The amount of social science literature on extractivism continues to increase at an intense pace. However, not many address the methodological issues of qualitative research in a mining context directly, even though such an approach is a fundamental means of gaining more rigor in our analyses. The quality of research is not only based on the time spent in situ or the number of interviews conducted, but also on the relevant disclosure of the concrete conditions in which the fieldwork was concretely carried out (Bizeul, 1998).

The written result of this disclosure has been named ethnographic reflexivity, anthropology or reflexive ethnography (Bensa & Fassin, 2008; Blondet & Lantin-Mallet, 2017; Burawoy, 2003; Davies, 2008; Fogel & Rivoal, 2009; Ghasarian, 2002; Morissette et al., 2014; Weber, 2012; Weber & Lambelet, 2006). For these authors, it is a matter of making explicit the history of the field research, the positions or roles that were locally assigned to the ethnographer, the difficulties met in continuing the fieldwork, and/or the researcher's methodological strategies to try and resolve them. Since these aspects affect both the production of in situ data and its analysis, working on ethnographic reflexivity allows the social scientist to gain greater control over the blind spots and biases of an investigation. Therefore, this reflexivity is not centered on the subjectivity of the researcher, rather than on the conditions of production of anthropological knowledge on groups studied (Fassin, 2008; Olivier de Sardan, 2015). This labor allows us to improve our instruments and strategies of knowledge (Bourdieu, 2022), demanding forms of academic writing that do not hide the presence of the researcher (Descola, 1994; 2005).

While this requirement for reflexivity is important for all research, the mining context presents certain particular methodological pitfalls. The professionals of a mining company may try to limit what the researcher observes or listens to, exercising control over what other mining employees or local actors may confide in them. A situation that is not uncommon, considering the systematic corporate attempts to ensure social support and to silence local critics, including through clientelist or paternalistic practices (Burneo & Chaparro, 2010; Grieco, 2018; Hervé, 2013; Rajak, 2011; Welker, 2014). In addition, populations near mining projects often present divisions between subgroups in tension or opposition, some being in favor and others against mining extraction (Banks, 2002; Bebbington et al., 2008; Calvo, 2023; Cavero, 2018; Damonte, 2008; Dougherty & Olsen, 2014; Gil, 2009; Hervé, 2019; Horowitz, 2003; 2011; Salas, 2008). In this context, there is a risk of falling into the methodological problem of encliquage, consisting in being captured in a clique or faction, without being able to obtain other points of view (Olivier de Sardan, 1995; 2015). Moreover, it is common for members of these subgroups to try to use the ethnographer to circulate a convenient and partial version of the studied reality. Not being aware of these instrumentalizations leads to erroneous or at least inaccurate interpretations of the object of study, especially if the analysis is based on the accounts of a handful of privileged interlocutors.

Because of these and other difficulties present in mining contexts, we invite researchers to address the following questions: What are the obstacles or facilities that the ethnographer finds in the mining field to access the studied group and achieve a profuse and varied production of empirical material? What roles do gender, age, physical appearance, and social class of the researcher play in the development of fieldwork? How do methodological problems manifest themselves, such as encliquage, the local instrumentalization of the ethnographer (Agier, 1997), or the assignment of a dangerous ethnographic identity of spy or activist (Cavero, 2023), which affects access to diverse points of view, even the continuity of the research? Which methodological and analytical strategies are used to confront these problems? How are these problems and methodological strategies articulated with ethical considerations (Bainton & Skrzypek, 2022)?

This issue of ANTHROPOLOGICA hopes to contribute to the still embryonic field of discussion of ethnographic reflexivity in mining contexts with a triple objective. First, to promote a more rigorous analysis of the conditions of production of ethnographic knowledge. Second, to help future ethnographers in mining contexts to improve their methodological and analytical preparation. Finally, to promote original lines of analysis and critique of the extensive literature on mining extractivism (see recommended bibliography).

THEMATIC FOCUS

The thematic focus for this call for papers seeks research covering the analysis of ethnographies or qualitative work experiences in:

• Mining enterprises or companies specialized in socio-environmental issues working in mining contexts.
• Populations affected by large-scale mining operations, whether open-pit or subway.
• Populations involved in contexts of negotiation and/or confrontation in the face of a large-scale mining project in the exploration stage.
• Communities implicated in current or past open-pit mine closure processes.
• Artisanal mineral activities, either under communal or private forms.

Deadline: January 30, 2025 (EXTENDED)

Publication date: July, 2025

Article submission: anthropo@pucp.edu.pe or through this link.

Author guidelines