Negotiating Unfreedom: An (Auto-) Ethnography of Life at the Forefront of Academic Knowledge Production

This article analyses the negotiated and contingent nature of research access and limitations in a cooperative research project in Kyrgyzstan, Central Asia. It argues that even technically and legally 'free' academic research is often subject to a number of restrictions emanating from the politicization of research at the so-called frontiers of the global political economy of academic knowledge production. This frontier status and contested nature of knowledge and research is especially marked in Kyrgyzstan, where recent revolutions and social conflict have created a tense climate amidst authorities' attempts to reassert their epistemic dominance. Against this background, the article analyses how the 'politics of sovereignty' employed in state actors' attempts to curb intrusive research are equally present in the realization of cooperative research projects with different national and international (non-governmental) organizations/networks, whose members enact the research cooperation or hamper it in different ways, sometimes in ambiguous, sometimes in obvious manner. Further reflection is provided on the emotional and psychological factors which playing a role in the negotiation of access and the shaping of the overall research project. In conclusion, it is argued that the decisions, views and behaviour of people at the forefront of knowledge production in the global periphery cannot be subjected to moral binaries but need to be understood in terms of the role played by spontaneous reactions, inter-subjective sense-making processes and evaluations of people and projects over time.

本文分析了中亚吉尔吉斯斯坦一项合作研究项目中，研究准入与限制的协商性及偶然性特征。文章指出，即便在技术与法律层面“自由”的学术研究，也常受制于诸多限制——这些限制源于学术知识生产的全球政治经济体系中所谓“前沿”领域的研究政治化。这种知识与研究的前沿属性及争议性，在吉尔吉斯斯坦表现得尤为显著——该国近期的革命与社会冲突，加之当局试图重申其认知主导权（epistemic dominance），共同营造了紧张的氛围。在此背景下，文章分析了国家行为体为遏制侵入性研究而采用的“主权政治（politics of sovereignty）”——这种政治同样存在于与不同国家及国际（非政府）组织/网络合作研究项目的实施过程中；这些组织/网络的成员以不同方式参与或阻碍研究合作，有时方式模糊，有时则十分明显。文章还进一步反思了在准入协商及整个研究项目塑造过程中发挥作用的情感与心理因素。最后，文章认为，全球边缘地区知识生产前沿人群的决策、观点与行为，不应被置于道德二元对立框架下评判，而需从自发反应、主体间意义建构过程（inter-subjective sense-making processes）及长期对人与项目的评估所起的作用来理解。