Me again: Fieldwork, practice and returning

Abstract

Many researchers return to field sites that are previously known in different capacities, thus upturning traditional notions of the "field," particularly in qualitative fieldwork, of unknown places whose depths the researcher encounters anew. Returning in a different capacity affects not just the researcher, but also participants, and raises questions about research ethics with regard to changing positionality. This paper looks at the process of returning to a field that is already "known," not just through books and writing, but through first-hand experience. It explores the dynamics underlying the process of returning as a researcher, when one has a previously established identity in a place, in this case as a development worker. The paper will explore the nuances of attempting to bridge the divide between being a development worker and then a student doing ethnographic fieldwork in Assam. It will debate whether it is possible, or useful, to abandon one role for another. It also looks at the way a change in role affects the way we gain access, as well as how returning as a student reveals certain blind spots in the understanding of the field as it was known. Finally, the paper attempts to understand how changing positionality affects ethical concerns, such as those of how to engage as an outsider, and whether each return is marked by a different process. K E Y W O R D S positionality, research ethics, India, fieldwork, methodology

Makeshift camp methodologies along the Balkan Route

“…Doing research with these vulnerable individuals is ethically, emotionally, and politically sensitive, as shown by the relevant literature (see, for instance, Block et al, 2013; Hugman et al, 2011; Jacobsen & Landau, 2003; Johnson et al, 2006). While our general impression was that camp residents were genuinely pleased to have the opportunity to speak with us and share something about their personal condition, we remained fully aware of the importance of acknowledging the explicit and implicit power relations at play during such encounters, and of recognising the “appropriation” of knowledge implicated by the related interviews (Sharma, 2018). One difficulty in our work in/on camps was related to the question of how to “give back” in an attempt at reciprocity for the capital of knowledge received from the refugees (see Lammers, 2007), and how to “share” the results of our work (whatever that may mean in those circumstances) since the refugee participants were likely to leave Serbia – or be uncontactable – in the following weeks or months.…”

Reflections and recommendations on transitioning from pre‐ to post‐disaster research

“…Positionality recognises “we all speak from a particular place, out of a particular history, a particular experience, a particular culture, without being contained by that position” (Hall, 1992, p. 258). In other words, our identities and biographies affect how we see and make sense of the world and, by extension, how others view and interact with us (Ceaser, 2015; Moser, 2008; Raven et al, 2018; Sharma, 2018; Turner, 2010). Relationships and positionality can change over time (Miyazawa, 2018; Sharma, 2018).…”

Research Brokers, Researcher Identities and Affective Performances: The Insider/Outsider Conundrum

“…In several cases, conflict brokers who work with all the different camps, enjoy a degree of trust from all conflict parties (Helbardt et al 2010, Middleton andCons 2014). Brokers are not mere acquaintances or friends in conflict zones who share contacts but they become active participants in the research, sometimes for gains which may include anything from access to wider networks, research inputs, monetary compensation or even an enhancement of prestige and status (Sharma 2018). They are also vital points of contact and information for warring sides and could potentially be conflict brokers themselves as I discuss in the Maoist conflict narrative.…”

“…War journalists have always relied on brokers who operate in the war land/ human scape and facilitate interviews and travels. They also develop complex relationships with brokers in the field, some of which have been documented in written texts (Middleton and Cons 2014, Giwa 2015, Sharma 2018. Increasingly, university-based academics and researchers have also been collecting data in conflict zones, 1 and many have reflected on their methodologies, positionalities and privileges (Helbardt, Hellmann-Rajanayagam and Korff 2010, Bush and Duggan 2013, Duggan and Bush 2014, and to a lesser extent on data collection processes especially related to navigating a tough, dangerous and foreign terrain (Helbardt et al 2010, Hoffman andTarawalley 2014).…”