ESA RN 20 QUALITATIVE METHODS MIDTERM CONFERENCE Curiosity and Serendipity

September 20-21, 2012 Lund, Sweden Session 05 5. Ethical issues in qualitative research Bolivia: The ethics of researching with Andean communities Pablo Regalsky, CENDA/ CESU-UMSS Abstract A research ethics convention tells us to have all data kept securely confidential and identities, with locations of individuals and places concealed in published results (Punch 1986:44). This guidance takes into account the safety of individuals who are the object of research but it does not examine the wider interests and safety of collective subjects these individuals are part thereof. This guidance does not attempt to define and objectify the actions and the positioning of the researcher him/herself in order to better understand what consequences those actions may have upon the research subjects. In that sense it may be considered as the ethics of a research positioning which denies collective values and takes an ethnocentric and liberal point of view. A sense of crisis is still prevalent in the discipline of anthropology as the dominant conceptions of culture, power, and place are challenged and the fragmentary approach to reality by most research is put into question. A valid research ethics makes then necessary to understand the positioning of researchers as cultural agents both at their tasks in text construction and in the fieldwork, in their social positioning with respect to individual and collective social subjects. How are anthropology and other social sciences situated in relation with hegemonic practices and institutions? How does the researcher face power as part of knowledge building? With more than twenty years in-the-field-action_research experience regarding the construction with Quechua communities in Cochabamba, Bolivia of an ethnodevelopment path, this paper looks for a contribution to that discussion, based on what I did learn from Andean communities, sharing its struggles for the recognition of their own polities.

Introduction Before discussing methodological issues I consider necessary to argue that, for the particular case of present day Andean communities, the researcher is dealing with a differentiated social and cultural realm. These are collective subject which exercise territorial authority. It is that particular subject of research, the collective subject which defines, teaches us, the methodological approach to use. That is why I introduce that matter in the first place, before arguing for an appropriated methodological approach.
1

Collective land ownership and Identity Andean communities are collective subjects which define their members as indigenous people (originarios). These collective spaces are in turn configured by the peasant livelihood strategies which guarantee communitys reproduction. Peasant systems of production and reproduction, their everyday space organization and their productive strategies, follow common patterns of resource management continuously recreated by the family units belonging to those communities. These common patterns adopt the form of usos y costumbres, a consuetudinary norm enforced through indigenous authority and ritually reinforced. Thus, the Andean community is a territorial collective subject, a polity with a normative cultural frame that gives a certain order to households under the form of a type of political ecology. Those common patterns do not exclude internal tensions and deviations from the norm and from the common strategies, resulting in internal social differentiation. Political and economic links with the state and other social sectors could reinforce the formation of internal layers. The state, and the dominant sectors of society which constitute the social coalition of state, manage to exercise social control over the indigenous population through mediating social groups. These relations of intermediation are in permanent transformation: the known history of Andean communities traverses moments of subordination alternating with episodes of relative autonomy on the basis of changing cycles of relations of force1 (Platt 1982; Larson 1988; Thompson 2006). The communal jurisdiction is committed to control the access to land, exercising authority over the commons which only members of the community may have access to. Reciprocally, members of the community cannot exercise individual rights to transfer land to people foreign to that community although the Andean peasant households have exclusive and hereditary rights of usufruct over the plots they own within the commons. The jurisdiction exercised upon land by the communal authority and the collective actions taken for the reproduction of that authority

Relations of force as in Gramsci (1971:175)

constitute a differentiated order in the social realm. This order is characterized by the predominance, in many cases and given certain conditions, of the collective subject over the individual subject. The collective domain is under permanent stress, both from inside and from outside the community. The current situation under Evo Morales government presents us with the paradox that the predominance of the collective subject is increasingly neutralized by the state authority while this government strongly contributed to re-legitimate the established Nation-state. This opposition between two systems of authority challenges the positioning of the researchers, who are themselves placed as part of the academic system of the state. How to pose the ethics question, for the social researcher who attempts to re-locate him/herself relative to the subject of research? What is the significance of research methodologies considering the existence of two systems of power and meaning, the two differentiated political jurisdictions in the Andes, and, some might say, these two different civilizational paths? Participating within the actors established relationship networks could become one privileged source of knowledge so I will argue that while the focus of research is the community as such it is not a relationship to be established between the researcher and the individual households but a compromise the researcher establishes with the collective subject. And this assumption turns to be quite problematic to turn into practice for a researcher who has been socialized within a liberal academic framework.

The positioning of the researcher Clifford argues that ethnography is actively situated between powerful systems of meaning (Clifford 1986:2, my emphasis). I discuss here the need but also the difficulties in order to define ones own positioning not only in the text construction but during the practice of fieldwork. I explore and propose Action-Research as a path towards that aim. In order to situate that exploration, I should discuss the identity crisis that affects anthropology and other social sciences. The challenges faced by anthropology are recognized by Marcus as [e]thnographies have always been written in the context of historic change: the formation of state systems and the evolution of a world political economy [but ethnographers] have not generally represented the ways in which
3

closely observed cultural worlds are embedded in larger, more impersonal systems (Marcus 1986:165). This recognition that a fragmentary approach to reality is present in much of anthropological research is also faced up by Wolf as he proposes that social science and anthropology in particular have a role to play in understanding reality. This means that I subscribe to a basically realist position: I think that the world is real, that these realities affect what humans do and that what humans do affects the world, and that we can come to understand the whys and wherefores of this relationship. (Wolf 1999:5-6, in Gledhill 2005:39) Wolfs realism asks the researcher to face power as part of knowledge building. Wolf claims that we actually know a great deal about power, but have been timid in building upon what we know(Wolf 1990: 586). In my view, the methodological debate calls for a wider concept of practice, not limited to the relationship between the researcher and his/her text production act, but conceptualized as the social practice of the researcher as a whole. That is, how his/her work defines his or her social relations, by his or her real actions in connection with the actors he/she relates directly or indirectly. While researchers allegiance is committed to the academy as their own field of belonging, fieldwork acquires renewed importance in this view, while it is at this stage of practice that the researcher acquires defined social relations with the research actors. From the perspective of researchers insertion in social practice objectivity and subjectivity may be understood in a different way, constructivism could take other meanings as is examined below. Diverse currents influenced Latin American progressive strands of anthropology, from LeviStrauss structuralism and Marxist structuralism to dependence theories. New currents emerged such as Action-Research which calls into question objectivity within the social sciences: from the point of view of Participative-Research we reject objectivity as it is claimed by empiricism (Vio Grossi 1981). Rejection of objectivity here takes a particular meaning. From this point of view an activist and critical position concerning social reality short-circuits the distance between the researcher and its object established both by empiricists and by some reflexivity currents. Action-Research promotes an active engagement with the collective social actors. However, I would argue that an active engagement with the subject of research does not mean at all the
4

rejection of objectivity. On the contrary, it is possible to construct this relationship through participant objectivation as formulated by Bourdieu (2003) which I examine further below. Another and quite different strand of constructivism which is not centered in the text construction, which influenced social sciences in several Latin American countries during the 1980s and shaped my training, is that of Piaget. Piagets genetic epistemology arrives at the conclusion that human cognition is not a reflection of reality but of the mediating level of human action upon reality. The general process of intelligence development and learning the real is part of social practice and a result of the actions of the subject. As the actions exercised by individuals -and social groups- upon the objects transform both the objects and the subject: [t]he cognitive system is not what the surroundings make it, but what it does with what the surroundings make (Piaget, Inhelder et al. 1981:22). Transformative practice is, following Piaget, what guides the cognitive structuring of the mind through a continuous effort towards equilibrium between assimilation of, and accommodation to, the objects by the connoisseur subject. This is the basis for the action research methodology -praxis- I adhere to. I would argue that fieldwork, the site of the interaction between the researcher and the subjects, is an essential stage in the process of constructing knowledge, as part of the social practice of establishing new social relations with the actors. Detached observation becomes then a relative and problematic concept. Reality is changing and de-constructing itself. It can be inferred from so different authors as Fals Borda 1981; Watts 1991; Gellner 1997 and others- that the methodological and identity crisis within social science appears as the researcher is challenged not only to decipher that changing reality, but her/his position is challenged with respect to her/his circumstances. The condition of postmodernity (Harvey 1990) and global crisis affects anthropologists and motivates to ask stark questions about the conditions of possibility for ethnography. The apprehensiveness about the future of fieldwork palpable here seems to stem, above all, from a crisis of identity, from sacred boundaries breached, and, concomitantly, from the desire to preserve a unique scholarly patrimony from the encroachment of an ever more generic social science. (Comaroff and Comaroff 2003:152)

In this Comaroffs interpretation, the changing academic conditions of production set off this identity crisis. Nevertheless, the researchers particular circumstances are part of a global social dynamics of crisis where these academic institutions have to struggle in order to survive. The identity crisis has to do with the new challenges the positioning and the ethics of social research have to answer. Lewis traces the roots of todays attack on the discipline of Anthropology in the events of the late 1960s, the peace movements in the USA and Paris 1968, events which put into question the whole social order (Lewis 1999:716). The growing dimensions of the global crisis and the related social processes of change today involves growing contradictions between the different actors and uncertainty because of the disappearance of solid references. The dramatic turnabout of the 1990s with whole political systems even empires collapsing and sites of struggle multiplying, scattering of antagonisms, indeed by a fragmentation of the political itself while experiencing the disintegration of modernity Watts (1991:9) took a toll on the interpretative horizons of academic work. As a result reality appears as a fragmented chaos with no law, a vision dear to the postmodern writer. This current social dynamics of disorder not only makes it so difficult to understand the real but, as Bourdieu claims, it prompts the researcher to take refuge in a construction of reality locked in scholastic, and thus intellectualist, vision of his own practice, isolated from what Bourdieu describes as a recognizable universal logic of practice in modes of thought and action -even in magical ones- (Bourdieu 2003:286). Bourdieu, in reaction to the excesses in reflexivity not only opposes reducing the field of practice to the rhetoric of the construction of text because it recreates an insurmountable distance between the anthropologist and those he takes as object but considers that this

distancing may actually contribute to ethnocentrism (Bourdieu 2003: 286). Calling for a renewed objectivity Bourdieu argues for a positional understanding of reflexivity, addressing the academic and social structures that drive research agendas (2003: 282). A similar answer is given through the anthropology of colonialism which emerged in the late 1980s, with Said, Ranahit Guha and others. Pels affirms that the heritage of colonialism a heritage of specific modes of state-craft that have established themselves firmly in the hegemonic ethic of research in todays institutions of learning is therefore difficult to do away with (Pels 2008:281). The conditions
6

for the production of knowledge established by the state institutions that authorize the exercise of the discipline -in this case, not only the production of ethnographic texts but the anthropological practice as such- are further analyzed by Bourdieu: What needs to be objectified, then, is not the anthropologist performing the anthropological analysis of a foreign world but the social world that has made both the anthropologist and the conscious or unconscious anthropology that she (or he) engages in her anthropological practice not only her social origins, her position and trajectory in social space, her social and religious memberships and beliefs, gender, age nationality, etc., but also, and most importantly, her particular position within the microcosm of anthropologists (Bourdieu 2003:283). This mode of reflexivity proposed by Bourdieu contrasts to the self-indulgent, intimist return to the singular, private person of the anthropologist, but relates to the objective structures of a social microcosm to which the researcher himself belongs. Bourdieu proposes the participant objectivation (Bourdieu, 2003:281), not only for the objectivation of the subject but to consider the conditions of possibility of any operation of objectification. Bourdieu criticises the narcissist reflexivity of postmodern anthropology from the point of view of his own theory of practice (Bourdieu 2003:281). That theory attempts to hold a line whereby social science do not simply provide detached knowledge about situations nor merely project subjective social involvement (Robbins 2003). That analysis includes taking a critical approach to the passive positioning of the researcher in connection with the conditions of production of his research but also understanding ones own activity as a researcher, ones own practice under the light of the pre-reflexive social and academic experiences of the social world that one tends to project unconsciously onto the other, observed social agents (Bourdieu 2003:281).

The multiple scale analysis I would argue in favour of an approach that combines the local with a vision of totality as a non linear process (Marcus 1986; Gupta and Ferguson 1997; Hall 2000; Friedman and Chase Dunn 2005). A guide towards multi-scale and multi-sited research is what Wolf masterly attained in studies like Europe and the People without History (Wolf 1982). His method inspires field researchers towards understanding specific processes not as fragments in isolation but as
7

productions of, and within the world-system. Place making and identity is not a thing that can be possessed or owned by individual or collective social actors. It is instead, a mobile, often unstable relation of difference.(Gupta and Ferguson 1997:13). This relation of difference is in turn constructed upon relations of force that shift, are global, and constitute the locality. Holistic representation, a commitment of anthropology, as I understand it, requires each fragment to be understood as part of a global historic dynamics. Global processes are subject to ebbs and flows, historic moments of fragmenting and reconstituting the whole and the parts in different combinations. Thus, the meaning of each actors practice need to be examined as within a social multilayered system understood not as a fixed topology but considered as part of global dynamics and interactions which would change the meanings of individual and collective actions and discourses. Different authors may treat the systemic forces just as a background or

otherwise focus on them as the constitutive forces of cultural life within any bounded subject matter, or may use a combination of both approaches (Marcus, 1986). My research place the indigenous community political ecology, social organization of labour, and territoriality as it confronts the various challenges of changing historic conditions and relations of force within society. I subscribe to the idea of parallel and sometimes overlapping spaces that people traverse as part of multifaceted livelihood strategies. I find that kind of permeability should also be understood as a result of specific historic conditions. While the people may have in certain periods the necessary flexibility and mobility required to cross through boundaries, these boundaries become porous or otherwise impermeable depending on the historic circumstances. In defined moments of history such as the current global situation of flux and disorder, there are wider possibilities for people to acquire much more mobility between spaces that are usually not accessible for them. The struggles and mobilization of indigenous movements achieved the opening of such spaces for the people to have the ability to trespass social borders since the end of the 1980s. Not only people can get out from their bounded communities with much more ease than they usually had. Now this movement of individuals and groups is not only much more massive, but they get into spaces which used to be barred for them, i.e. they get included into the lower and middle echelons of the social coalition of state. Most important, this is not done in a disguised and
8

individualized mode but in many cases people are mobilizing and intruding into hostile or exclusionary spaces as taking part of, or representing, collective identities. At the same time, new intermediations between these spaces, even new spaces of social intermediation are built as I make evident in my research in Ayopaya (Regalsky 2008). This happens not without unintended consequences and not without continuous struggle. I find people sharing a common human experience across boundaries and that includes me. I feel myself not a stranger to such kind of displacements. I try to appropriate the truth of their ordinary experiences acknowledging at the same time that I grew with personal sensitivities to this matter of contested territorial spaces and borders. Research as human activity is not the only behaviour affected by the global crisis as stated above. The declining hegemony of the state, and the corresponding apparent social disorder as results of the global crisis, is at the same time behind the question of the local contested territories (Hall and Fenelon 2005). The issue of contested spaces and the notion of jurisdiction in the sense of a shared and collective set of customs and norms and a system of authority that defines a governance system is at the heart of the Andean communities collective self governance. That communal governance system is located in a space of tension. Constant tensions between collective and the interests of individual households or even family clans are not precluded since the Andean community itself is subsumed within the capitalist order and the individual members are in permanent relationship with the market, through selling their crops or selling their labour force. The communal norms motivated by the collective interest in preserving land productivity and at the same time avoiding individual processes of accumulation and differentiation may at certain point run up against the household interests that tend to maximise production and minimize effort. These tensions may turn against the aggregative forces which support the system of communal control. In the case of Sanipaya examined in Regalsky 2008, family factions put pressure on the rest of the community to accelerate the agricultural cycle of rotation, attempting to intensify the use of land which, in case it would be achieved, would imply destroying the existing system of communal management of land. If carried out, it would cut the fallow period, currently more than 10 years long, in half. This is an aspect of the permanent tensions that exist in each community between the interests of the collective subject and with
9

those of the individual household. Tensions such as those which arise over the topic of community decisions in the management of rotation of land emerge on many occasions over different issues and in this way such tensions condition the formation of factions within the community. Other data points to the effects of land ownership individualisation in the case of Raqaypampa, which led to the continuous loss of fertility of soils even if this was neutralized for a period through maximizing labour productivity by the peasant families. Perhaps unsurprisingly, given this situation, in 1998 the peasant organizations of Raqaypampa decided to demand the conversion of all their individual land titles into one collective Tierra Comunitaria de Origen TCO- (Indigenous Communal Land) title. These case studies provided me an opportunity to examine the relationship between the individual and the collective self as part of a multiple scale analysis. This aims at overcoming methodological individualism and understanding what tools should be used to understand the construction of the collective subject and let it speak. Methodological individualism is grounded on the assumption that the basic unit of the social structure is the individual and social change is the product of individual purposes and their unintended consequences (O'Neill 1973:10). While I do not subscribe to some collectivist methodology, I do understand that it is not possible to understand group behaviour from the sum of individuals behaviours. Social systems are the condition of existence of individuals and the activity of social systems can be examined through the differentiated social groups and layers that interact in historic settings of relations of force (Gramsci 1971:175). The need to better understand each of these levels or to stress the decisiveness of any of them depends on the contingency of those relations of force. I examine a process of agglutination of Andean communities, which takes place under enabling conditions that in turn produce favourable relations of force with respect to other social actors. Reciprocally, favourable relations of force would help communities to agglomerate in a sort of molecular process into aggregate, wider, networks: the peasant organisations. The characteristics of this particular historic period, i.e. favourable relations of force and aggregation of social networks into social movements, is what gives politically organized movements analytical priority over individual strategies against specific forms of domination. At the same time, individual strategies take a particular role as I will examine the processes of social stratification within the networks of indigenous communities.
10

The actor in this case is a collective subject Andean community networks , that express itself not necessarily through the individual testimonies and discourses. The collective subject could be understood in its own language, which is basically the language of action, while the language of discourse through an individual bearer or emitter requires a different decoding. The process of individualisation within Andean communities as a result not only of long term civilizatory processes, but also as the result of short term governmentality (Foucault 1991), has been one of the questions/problems to be understood. Contradictory dynamics global and local- act upon the intermediary layers resulting in factionalism on the one hand, and in state building from the bottom up on the other. Each one of the levels of social and political intermediation feeds one another at the same time that they compete for their own space producing tensions between individual and collective interests within the boundaries of the community. This competition sometimes does not take place as different people, each defending itself against the other and each representing different interests, but the same people acting as individuals (that is, factions or families acting through the voice of individuals) and at the same time and the same people expressing themselves as part of a collective. An individual is taking part in both dimensions: the individual and the collective and could be in itself the contradictory expression of both dimensions, the personal, subjective, but also the domestic, objective, space becoming an expression of those tensions. The collective will is not the sum of the individuals or factions, but a level of conduct as a result of the construction of the collective. The construction of the collective is not necessarily a discursive space, but the result of the build up of relations of forces, the transformation of power relations between different social forces that will become expressed in particular locations. Alb 2002 has displayed his perplexity about community tensions in several essays dedicated to the study of the paradox of factionalism solidarity. He attributes its particular virulence in the bolivian Altiplano (high planes), in some senses, to the Aymaras own peculiar character. This paradox between factionalism and community solidarity can be understood as tensions between forms of legitimate violence that the community exercises when it confronts the search for liberty by families who consider that they are in a better situation to compete in the market. The collective control of access to land and to other resources such as water, which may become coercive with respect to individual households behaviour, becomes solidarity when community
11

own spaces of reproduction become disputed with other social groups like town dwellers, representatives of political parties, NGOs, etc, whether in issues of commercial intermediation, developmentalist intermediation, or political intermediation. The methodological individualism is an instrument that obviously engages actively with those tensions existing within the community between the individual and the collective subject, contributing to the empowerment to the side of individualism. Here comes again the question posed at the beginning of this paper: How does the researcher face power as part of knowledge building? There is not only one way to answer that question or guarantee a status wherefrom our results would not have unintended consequences and could not be manipulated by the established powers when it comes to the issue of collective subjects and contested jurisdictions. Hale argues in favour of activist research while he finds no necessary contradiction between active political commitment to resolving a problem, and rigorous scholarly research on that problem (Hale 2001:13). A critical scrutiny to the analytical categories to be used implies for this author the understanding of the political situated character of all knowledge production. This issue does refer less to the knowledge package resulting from a research project but to the social relationships the researcher establishes in the field with individuals and collective subjects. One good step into objectifying ones own positioning would be for the researcher to scrutinize its own methodology to put into question methodological individualism and its liberal premises.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alb, Xavier (2002). Pueblos indios en la poltica. La Paz, CIPCA-PLURAL. Bourdieu, Pierre (2003). "Participant Objectivation." Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 9(2): 281-294. Clifford, James (1986). Introduction: Partial Truths. Writing Culture. The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography. J. Clifford and G. Marcus. Berkeley, University of California Press: 1-26. 12

Comaroff, Jean and John Comaroff (2003). "Ethnography on an awkward scale: postcolonial anthropology and the violence of abstraction." Ethnography 4(2): 147-180. Fals Borda, Orlando (1981). La Ciencia y el Pueblo. Investigacin Participativa y Praxis Rural. Nuevos conceptos en educacin y desarrollo comunal. F. Vio Grossi, V. Gianotten and T. de Wit. Lima, Mosca Azul: 19-47. Foucault, Michel (1991b). Governmentality. The Foucault effect. G. Burchell, C. Gordon and P. Miller. Chicago, Chicago University Press: 87-104. Friedman, Jonathan and Christopher Chase Dunn, Eds. (2005). Hegemonic Declines. Present and Past. Political Economy of the World System Annuals. Boulder, Paradigm. Gellner, Ernest (1997). Antropologa y Politica. Revoluciones en el bosque sagrado. Barcelona, GEDISA. Gledhill, John (2005). "Some Histories are More Possible than Others. Structural Power, Big Pictures and the Goal of Explanation in the Anthropology of Eric Wolf." Critique of Anthropology 25(1): 37-57. Gramsci, Antonio (1971). Selections from the Prison Notebooks. London, Lawrence and Wishart. Gupta, Akhil and James Ferguson, Eds. (1997). Culture, Power, Place. Explorations in Critical Anthropology. Durham and London, Duke University Press. Hale, Charles (2001). "What is Activist Research?" SSRC bulletin 2(1-2): 13-15. Hall, Thomas, Ed. (2000). A World-Systems Reader. New Perspectives on Gender, Urbanism, Cultures, Indigenous Peoples, and Ecology. Lanham-Oxford, Rowman & Littlefield. Hall, Thomas and James Fenelon (2005). Indigenous Peoples and Hegemonic Change. Threats to Sovereignity or Opportunities for Resistance? Hegemonic Declines. Present and Past. J. Friedman and C. Chase Dunn. London, Paradigm: 205-224. Harvey, David (1990). The Condition of Postmodernity. An Enquiry into the Origins of Cultural Change. Oxford, Blackwell. Larson, Brooke (1988). Colonialism and Agrarian transformation in Bolivia. Cochabamba, 1550-1900. Princeton, Princeton University Press. Lewis, Herbert (1999). "The misrepresentation of Anthropology and Its Consequences." American Anthropologist 100(3): 716-731. Marcus, George (1986). Contemporary Problems of Ethnography in the Modern World Systems. Writing Culture. The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography. J. Clifford and G. Marcus. Berkeley, University of California Press: 165-193. O'Neill, John (1973). Scientism, Historicism and the Problem of Rationality. Modes of Individualism and Collectivism. J. O'Neill. London, Heinemann: 3-26. Pels, Peter (2008). "What has anthropology learned from the anthropology of colonialism?" Social Anthropology 16(3): 280-299. Piaget, Jean, B Inhelder, et al. (1981). Epistemologa Gentica y Equilibracin. Madrid, Fundamentos. Platt, Tristan (1982). Estado boliviano y ayllu andino. Tierra y tributo en el norte de Potos. Lima, IEP. Punch, Maurice (1986). The Politics and Ethics of Fieldwork. London, Sage. Regalsky, Pablo (2008). Indigenous Territoriality and Decentralisation in Bolivia (1994-2003). Autonomies, Municipalities, Social Differentiation and Access to Resources. GPS School. Newcastle Upon Tyne, University of Newcastle: 273. (2006). Amrica Latina: Bolivia indgena y campesina. Una larga marcha para liberar sus territorios y un contexto para el gobierno de Evo Morales. Herramienta 31, marzo 2006
http://www.herramienta.com.ar/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=343

Robbins, Derek (2003). "The responsability of the ethnographer." Anthropology Today 19(2): 11-13. Thompson, Sinclair (2006). Cuando slo reinasen los indios. La Paz, La muela del Diablo-Aruwiyiri.

13

Vio Grossi, Francisco (1981). Investigacin Participativa: Precisiones desde Ayacucho. Investigacin Participativa y Praxis Rural. Nuevos conceptos en Educacin y Desarrollo Rural. F. Vio Grossi, V. Gianotten and T. de Wit. Lima, Mosca Azul: 69-80. Watts, Michael (1991). "Mapping meaning, Denoting difference, Imagining identity: Dialectical Images and Posmodern Geographies." Geografiska Annaler 73b(1): 7-17. Wolf, Eric (1982). Europe and the People without History. Berkeley, University of California Press. Wolf, Eric (1990). "Facing Power: Old Insights, New Questions." American Anthropologist 92(3): 586-596. Wolf, Eric (1999). Envisioning Power: Ideologies of Dominance and Crisis. Berkeley, University of California Press.

14