GCAS: Your work brings together environmental anthropology, political ecology, participatory research, and the rights of Indigenous peoples. Could you tell us about your current research and the questions at the centre of it?
Roberta Valenti: First of all, thank you for giving me this opportunity to participate in the interview and to talk about my research and the work I do for the IRB. At first, when you put together environmental anthropology, political ecology, participatory research, and Indigenous rights, it can sound like a very dense combination of approaches. But for me, these perspectives are actually very interconnected.
My current research focuses on the Rio Madeira dam complex in the Amazonian region of South America, and on the ways in which Indigenous communities and other affected communities articulate their environmental and territorial claims in relation to large infrastructure projects. The construction of these dams has had significant environmental and social consequences, and it has also raised questions of environmental justice, territorial justice, recognition, and visibility.
This is where my background in environmental anthropology and political ecology comes together. I am interested not only in the material consequences of these projects, but also in how affected communities understand, represent, and communicate their experiences and their claims. At the same time, my approach is strongly influenced by the colonial history of anthropology. Anthropology has a long history of producing knowledge about Indigenous peoples without necessarily giving them control over how they are represented.
So I am very interested in questioning these more extractive traditions of research and in thinking about how research can instead become more collaborative and participatory. This is why Indigenous rights and participation are at the centre of my research. I don’t see my role as simply giving people a voice, because their voices already exist. Rather, I see myself more as a mediator or facilitator: someone who can create a space where communities can represent themselves, articulate their own claims, and retain agency over how their experiences are communicated.
This also connects to the digital dimension of my research. I am looking specifically at Indigenous digital activism, particularly on Instagram, and asking how Indigenous actors use this space to articulate territorial claims, environmental concerns, and demands for recognition and rights. More broadly, I am interested in what happens when these struggles move into digital spaces, and how digital forms of communication may create new possibilities for visibility, representation, and political action.
So, ultimately, my research is not only about how Indigenous communities are affected by development projects. It is also about how they actively represent themselves, communicate their claims, and participate in shaping the narratives surrounding these struggles.
GCAS: Your PhD research at GCAS focuses on the challenges Indigenous communities face in relation to large infrastructure projects and development policies. How did this project develop, and what has your experience of the GCAS PhD programme been like?
Roberta Valenti: Yes. The starting point of the project was really a question of visibility and recognition: how can we understand and make visible the experiences of communities that are affected by large infrastructure projects and development policies?
There is, of course, a very strong development narrative surrounding large dams. They are often presented as a way of expanding access to electricity, creating employment, and contributing to national economic development. But there is another side to this story. These projects can also have significant social and environmental consequences for communities living in the affected territories, and Indigenous communities in particular can face problems of recognition, representation, and visibility.
My initial project developed at Panthéon-Sorbonne University, where I was originally interested in the transborder dimension of the Rio Madeira dam complex. The dams themselves are located in Brazil, but the Madeira basin is connected to tributaries that cross Bolivia and Peru, so the environmental and social effects of the broader system cannot necessarily be understood within national borders.
Initially, I wanted to develop a kind of social map of the protest: I wanted to understand how communities across different national borders, languages, histories, and sometimes different interests could come together around concerns about the same development project. But during my preliminary research in Brazil, something unexpected happened. While I was using social media to find organisations and potential research collaborators, I realised that Instagram was not simply a tool for contacting people. It was also becoming a source of data in its own right.
Organisations and communities were using these digital spaces to communicate their experiences, articulate territorial claims, and make their environmental concerns visible. That made me rethink the project. I realised that I could not simply treat digital communication as an extension of what was happening offline. The digital space itself had become an important part of the field I was studying, and that led me towards digital ethnography and, more specifically, towards the study of Indigenous digital activism on Instagram.
When I transferred to GCAS, one of the things that was particularly valuable for me was the intellectual freedom to develop this methodological shift. GCAS gave me the opportunity to explore digital ethnography not simply as a substitute for conventional fieldwork, but as a meaningful way of studying how communities communicate, represent themselves, and mobilise in digital spaces.
It also allowed me to deepen the decolonial and participatory dimension of my research. I have become increasingly interested in questioning the extractive traditions that have historically characterised some forms of anthropological research, and in thinking about methodologies that are more collaborative and respectful of the agency of the communities involved.
And I think this is also where my experience of GCAS has been particularly important. Its interdisciplinary and international environment has allowed me to bring together anthropology, political ecology, environmental justice, Indigenous studies, and digital research without feeling that I have to remain within the boundaries of a single discipline. It has also allowed me to exchange ideas with researchers working in very different geographical and intellectual contexts.
GCAS: Previously, you studied the long-term effects of the Aswan High Dam on Nubian communities. What are the most important takeaways you’d like more people to learn about?
Roberta Valenti: This is probably the research that I feel most attached to, and perhaps the most emotional about, because it started during my undergraduate studies and continued throughout my master’s. I worked on the Aswan High Dam and its impact on Nubian communities, looking specifically at the social and economic consequences of the dam approximately sixty years after its construction.
What interested me was whether the social and environmental consequences of the project were still visible two generations after the displacement. One of the things that struck me most was encountering narratives of trauma, loss, and silence among older generations. Some people I spoke with did not want to discuss what had happened with the younger generation. For them, the displacement represented such a profound loss that there was a reluctance to revisit or transmit those experiences.
But at the same time, I encountered something that I found incredibly powerful: the younger generation’s determination to reconnect with its roots and preserve Nubian culture. Many of the young Nubians I encountered, including people living in Cairo, were very interested in learning about their history, their language, and their cultural heritage.
I saw this through very concrete forms of cultural activism. For example, a young man developed a mobile app to learn the Nubian language. Others organised Nubian festivals in Cairo where people could share food, music, dance, clothing, and other cultural practices. For me, these were not simply cultural events. They were also ways of maintaining a sense of identity and continuity after such a profound experience of displacement.
So one of the most important things I took away from this research is that the consequences of large infrastructure projects do not necessarily end when construction is finished or when people are physically relocated. Displacement can continue to affect communities socially and culturally across generations, through memory, identity, and relationships with territory.
But I also learned about resilience. What stayed with me was the determination of younger generations not to let that history disappear. They were actively finding new ways to preserve and reconstruct their cultural heritage. And, interestingly, this is something I later began to recognise in my current research on the Rio Madeira complex. I had not initially made the connection, but I noticed that younger generations are also very active in communicating environmental and territorial concerns, particularly through social media.
GCAS: What draws you to ethnographic research methods, and what do you think about their relevance today?
Roberta Valenti: Honestly, this might be fun to hear! I actually started my undergraduate studies thinking that I was going to become an archaeologist. I had always been passionate about history and archaeology, and I even had the opportunity to do archaeological fieldwork in Egypt. So, in many ways, I thought my academic path was already decided.
But then I started studying anthropology, and during my fieldwork I realised that I was perhaps better with living beings than with mummies. That is actually something my fieldwork professor used to tell me! The reason was that, instead of only being interested in the archaeological dig, I found myself much more interested in talking with the communities around us, drinking tea with them, and hearing their stories and experiences.
This is also how I became interested in the Nubian communities affected by the Aswan High Dam. I already knew about the dam and the displacement in a very abstract sense, but speaking directly with people who had experienced its consequences completely changed my perspective.
I realised how powerful ethnography can be because it allows us to understand not only what happened, but what those events actually mean to the people who experienced them. It allows us to learn from people’s perspectives, to understand their experiences in their own contexts, and to take seriously the ways in which they understand their own histories and claims.
And this is also why I think ethnography remains extremely relevant today. Of course, anthropology and ethnography have a complex colonial history, and some of the early traditions of the discipline were built around unequal relationships between researchers and the people they studied. I think it is important to acknowledge that history rather than ignore it.
But I would argue that this makes the question of how we practise ethnography today even more important. For me, ethnography should not be about studying the “Other” from a position of superiority. It should be about creating understanding, questioning our own assumptions, and taking seriously people’s own knowledge and perspectives.
GCAS: Alongside your research and teaching, you are Director of the GCAS Institutional Review Board. What is the purpose of the IRB, and why is ethical review important for research in the humanities and social sciences?
Roberta Valenti: When I first started my research in Nubia, working with Nubian communities on the long-term consequences of displacement, I collaborated with the American University in Cairo. Because the topic was particularly sensitive, both socially and politically, I went through a very rigorous research ethics process and completed several courses through the CITI Program on human-subjects research and research ethics.
That experience made me much more aware of the different kinds of risks that research can involve. We often think first about physical risk, but in qualitative and ethnographic research there can also be psychological, social, cultural, political, and privacy-related risks. Ethical research means thinking about these possibilities before we begin and asking ourselves how we can minimise unnecessary risks and protect the people who participate in our research.
That experience eventually led me to conduct seminars on research ethics at Panthéon-Sorbonne, and later to become Director of the GCAS Institutional Review Board. And I genuinely enjoy this work because I strongly believe that ethical review is particularly important in the humanities and social sciences.
We sometimes have the misconception that ethical review is mainly necessary for medical or experimental research. But whenever we work with people, collect personal information, conduct interviews, observe communities, or deal with sensitive experiences, we have an ethical responsibility towards the people who make our research possible.
For me, this is also closely connected to my own research philosophy. I am interested in participatory and collaborative research, and in moving away from extractive approaches to knowledge production. You cannot really talk about participation and respect for people’s agency while ignoring the potential risks that research itself can create.
This became even clearer to me when I recently returned to Linda Tuhiwai Smith’s Decolonizing Methodologies. She famously writes that the word “research” is “probably one of the dirtiest words in the Indigenous world’s vocabulary.” Her point is not simply about the word itself, but about the long history of research being used to collect, classify, represent, and ultimately exercise power over Indigenous peoples.
And I think this is something we have to take very seriously today. The question is not whether we should stop producing knowledge. The question is: how do we produce knowledge, with whom, for whom, and who has control over that process?
For me, there is a very important difference between researching people and producing knowledge with people. And that distinction is very closely connected to the role of an IRB, because there is always a power relationship between the researcher and the participant.
Ethical review should therefore not only be about checking whether a form has been signed. It should encourage researchers to reflect on those power relationships and on the responsibilities that come with producing knowledge about other people.
I remember that, when I was giving seminars at Panthéon-Sorbonne, one question that often came up was: “Does ethical review limit academic freedom?” And my answer was: yes — and rightfully so. Academic freedom is extremely important. We need to encourage people to ask difficult questions and to produce knowledge independently. But academic freedom cannot mean that researchers are free to expose other people to unnecessary harm.
The role of an IRB is therefore not to stop research or to tell researchers what they should study. It is to ask important questions about how the research will be conducted. So, ultimately, I see the IRB as a form of protection, but also as a form of responsibility. The freedom to produce knowledge is incredibly important, but it should never come at the unnecessary expense of the people who make that knowledge possible.
GCAS: What should GCAS researchers know before beginning the IRB process?
Roberta Valenti: The first thing I would encourage researchers to do is to consider submitting to the IRB as early as possible. Not only because, when IRB review is required, they need the appropriate clearance before they can begin collecting data, but also because the process itself can be genuinely useful.
It can give researchers the opportunity to receive guidance on how to better design their research and, perhaps even more importantly, to reflect on the methodologies they have chosen to apply. And I want to stress that this is not because the IRB wants to control your research. The purpose is not to tell you what you should research or which methodology you should use.
But simply going through the process of describing your methodology, thinking about potential risks, and explaining how you intend to work with participants can encourage a process of self-awareness and methodological reflection.
I would also encourage researchers to contact the IRB even if they are not sure whether they need clearance. Sometimes researchers assume that their project is exempt, but it is better to ask and receive an official exemption from the IRB than to conduct the research first and only afterwards realise that there was an ethical requirement that had not been addressed.
In particular, researchers should not assume that a project is exempt simply because the data seem anonymous or the research appears to involve minimal risk. And finally, I would tell researchers not to worry if they receive requests for revisions. It is completely normal to be asked to make modifications to an application.
I actually think this is one of the most useful parts of the process. Even as someone who works with research ethics myself, I need someone else to read through my ethical protocol, because sometimes we simply overlook details that can become very important once the research is actually being conducted.
So I would say: start early, be as transparent and detailed as possible, and don’t be afraid to ask questions. And, of course, I am always available to answer questions and emails. I try my very best to be on top of the process, so if you have any questions about the IRB, please don’t hesitate to reach out.
GCAS: What would you tell someone considering GCAS as a place for doing ethnographic research?
Roberta Valenti: I am actually really grateful for this question as our last question, because I have to say that, at the very beginning, when I first chose to transfer from Panthéon-Sorbonne to GCAS, I was quite worried about how I could conduct ethnography in an environment that was not physically based in the same place as my field. I really questioned the feasibility of it.
And, in the end, I discovered not only the relevance of digital spaces, which have now become central to my own research, but also how GCAS allowed me to conduct research without being constrained by geographical or institutional borders. And I think this connects very much to the whole idea behind GCAS: breaking walls and breaking barriers.
So, if you are interested in ethnography, I would absolutely encourage you to consider GCAS. Not only because there are so many opportunities that can develop thanks to the flexibility of the institution, but also because its international mindset allows you to explore different kinds of ethnographic spaces, physical or digital.
I also believe that GCAS gives you a great deal of freedom to be the owner of your own research. And, of course, that freedom comes with a great responsibility. But at the same time, I have found GCAS to be a place where there is a lot of support, and where the institution remains very human.
I think one of its core principles is precisely to allow people to be seen and heard. And for me, that has been a huge advantage. In my previous academic experience, I was doing ethnography because I wanted to understand how other people could be seen and heard. But at times, I also felt that, as a researcher, I was becoming less visible myself — more like a number within a system.
What I found at GCAS was almost the opposite. I felt that I could be seen and heard as a researcher, and that my own uniqueness was not something that I needed to overcome, but something that could actually become a strength in my research.
Roberta completed her undergraduate studies in Anthropology, Religious and Cultural Studies at Alma Mater Studiorum – University of Bologna in Italy. Afterward, she moved to Paris, France, where she earned a Master’s degree in Humanities and Social Sciences, focusing on Development Studies from Panthéon Sorbonne University. Her specialization centered on minorities, indigenous peoples, and sustainability. For this research, she conducted a study in Egypt to examine the long-term impacts of the Aswan High Dam on Nubian communities, 60 years after their forced displacement. This dissertation won the UNESCO Chair in Shared Challenges of Development Prize for Master’s Students.
Currently she is completing her doctoral research on the challenges faced by indigenous peoples due to large infrastructure projects and development policies, using a political ecology approach and participatory research methods. For the past five years, Valenti has also been teaching courses on ethnographic fieldwork methods, as well as ethics and risk management in social science and humanities research. Her introductory lectures on ethnographic research methods powered by GCAS are available online.