To add to the discussion on academic travel: often the “cred” derived from certain types of field research re-inscribes global hierarchies of knowledge. Being FROM [place studied] often seen as less credible while (white scholars) visiting FOR “research” often deemed superior 1/

2-Let’s think about this. Even in fields that purport to being reflexive we see these biases. We imagine that briefly “spending time” somewhere gives “authentic insight” even beyond what local knowledges offer. We shit on “armchair” research by overestimating the value of fly-ins

3-We romanticize “getting dirty” even when it’s not required. Global North researchers often insist on “seeing things for themselves” even after those with lived experience have provided many receipts. Ironically then, certain types of field research end up erasing knowledge.

4-I’m not casting all field research in this light but I am asking all field researchers - esp from the Global North-to think more about the implications of their implicit biases abt how knowledge is produced & why/when we are apt to dismiss the sufficiency of secondary research