On the Floods in Santo Domingo

Problems Encountered on the Research Path: a Reflection from the Field

Originally, I took this pause in my research to write a progress report on my dissertation fieldwork, but such a report morphed to include a discussion of quandaries in the field. In mid-October, I traveled to Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic to study the incorporation and survival strategies of various categories of Haitian migrants. My research was focused on how they dealt with race, citizenship, gender, and pressures of capitalism, making sure I was sensitive to specific aspects of urbanity which affected their incorporation. Within two weeks of my arrival, Tropical Storm (later Hurricane) Noel thrashed the island of Hispaniola, an event that scuttled my work schedule and raised broad and pressing questions for anthropologists at all stages of their studies.
The damage from this disaster, better understood as social and ecological rather than strictly natural (see Oliver-Smith 1996), does not match Noel’s designation as a mere storm. As I write, reports suggest the number of people who died has almost reached 200. Thousands have been displaced due to flood waters overtaking their homes, and even more have been affected after streams and rivers ripped away chunks of several bridges. Further infrastructural devastation rendered impassable a main highway between Haiti and Santo Domingo. Such havoc immediately impacted vulnerable populations, and it will inevitably affect both countries on the island, as major Dominican agricultural areas that supply the two are under water. It remains to be seen whether this will mean a prohibitive price spike for staple crops grown in-country or a semi-permanent restructuring of the Dominican economy as cheap or free foreign products also flood the country.
Fortunately, I live in a slightly elevated area of the capital, so besides losing power for a few days and being confined to my quarters due to the rains, I was relatively unaffected. Though I faced no major problems in food, clothes, or shelter, I was confronted with an issue that anyone doing fieldwork understands: how should one deal with serendipity[1], unpredictability, and possibilities of change in research? I raise this concern in this forum as a gesture toward, as Comitas (2000:197) puts it, “enhancing sensitivity to and facilitating research in the face of ever-growing social and cultural complexity”.
The specific choice I faced was whether to continue my research as I planned, or to follow a new research topic surrounding the disaster. Both projects were problem-oriented, a key element in applied anthropology: migrant incorporation or social aspects of disaster. Both topics were important in their specific ethnographic context: the long-standing (mis)treatment of Haitians by some Dominicans, and the very current devastation of Noel. Additionally, both cases could highlight important issues when compared with parallels in the US context: Mexican migrants in the US, and emergency response vis-à-vis Hurricane Katrina and the latest California wildfires. Making a choice demanded some reflection.
Of course, reasons existed for me to continue on my initial path. I had spent almost a decade studying and developing linguistic and social knowledge to work among Haitians (in Haiti, in Cuba, in the US, and in the Dominican Republic), so I was personally invested in maintaining focus on these migrants. In fact, pursuing my original question met the five criteria Bernard (2002) suggested are required of a good research question: high degree of personal interest, methodologically rigorous approach, appropriate resource allocation, minimized ethical considerations, and relevance to the discipline. Also, keeping my present bearings meant I would not have to wait for new IRB approval, though it could be possible to gain retroactive approval. Further, I was obligated by terms of disbursement and by professional codes of ethics to make it known to my funding agencies if I changed my research direction. Doing so would require navigating a significant amount of communication and paperwork, which would take time and, in the end, still might not be deemed acceptable.
Beyond reasons to keep the original topic, the new one raised its own issues. On one hand, wouldn’t it be harder on my conscience to work in the capital while many people are suffering due to the effects of Noel less than an hour away than to work directly in flood areas? In other words, I was faced with the dilemma of researcher “detachment” versus “contribution” (AAA 1998:V,3). On the other hand, given the strong community and institutional support for my original project, could I postpone such work, perhaps indefinitely, or would that contradict the need for researchers to “preserve opportunities for future fieldworkers to follow them to the field” (AAA 1998:III,B3)? Further, ethical considerations suggest that I should explain my actions to the people with whom I would no longer be working (AAA 1998:III,A1), so how would I account for my departure? Finally, assuming the similar quality of work, there are some research topics that attract more attention than others, so how much significance should profitability or career payback figure into such a decision?
My answer to these questions was located squarely inside that tangled conceptual ball of values, morals, and ethics. In the end, I decided that rather than either-or, I opted to prioritize my original project while contributing what I could to those in need. Working with a progressively-minded and grassroots-oriented collective based in Santo Domingo, I volunteered time to help translate (Spanish to Haitian Creole) and distribute emergency health-related pamphlets for those affected by the storm. The time requirements of this work allowed me to contribute to relief efforts in a meaningful way, while still maintaining my original research focus.
One might agree or take issue with my actions. Perhaps I have not considered certain ethical aspects of this situation well enough, or at all. Maybe my reasoning was too utilitarian and my deeds just compassionate enough for me to feel good about myself. If that is the case, rather than judging me either as inadequate or as exemplary, we should discuss it, for I can think of no better way to begin dealing with the ever-changing and always-complex concerns involved in these endeavors. So for now, my ethical concerns have cleared up. Further, the clouds have parted and the rains have stopped, thus leaving me with Caribbean sun filled mornings and mosquito filled nights. And so I return to the joys of dissertation fieldwork[2].

AAA (American Anthropological Association)
1998 Code of Ethics.

Bernard, H. Russell
2002 Research Methods in Anthropology.
Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press.

Comitas, Lambros
2000 Ethics in Anthropology: Dilemmas and Conundrums.
Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 925:196-210.

Oliver-Smith, Anthony
1996 Lima, Peru: Underdevelopment and Vulnerability
in the City of the Kings. In Disasters in Megacities.
JK Mitchell, ed. Tokyo: United Nations University Press.

[1] The slightly positive connotation of this word renders it somewhat inappropriate for the context of disaster, but I believe we should consider the question in other contexts, too.

[2] The author would like to thank the J. William Fulbright Foreign Scholarship Board and the Office of Policy and Research at Teachers College, Columbia University for their support.