
eschewed).     In   accordance   with   this   suspicion,   collaborative   emphasizing  the  force  of  difference,  then,  I  mean  to  focus  not  
researches   are   perceived   to   push   toward   agreement   and   just   the   friction   of   difference—a   compelling   notion   and  
interpretive   accord—and   thus   away   from   the   serious   and   process   of   collaboration   described   by   Anna   Tsing   in   her  
critical  work  of  social  science.   recent   book   Friction   (2005)—and   how   it   can   mobilize  
On  one  level,  there’s  good  reason  for  these  perceptions.    
As   I   suggest   in   the   Introduction   to   the   first   volume   of   the   *
  My   focus   on   the   concept   of   force   is   influenced   in   part   by   Renato  
recently   published   Collaborative   Anthropologies,   the   various   Rosaldo’s  classic  essay,  “Grief  and  a  Headhunter’s  Rage,”  in  which  he  
tropes   of   collaboration   often   in   use   among   fieldworkers   and   develops   a   focus   on   the   cultural   force   of   emotions   in   which   “the  
other   scholars   today   can   (and   often)   “do   more   to   obscure   concept   of   force   calls   attention   to   an   enduring   intensity   in   human  
than   elaborate  .   .   .   [the]   nuances   of   collaboration,   [which]   for   conduct   that   can   occur   with   or   without   the   dense   elaborations  
instance,   are   at   times   glossed   over   in   overly   simplistic   or   conventionally  associated  with  cultural  depth”  and  in  which  the  “the  
notion   of   force   involves   both   affective   intensity   and   significant  
celebratory   accounts   of   what   otherwise   may   be   extremely  
consequences   that   unfold   over   a   long   period   of   time”   (Rosaldo  
complex  partnerships.    Calls  for  collaborative  [researches]  can  
1989:20).   As   Rosaldo   calls   attention   in   his   essay   to   experience   and  
be  consequently  (and  perhaps  understandably)  dismissed  and   its   role   in   apprehending   cultural   difference;   here   in   the   context   of  
accused,   in   equally   simplistic   and   unsophisticated   terms,   of   this   essay   I   want   to   call   attention   in   similar   ways   to   the   actual  
being   not   much   more   than   one-­‐dimensional   exercises   in   experience   of   collaborative   research   and   how   we   might   elaborate  
ascertaining   agreement,   or,   worse,   of   being   uncritically   the   broader   force   of   difference   that   emerges   within   the   context   of  
individual  partnerships  and  projects.  
 
 
Lassiter   When  We  Disagree   2  
collaboratively   deployed   change,   however   awkwardly   and   something   and   the   way   it   is   framed   within   ethnography   or  
unexpectedly,   between   and   among   diversely   situated   social  science”  (Brettell  1996:101).  
†
groups.     I   mean   to   focus   more   particularly   on   the   dialectic   A  good  many  others  have  made  this  point,  too,  of  course.    
that   contends   with   and   sorts   out   difference   (including   Les   Field’s   discussion   of   the   differences   between   indigenous  
disagreements)   through   ongoing   dialogues,   exchanges,   and   and  non-­‐indigenous  ways  of  reckoning  and  mobilizing  culture  
resolutions  in  specific  collaborative  research  partnerships  and   (Field   1999);   and   Joanne   Rappaport’s   exploration   of   how  
projects,  ones  that  operate  as  “a  joint  intellectual  effort,”  and   inside/outside   positions   shape   the   work   of   field  
ones   that   frame   encounters   with   difference   in   terms   of   collaborations   immediately   come   to   mind   (Rappaport   2005).    
cooperation,  opportunity  and  possibility   rather  than  threat  or   Often   overlooked   in   our   current   discussions   of   collaboration  
danger,  antagonism  or  contestation.   (of   the   anthropological   kind   at   least),   however,   are   other  
I’ll  return  to  this  idea  momentarily,  but  first  let  me  point   fields   that   have   worked   similarly   with   these   dynamics.    
out  that  a  good  many  anthropologists,  humanists,  and  other   Joanne   Rappaport   (2008)   has   pointed   out   that   many   North  
social  scientists  have  explored  this  problem  before—some  for   American  anthropologists  often  overlook  the  long  established  
quite  some  time.    A  baseline  as  good  as  any  (being  instructive   collaborative   work   of   Latin   America.     Also   overlooked   are  
as  it  is  for  those  who  seek  to  tackle,  in  particular,  the  politics   fields   such   as   oral   history   and   folklore,   in   which   issues   of  
of   collaborative   and   reciprocal   approaches   to   representation)   disagreement,   particularly   about   the   past,   have   surfaced  
is   Caroline   Brettell’s   edited   volume,   When   They   Read   What   repeatedly,   and   with   which   folklorists   and   oral   historians  
We   Write   (Brettell   1996).     Several   of   the   volume’s   authors   have   dealt   for   some   time   (see,   e.g.,   Frisch   1990).     Those  
take   up   the   complexities   of   disagreement   and   difference   in   familiar   with   my   work   (all   three   or   four   of   you)   know   that   I  
the   context   of   individual   projects,   and   I   chronicle   a   few   of   have  for  many  years  leaned  on  the  works  of  folklorists  such  as  
these   in   The   Chicago   Guide   to   Collaborative   Ethnography   Elaine   Lawless   (e.g.,   1992)   and   Glenn   Hinson   (e.g.,   2002);  
(Lassiter  2005a).    An  example  relevant  to  my  purposes  here   is   lately  I’ve  been  looking  to  oral  historians  for  inspiration.    For  
Brettell’s   essay,   “Whose   History   Is   It?   Selection   and   example,   in   preparing   a   recent   essay   I   wrote   for   the   latest  
Representation   in   the   Creation   of   a   Text,”   in   which   she   NAPA   Bulletin,   “Moving   Past   Public   Anthropology   and   Doing  
explores   how   a   public   lecture   on   the   history   of   French-­‐ Collaborative   Research”   (Lassiter   2008b),   I   examined   several  
Canadian   immigration   to   Illinois   in   the   mid-­‐nineteenth   works   by   oral   historians   (among   other   collaborative  
century—led   by   a   charismatic   and   controversial   figure   still   researchers)   working   across   differences   in   and   with  
prominent   in   the   minds   of   local   residents   to   whom   Brettell   collaboration.     An   example   is   Cedric   Chatterley   and   Alicia  
directed   her   talk—prompted   involved   disagreements   with   Rouverol’s  book  “I  Was  Content  and  Not  Content”:  The  Story  
those   local   residents   about   that   history,   the   way   it   was   of  Linda  Lord  and  the  Closing  of  Penobscot  Poultry  (Chatterley  
represented,   and   its   meaning   to   contemporary   community   and  Rouverol  2000),  in  which  disagreements  surface  between  
members.     Brettell   offers   several   lessons   for   thinking   through   the   oral   history   researchers   and   Linda   Lord,   the   work’s   key  
both   the   process   of   representation   and   the   complexities   of   collaborator   as   well   as   the   narrative’s   main   character.     “Our  
how   the   past   is   understood   and   used   (and   perhaps   even   key   area   of   disagreement   .   .   .   ,”   wrote   Rouveral,   later  
abused),   including   working   through   issues   of   ownership,   reflecting   on   the   project,   “was   in   the   question   of   what  
navigating  local  and  outside  interpretations,  and  realizing  the   businesses  owe  communities  when  they  shut  down.  I  believe  
problems   introduced   by   historical   comparison.   These   that   some   sort   of   restitution   is   in   order   when   long-­‐time  
disagreements,   Brettell   suggest,   stem   from   “the   difference   businesses   close   and   leave   a   community   that   is   significantly  
between   the   way   our   respondents   understand   and   frame   dependent   on   that   industry   for   its   livelihood.   Linda   believes  
that  businesses  do  not  necessarily  owe  a  community  anything  
† when   they   leave.   We   chose   to   include   in   the   book’s   edited  
  My   use   of   “force   of   difference”   here   in   some   ways   echoes   Anna  
Tsing’s   notion   of   collaboration   as   friction   (Tsing   2005),   “the   interviews   our   exchange   on   this   point,   to   draw   attention   to  
awkward,   unequal,   unstable,   and   creative   qualities   of   our  differing  perspectives”  (Rouverol  2003:66-­‐67).    Featuring  
interconnection   across   difference”   (4)   that   assemble   successful   these  disagreements,  she  continues,  illustrates  “the  dynamic  
collaborative  outcomes  in  unexpected  ways  (see  esp.  245-­‐68).    Tsing   of   our   collaborative   exchange,   to   make   plain   our   respective  
works   to   build   more   complex   theories   of   global   encounter   and   interpretations,  and  to  suggest  that  meaning  forged  through  
connection:   deploying   the   notion   of   collaboration   “as   cooperating   dialogue  is  not  necessarily  arrived  at  through  agreement  and  
with   enemies,”   for   example,   she   details   how   diversely   positioned   shared  perspectives  (Rouverol  2000:72-­‐73).”  
parties   and   interests—which   include   investors,   scientists,  
As   I   note   in   my   NAPA   essay,   doing   collaborative,  
environmentalists,   villagers   and   others—intersect   in   “zone[s]   of  
reciprocal  or  participatory  research  “does  not  require  that  we  
awkward   engagement”   where   differences   between   and   among  
these   diverse   parties   and   interests   “bring   misunderstandings   into   flatten,   homogenize,   or   even   ‘whitewash’   differences   (cf.  
the  core  of  alliance”  and  “in  the  process  .  .  .  make  wide-­‐ranging  links   Foley   and   Valenzuela   2005).   As   in   any   collaboration,   both  
possible:   they   are   the   stuff   of   global   ties”   (247).     My   goal   for   this   ethnographer(s)  and  [so-­‐called]  consultant(s)  must  be  willing  
paper—focused   as   it   is   on   deploying   notions   of   collaboration   as   a   to   make   concessions   so   they   can   work   together   in   the   first  
“joint   intellectual   effort”   in   the   context   of   individual   collaborative   place;   but   they   must   also   be   willing   to   open   themselves   up   to  
research  partnerships  and  projects—is  much  more  modest  in  scope.  
 
Lassiter   When  We  Disagree   3  
a   dynamic   knowledge   exchange,   to   stick   it   out,   and   to   agendas   that   community   researchers   bring   to   the  
discover  in  their  work  together  emergent  co-­‐understandings,   collaborative  endeavor  are  key  spaces  in  which  we  can  begin  
co-­‐interpretations,   and   co-­‐inscriptions   (which   will   always   to   discern   the   potential   contributions   of   collaboration”   (2),  
include   points   of   disagreement).   As   Rouverol   (2003:84)   contributions   that   provide   “a   space   for   the   coproduction   of  
contends,  ‘dialogue—and  social  change,  if  that’s  what  we  are   theory,   which   is   .   .   .   a   crucial   venue   in   which   knowledge   is  
after—simply   cannot   happen   unless   we   are   open   to   hearing   created   through   collaboration”   (2).   Rappaport   is   referring  
perspectives  other  than  our  own’”  (Lassiter  2008b:76).   here  to  not  just  the  co-­‐theorization  or  co-­‐construction  of  local  
Complex   and   involved   collaborative   projects   and   knowledge   or   “grounded   theory”;   she   is   also   arguing   for   a  
partnerships,  then,  move  forward  (encouraging  dialogue  and   space   for   realizing   the   “potential   for   nourishing   and  
social   change,   for   example)   not   just   through   agreement   and   revitalizing   anthropological   thought   .   .   .   .   [a]   nourishing  
accord,  but  through  force  of  difference.    Of  course,  those  of   [involving]   both   the   political   objectives   of   community  
us  who  do  or  have  done  collaborative  research—in  whatever   researchers  and  the  academic  analyses  of  scholars”  (2-­‐3).    As  
form—already   know   this   on   a   deep   level.   My   larger   point   an   example,   Rappaport   provides   a   compelling   case   for   how  
here,  then,  is  not  to  provide  a  litany  of  various  examples  from   collaborative   researchers   might   inform,   for   example,  
my   own   and   others’   research   that   illustrate   the   process   of   “anthropological  notions  of  ethnicity”  (19),  which,  in  her  case,  
working   with   and   across   difference.     My   larger   point   here,   were   informed   through   a   process   of   “collaborative  
instead,   concerns   what   we   do   with   this   material—and   more   theorizing”   where,   she   writes,   “we   were   not   led   to  
generally,  the  knowledge  that  we  carry  with  us  about  the  real   essentialize.   In   fact,   we   were   entreated   to   do   entirely   the  
complexities   of   doing   collaborative   work—especially   as   we   opposite:   to   focus   on   the   ambivalences   and   heterogeneities  
move  into  what  may  be  a  new  era  for  collaborative  research.   of  indigenous  politics  .  .  .  .”  (23).  
  Rappaport   suggests   that   this   kind   of   co-­‐theorization   has  
Bringing  the  Force  of  Difference  to  Bear  on  Collaboration   the   potential   to   inform   our   current   theoretical  
  understandings   of   issues   and   concepts   much   broader   than  
If   all   of   this   movement   toward   collaborative,   reciprocal   and   that   which   just   expands   field   methods   or   research  
participatory   researches   is   indeed   gathering   steam   for   approaches.     If   this   is   indeed   the   case,   then   it   seems   to   me  
revitalizing   anthropology—and   I   think   that   it   may   be—then   that  articulating  those  particulars  that  give  rise  to  the  force  of  
bringing   the   “force   of   difference”   to   bear   on   the   meanings   difference   is   a   critical   part   of   this   larger   project,   meant   as   it   is  
and  implications  of  collaborative  researches  seems  especially   to   inform   the   broader   terrains   of   theoretical   anthropology.    
pertinent   right   now.     Many   of   us   have   explored   how   complex   Make   no   mistake   about   it:   we   have   theorized   collaborative  
‡
differences   emerge   in   our   individual   partnerships   and   research   methods   before.     But   my   hope   is   that   this   latest  
projects.   And   a   good   many   ethnographers,   folklorists,   and   (and   still   emergent)   work   might   finally   begin   to   transform   the  
oral   historians   (as   well   as   archaeologists,   linguists,   applied   default   position   of   “collaboration”   itself.   “Agreement,”  
anthropologists,   and   many   others   in   and   outside   of   “complicity”—and   perhaps   even   “collusion”   for   those   more  
anthropology)  continue  to  work  on  this  problem.    We  know,   skeptical—continue   to   forcefully   situate   that   default   position,  
to   be   sure,   that   differences   force   change   in   the   context   of   one   still   informed   in   large   measure   by   more   dominant  
individual   partnerships   and   projects.     But   they   also   have   “suspicions   of   collaboration”   rather   than   by   the   thick  
potential   to   force   change   across   our   various   projects   and   description   of   negotiated   theory-­‐building   grounded   in   the  
partnerships,   too;   especially   as   we   bring   different   kinds,   context   of   complex   fieldwork   relations,   dialogues,   and  
descriptions,  visions,  and  theories  of  collaborative  researches   emergent  co-­‐understandings.  
to  bear  on  our  wider  understanding  of  collaboration  itself.   Even   still,   some   will   no-­‐doubt   always   consider  
Put   another   way,   it   seems   to   me   that   all   of   us   who   are   collaboration  “soft”  at  its  best,  “cooperating  with  enemies”  at  
doing   collaborative   research   in   one   form   or   another   (and   I   its   worst   (Peacock   2008).     Nevertheless,   perhaps   the  
include  myself  here)  could  do  more  to,  first,  explore  in  even   collaborative   work   now   transpiring   in   and   outside  
more  deliberate  and  explicit  ways  how  differences  emerge  in   anthropology   might   transform   how   we   think   about   and  
our   work   and   how   they   inform   specifically   the   unfolding   of   through   “collaboration”—in   ways   similar   to   how   our  
collaborative   researches;   second,   formulate   more   theoretical  understandings  of  “gender”  were  transformed  by  
connections   with   the   work   of   other   scholars   who   are   also   feminist   anthropologists   (particularly   by   black   feminists)   in  
exploring  these  issues  outside  our  own  intellectual  silos;  and   the   1980s   and   90s   (Morgen   1989).     During   this   period,   as   is  
third,  and  perhaps  most  importantly,  bring  this  broad-­‐based,   well   known,   notions   of   “sameness”   were   powerfully  
interdisciplinary   knowledge   to   bear   on   the   theory   of  
collaborative  praxis  more  generally.   ‡
  For   example:   research   models   for   doing   collaborative   research  
Joanne   Rappaport   (2008)   makes   a   similar   point   in   her   gained   considerable   traction   with   the   applied   collaborative  
recently   published   Collaborative   Anthropologies   essay,   anthropology  of  the  1970s  and  1980s  (see,  e.g.,  Schensul  and  Stern  
“Beyond   Participant   Observation:   Collaborative   Ethnography   1985),  which  was  sustained  during  the  1990s  (see,  e.g.,  Schensul  and  
as  Theoretical  Innovation,”  in  which  she  argues  that  the  “local   Schensul   1992),   and   which   still   has   wide   currency   today   (see,   e.g.,  
van  Willigen  2002:101-­‐114).  
 
Lassiter   When  We  Disagree   4  
challenged   by   notions   of   “difference”   (such   as   that   generated   References  
by   race,   class,   or   history),   and   it   refigured   anthropology’s    
approach   to   gender   as   more   than   just   an   independent   Austin,  Diane  E.  
“cultural  construction”  but  central  to  the  study  of  culture  and   2004   Partnerships,  Not  Projects!  Improving  the  
society,   linked   in   complicated   ways   to   multiple   social   Environment  through  Collaborative  Research  and  
processes   (Lamphere   1987).     Henrietta   Moore   (1988:197)   Action.  Human  Organization  63(4):419-­‐30.  
would   write   during   this   time   that   “the   task   for   feminist   Ayi,  Bamo,  Stevan  Harrell,  and  Ma  Lunzy  
anthropologists  .  .  .  is  to  find  ways  of  theorizing  these  highly   2007   Fieldwork  Connections:  The  Fabric  of  Ethnographic  
variable   intersections   between   the   various   forms   of   Collaborations  in  China  and  America.  Seattle:  
difference.”   Arguably,   feminist   anthropologists   succeeded   in   University  of  Washington  Press.  
transforming   the   way   anthropology   approached   gender   and   Bennett,  John  W.  
difference—which  included,  of  course,  transforming  research   1996   Applied  and  Action  Anthropology:  Ideological  and  
methods   (see   Lassiter   2005a:52-­‐60).     It’s   certainly   hard   for   Conceptual  Aspects.  Current  Anthropology  37:S23-­‐39.  
me,   at   least,   to   think   about   “gender”   without   immediately   Bhattacharya,  Himika  
calling   up   these   complexities   for   working   with   and   across   2008 New  Critical  Collaborative  Ethnography.  In  Handbook  
difference.  I  would  presume  the  same  would  be  true  for  most   of  Emergent  Methods.  Sharlene  Nagy  Hesse-­‐Biber  and  
anthropologists   today,   perhaps   especially   for   those   “coming   Patricia  Leavy,  eds.  Pp.  303-­‐322.  New  York:  The  
of  age”  in  anthropology  at  least  since  the  early  1990s.   Guilford  Press.  
In   any   case,   as   I   read   Henrietta   Moore’s   call   to   action   Brettell,  Caroline  B.,  ed.  
written  twenty  years  ago  and  then  think  about  where  we  are   1996   When  They  Read  What  We  Write:  The  Politics  of  
now  in  relation  to  issues  of  gender  and  difference,  I  wonder  if   Ethnography.  Westport:  Bergin  and  Garvey.  
the   idea   of   “collaboration”   in   particular—especially   that   Brown,  Alison  K.,  and  Laura  Peers,  with  members  of  the  
which   implies   a   “joint   intellectual   effort”—might   be   going   Kainai  Nation  
through   a   similar   transformation,   especially   now,   when   2006   “Pictures  Bring  Us  Messages”  /  Sinaakssiiksi  
modes   of   collaborative   research   seem   to   be   taking   on   a   more   aohtsimaahpihkookiyaawa:  Photographs  and  Histories  
central   role   in   our   field.   If   this   is   indeed   the   case,   from  the  Kainai  Nation.  Toronto:  University  of  Toronto  
collaborative  researchers—however  they  may  be  situated,  as   Press.  
collaborative  ethnographers,  activist  anthropologists,  applied   Chatterley,  Cedric  N.,  and  Alicia  J.  Rouverol,  with  Stephen  A.  
anthropologists,   etc.—are   then   at   a   critical   juncture,   one   Cole  
where   we   can   inform   in   forceful   ways   the   actual   dynamics   2000   “I  Was  Content  and  Not  Content”:  The  Story  of  Linda  
and   complications   of   doing   collaborative,   reciprocal   or     Lord  and  the  Closing  of  Penobscot  Poultry.  Carbondale:  
participatory   researches.     And   as   we   speak   to   the   actual   Southern  Illinois  University  Press.  
complexities   of   doing   this   collaborative   work,   perhaps   more   Colwell-­‐Chanthaphonh,  Chip,  and  T.  J.  Ferguson,  eds.  
one-­‐dimensional  “suspicions  of  collaboration”  will  finally  give   2007 Collaboration  in  Archaeological  Practice:  Engaging  
way   to   those   kinds,   descriptions,   visions   and   theories   of   Descendant  Communities.    Lanham,  MD:  AltaMira  
collaborative   work   that   function   to   re-­‐   conceptualize   and   Press.  
articulate  “collaboration”  in  more  complex  and  multi-­‐faceted   Cook,  Samuel  R.  
ways.   2008   “You  Can’t  Put  a  Price  On  It”:  Activist  Anthropology  
  in  the  Mountaintop  Removal  Debate.  Collaborative  
Postscript:  On  Collaborative  Anthropologies   Anthropologies  1:138-­‐62.  
  Darnell,  Regna  
These   are   precisely   the   kinds   of   outcomes   I   have   hoped   to   2001   Invisible  Genealogies:  A  History  of  Americanist  
see   materialize   in   the   new   journal   I   edit,   Collaborative   Anthropology.  Lincoln:  University  of  Nebraska  Press.  
Anthropologies,   an   annual   published   by   the   University   of   Ferguson,  T.  J.,  and  Chip  Colwell-­‐Chanthaphonh  
Nebraska  Press.    I  do  hope  that  any  of  you  who  have   done  or   2006   History  Is  in  the  Land:  Multivocal  Tribal  Traditions  in  
who   are   currently   doing   collaborative   research   might   Arizona's  San  Pedro  Valley.  Tucson:  University  of  
consider   contributing   to   this   larger   conversation   and   Arizona  Press.  
elaborating   the   “force   of   difference”   emergent   in   your   own   Field,  Les  W.  
collaborative   projects   and   partnerships   by   submitting   an   1999   Complicities  and  Collaborations:  Anthropologists  and  
essay,   reflection,   review,   interview,   dialogue   or   otherwise.     the  “Unacknowledged  Tribes”  of  California.  Current  
For   a   full   description   of   the   journal’s   mission   and   guidelines   Anthropology  40(2):193-­‐209.  
for   article   submissions,   see   the   journal’s   website   at   2008   Abalone  Tales:  Collaborative  Explorations  of  
http://www.marshall.edu/coll-­‐anth.   The   Introduction   to   the   California  Indian  Sovereignty  and  Identity.  Durham:  
inaugural   2008   issue,   which   outlines   the   goals   of   the   annual   Duke  University  Press.  
further,  is  also  posted  on  the  journal’s  website.    

 
Lassiter   When  We  Disagree   5  
Field,  Les  W.,  and  Richard  G.  Fox,  eds.   Lamphere,  Louise  
2007    Anthropology  Put  to  Work.    Oxford:  Berg.   1987   Feminism  and  Anthropology:  The  Struggle  to  
Foley,  Douglas,  and  Angela  Valenzuela   Reshape  Our  Thinking  about  Gender.  In  The  Impact  of  
2005 Critical  Ethnography:  The  Politics  of  Collaboration.    In   Feminist  Research  in  the  Academy.  Christie  Farnham,  
rd
The  Sage  Handbook  of  Qualitative  Research,  3  ed.     ed.  Pp.  11-­‐33.  Bloomington:  Indiana  University  Press.  
Norman  K.  Denzin  and  Yvonna  S.  Lincoln,  eds.    Pp  217-­‐ 2004   The  Convergence  of  Applied,  Practicing,  and  Public  
st
234.  London:  Sage.   Anthropology  in  the  21  Century.    Human  Organization  
Frisch,  Michael  H.   63(4):431-­‐43.  
1990   A  Shared  Authority:  Essays  on  the  Craft  and  Meaning   Lassiter,  Luke  Eric  
of  Oral  and  Public  History.  Albany:  State  University  of   2005a  The  Chicago  Guide  to  Collaborative  Ethnography.  
New  York  Press.   Chicago:  University  of  Chicago  Press.  
Hale,  Charles  R.   2005b  Collaborative  Ethnography  and  Public  Anthropology.  
2006   Activist  Research  v.  Cultural  Critique:  Indigenous   Current  Anthropology  46(1):83-­‐97.  
Land  Rights  and  the  Contradictions  of  Politically   2008a  Collaborative  Anthropologies,  vol.  1  (ed).    Lincoln:  
Engaged  Anthropology.  Cultural  Anthropology   University  of  Nebraska  Press.  
21(1):96-­‐120.   2008b  Moving  Past  Public  Anthropology  and  Doing  
2007   In  Praise  of  “Reckless  Minds”:  Making  a  Case  for   Collaborative  Research.    NAPA  Bulletin  29:70-­‐86.  
Activist  Anthropology.    In  Anthropology  Put  to  Work.   FC       Collaborative  Anthropologies,  vol.  2  (ed).    Lincoln:  
Les  W.  Field  and  Richard  G.  Fox,  eds.  Pp  103-­‐127.   University  of  Nebraska  Press.  
Oxford:  Berg.   Lawless,  Elaine  
Hemment,  Julie   1992   “I  Was  Afraid  Someone  Like  You  .  .  .  An  Outsider  .  .  .  
2007   Public  Anthropology  and  the  Paradoxes  of   Would  Misunderstand”:  Negotiating  Interpretative  
Participation:  Participatory  Action  Research  and  Critical   Differences  between  Ethnographers  and  Subjects.  
Anthropology  in  Provincial  Russia.  Human  Organization   Journal  of  American  Folklore  105:  302-­‐314.  
66(3):301-­‐314.   1993   Holy  Women,  Wholly  Women:  Sharing  Ministries  
Hinson,  Glenn   through  Life  Stories  and  Reciprocal  Ethnography.  
2000   Fire  in  My  Bones:  Transcendence  and  the  Holy  Spirit   Philadelphia:  University  of  Pennsylvania  Press.  
in  African  American  Gospel.  Philadelphia:  University  of   Marcus,  George  E.  
Pennsylvania  Press.   2008   The  End(s)  of  Ethnography:  Social/Cultural  
Holmes,  Douglas  R.,  and  George  E.   Anthropology’s  Signature  Form  of  Producing  
2005a  Refunctioning    Ethnography:  The  Challenge  of  an   Knowledge  in  Transition.    Cultural  Anthropology  
Anthropology  of  the  Contemporary.  In  The  Sage   23(1):1-­‐14.  
rd
Handbook  of  Qualitative  Research,  3  ed.    Norman  K.   Marcus,  George  E.,  and  Fernando  Mascarenhas  
Denzin  and  Yvonna  S.  Lincoln,  eds.    Pp.  1099-­‐1113.     2005 Ocasião:  The  Marquis  and  the  Anthropologist,  a  
Thousand  Oaks,  CA:  Sage.   Collaboration.  Walnut  Creek:  AltaMira  Press.  
2005b  Cultures  of  Expertise  and  the  Management  of   Moore,  Henrietta  
Globalization:  Toward  the  Refunctioning  of   1988   Feminism  and  Anthropology.  Minneapolis:  University  
Ethnography.  In  Global  Assemblages:  Technology,   of  Minnesota  Press.  
Politics,  and  Ethics  as  Anthropology  Problems.  Aihwa   Morgen,  Sandra,  ed.  
Ong  and  Stephen  J.  Collier,  eds.    Pp.  235-­‐52.    Oxford:   1989   Gender  and  Anthropology:  Critical  Reviews  for  
Blackwell.   Research  and  Teaching.  Washington,  D.C.:  American  
2006   Fast  Capitalism:  Para-­‐Ethnography  and  the  Rise  of   Anthropological  Association.  
the  Symbolic  Analyst.  In  Frontiers  of  Capital:   Peacock,  James  L.  
Ethnographic  Reflections  on  the  New  Economy.     2008   Reflections  on  Collaboration,  Ethnographic  and  
Melissa  S.  Fisher  and  Greg  Downey,  eds.  Pp.  33-­‐57.   Applied.  Collaborative  Anthropologies  1:163-­‐74.  
Durham,  NC:  Duke  University  Press.   Rappaport,  Joanne  
2008   Collaboration  Today  and  the  Re-­‐Imagination  of  the   2005 Intercultural  Utopias:  Public  Intellectuals,  Cultural  
Classic  Scene  of  Fieldwork  Encounter.  Collaborative   Experimentation,  and  Ethnic  Pluralism  in  Columbia.  
Anthropologies  1:81-­‐101.   Durham:  Duke  University  Press.  
Kerber,  Jordan  E.,  ed.   2007   Anthropological  Collaborations  in  Columbia.  In  
2006    Cross-­‐Cultural  Collaboration:  Native  Peoples  and   Anthropology  Put  to  Work.  Les  W.  Field  and  Richard  G.  
Archaeology  in  the  Northeastern  United  States.   Fox,  eds.  Pp  1-­‐43.  Oxford:  Berg.  
Lincoln:  University  of  Nebraska  Press.   2008 Beyond  Participant  Observation:  Collaborative  
  Ethnography  as  Theoretical  Innovation.  Collaborative  
  Anthropologies  1:1-­‐31.  

 
Lassiter   When  We  Disagree   6  
Reddy,  Deepa  S.  
2008   Caught  in  Collaboration.  Collaborative  
Anthropologies  1:51-­‐80.  
Rosaldo,  Renato  
1989   Culture  and  Truth:  The  Remaking  of  Social  Analysis.  
Boston:  Beacon.  
Rouverol,  Alicia  J.  
2000   “I  Was  Content  and  Not  Content”:  Oral  History  and  
the  Collaborative  Process.  Oral  History  28(2):66-­‐78.  
2003   Collaborative  Oral  History  in  a  Correctional  Setting:  
Promise  and  Pitfalls.  The  Oral  History  Review  30(1):61-­‐
85.  
Schensul,  Jean  J.,  and  Gwen  Stern  
1985 Collaborative  Research  and  Social  Action.  American  
Behavioral  Scientist  29:133-­‐38.  
Schensul,  Jean  J.,  and  Stephen  L.  Schensul  
1992   Collaborative  Research:  Methods  of  Inquiry  for  Social  
Change.  In  The  Handbook  of  Qualitative  Research  in  
Education.  Margaret  D.  LeCompte,  Wendy  L.  Millroy,  
and  Judith  Preissle,  eds.  Pp.  161-­‐200.  New  York:  
Academic  Press.  
Schensul,  Stephen  L.  
1973 Action  Research:  The  Applied  Anthropologist  in  a  
Community  Mental  Health  Program.    In  Anthropology  
Beyond  the  University.  Alden  Redfield,  ed.  Pp.  106-­‐119.  
Athens:  University  of  Georgia  Press.  
Stacy,  Judith  
1988   Can  There  be  a  Feminist  Ethnography?  Women’s  
Studies  International  Forum  11(1):21-­‐27.  
Stull,  Donald.  D.,  and  Jean  J.  Schensul,  eds.  
1987   Collaborative  Research  and  Social  Change:  Applied  
Anthropology  in  Action.  Boulder:  Westview  Press.  
Tsing,  Anna  Lowenhaupt  
2005 Friction:  An  Ethnography  of  Global  Connection.  
Princeton:  Princeton  University  Press.  
van  Willigen,  John  
rd
2002   Applied  Anthropology:  An  Introduction,  3  ed.  
Wesport:  Bergin  &  Garvey.  
Wali,  Alaka,  ed.  
2006   Collaborative  Research:  A  Practical  Guide  to  
Participatory  Action  Research  (PAR)  for  Communities  
and  Scholars.  Chicago:  Field  Museum.  
 

 
Lassiter   When  We  Disagree   7