The researcher and the field assistant: a cross-disciplinary, cross-cultural viewing of positionality

Abstract

It is almost a given in the social sciences that the outcome of the research process is directly affected by the social makeup of both researcher and respondents. Researchers have been encouraged to engage in a reflective process so as to recognise the existence of multiple viewpoints, the partiality of their assessments and the situatedness of the knowledge they produce. As a natural scientist taking up social science research I accepted these ideas quite readily, and endeavoured to prepare myself by considering how my positionality would affect the research. However, fieldwork was a shock, as farmers were not interacting with me; instead they were interacting with my field assistant/interpreter as if he was the researcher. I experienced feelings of invisibility and exclusion, which reflexivity could not explain. In retrospect, and in an attempt to understand what happened during my fieldwork, I asked my field assistant to write about how he felt my identity, and his own, influenced the research process. I use this article in two ways. First, I have taken the opportunity to reflect on my experiences of fieldwork, by challenging my original reflexive account of fieldwork by contrasting it with my field assistant's reflexive account. Second, I use the experience of fieldwork positionality as a case study to illustrate one of the big challenges that face those who wish to become interdisciplinary scholars, spanning the natural and social sciences.

Music researchers’ musical engagement

“…In qualitative research (cf. Davies et al, 2004;Jootun, McGhee, & Marland, 2009) and disciplines such as ethnography (see e.g., Barz & Cooley, 2008;Pasquini & Olaniyan, 2004), researchers have argued that attempts to find 'objective' results are limited, especially if observations of other humans are involved and interpretative judgements need to be made. This has led to calls for more reflexivity in research, for critical discussions of the researcher's viewpoint and the acknowledgement of potential limitations related to it.…”

Citizen Social Scientists’ Observations on Complex Tasks Match Trained Research Assistants’, Suggesting Lived Experiences are Valuable in Data Collection

“…In our study, we confirmed the extent to which data collected by citizen social scientists might be (or not be) subject to those same problems documented for citizen biophysical science, including the problems of low reliability and of differences in observer capacities (Lukyanenko, Wiggins, and Rosser 2019;Kosmala et al 2016;Steger, Butt, and Hooten 2017;Brown and Williams 2019;Heiss and Matthes 2017;Janssens, Cecile, and Kraft 2012). We also consider here a concern that is central to contemporary social science discussions around data interpretation in community-based research: the effects of personal positionality on what is observed and how it is experienced and reported by researchers, research assistants, and other stakeholders in the research process (e.g., Muhammad et al 2014;Sultana 2007;Pasquini and Olaniyan 2004;Turner 2010;Mwambari 2019).…”

"Your Report is Completely Wrong!" (aapkii report ek dum galat hai!): Locating Spaces Inside NGOs for Feedback and Dissemination

“…There has been considerable reflection given to the process of ethnographic fieldwork within the social sciences, particularly anthropology and geography: gaining access to informants (Lal 1996); self-positioning and reflexivity (Nast 1994;Pasquini and Olayinan 2004); recognizing power relations within and beyond the researcher (Hsiung 1996); and failed projects (England 1994). There has been considerably less research that concerns itself with what happens when researchers leave the field and later return for feedback and dissemination of results (Polzer 2007:4).…”