‘Queer(y)ing methodologies: doing fieldwork and becoming queer’ – guest editorial

“Oops, I didn’t know we couldn’t talk about sex”: Sex researchers talking back to the erotophobic academy using the researcher’s erotic subjectivitiesGuest editorial themed section ‘the researcher’s erotic subjectivities’

“…In recent years, there has been a proliferation of work that takes into account the erotic subjectivities of the researcher from a variety of disciplines, such as anthropology (see e.g., De Graeve, 2019; Ryan-Flood and Gill, 2010), criminology (Montmagny Grenier, 2021), geography (see e.g., Blidon, 2012; Brown, 2008; Catungal, 2017; Feliciantonio et al, 2017; Miles, 2020), law (see e.g., Brooks, 2018, 2019), psychology (Huysamen, 2018; Joyes and Jordan, 2022), and sociology (Hanson and Richards, 2019; Lauder, 2022; Rooke, 2010; Schneider et al, 2021). This body of work is not new and follows earlier calls from researchers in anthropology (Duncan, 1996; Kulick and Willson, 1995; Newton, 1993; Wekker, 2006) and geography (Bell, 1995, 2007; Bell and Valentine, 1995; Binnie, 1997; Cupples, 2002) that questioned the omission of the researcher’s desires in our research outputs.…”

Concealing researcher identity in fieldwork and social media: Sexuality and speaking for participants

“…120-121, cited in Ng, 2011 From this, various studies have discussed the ethics of strategically revealing, concealing, emphasising, or downplaying elements of identity that are within our control, for the benefit of the research, including to develop rapport with people, to gain access to communities, and to gather data (Godbole, 2014). Many of these discussions have been made by LGBTQ+ researchers who consider the negotiation of their queer identities during fieldwork (e.g., Browne et al, 2009;Browne & Nash, 2016;Di Feliciantonio et al, 2017;Goodman, 1996;Lewin et al, 1996;Maguire et al, 2019;Rooke, 2010). However, much of this research is empirically biased to Global North contexts (Kulpa & Mizielinska, 2016) and, as of yet, has not tackled the implications of queer researchers who conceal their sexuality during fieldwork, yet connect with participants on social media after fieldwork.…”

How to undertake ideologically contentious research: Leaning on reflexivity and positionality to address uncomfortable disjuncture's in information research

“…While positivist, “traditional” research “splits the researcher and the researched, the object and the subject, and the knowledge producer and the knowledge recipient” (Pini, 2004, p. 170), post‐positivist research is more likely to view both the researcher and the research participants as situated, intersubjective knowledge producers and recipients (see McCorkel & Myers, 2003). To grasp these nuances of power relations and situated contexts, researchers can utilize reflexivity: self‐reflection on the research process, on one's own role, background, motivations, and goals, and the sociopolitical relations and processes affecting the research (see Bourke, 2014; Di Felciantonio, Gadelha, & DasGupta, 2017; Guillemin & Gillam, 2004; McHugh, 2014; Rose, 1997; Sultana, 2007; Whitson, 2017). Keikelame (2018) said reflexivity includes “critical selfscrutiny [sic] of the researchers' emotions, subjectivities, lived experiences, and world views” (p. 219).…”