Border Tensions for Rethinking Communication and Development: A Case of Building History in Ticoya Resguardo

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article proposes to take orality serious as a component of own’s people history, and analyses the cases of the Ticoya Resguardo in the Colombian Amazon. While this aim is important, this work joins to a long list of previous scholarship doing that, which is not referred to in the text. It raises a debate as novel, but this debate on the importance of orality and the role of elder people has already been largely discussed, and there is not engaged with this bibliography. From an anthropological or sociological point of view this is weak, however perhaps the author is in another field, which would be good to highlight. But even if this were the case, the discussion with broader literature is needed. In that sense this text could be positioned as enriching that line of work through this specific case study. What it is interesting is the location of these groups at the border of Peru and Colombia, and how their lives and memories challenge these borders but at the same time those borders impact peoples’ identities. However, there is also literature about Amazonian mobility (see some below) that the text needs to dialogue with. I consider that the case of the Radio programme is interesting, however this is not well explained. At the same time there is a feeling that the author is given voice to these groups – ‘we sought to “return the word to the grandfathers”’-, when Amazonian groups have many levels of self-representation today. Therefore, positionality needs to be also better addressed.

The text needs major changes or be rejected. A way to move this text forward could be first to locate the text in a larger scholarship of orality and history, collaborative work and indigenous self-representation, Amazonian indigenous mobility and borders, and second to locate the radio project at the centre of the analysis and offer more detail of this project, methodology, and outcomes, which can be highlighted as the contribution to a larger group of works.

Peluso, Daniela. 2015. “Circulating between Rural and Urban Communities: Multisited Dwellings in Amazonian Frontiers.” Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Anthropology, 20 (1): 57–79.

Mobility and Migration in Indigenous Amazonia: Contemporary Ethnoecological Perspectives, edited by Miguel Alexiades, New York: Berghahn Books.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Overall, the quality of English is okay but needs minor changes. For instance when the author refers to something already mentioned it uses a legal form. I suggest changing this.   

p. 126 should say: as “a” participative space.

Improve lines 134-136. 

The author needs to check the whole text but corrections are minor. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General

The article is based on an original and commendable idea and has the potential to make a significant contribution to the visibility of indigenous knowledge and, subsequently, to cognitive justice. At the same time, I find that the design and execution of the article need to be re-considered more carefully. The main issue I see here is that the article sets out to develop a dialogue between communication and social change and oral history; but without engaging with the communication scholarship. This is a serious omission, if the novelty of the article is based on this ‘dialogue’. For this reason, I would recommend that the authors re-think their approach and what they really want to achieve from this study, before re-writing the paper. Below are some more specific comments.

 

Aims

Starting with the objective of the article, the abstract states as an objective ‘the construction of an intercultural history of the Ticoya Resguardo in the Colombian Amazon from a perspective of communication, development, and social change’. I suggest that, in the introduction of the article, the authors unpack this idea and explain with precision what this ‘construction’ entails and what Communication for Development and Social Change (CDSC) brings to this construction. An explanation is also needed about ‘the rescue of orality as a narrative source of those who have been told from the outside’, why it matters and for whom. In other words, is this about developing a new theoretical framework that will advance our understanding of oral history? Or is it about finding more effective ways for the voices of the ‘subaltern’ to be heard? Or both? Finally, the main aim and argument of the article should be consistently explained throughout the article.

 

Introduction

The introduction is quite short. I suggest that the authors present a summary of a) the main argument of the article, b) an outline of the theoretical position (i.e. how the ‘dialogue between communication and history’ will be analysed) c) the methodological approach, d) brief mention of the key findings.

 

Contextual and theoretical debate

This section needs a clear and precise argument and clear and systematic execution of the theoretical position proposed in the article. If the article’s novelty is in bringing oral history and CDSC into dialogue, it is precisely this dialogue that needs to be developed here. For this, the authors need to identify the premises of the two theoretical debates that are most relevant for this dialogue.

In this section, we also see the introduction of concepts/theories around subalternity, indigenous knowledge and storytelling. These seem to be quite randomly brought into the discussion. I suggest that authors consider more carefully if/how these debates fit into the theoretical framework they want to develop and justify their position with more convincing evidence from the relevant literature.

 

I would also suggest that the whole section is re-written and structured more coherently with clear signposting of key ideas and arguments.

 

A minor point concerns the references to African identity. These again seem a bit random and unsupported, considering that the article’s focus is on Latin America.

 

Methodology

The section begins with the statement about the need to “return the word to the grandfathers”. This sounds quite vague and I would generally recommend that the authors try to be as precise/specific as possible and maintain a consistent line of argument throughout the article.

In terms of the use of praxeology, it is very difficult to see how this specific approach fits with the main argument of the article; and this is mainly because of the issues mentioned above, i.e. lack of clarity in terms of what the article aims to achieve, how the dialogue between communication and history is developed and the overall lack of theoretical framework. So, I would suggest that the authors ensure that - if they decide to stick to this approach - they explain the rationale and suitability of this approach clearly and in close connection to the core argument and position of the paper. I would also suggest that more transparency is needed in the way the praxeological model was applied to the fieldwork. For the approach to appear credible and reliable, the authors should provide more information about e.g. what material was used and who was involved in the workshops, what analytical tools were used in the interpretation stage, who exactly was involved in the action stage, how exactly was ‘participation’ ensured? If the authors wish to engage with CDSC, perhaps they could benefit from some key concepts and tools from the field. Finally, ethical considerations also need to be addressed.

Findings and Discussion

My suggestion here follows from the previous comments and the need for a more coherent, consistent and systematic discussion of the entire position of the article. Hence, the discussion of the empirical findings should emerge logically from the theoretical framework and the research instruments. More transparency is needed in terms of how the findings and observations emerged. Finally, and crucially, the article should explain clearly and convincingly what the main contribution of the findings is, which will once again depend on the overall aim and argument of the article.

I hope these comments will help the authors develop their article and I wish them all the best with the re-submission.  

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf