ANTHMETHGRP1-24-25-EMMA-KELLY

[Last modified: December, 2 2024 09:57 AM]

On Friday, my group was given scenario #1: women survivors of domestic abuse in Pakistan. This research proposal, although it focuses in on a very important topic, raised a number of ‘red flags’ from an ethics perspective.

First, the risks of the project far outweigh the benefits. This student proposes working with very vulnerable women. Being associated with the management of the women’s shelter, the student researcher is in a position of power in a situation where women are experiencing a very traumatic situation. This hinders the ability of potential research partners to give free and full consent, as they may worry that their consent or lack of consent to participate may influence their safety and security in whether they are able to remain at the shelter as comfortably as possible. Additionally, this project being high risk raises alarms as the scope of a masters dissertation is limited. The limited timeframe and resources with which to complete the research project are not conducive to a positive outcome from a risk-benefit analysis perspective.

Second, the student is unable to use any data collected from the original interviews as these were conducted without official ethics approval. If the student were to carry out this project (which is highly unlikely in this situation), the student would need to re-conduct the interview with the woman. However, it may be possible to use what was published in print media as a secondary source.

A third thing to consider is the setting. The UK government has, from a brief overview of their website, many travel warnings for Pakistan. The university would need to consider where the student is going in the country and whether they were from Pakistan or otherwise had a support network there in order to make a conscientious decision on safety and security for the student. Further, the setting of the domestic violence shelter should be considered. There may be risk for retribution from women’s abusers both against the women and the student researcher should the data be leaked, traced or identified. The risks therefore increase dramatically for both the student and their research partners.

The advice I would give to this student might be to consider interviewing survivors of domestic abuse who attended this shelter after they have left and established a new life, where they are financially independent, safe, and in a good state of mental health, and therefore able to give full and free consent.

[Last modified: November, 22 2024 03:49 PM]

Theatre of the Oppressed could be utilised in circumstances where it may be easier for people to break the ice and act out scenarios pertaining to the research topic before, or perhaps as an alternative to in-depth ethnographic interviews which may be difficult to discuss due to trauma around the research topic. Theatre of the Oppressed as a multimodal method could be used to include in an ethnographic body of work through video recording or a soundscape of the activity. Further, the ethnographer could carry out sketching the scenes in addition to field notes about the overall experience for the participants. Importantly, I think that participating in Theatre of the Oppressed alongside their research partners would allow the ethnographer a more embodied and thorough understanding of their research partners perspectives and lived experiences. Theatre of the Oppressed could also be an important part of the process of the ethnographer reflecting on their positionality in relation to their partners and subject.

I think that the Theatre of the Oppressed is an interesting and unique way of carrying out ethnographic field works with various stakeholders in a community. I think it is great that it allows many different people, from all ages, to participate not only in telling a story, but in a community bonding activity. Ethically, I think that the Theatre of the Oppressed has great potential for evening out some of the power asymmetries that have historically existed between researchers and their partners in the field. However, as with all methods, I think we need to be careful when adopting this method as it may be uncomfortable for some participants who may be more shy, or people who may not want to participate in the research project in such a visible way. This is something that not everyone may be comfortable with, and as researchers, we need to ensure that we find a way for research partners who want to participate to do so in a way that is personally comfortable and culturally appropriate. 

For my own projects, I am not sure I would be comfortable in carrying out workshops or projects within this theatre framework, primarily because I do not have a theatre background and I am uncomfortable in this environment which is very new to me. However, I think that the Theatre of the Oppressed has many great applications, including for my pilot project, where people could collaborate to recreate certain scenarios which dog owners may find themselves in, and see what comments and debates may arise from how people would approach or view certain situations. I speculate that many interesting conversations may arise from this activity and may lead to further topics to discuss, especially from the conversations or debates that may arise between dog owners that may not occur between myself and research partners in an interview or more formal setting.

[Last modified: November, 17 2024 11:52 AM]

Moving through my daily life in London sometimes feels like navigating without a map. Especially when I’m tired, or even when I am exploring somewhere new, my body sometimes struggles to find the correct path. Constantly switching which side of the sidewalk I’m walking on (also turning around in the middle of the pavement because I have most definitely walked the wrong way for the last ten minutes), getting bumped by passive aggressive men on the escalators in the underground, and the constant noise which oscillates wildly between overwhelming and comforting. For me, living in London so far has been a viscerally embodied experience, and one that has been, so far, remarkably different from my previous homes in rural Alberta and Metro Vancouver.

Yesterday, I was on the Picadilly line, headed west. My journey began by weaving through clusters of tourists in Russell Square station. Then, finding a place to squeeze in line for the lift, and subsequently, squeezing into the lift itself. This journey was marked by re-negotiation of my own body within a constantly changing physical and social environment. Sometimes, like yesterday, there’s no way to avoid having a tourist run over your foot with their suitcase. Sometimes, like yesterday, there’s no way to avoid the tourists studiously blocking the doors with their own bodies. For me, the tube has come to represent the essence of my embodied experiences in London. For, in many ways, it is an amalgamation of London life: busy, physically and mentally demanding, and always changing.

As I navigate myself down and below the city, my body is constantly facing new obstacles: no matter how many times I take the same journey, I never experience it in the same way twice. Sometimes, the tube comes and it is empty and I am able to sit down and rest for a few important moments. Sometimes, the tube comes packed, and I think, ‘there’s no way anyone else will fit’… but Londoner’s always find a way, almost inconceivably, to fit more people onto the tube.

In taking the underground since I moved to London, I have become necessarily more aware of my body. Where I am going, how I am going to get there, and how much energy it takes to simply move through London life are all new aspects of my life that are very much determined by how my body exists, how I experience it within this new context, as well as how it is perceived to exist in the hustle and bustle of the city. I wonder, as per my pilot project, how my experiences would change if my dog was here, and how my (and his) embodied experiences would potentially co-constitute each other as a source of stability in an ever-changing urban environment…

[Last modified: November, 4 2024 10:46 AM]

This project could have important political implications in how the data I would collect is applied. For example, there could be policy applications in promoting more dog-friendly areas, perhaps such as dog parks. Running with the example of dog parks, the creation of these types of areas is highly political in that, in central London, you’re almost certainly changing a space that has been previously in use. As well, keeping in mind that owning a dog in central London typically requires capital assets, it is critical to keep in mind who the implementation of a dog park may affect most negatively. For example, if a section of a park previously used for leisure is converted into a dog park and restricted from members of the public who do not have/cannot afford a dog, this can restrict peoples ability to access a third space and therefore may negatively impact people’s mental health and wellbeing.

As a reactive dog owner, my positionality may influence how I approach this project. Because my dog Zeus is reactive, I have adapted my routine and the ways in which I navigate busy areas to accommodate his wellbeing. This affects how I see other dog owners in their management of their dogs (such as the presence/lack of recall), and as well, I may approach areas with many dogs with caution. Therefore, having a reactive dog not only influences how I see dog-human relationships, but also how I interact with the urban environment with my dog is very different. I would need to keep in mind that every dog, human and dog-human relationship is different, and do my best not to have my own experiences shape how I interact with dog owners who may make choices different than my own.

In terms of methods, I think it would be important to interview not only dog-owners to see how dog ownership influences their experiences of green spaces and the larger urban environment, but also people who do not own dogs, to see how dog-human relationships affect their use of urban spaces. For example, if someone is afraid of dogs (or simply does not like them), and therefore purposefully spends time in dog-free sections of Regents Park, yet people bring their dogs into that space regardless of the restrictions, how does that impact their use of the space, their wellbeing, and their relationship to the urban green space?

[Last modified: October, 27 2024 05:52 PM]

Fall was in the air on this chilly, overcast Friday in Gordon Square Garden. Sitting on a cold stone ledge at the edge of the Garden, I directed my attention to pigeons flocking in a nearby corner. Three young people, likely students on a break from class, were feeding the pigeons. The pigeons, for their part, appeared quite happy with this development, as their cooing and flapping could be heard from my spot a few feet away. Unlike the pigeons, flocking together for a social meal (and their chefs, so to speak), most people in Gordon Square Park were alone, heads down, and likely on their way to an important class, meeting or job: such is the hustle and bustle of London, that you cannot escape the chaos, even in the most tranquil of green spaces.

—

In my vignette above, I hoped to highlight some of the keywords I identified from this field note experience: social exchange (or the lack thereof), multi-species encounters, and the built environment. In this vignette, the key story I wanted to tell was how the business and loneliness of London persists in the Garden, an urban green space that is part of the built environment, yet may have been intentioned to provide a break from London’s busyness and brick walls. Further, I wanted to reflect on what I found to be the most interesting part of this field work exercise, the multi-species exchange between the three young people and the flock of pigeons. This stood out to me not only as a clear example of a multi species encounter, but also as a departure from the continuum of social exchanges (specifically the absence of them) that the London built environment may facilitate. Reflecting on my experience, I think it is worth exploring how the key words I have identified are intertwined with one another.

Having taken a couple days away from the field and this exercise, I found my notes really helpful in taking me back to that moment, and remembering what I saw, even if I didn’t necessarily have the chance to write down every detail. Specially, I found that writing down the specifics of the environment in which I found myself, such as the weather and the sounds around me helped me remember what I observed, and why I found it important to write down. However, I definitely feel like more practice would be essential as I am very new to writing field notes, and I think that I have forgotten quite a few details. In the future, I’d like to focus in more on what I found important (in this case, the pigeons and the young people), and work on recording more details relevant to these instances so that I might be able to both better remember what occurred, and be better able to apply an anthropological lens to my observations. As well, I think it would be wise to practice my drawing skills in order to better recall the environments or situations I will find myself in.

October 25th, 2024: Field Notes by author.

[Last modified: October, 18 2024 02:55 PM]

My proposed pilot project, looking at how the dog-human relationship shapes human interactions with the built urban environment, is exploring a theme I am familiar with as a dog ‘owner.’ I chose this topic because, being from a rural area, and being a ‘dog mom’ myself, I am interested in how people navigate the busy and dense urban environment with their pets, specifically dogs. The life experience I have living in a rural area with my dog, as well as in London without my dog, undoubtedly shapes my experiences with the urban environment, as well as guiding what I find most notable about other dog-human duos and their experiences in the urban context.

As ‘dog mom’ myself, I want to acknowledge that I bring specific notions about dog ‘ownership’ and the relationship that people have with ‘their’ dogs based on my own relationship with my dog, Zeus, that may not be applicable to other individuals and dogs who each have their own life histories that shape their interactions with one another, and with the built environment. In my own relationship with my dog, I try to make a conscious effort to acknowledge Zeus’ autonomy as an independent and agentic being (within the realms of his safety). For example, I allow him to chose when and if he is happy to be picked up, unless it is for his safety, in which case he seems to understand and allows me to pick him up in urgent or potentially unsafe situations. I acknowledge that this may not be the norm, as people hold different ideas about how their pets should listen and behave in response to them (eg. the expectation might be to always allow the human to pick up the dog, as the dog is expected to listen to the human without question).

In carrying out an ethnographic study of the urban dog-human experience, I can see how my different approach to navigating the dog-human relationship affects my positionality in how I might approach the larger topic and subtopics. In terms of the research process, especially in terms of question design, I would need to keep my positionality in mind to ensure I am asking fair and equitable questions that do not alienate people who may have different relationships with their pets than what I am used to in my own relationship with Zeus. Further, in terms of reflexivity, I would need to reflect on how and why my approaches and beliefs may differ from others, and to note the emotions that may come up for me through the fieldwork process as I attempt to navigate these potentially different relationships.

‘My’ dog, Zeus! Photo by Author, 2024.

[Last modified: October, 11 2024 03:32 PM]

As Selena Gomez (& the Scene) played in the background, I looked through the window of Noxy Bros coffee shop towards the busy intersection of Woburn Place and Bernard Street. Located near Russell Square, a lush urban green space in the heart of Bloomsbury, I came to this spot hoping to observe how dog-owners, accompanied by their pets, encounter and experience the urban environment. Prior to setting out, I did not have high hopes of viewing many dogs and their owners out and about, as since starting my studies at UCL in September, I do not recall seeing a large number of dogs out and about near campus. However, I was very happy to be proven wrong, and afforded the opportunity to view not one, but two dog-human duos out and about on this brisk Friday morning.

Image One: fuel for aspiring anthropologists. Secured at the field site, allowed access to the location and facilitated integration into the social environment.

The first dog-owner duo that crossed in front of the coffee shop was a Golden Retriever and their human. Crossing the busy intersection, I noticed that the person walking the dog was highly engaged with their surroundings, looking around frequently. I observed many interactions between the dog-owner and their dog, as they looked down at the dog frequently and offered them frequent rewards for good behaviour in the form of treats. From this, I was clued in that person was training the dog. This was corroborated for me as the owner proceeded to walk the dog back and forth in front of the entrance to Russell Square, and the dog donned a muzzle. After 3-4 minutes of this training time, the dog and their human passed through the gates of Russell Square and disappeared from view.

Image Two: Golden Retriever taking in the sunny London morning alongside their human.

Within a minute or so of the Golden Retriever appearing, I was excited to see a second dog, likely a Doodle Mix, and their accompanying human crossing the same busy street. Unlike the human with the Golden Retriever, who lingered on the street corner, the Doodle Mix and their person made quick progress across the street and directly entered the Russell Square green space. I observed that, unlike the Golden-duo, the Doodle’s human had headphones in, and did not look down at the dog in the 45 seconds or so that it took for them to cross the street and retreat behind the lush greenery.

Image Three: a Doodle Mix stylishly attired for a Friday morning jaunt to Russell Square.

From this time spent excitedly pointing out dogs to my friends and fellow anthropologists-in-training, I found that I had emerged from this exercise with more questions than answers. For one, I did not previously consider how dog training may influence how dogs and their humans may represent an alternative way of interfacing with the urban environment, and how these interactions may differ from a non-training focused dog walk. Further, I am now interested in exploring the potential that different dog walking technologies (e.g. leashes, muzzles, harnesses, etc) may have for influencing how people and dogs interact with each other as connected actors within the urban environment, and with the urban setting itself.

Finally, I want to put forward a consideration of the language itself which I have been using. Defining the dog-human relationship as dog ‘owners’ and dogs implies a certain top-down relationship that centres the human and may be a hinderance to a multi-species approach. Therefore, I now think that it is important to consider whether dog ‘owners’ perceive their relationship with the dog as one of vertical ‘ownership,’ or in alternative ways such as a partnership or way of coexistence. This may give further insight into the multi-species relationships that drives dog and human interactions within London’s urban environment.

[Last modified: October, 6 2024 01:24 PM]

For this project, I am interested in taking a multi-species approach to explore how dog owners experience urban life, in response to the built environment, differently to others (those who do not own a dog).

This topic is important because dog ownership is a large part of many people’s everyday lives, and it is important to understand how this can change people’s relationships to the built environments, and subsequently their routines, identities and perspectives on life. This topic is anthropological in that it explores the relationships between people and the urban environment, as well as people and their dogs. This topic is ethnographic in that it has the potential to illuminate how dog ownership can transform the daily lives of individuals.

Proposed Research Questions:

• • `Does dog ownership alter the daily routines of individuals? If so, how does this change their perception of/relationship to their built environment?
  • Does dog ownership encourage people to spend more time outside, specifically in urban greenspaces? If so, does this impact how people view their neighbourhoods or broader cityscape?
  • Does dog ownership illuminate barriers to access within the urban environment, and/or open up new opportunities within it?
  • Does dog ownership encourage or hinder new social interactions within the urban environment?

For this project, I would propose Regent’s Park as the primary field site, as I have observed many dogs and their owners enjoying the green space. To better understand the relationship between dog owners and the built environment, I would also conduct fieldwork in nearby residential area(s).

For this project, methodologically, I would propose a mix of participant observation and semi-structured interviews, as well as a literature review. In this case, participant observation may take the form of observations (such as from a park bench, as I have noticed many dogs and their owners out for walks on the weekend), participating in dog-walking groups, or observing online discourse about owning a dog in London. Semi-structured interviews with dog owners would provide insight into the daily routines of people who own dogs. As well, interviews with those who do not own dogs may provide a contrast from which to draw observations about the differences that owning a dog may generate.

In terms of ethics, I would make sure to follow all guidelines when conducting participant observation and interviews by assuring full and informed permission and maintaining confidentiality of the information shared with me in both my field notes and my writing. I would not anticipate this project being high-risk to those I would be working with.

I would anticipate that this project would reveal that dog ownership changes people’s relationships with their environment by:

• • Increasing the amount of time spent outdoors, specifically in urban green spaces
  • Increasing dog owners awareness of environmental hazards, as well as other people
  • Increasing dog owners awareness of barriers to access, such as transporting the dog(s)
  • Changing dog owners social interactions with others (in ways that would otherwise be unchanged without the addition of the dog):
    • Possibility and notice of positive interactions with children or others who like dogs in public spaces, AND
    • Possibility and notice of negative interactions with those who do not like, or fear dogs, in public spaces

[Last modified: October, 1 2024 05:15 PM]

Welcome to your brand new blog at Reflect – University College London.

To get started, simply log in, edit or delete this post and check out all the other options available to you.

Please see the Reflect Blogging Resource for more information, policies, and how to guides:
https://wiki.ucl.ac.uk/x/KYODBQ