AO: The analysts leverages scholarship critiqing the “lone (male) ethnographer” to highlight the inherently interactive process of knowledge production.
AO: The analyst is interested in power differentials within researcher-researched relationships and understanding why Anthroplogists are now (again) interested in engagement. She is particularly interested how collaboration between indigenous actors and anthropologists can help to “decolonize anthropology.”
AO: The analyst is particularly interested in the production of different types of texts which each have their own internal coherence, logic and audience but can also be a piece in a multi-textual form of inquiry and hermeneutics (100).
AO: The author calls for more reflection on the intertwining of multi-textual forms of knowledge production to see how multi-textuality can address the complexity of the ‘global’ world, understood as a process of cultural, physical, socio-economic and political intertwining in which the mapping of inequality is simultaneously ever present and shifting. Her focus is on what can be learned from the field of indigenous studies towards the goal of decolonizing anthropology. She describes several kinds of collaboration - collaboration between “indigenous studies” and “anthropology” as academic fields; collaboration between her and a research partner on a specific project; collaborations between engaged anthropologists and indigenous communities more broadly. Many of her points hold true for studied communities rather than just when one is working with “indigenous” communities so I wonder why she makes the distinction. I find the analyst’s macro level of analysis strongest as she describes the context under which the field of anthropology has formed and grappled with “engagement” with interlocutors. She is lacking in any analysis at the data level and missing an eco level.