In February, we built further upon the methodology of oral history, with presentations by Margot Luyckfasseel,[3]<\/a> Enid Guene [4]<\/a> and Gillian Mathys.[5]<\/a> These presentations were valuable to all researchers present who planned their very first fieldworks. Margot emphasized that fieldwork can be a two-way exchange between researchers and local assistants. While assistants offer translation and mobility, researchers can provide a salary, safety, the possibility of publications and academic contacts. Furthermore, she talked about the importance of taking safety measures, such as giving gifts to chiefs to secure their support, as well as avoiding unwanted influences on your data, such as male bias, or individual interviews unexpectedly turning into focus groups. Moreover, she encouraged researchers to reflect about their own positionality, the role oral history plays among other sources in their research and whether to prioritize the anonymity or the authorship of their informants. She concluded by adding that after fieldwork is concluded, a researcher can give back to the studied community by transmitting their data or finished writing back to their informants. Next, Enid gave more specific tips on interview methods. Working on hunting and gathering in Kenya, she learned that above all that oral history is determined by practical factors, such as road accessibility, the willingness and interests of informants, and the researcher\u2019s own stamina. This is why improvisation is key: researchers should ask simple, yet open questions, playing into the needs of informants and letting them steer the conversation. The interviewer must however always remain in control, and balance taking notes with asking questions and remaining attentive. She added that the spontaneous focus groups that Margot described are not necessarily a bad thing, given that they can give rise to a collective brainstorm, aided by pictures or material culture to identify persons, items, or specific non-humans. Using these practices, Enid believes that a researcher should extract the main storylines from informants\u2019 narratives and weave them into one history. Finally, Gillian explained that she believes in \u2018genealogies of the present\u2019, starting from the present and doing history backwards, to construct life histories and reconstruct what people did<\/em>, wanted to do<\/em> and believed to be doing<\/em>. Furthermore, she raised the point that oral history can be a powerful tool to circumvent the methodological nationalism of archives and write transnational histories, for instance in the Great Lakes region like she did. All speakers gave valuable advice on broaching sensitive topics, something important for the FORAGENCY project, given that our research touches upon themes such as poaching, famines, drugs, and addiction. The speakers advised us to start with a general thematic scope and then slowly ease into more difficult topic, while respecting their silences and secrecy. An important factor in this is trust, which can be expanded by going back multiple times to the same informant and taking part in informal activities, although Enid added that criminal activities are not necessarily a taboo topic, and that crimes committed by ancestors during colonial times can also be a source of pride.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A Congolese croisette<\/em>. Wikicommons, public domain.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the third methodological workshop Nicolas Nikis,[6]<\/a> Laurent Nieblas Ramirez [7]<\/a> and Peter Lambertz [8]<\/a> talked about their experiences with material culture research. Nicolas showed us how he traced back the roots of copper croisettes<\/em>, small ingots in the form of a cross, used as a trade good and a store of wealth. Using the acquisition notes of croisettes <\/em>in the Royal Museum for Central Africa in Tervuren, ethnographic studies, travelogues, and lab analysis of trace element isotopes, he was able to map them and link morphological differences to the capitals of 19th<\/sup> century polities. Laurent, working on the same research project, presented a text on faunal remains from the 14th<\/sup> to the 20th<\/sup> century found in the Ruki-Tshuapa basin. In his analysis, he showed that subsistence at the sites was mostly based on fish and reptiles, caught in tidepools or using traps and toxic plants. During his presentation, he showed us how unique bones (meaning only appearing once in a complete skeleton) were counted to gauge population and fish size to estimate a community\u2019s protein intake. Furthermore, he explained how material culture in and of itself was not enough and has to be complemented with archival work and questionnaires in the field as well. He explained how he used pictures of the studied fish to collect their vernacular names. Finally, Peter used the opportunity to have a more theoretical and \u201cprovocative\u201d, as he called it, discussion on the difference between inductive and deductive approaches to material objects. He called for a \u201cradically inductive approach\u201d, paying attention to what the informant wants<\/em> to say, primarily using recordings, as writing in public can be suspicious in Central Africa. Finally, Peter ended his presentation by stating that it is very difficult to understand the subject without the user, using the example of slime on Congolese baleini\u00e8re<\/em> boats. While most boat builders remove the slime, in Congo it is purposefully left on the boats to form a water-tight seal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n In May we finally welcomed Emelien Devos,[9]<\/a> Romain Duda [10]<\/a> and Lys Alcayna-Stevens [11]<\/a> to present their work using ethnographic methods. Emelien, when talking about her work on elephant trails in Tanzania, highlighted moments when researchers could make observations besides interviews, when they travel, cook, eat, take part to rituals, record songs, as well as other aspects one could observe, such as practicalities, discourse, landscapes and interspecies relationships. Finally, she reminded attendees to not forget the classical tools and questions of social sciences, such as gender relations, even when doing ethnographic work on more-than-human relations. Afterwards, Romain talked about the ways in which researchers could connect with their studied communities. For example, by walking around a village upon first arrival to show oneself, or even by going to the bar and having a drink. Once conversation is struck, Romain mentioned how one can make themselves relatable by displaying knowledge of vernacular terms, talking about our own food taboos, wearing talismans and allowing informants to ask questions themselves to build a relation of mutual trust from the onset. He as well mentioned the importance of bringing pictures to support interviews, but additionally brought up videos, old documents and even timelines of important events or political leaders to structure historical narratives. Lys Alcayna-Stevens closed the final methodological workshop with a more ethical reflection of ethnographic research, questioning how privacy is impacted in impromptu focus group conversations, what should be done with secret knowledge, if and how to remunerate informants and the effectiveness of institutionalised ethics assessments. Finally, she as well returned to points also raised by Peter in March, emphasizing the importance of grounded theory. Some methods she advised were being open to what\u2019s important to informants, allowing people to control the interview, making people feel listened to by making notes (disagreeing with Peter), and allowing informants to write or draw things as well.<\/p>\n\n\n\n All of these presentations were very valuable to FORAGENCY team members and other researchers present and will most certainly form a solid foundation for their research.<\/a>[BH1]<\/a> The informal setting gave rise to practical methodological advice. Especially the advice on fieldwork has been very instructive, such as how to keep rapport with informants and on how to manage group interviews. As of now, these pieces of advice have certainly applied been used in our first fieldwork experience in Burundi. Somewhat surprisingly, and perhaps also a consequence of the informal setting, there was also room for more fundamental theoretical reflections on subjects like positionality and the balance of inductive and deductive methods. Ultimately, the workshops have been of great benefit to the junior researchers present, and certainly merit a continuation in the coming year.<\/p>\n\n\n\n [1]<\/a> de Carvalho Cabral, Diogo, \u2018Meaningful Clearings. Human-Ant Negotiated Landscapes in Nineteenth-Century Brazil\u2019, Environmental History<\/em>, 26, 2021, p. 56-78.<\/p>\n\n\n\n [2]<\/a> Pe\u0161a, Iva, \u2018A History of the Copperbelt through Plants\u2019, unpublished manuscript, 2023.<\/p>\n\n\n\n [3]<\/a> Luyckfasseel, Margot, \u2018Female Options. Slavery, marriage and women\u2019s social mobility among the Wangwana in Central-East Congo at the turn of the 20th<\/sup> century\u2019, unpublished manuscript, 2024.<\/p>\n\n\n\n [4]<\/a> Guene, Enid, \u2018Globalisation and the Market Economy. Economic Diversification among \u2018Former\u2019 Hunter-Gatherers\u2019, in: Guene, Enid The \u2018End\u2019 of Hunting and Gathering. Identity and Livelihood Transformations among Foraging Communities in Kenya (ca. 1900-2000)<\/em>, unpublished doctoral thesis, 2023.<\/p>\n\n\n\n [5]<\/a> Mathys, Gillian, \u2018Entangled pasts and presents. Decentring dominant paradigms and tracing the trajectories of oral narratives in conflict settings (Lake Kivu region)\u2019, unpublished manuscript, 2024.<\/p>\n\n\n\n [6]<\/a> Nikis, Nicolas & Livingstone Smith, Alexandre, \u2018Copper, Trade and Polities. Exchange Networks in Southern Central Africa in the 2nd<\/sup> Millennium CE\u2019, Journal of Southern African Studies<\/em>, 43 (5), 2017, p. 895-911.<\/p>\n\n\n\n [7]<\/a> Nieblas Ramirez, Laurent et al., \u2018Subsistence strategies in the Inner Congo Basin since the 14th century AD. The faunal remains from Nkile and Bolondo (DR Congo)\u2019, Archaeofauna<\/em>, 31, 2022, p. 57-75.<\/p>\n\n\n\n [8]<\/a> Lambertz, Peter, \u2018Kobeta Toles. Re-pairing Mobility on Congo\u2019s Inland Waterways\u2019, unpublished manuscript, 2024.<\/p>\n\n\n\n [9]<\/a> Devos, Emelien, \u2018Elephants as roadbuilders in West Tanzania. Medicinal and hunting perspectives on more-than-human agency, unpublished manuscript, 2024.<\/p>\n\n\n\n [10]<\/a> Duda, Romain et al., \u2018A time of decline. An eco-anthropological and ethnohistorical investigation of mpox in the Central African Republic\u2019, PLOS Global Public Health, 4(3), 2024, p. 1-22.<\/p>\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/ercforagency.eu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/Croisette-1-1024x763.jpg\")
<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n