From Reflexivity to Collaboration

Abstract

Recently scholars have begun to investigate who produces knowledge about Roma and with what agendas. I extend this inquiry to ask how reflexivity by a non-Romani ally and researcher contributes to analyzing the production and use of knowledge in Romani Studies. I examine various roles I have inhabited and forms of scholarship I have produced, both successful and unsuccessful, during my long involvement in Romani studies to reveal how and why I represented Roma, and what uses this scholarship served. Calling for a “reflexive turn” in Romani Studies, I note that while self-examination of knowledge production is useful for all researchers, for nonRoma it is mandatory because historically non-Roma have held more authority. Embracing “critical whiteness” theory, I examine my privileged roles and my attempts at collaborative advocacy. Tracing a historical trajectory of shifting subjectivities, I narrate several crises, such as balancing essentialism with advocacy, respectfully presenting Romani music, and combining diplomacy with activism to illustrate dilemmas of representation that I have faced and the responses I crafted. These issues all underline the responsibility that non-Romani allies have in accounting for their words and actions.

Empowerment evaluation: Key methodology aspects from participatory research and intervention with Roma girls

“…This circumstance has led to debates on power asymmetries in decisions related to the information construction process. Concepts, such as positionality and reflexivity, central to the epistemology of projects of this nature (Fremlova, 2018; Silverman, 2018), and which place the importance of the co‐production of knowledge at the centre of the discussion (Ryder, 2015), were critically considered. These debates enabled a self‐examination of knowledge production, which was especially important for non‐Roma actors, based on three essential aspects: the objective of the project, the tools and methodologies, and the nature of the relationships between the research subject and the object/subject researched.…”

Adequate for whom? Reflections on the right to adequate housing from fieldwork on Roma inclusion in Italy

“…In addition to this, it was necessary to consider the impact of my position as the researcher who conducted the study. As other scholars have noted (Fremlova, 2018;Lambrev, 2017;Silverman, 2018), non-Romani researchers must take carefully into account their positionin terms of relations of power, subjectivity and prejudicesin researching Roma, especially in consideration of the fact that this group has long been excluded from knowledge production and objectified by academic scholarship (Bogdán et al, 2015;Mirga-Kruszelnicka, 2015). To address this issue, the study adopted a reflexive approach to fieldwork (Attia and Edge, 2017; Bourdieu and Wacquant, 1992) by conducting the interviews as a conversation where the interviewee could shape the talk and by relying as much as possible on the transcripts for their analysis.…”

“…While presented as a policy aimed at responding to a specific cultural need, nomad camps were most likely developed to keep Roma out of the city centres. Furthermore, the stereotype associating Roma with nomadism led local authorities to place in these structures those who migrated to Italy from former Yugoslavia and Romania, although they had never practised nomadism, thus turning nomad camps from temporary halting sites to permanent ghettos (Sigona and Monasta, 2006; Tavani, 2012).…”

Romani Students’ Responses to Antigypsyist Schooling in a Segregated School in Romania

“…Questions of ethics are also inextricably connected to researcher reflexivity. Indeed, Silverman (2018) argues that reflexivity is mandatory for non-Romani researchers, like myself, given our historical power over knowledge-production. This is particularly true when working with young people -the distance between myself and the participants was mediated by age, class, gender, and whiteness.…”