Sociaalwetenschappelijk onderzoek in een neo-kolonialistische situatie

Samenvatting

Ethical and practical problems encountered by social scientists from rich countries in carrying out research in poor countries have led to phenomena labeled 'academic colonialism' or 'scientific espionage'. A semantic analysis of the terms, and a review of the different ways in which these terms are used lead to a formulation that covers all aspects: scientific work in a neocolonial situation. Neocolonialism is viewed as the dependency relations between a rich and a poor country, in the economic field and other institutional spheres. Unequal power relations frequently lead to dependent relations in education and research. An undigested colonial past, an actual subordinate economic position, and some widely known examples of real scientific exploitation create halo-effects and over-sensitivity, leading to a 'sick' situation in which any research endeavor by a scientist from a rich country is considered suspect and dangerous. Social scientists are especially vulnerable to resistance. In classifying the different aspects of scientific work in a neocolonial situation, 3 dimensions seem relevant: (1) the goal of the research: acquiring scientific knowledge vs assembling data for selfish use by extranational interest - ie 'scientific espionage or exploitation', (2) whether or not neocolonial power relations are perceived, and (3) whether or not dependency relations exist in the field of science and education in general, or in a specific research project - ie 'academic neocolonialism'. The scientist from the rich country should be confronted with ethical problems in the cases of scientific exploitation and academic neocolonialism. Practical problems will arise when dependency relations are perceived. In Akademisch kolonialisme: geen vraagteken! (Academic colonialism: no question mark!) G. Huizer states that in developing countries academic colonialism is not a question, but a fact of life. Part of the problem is that research centers on issues of interest to western sociology, but in no way benefits the host country. Western sociologists have concentrated on the lc's or rural population, neglecting study of the national elite. Thus, much attention is given to the fact that local peasant populations are opposed to change, while little notice is given to efforts of the uc's to actively discourage change. Since researchers spend so little time in the area, the extent to which interviews and the answers to questionnaire's correspond to what the peasants would do in reality if there were a chance to change conditions is unknown. As long as western sociologists identify themselves with the elite of the country in which they are doing research, they will be open the charges of academic colonialism. In Nogmaals: akademisch kolonialisme (Once again: academic colonialism) A. J. F. Köbben claims the fact that an increasing number of developing countries are closing their borders to western sociologists is due not only to neocolonialism, but also to the fact that the leaders of these countries often do not appreciate the value of pure social-scientific research. Other countries look unfavorably on research which is detrimental to the national government. There are generally no indigenous researchers available to conduct the needed sociological studies. Also, the results of field work are often not available to the indigenous authorities, especially when they are published in a lesser-known language such as Dutch. In Naschrift (Postscript) A. B. Droogleever Fortuijn and J. K. Brandsma react to the comments of Huizer and Köbben, deploring the fact that these critics missed the chance to address themselves to the problem of finding practical solutions for the ethical and practical problems encountered In field work. 1 table. Modified AA.