Sometimes the best way to gauge something's presence is not to explicitly look for it's signs, but to see how far the thing it was supposed to curb has receded. I have been struggling since 6 months to even begin making sense of the extant literature on participation. I have looked through everything that I could lay my hands on. Literature from Political economy, social and rural development, workplace practices. All of these plus some more; cherry picking the ones with localized flavors peculiar to India's experiments with participatory governance. I have struggled to link participation as I have seen on field to the
concerns that inform the very white, all-American experience that makes
up the bulk of the field of organizational communication which is the particular area in which I will get my degree. Only, I was not convinced this is the story I
wanted to tell. Given organizational communication's particular focus on paradoxes and ironies that can be identified in the way participation is enacted, I derived three research questions. Only, I was not convinced that my data could speak to those questions.
I went back to my transcripts and began taking theoretical memos. I began transcribing the last few interviews that were left. I came back with some new search words. I found a body of work that describes itself as political ethnography. I found one paper that attempted to locate the discursive construction of the state as was implicated in the way people chose to speak about corruption. That was the story I wanted to tell. How are people enacting and experiencing participation? The difficult part was choosing a narrative mode to tell this story. Working on a dissertation teaches you many things. Most of all, it forces you to assess your own capabilities of making sense of data. Are you asking the right questions? Okay, you may be asking the right questions in your head, but do these questions make sense on paper? How are you translating your ideas into questions that can be posed? Are you out to build theory or are you indulging in descriptive analysis? What is your strength? What will enable you to best tell the story that you have seen unfolding. Working with a keen affinity for qualitative research means that the chances of you being overwhelmed by all of these questions is significant. Qualitative research is loosely structured. It plays off on a very heightened sense of nuance. It is about a small sample of people and their experiences. How are they making sense of the world that you are interested in? And what is the best way to ensure that you make their voice heard.
I read a fabulously written dissertation this weekend when I was struggling with my unhappiness over the questions. The language play in it was delightful and it spoke to the qualities that an anthropological interrogation into a phenomenon could reveal. Yet, for all the wordplay, I found it overtly self-indulgent. The author's own delight in her obvious writing flair completely overshadowing the experiences of those who should be foregrounded. But, I am getting ahead of my own plot and story. I will speak more about this when I reach a comparative stage in my work.
The questions first. How do I narrate the participation of a village in governing itself. I looked for various ways. From the way three families had fallen through the cracks of officialese because they occupied land between two gram panchayats and hence belonged nowhere to the story about the reporter who killed the news of a two-year-old girl's death because the village did not want it reported in the press. How do I locate participation in these two instances? Both are instances of wanting to belong. The three families want to belong to a larger community so that they can avail of all the benefits that come with it. So, they fight and that is how they participate. The reporter thinks nothing of withdrawing his story because he wants to belong to his village and not be ostracized. This is not the only story that there is, so why waste good relations with your neighbors over this when there are other ways of being faithful to your profession. This is also an instance of participation. I could find no satisfactory way of tying all of this together.
I still don't know how far I am succeeding, but now my focus has slowly begun to zone in on examining the extent to which people's agency overshadows that of the state. If participatory governance is everything that it is cranked up to be, then how far does the presence of the state inform the daily lives of people? How far does the state's presence impinge on the normative ideals of participation. How is the gram panchayat being discursively constructed by the people in the interviews? I feel more comfortable with this mode of questioning. My confusion arose because I forgot the basic tenet of qualitative research. This is an emergent mode of questioning. "Let the theory emerge from the data" Cardinal rule. I taught this for three years. How could I fail to apply it to my own work when it was time?
This data is telling me that the gram panchayat is a problem solving institution. It tells me that participation that matters does not only have to be in governance. It can also happen by being present to lend your Hindu shoulder to your Muslim neighbor's corpse. For the widow with 7 girls, participation meant that her neighbors did not prey on her isolation or on any of her daughters after her husband died and so shame was not brought upon her family. Here, participation in governance translates to making appeals. To the state. The state has by no means receded into the background by handing over reigns to the people. It has merely assumed another form. This is a state-sponsored sphere after all. The state is still all about welfare. It is the patriarch to whom you address your demands. This addressing of demands is an important way in which participatory governance is enacted. A very far cry from the more normative expectations that guided the passing of the 73rd and the 74th amendment. 18 years from that date, this is where we are now with all our massive caste, class, and economic problems. Even achieving this much is exhausting if you sit back and think at how India governs itself in the face of so many challenges of caste, class, linguistic, education, and economic disparities.
I was not doing justice to the data by trying to fit it into the available theories that have been derived from examinations completely foreign to the contexts that inform my own work. I want to tell the story of this village in western Maharashtra. This village that fights and disrupts the gram sabha in anger over the delay of a gymkhana for its wrestlers. Isn't narratives really the best way to go about representing their stories? The codes and categories that I derive will demonstrate their fair share of paradoxes and ironies, but is that what will help us make sense of how rural local self governance institutions in India inform the lives of its people? Ask yourself at every step - what is interesting here? What is the story that needs to be told? What will help? What is the data telling me? What will be a contribution to the field and to the lives of people? And then write.
I went back to my transcripts and began taking theoretical memos. I began transcribing the last few interviews that were left. I came back with some new search words. I found a body of work that describes itself as political ethnography. I found one paper that attempted to locate the discursive construction of the state as was implicated in the way people chose to speak about corruption. That was the story I wanted to tell. How are people enacting and experiencing participation? The difficult part was choosing a narrative mode to tell this story. Working on a dissertation teaches you many things. Most of all, it forces you to assess your own capabilities of making sense of data. Are you asking the right questions? Okay, you may be asking the right questions in your head, but do these questions make sense on paper? How are you translating your ideas into questions that can be posed? Are you out to build theory or are you indulging in descriptive analysis? What is your strength? What will enable you to best tell the story that you have seen unfolding. Working with a keen affinity for qualitative research means that the chances of you being overwhelmed by all of these questions is significant. Qualitative research is loosely structured. It plays off on a very heightened sense of nuance. It is about a small sample of people and their experiences. How are they making sense of the world that you are interested in? And what is the best way to ensure that you make their voice heard.
I read a fabulously written dissertation this weekend when I was struggling with my unhappiness over the questions. The language play in it was delightful and it spoke to the qualities that an anthropological interrogation into a phenomenon could reveal. Yet, for all the wordplay, I found it overtly self-indulgent. The author's own delight in her obvious writing flair completely overshadowing the experiences of those who should be foregrounded. But, I am getting ahead of my own plot and story. I will speak more about this when I reach a comparative stage in my work.
The questions first. How do I narrate the participation of a village in governing itself. I looked for various ways. From the way three families had fallen through the cracks of officialese because they occupied land between two gram panchayats and hence belonged nowhere to the story about the reporter who killed the news of a two-year-old girl's death because the village did not want it reported in the press. How do I locate participation in these two instances? Both are instances of wanting to belong. The three families want to belong to a larger community so that they can avail of all the benefits that come with it. So, they fight and that is how they participate. The reporter thinks nothing of withdrawing his story because he wants to belong to his village and not be ostracized. This is not the only story that there is, so why waste good relations with your neighbors over this when there are other ways of being faithful to your profession. This is also an instance of participation. I could find no satisfactory way of tying all of this together.
I still don't know how far I am succeeding, but now my focus has slowly begun to zone in on examining the extent to which people's agency overshadows that of the state. If participatory governance is everything that it is cranked up to be, then how far does the presence of the state inform the daily lives of people? How far does the state's presence impinge on the normative ideals of participation. How is the gram panchayat being discursively constructed by the people in the interviews? I feel more comfortable with this mode of questioning. My confusion arose because I forgot the basic tenet of qualitative research. This is an emergent mode of questioning. "Let the theory emerge from the data" Cardinal rule. I taught this for three years. How could I fail to apply it to my own work when it was time?
This data is telling me that the gram panchayat is a problem solving institution. It tells me that participation that matters does not only have to be in governance. It can also happen by being present to lend your Hindu shoulder to your Muslim neighbor's corpse. For the widow with 7 girls, participation meant that her neighbors did not prey on her isolation or on any of her daughters after her husband died and so shame was not brought upon her family. Here, participation in governance translates to making appeals. To the state. The state has by no means receded into the background by handing over reigns to the people. It has merely assumed another form. This is a state-sponsored sphere after all. The state is still all about welfare. It is the patriarch to whom you address your demands. This addressing of demands is an important way in which participatory governance is enacted. A very far cry from the more normative expectations that guided the passing of the 73rd and the 74th amendment. 18 years from that date, this is where we are now with all our massive caste, class, and economic problems. Even achieving this much is exhausting if you sit back and think at how India governs itself in the face of so many challenges of caste, class, linguistic, education, and economic disparities.
I was not doing justice to the data by trying to fit it into the available theories that have been derived from examinations completely foreign to the contexts that inform my own work. I want to tell the story of this village in western Maharashtra. This village that fights and disrupts the gram sabha in anger over the delay of a gymkhana for its wrestlers. Isn't narratives really the best way to go about representing their stories? The codes and categories that I derive will demonstrate their fair share of paradoxes and ironies, but is that what will help us make sense of how rural local self governance institutions in India inform the lives of its people? Ask yourself at every step - what is interesting here? What is the story that needs to be told? What will help? What is the data telling me? What will be a contribution to the field and to the lives of people? And then write.

