Abstract
The field of ghosts and spirits is pregnant with emotional accounts of misunderstandings, altercations, pain, sadness, discomfort, anxiety, and vulnerability. Many scholars reject personal accounts of the supernatural in view of its ostensible failure to meet the standards of scientific validity and credibility. There is, however, much to consider, given that the experiences in ethnographic fieldwork in these settings comprise complex and multifaceted intersections that deal with the vulnerability of researchers and the “others” we are studying ethnographically. This chapter discusses and unpacks the relatively neglected issue of “vulnerability” that ethnographers face in fieldwork, with an emphasis on the study of ghosts and spirits. I present selected ethnographic fieldwork experiences and critical moments based on my study of spirit possession and everyday religiosity among Muslim families in Singapore and Malaysia. Embracing and reflecting on the relational dimensions of vulnerability not as a “problem,” which needs to be resolved through recourse to “objective” knowledge but rather through meaningful engagement and reflection through such “critical moments,” enables us to revisit and redraw the boundaries of social research and contemporary ethnographic field methods.
An earlier version of this paper appeared online as a working paper in the International Sociological Association (ISA) E-Symposium, Vol. 1 (3). The current version is substantially revised. The author wishes to thank Kelvin E.Y. Low and other reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions.
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
Notes
- 1.
These include the emotional conventions that hail the ostensibly fearless status of ethnographers (Fincham 2006; Vail 2001). Often, they privilege the rights and safety of respondents over ethnographers’ (Rosenbaum and Langhinrichsen-Rohling 2006). In many research cultures, ethnographers are assumed to be able and in many ways expected to “rough it out” in the field. These experiences are proudly worn as a badge of academic resilience and hardiness.
- 2.
Field notes were written on pen and paper in my field diaries. The diaries captured largely emotional and personal experiences, but also included methodological, analytical, and descriptive notes.
- 3.
A loose-fitting two-piece long-sleeved dress normally worn by Malay women.
- 4.
An elastic cap-like bonnet to cover the hair of Muslim women popular in Singapore.
- 5.
An abbreviation for cucu (Malay for grandchild).
- 6.
Malay for grandmother, or a term of address given to elderly women.
- 7.
This “something” refers broadly to an act of sorcery or malevolent spirit directed to an individual or group.
References
Abdullah, N. (2005). Foreign bodies at work. Good, docile and other-ed. Asian Journal of Social Science, 33(2), 223–245. https://doi.org/10.1163/1568531054930785
Atkinson, P. A., Coffey, A., & Delamont, S. (2003). Key themes in qualitative research. Continuities and change. Walnut Creek: AltaMira.
Behar, R. (1996). The vulnerable observed. In Anthropology that breaks your heart. Boston: Beacon Press.
Behar, R., & Gordon, D. (1995). Women writing culture. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Biddle, J. (1993). The anthropologist’s body or what it means to break your neck in the field. The Australian Journal of Anthropology, 4(3), 184. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1835-9310.1993.tb00175.x
Birckhead, J. (2004). And I can’t feel at home in this world anymore. In L. Hume & J. Mulcock (Eds.), Anthropologists in the field. Cases in participant observation (pp. 95–110). New York: Columbia University Press.
Blanes, R. L. (2006). The atheist anthropologist. Believers and non-believers in anthropological fieldwork 1. Social Anthropology, 14(2), 223–234. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8676.2006.tb00036.x
Burnier, D. (2006). Encounters with the self in social science research. A political scientist looks at autoethnography. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 35(4), 410–418. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891241606286982
Campbell, R. (2002). Emotionally involved. The impact of researching rape. London: Routledge.
Clifford, J., & Marcus, G. E. (Eds.). (1986). Writing culture: The poetics and politics of ethnography. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Coffey, A. (2002). Sex in the field. Intimacy and intimidation. In T. Welland & L. Pugsley (Eds.), Ethical dilemmas in qualitative research (pp. 57–74). Aldershot: Ashgate.
Danahay-Reed, D. E. (1997). Introduction. In D. E. Danahay-Reed (Ed.), Auto/ethnography. Rewriting the self and the social (pp. 1–17). New York: Berg.
Davies, J. (2010). Introduction: Emotions in the field. In J. Davies & D. Spencer (Eds.), Emotions in the field: The psychology and anthropology of fieldwork experience (pp. 1–31). Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.
Davies, J., & Stodulka, T. (2019). Emotions in the field. In P. A. Atkinson, S. Delamont, M. A. Hardy, & M. Williams (Eds.), SAGE Encyclopedia of research methods. London: Sage. (forthcoming).
Diphoorn, T. (2013). The emotionality of participation. Various modes of participation in ethnographic fieldwork on private policing in Durban, South Africa. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 42(2), 201–225. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891241612452140
Favret-Saada, J. (2012). Being affected. HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory, 2(1), 435–445. https://doi.org/10.14318/hau2.1.019
Fincham, B. (2006). Back to the “Old School”. Bicycle messengers, employment and ethnography. Qualitative Research, 6(2), 187–205. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794106062709
Golde, P. (Ed.). (1986). Women in the field. Anthropological experiences. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Goode, W. J., & Hatt, P. K. (1981). Methods in social research. Singapore: McGraw-Hill.
Goulet, J.-G. A., & Miller, B. G. (Eds.). (2007). Extraordinary anthropology. Transformations in the field. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Grindal, B. T., & Salamone, F. A. (Eds.). (2006). Bridges to humanity. Narratives on fieldwork and friendship. Long Grove: Waveland Press.
Gurney, J. (1985). Not one of the guys. The female researcher in a male-dominated setting. Qualitative Sociology, 8(1), 42–62. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00987013
Gwiasda, V., Taluc, N., & Popkin, S. J. (1997). Data collection in dangerous neighborhoods. Lessons from a survey of public housing residents in Chicago. Evaluation Review, 21(1), 77–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193841X9702100105
Handler, R. (Ed.). (2004). Significant others. Interpersonal and professional commitments in anthropology. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Howell, N. (1990). Surviving fieldwork. A report of the advisory panel on health and safety in fieldwork. Washington, DC: American Anthropological Association.
Huggins, M. K., & Glebbeek, M.-L. (2003). Women studying violent male institutions. Cross-gendered dynamics in police research on secrecy and danger. Theoretical Criminology, 7(3), 363–387. https://doi.org/10.1177/13624806030073006
Hume, L., & Mulcock, J. (Eds.). (2004). Anthropologists in the field. Cases in participant observation. New York: Columbia University Press.
Keane, W. (2005). Estrangement, intimacy, and the objects of anthropology. In G. Steinmetz (Ed.), The politics of method in the human sciences. Positivism and its epistemological others (pp. 59–88). Durham: Duke University Press.
Kenyon, E., & Hawker, S. (1999). Once would be enough. Some reflections on the issue of safety for lone researchers. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 2(4), 313–327. https://doi.org/10.1080/136455799294989
Kimmel, M. (1996). Manhood in America. A cultural history. New York: Free Press.
Lachenmann, G. (1999). Engendering embeddedness of economy in society and culture (Working Paper Universität Bielefeld, Fakultät für Soziologie, Forschungsschwerpunkt Entwicklungssoziologie, 323). Retrieved from http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-422428
Lee, R. L. M. (1987). Amulets and anthropology. A paranormal encounter with Malay magic. Anthropology and Humanism Quarterly, 12(3/4), 69–74. https://doi.org/10.1525/ahu.1987.12.3-4.69
Lee-Treweek, G., & Linkogle, S. (Eds.). (2000). Danger in the field. Risk and ethics in social research. London: Routledge.
Leibing, A., & McLean, A. (2007). Learn to value your shadow! An introduction to the margins of fieldwork. In A. McLean & A. Leibing (Eds.), The shadow side of fieldwork. Exploring the blurred borders between ethnography and life (pp. 1–28). Malden: Blackwell.
Low, K. E. Y. (2005). Ruminations on smell as a sociocultural phenomenon. Current Sociology, 53(3), 397–417. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392105051333
Low, K. E. Y. (2009). Scents and scent-sibilities. Smell and everyday life experiences. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Marks, M. (2004). Researching police transformation. The ethnographic imperative. British Journal of Criminology, 44(6), 866–888. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azh049
Nageeb, S. A. (2008). Diversified development. Women’s agency and the constitution of translocal spaces. In G. Lachenmann & P. Dannecker (Eds.), Negotiating development in Muslim societies gendered spaces and translocal connections (pp. 223–246). Lanham: Lexington Books.
Palmer, S. (2001). Spiritual etiquette or research ethics? An innocent ethnographer in the cult wars. In D. G. Bromley & L. F. Carter (Eds.), Toward reflexive ethnography. Participating, observing, narrating (pp. 133–156). Bingley: JAI Press.
Pickering, S. (2001). Undermining the sanitised account. Violence and emotionality in the field in Northern Ireland. British Journal of Criminology, 41(3), 485–501. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/41.3.485
Pollard, A. (2009). Field of screams. Difficulty and ethnographic fieldwork. Anthropology Matters, 11(2). Retrieved from https://www.anthropologymatters.com/index.php/anth_matters/article/view/10
Renzetti, C. M., & Lee, R. M. (Eds.). (1993). Researching sensitive topics. Newbury Park: Sage.
Rosenbaum, A., & Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J. (2006). Meta-research on violence and victims. The impact of data collection methods on findings and participants. Violence and Victims, 21(4), 404–409. https://doi.org/10.1891/vivi.21.4.404
Sattel, J. W. (1988). The inexpressive male. Tragedy or sexual politics? In M. Kimmel & M. A. Messner (Eds.), Men’s lives (pp. 350–358). New York: Macmillan.
Sengers, G. (2003). Women and demons. Cult healing in Islamic Egypt. Boston: Brill.
Sparke, M. (1996). Displacing the field in fieldwork. Masculinity, metaphor, and space. In N. Duncan (Ed.), Bodyspace. Destabilizing geographies of gender and sexuality. London: Routledge.
Stoller, P. (1997). Sensuous scholarship. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Vail, A. (2001). Researching from afar. Distance, ethnography and testing the edge. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 30(6), 704–725. https://doi.org/10.1177/089124101129024321
Warren, C. A. B. (1988). Gender Issues in Field Research. Newbury Park: Sage.
Wikan, U. (1991). Toward an experience-near anthropology. Cultural Anthropology, 6(3), 285–305. https://doi.org/10.1525/can.1991.6.3.02a00020
Wilkes, B. (2007). Reveal or conceal. In J.-G. Goulet & B. G. Miller (Eds.), Extraordinary anthropology. Transformations in the field (pp. 53–84). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Williams, T., Dunlap, E., Johnson, B. D., & Hamid, A. (1992). Personal safety in dangerous places. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 21(3), 343–374. https://doi.org/10.1177/089124192021003003
Wolf, D. L. (Ed.). (1996). Feminist dilemmas in fieldwork. Boulder: Westview Press.
Yamagishi, R. (2006, September). Doing “sexy” and “risky” research. Unpublished paper presented at the Asia Research Institute 5th graduate student workshop, Singapore.
Zablocki, B. (2001). Vulnerability and objectivity in the participant observation of the sacred. In D. G. Bromley & L. F. Carter (Eds.), Toward reflexive ethnography. Participating, observing, narrating. Amsterdam: JAI Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Abdullah, N. (2019). Vulnerability in the Field: Emotions, Experiences, and Encounters with Ghosts and Spirits. In: Stodulka, T., Dinkelaker, S., Thajib, F. (eds) Affective Dimensions of Fieldwork and Ethnography. Theory and History in the Human and Social Sciences. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20831-8_25
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20831-8_25
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-20830-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-20831-8
eBook Packages: Behavioral Science and PsychologyBehavioral Science and Psychology (R0)