Advertisement

Role Conflicts and Aftermaths: Introduction

  • Giorgio Brocco
  • Britta RutertEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Theory and History in the Human and Social Sciences book series (THHSS)

Abstract

Fieldwork comprises of moments when researchers’ institutional, social, and political ascriptions shift, and their social identities and subjectivities conflict, collide, or conflate. These conditions often point to the needs for, or result from, oscillating identifications that compel both researchers and interlocutors to negotiate existing or emerging power relations. A sustained self-reflection of one’s changing and conflicting roles as field researcher can assist ethnographers in coping with different expectations and ascribed responsibilities, and contributes to nuanced analysis, interpretation, and representation of the studied phenomena.

Keywords

Fieldwork Positionality Role Expectation 

References

  1. Asad, T. (Ed.). (1973). Anthropology & the colonial encounter. London: Ithaca Press.Google Scholar
  2. Chacko, E. (2004). Positionality and praxis: Fieldwork experiences in rural India. Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography, 25(1), 51–63.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0129-7619.2004.00172.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chiseri-Strater, E. (1996). Turning in upon ourselves. Positionality, subjectivity and reflexivity. In P. Mortensen & G. Kirsch (Eds.), Ethics and representation in qualitative research studies (pp. 114–133). Urbana: Urbana National Council of Teachers of English.Google Scholar
  4. Clifford, J., & Marcus, G. E. (1986). Writing culture: The poetics and politics of ethnography. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  5. Coffey, A. (1999). The ethnographic self. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Crapanzano, V. (2010). At the heart of the discipline. Critical reflections on fieldwork. In J. Davies & D. Spencer (Eds.), Emotions in the field. The psychology and anthropology of fieldwork experience (pp. 55–78). Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Daston, L., & Gallison, P. (2007). Objectivity. New York: Zone Books.Google Scholar
  8. Davies, J. (2010). Introduction to emotions in the field: The psychology and anthropology of fieldwork experience. In J. Davies & D. Spencer, Emotions in the Field: The Psychology and Anthropology of Fieldwork Experience. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. England, K. V. L. (1994). Getting personal: Reflexivity, positionality, and feminist research. The Professional Geographer, 46(1), 80–89.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0033-0124.1994.00080.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fassin, D. (2005). Compassion and repression: The moral economy of immigration policies in France. Cultural Anthropology, 20(3), 362–387.  https://doi.org/10.1525/can.2005.20.3.362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Faubion, J. D., & Marcus, G. E. (2009). Fieldwork: Learning anthropology’s method in a time of transition. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Fonow, M. M., & Cook, J. A. (Eds.). (1991). Beyond Methodology: Feminist Scholarship as Lived Research. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Foster, G. M. (1972). The anatomy of envy: A study in symbolic behavior. Current Anthropology, 13, 165–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Harding, S. (1991). Whose science? Whose knowledge? Thinking from women’s lives. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Herzfeld, M. (2009). The cultural politics of gesture: Reflections on the embodiment of ethnographic practice. Ethnography, 10(2), 131–152.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1466138109106299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hymes, D. (Ed.). (1999). Reinventing anthropology. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  17. Jackson, M. (1989). Paths toward a clearing: Radical empiricism and ethnographic inquiry. Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  18. James, W. (1912). Essays in radical empiricism. New York: Longman Green and Co.Google Scholar
  19. Lambek, M. (1997). Pinching the crocodile’s tongue: Affinity and the anxieties of influence in fieldwork. Anthropology and Humanism, 22(1), 31–53.  https://doi.org/10.1525/ahu.1997.22.1.31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Marcus, G. E. (2009). Introduction: Notes toward an ethnographic memoir of supervising graduate research through anthropology’s decades of transformation. In J. D. Faubion & G. E. Marcus (Eds.), Fieldwork: Learning anthropology’s method in a time of transition (pp. 1–32). Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Marcus, G. E., & Fischer, M. M. J. (1986). Anthropology as cultural critique. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  22. McDowell, L. (1992). Doing gender: Feminism, feminists and research methods in human geography. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 17, 399–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mohammad, R. (2001). Insiders’ and/or ‘outsiders’: Positionality, theory and praxis. In M. Limb & C. Dwyer (Eds.), Qualitative Methodologies for Geographers (pp. 101–114). London: Arnold.Google Scholar
  24. Nagar, R. (2002). Footloose researchers, “travelling’” theories, and the politics of transnational feminist praxis. Gender, Place and Culture, 9(2), 179–186.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09663690802518412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rose, G. (1997). Situating knowledges: Positionality, reflexivities and other tactics. Progress in Human Geography, 21(3), 305–320.  https://doi.org/10.1191/030913297673302122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Scholte, B. (1999). Toward a reflexive and critical anthropology. In D. Hymes (Ed.), Reinventing anthropology. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  27. Spencer, D. (2010). Emotional labour and relational observation in anthropological fieldwork. In D. Spencer & J. Davis (Eds.), Anthropological fieldwork: A relational process (pp. 1–47). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
  28. Spencer, D., & Davis, J. (Eds.). (2010). Anthropological fieldwork: A relational process. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
  29. Stanley, L., & Wise, A. (1993). Breaking out again: Feminist ontology and epistemology. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  30. Stodulka, T. (2014). Playing it right’: Empathy and emotional economies on the streets of Java. In T. Stodulka & B. Röttger-Rössler (Eds.), Feelings at the margins: Dealing with violence, stigma and isolation in Indonesia (pp. 103–127). Frankfurt: Campus.Google Scholar
  31. Stodulka, T. (2015). Emotion work, ethnography and survival strategies on the streets of Yogyakarta. Medical Anthropology, 34(1), 84–97.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01459740.2014.916706CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. Taggart, J. M., & Sandstrom, A. R. (2011). Introduction to ‘long-term fieldwork. Anthropology and Humanism (special issue), 36(1), 1–6.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1548-1409.2011.01073.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Turner, S. (2010). Challenges and dilemmas: fieldwork with upland minorities in socialist Vietnam, Laos and southwest China. Asia Pacific Viewpoint, 51(2), 121–134.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8373.2010.01419.xCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Wolf, D. L. (1996). Situating feminist dilemmas in fieldwork. In D. Wolf (Ed.), Feminist dilemmas in fieldwork (pp. 1–55). Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Social and Cultural Anthropology, Freie Universität BerlinBerlinGermany
  2. 2.Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin and Institute of Social and Cultural AnthropologyBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations