Abstract
Drawing on fieldwork conducted in post-Soviet Central Asia, the chapter explores questions of researcher positionality in relation to research on ethnic minorities. This allows me to reflect on my own positionality as an international researcher from an institution in the Global North conducting fieldwork in authoritarian, conflict/post-conflict and/or illiberal contexts. The chapter uses experiences and lessons learnt as regards entry and access to ‘the field’—as well as bans and subsequent returns—to reflect on issues of privilege and (self-)representation, and more generally situated knowledge, in order to shed light on how my identities impacted on the production of knowledge and the way in which my research was shaped by the structures in which it was embedded and being created. The chapter compares challenges and opportunities in entry and access to three field sites different in terms of time, place, and open-ness of the research environment: the case of the Tajik community in Uzbekistan; the position of ethnic Uzbeks in Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan and their relationship with Uzbekistan; and the ethnic Koreans in Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan. The chapter draws on lessons learnt over multiple rounds of fieldwork from 2001 to 2021, in the midst of the Covid-19 pandemic. As it highlights the fluid and relational nature of positionality(-ies), the chapter calls for active reflexivity to more consciously reflect on researcher positionality.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
Compared to Covid-19, SARS was much more regionally confined, with impact on public health and travel mostly restricted to countries in Asia.
- 2.
Vaccination with Russian-produced Sputnik and Chinese-made Sinovac or Sinopharm has come with greater restrictions to international travel compared to vaccination with western vaccines such as Moderna and Pfizer.
- 3.
Although the opposition centre/periphery has been framed as around the language of anti-Russian opposition reality on the ground was more complex, with Russian communities in the periphery too and non-Russians living in the Russian Socialist Soviet Federative Republic. The conflict was more political than ethnic.
- 4.
Over three million Uzbeks live in Afghanistan but do not share a Soviet legacy with the other Central Asian Uzbeks.
References
Adams. L.L. 1999. The mascot researcher: Identity, power, and knowledge in fieldwork. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 28, no. 4: 331–363.
Barnes. N. 2022. The logic of criminal territorial control: military intervention in Rio de Janeiro. Comparative Political Studies 55, no. 5: 789–831.
Beissinger, M. 2003. Nationalist Mobilization and the Collapse of the Soviet State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bekmurzaev, N., P. Luttholz, and J. Meyer. 2018. ‘Navigating the safety implications of Doing research and being researched in Kyrgyzstan: cooperation, networks, and framing. Central Asian Survey 31, no. 1: 100–118.
Bliesemann de Guevara, B. and M. Bøås. Eds. 2021. Doing Fieldwork in Areas of International Intervention. A Guide to Research in Violent and Closed Contexts. Bristol: Bristol University Press.
Brown, A. 2010. Rise and Fall of Communism. London: Vintage.
Brubaker, R. 1995. ‘National minorities, nationalizing states and external national homelands in the new Europe.’ Daedalus 124, no. 2:107–132.
Chacko, E. 2004. ‘Positionality and praxis: fieldwork experiences in rural India.’ Journal of Tropical Geography 25, no. 1: 51–63.
Chattopadhyay, S. 2013. ‘Getting personal while narrating ‘the field’: a researcher’s journey to the villages of the Narmada valley.’ Gender, place and culture 20, no. 2: 137–159.
Clark, J.A. and F. Cavatorta, eds., 2018. Political Science Research in the Middle East and North Africa Methodological and Ethical Challenges. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cummings, S.N. 2012. Understanding Central Asia: State and contested transformation. London: Routledge.
England, K.V.L. 1994. ‘Getting personal: reflexivity, positionality, and feminist research.’ Professional Geographer 46, no. 1: 80–89.
Finke, P. 2014. Variations on Uzbek identity. Strategic choices, cognitive schemas and political constraints in identification processes. Oxford: Berghahn Books.
Fumagalli, Matteo. 2022. ‘The Post-Soviet Koreans.’ Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Asian History. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190277727.013.635
Fumagalli, M. and M. Rymarenko. 2022. Krym…Rossiya…Navsegda? Critical Junctures, Critical Antecedents, and the Paths not Taken in the Making of Crimea’s Annexation. Nationalities Papers. https://doi.org/10.1017/nps.2021.75
Fumagalli, M. 2021. ‘“Identity through difference”: liminal diasporism and generational change among the Koryo saram in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan.’ European Journal of Korean Studies 20, no. 2: 37–72, 3
Fumagalli, M. 2007a. ‘Framing ethnic minority mobilisation in Central Asia: the cases of Uzbeks in Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan.’ Europe-Asia Studies 59, no. 4: 567–590.
Fumagalli, M. 2007b. ‘Informal Ethnopolitics and Local Authority Figures in Osh, Kyrgyzstan.’ Ethnopolitics 6, no. 2: 211–233.
Fumagalli, M. 2006. ‘A Methodological Note on Researching Central Asia’s Ethnic Minorities: Why Studying ‘Non-Events’ Matters’. International Journal of Central Asian Studies 11: 72–85.
Fumagalli, M. and A. Kemmerling. 2022. Development aid and domestic regional inequality: the case of Myanmar. Eurasian Geography and Economics, https://doi.org/10.1080/15387216.2022.2134167
Fujii, L.A. 2017. Interview in social science research: a relational approach. New York: Routledge.
Fujii, L.A. 2010. ‘Shades of truth and lies: Interpreting testimonies of war and violence.’ Journal of Peace Research 47, no. 2: 231–241.
Gorenburg, D.P. 2003. Minority Ethnic Mobilization in the Russian Federation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hale, H.E. 2018. ‘How Crimea Pays: Media, Rallying ‘round the Flag’ and Authoritarian Support. Comparative Politics 50, no. 3: 369–391.
Hale, H.E. 2000. ‘The parade of sovereignties: testing theories of secession in the Soviet setting.’ British Journal of Political Science 30, no. 1: 31–56.
Haugen, A. 2003. The establishment of national republics in Central Asia. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Heathershaw, J. and P. Mullojonov. 2021. ‘The politics and ethics of fieldwork in post-conflict environments: the dilemmas of a vocational approach.’ In Doing Fieldwork in Areas of International Intervention. A Guide to Research in Violent and Closed Contexts , edited by B. Bliesemann de Guevara and M. Boas, 93–111. Bristol: Bristol University Press.
Heathershaw, J. and N. Megoran. 2011. ‘Contesting danger: a new agenda for policy and scholarship on Central Asia.’ International Affairs 87, no. 3: 589–612.
Hirsch, F. 2000. Towards an Empire of Nations: Border-Making and the Formation of Soviet National Identities. Russian Review 59, no. 2: 201–26.
Hirsch, F. 2005. Empire of nations. Ethnographic knowledge and the making of the Soviet Union. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Kappler, S. 2021. ‘Privilege.’ In The Companion to Peace and Conflict, edited by R. Mac Ginty, R. Brett, and B. Vogel, 421– 432. Cham: Springer.
Khalid, A. 2021. Central Asia: a new history from the imperial conquests to the present. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Kluczewska, K. and P. Lottholz 2021. Recognizing the never quite absent: de facto usage, ethical issues, and applications of covert research in difficult research contexts. Qualitative Research 1–17.
Koch, N. 2013. Introduction—field methods in “closed contexts”: undertaking research in authoritarian states and places.’ Area 45, no. 4:390–395.
Knott, E. 2019. ‘Beyond the field: ethics after fieldwork in politically dynamic contexts.’ Perspectives on Politics 17, no. 1: 140–153.
Krystalli, R. 2021. ‘Narrating victimhood: dilemmas and (in)dignities.’ International Feminist Journal of Politics 23, no. 1: 125–146.
Lubin, N. and B.R. Rubin. 1999. Calming the Ferghana Valley. Development and Dialogue in the Heart of Central Asia. New York: Council on Foreign Relations.
Mac Ginty, R., Brett R. and B. Vogel, eds. 2021. The Companion to Peace and Conflict Fieldwork. Cham: Springer.
Malejacq, R. and D. Mukhopadhyay. 2017, 5 April. ‘Yes, it’s possible to do research in conflict zones. This is how.’ Monkey Cage.
Markowitz, L.P. 2016. ‘Scientific closure and research strategies in Uzbekistan.’ Social Science Quarterly 97, no. 4: 894–908.
Megoran, N. 2000. ‘Calming the Ferghana Valley experts.’ Central Asia Monitor 5, no. 5: 20–25.
Megoran, N. 2007. ‘On researching ‘ethnic conflict’: epistemology, politics and a Central Asian boundary dispute.’ Europe-Asia Studies 59, no. 2: 253–277.
Megoran N. 2017. Nationalism in Central Asia. A biography of the Uzbekistan-Kyrgyzstan boundary. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Melvin, N.J. 1995. Russians beyond Russia. London: Bloomsbury.
Mohanty, C.T. 1988. ‘Under Western Eyes: Feminist Scholarship and Colonial Discourses.’ Feminist Review 30: 61–88.
Nencel, L. 2014. ‘Situating reflexivity: voices, positionalities and representations in feminist ethnographic texts.’ Women’s Studies International Forum 43: 75–83.
Njeri, S. 2021. ‘Race, positionality and the research.’ ’ In The Companion to Peace and Conflict, edited by R. Mac Ginty, R. Brett, and B. Vogel, 381–394. Cham: Springer.
O’Loughlin, J. and G. Toal. 2019. “The Crimea Conundrum: Legitimacy and Public Opinion after Annexation.” Eurasian Geography and Economics 60 (1): 6–27.
Olcott, M.B. 1992. Central Asia’s catapult to independence. Foreign Affairs 71, no. 3: 108–130.
Reeves, M. 2005. ‘Locating danger: Konfliktologiia and the search for fixity in the Ferghana Valley borderlands.’ Central Asian Survey 24, no. 1: 67–81.
Ryan, C.M. and S. Tynen. 2020. ‘Fieldwork under surveillance: Rethinking relations of trust, vulnerability, and state power. Geographical Review 110, nos. 1–2: 38–51.
Sasse, G. 2007. The Crimea Question: Identity, Transition, and Conflict. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Schoeberlein, J.S. 1994. ‘Identity in Central Asia : construction and contention in the conceptions of “Özbek,” “Tâjik, “ “Muslim, “ “Samarqandi” and other groups’. PhD dissertation, Harvard University.
Scott, S., F. Miller, K. Lloyd. 2006. ‘Doing fieldwork in development geography: research culture and research spaces in Vietnam.’ Geographical Research 44, no. 1: 28–40.
Sirnate, V. 2014. ‘Students versus the State: The Politics of Uranium Mining in Meghalaya.’ Economic and Political Weekly 44, no. 47: 18–23.
Soedirgo, J. and Glas, A. 2020. Toward Active Reflexivity: Positionality and Practice in the Production of Knowledge. PS: Political Science & Politics, 53, no. 3: 527–531. doi:10.1017/S1049096519002233
Sultana, F. 2007. ‘Reflexivity, Positionality and Participatory Ethics: Negotiating Fieldwork Dilemmas in International Research.’ ACME: An International E-Journal for Critical Geographies 6, no. 3: 374–85.
Tewksbury, R. and P. Gagné. 1997. ‘Assumed and Presumed Identities: Problems of Self-Presentation in Field Research.’ Sociological Spectrum 17, no. 2: 127–55.
Turner, S. 2010 ‘Challenges and dilemmas: fieldwork with upland minorities in socialist Vietnam, Laos and southwest China.’ Asia Pacific Viewpoint 51, no. 2: 121–134.
Wackenhut, A.F. 2018. ‘Ethical considerations and dilemmas before, during and after fieldwork in less-democratic contexts: some reflections from post-uprising Egypt.’ American Sociologist, 49: 242–257.
Wolff, S. 2021. ‘Enhancing the robustness of causal claims based on case study research on conflict zones: Observations from fieldwork in Donbas.’ Nationalities Papers 49, no. 3: 542–561.
Wood, E.J. 2006. ‘The ethical challenges of field research in conflict zones.’ Qualitative Sociology 29: 373–386.
Zhao, Y. 2017. Doing Fieldwork the Chinese Way: A Returning Researcher’s Insider/Outsider Status in her Home Town. Area 49, no. 2: 185–191.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Fumagalli, M. (2023). Entry, Access, Bans and Returns: Reflections on Positionality in Field Research on Central Asia’s Ethnic Minorities. In: Uddin, N., Paul, A. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Social Fieldwork. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-13615-3_20
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-13615-3_20
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-13614-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-13615-3
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)