Teaching and learning in the tropics: an epistemic exploration of “the field” in a development studies field trip

Abstract

Development studies employs theories, tools and methods often found in geography, including the international field trip to a “developing” country. In 2013 and 2014, I led a two-week trip to Ethiopia. To better comprehend the effects of “the field” on students’ learning, I introduced an assessed reflexive field diary to understand what the field trip experience teaches students about themselves and their relationship to the field. In this paper, I present critical reflections on “the field” that speak to a provocative concept – “the tropics”. These reflections illuminate prevailing challenges in the study and practice of development and suggest a way forward.

Keywords:

• field trip
• the field
• development studies
• reflexivity
• diaries
• developing countries

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to the students who took the development in practice module with me in 2012–2013 and 2013–2014; and am particularly indebted to the 2013–2014 cohort for kindly giving me access to their diaries for this paper.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1. There is also a debate around the high costs for students to attend field trips in general, but especially international field trips, where the cost can exclude some students (see Herrick, 2010; Kent et al., 1997). I do not enter that debate here because the students on my programme have the costs of the field trip built into their fees. Exclusion, were it to occur, is at the stage of selecting a master’s programme.

2. Albeit within single quotation marks, perhaps denoting the author’s discomfort with the word and/or a perceived lack of an alternative.

3. In preparation for these discussions, students had read papers by Rose (1997) and Spivak (1988) on reflexivity and situated knowledge and the complexities of crafting others. These pieces were clearly influential and were frequently cited in students’ diaries.

4. Two master’s programmes were combined for field trip activities in 2014, totalling 63 students; 45 were from one programme and only they were instructed to write field diaries.

5. Other less dominant narratives of “the field” include places of deep difference based on little more than negative stereotypes with highly problematic conclusions. For example, Student F wrote on attending a marketplace, “My first thoughts were pity for the people having to live and trade in such conditions. However, I quickly realised that this was normal for the locals and [they] even welcomed us with smiles.” (04/06/14). Student G wrote, “Through our interviews I [found] that the farmer only works for fifteen days per month, and only six hours per day, compared with East Asia[n] workers their working time is very short […] due to the lack of education and the traditional culture […] the efficiency of the workers are very low.” (04/06/14). I do not discuss these narratives here because the issues raised by them have been effectively and thoroughly discussed in other papers, e.g. Nairn’s (2005) paper on students visiting a marketplace and Ogden’s (2008) paper on “the colonial student” who views the world “from the veranda” last occupied by colonial rulers.