Paper short abstract:

As a racialised Muslim, my ethnographic fieldwork of counter-terrorism in the NHS was laced with anxiety. How do my experiences inform the ethnographic process and the field itself? I explore the benefits of auto-ethnography to give voice to expressions of resistance which may otherwise go untold.

Paper long abstract:

Under PREVENT, the UK now designates healthcare settings as 'pre-criminal spaces'. NHS staff must now report individuals they suspect may be vulnerable to radicalisation. "I stay away from politically-sensitive topics," a Muslim health professional said, when I questioned what he thought about this development, before we parted ways. Another Muslim health professional paced the entrance of a cafe, struggling to overcome his trepidation of speaking with me. Little had I known the political sensitivity of my research subject - counter-terrorism in the NHS - before I began my ethnographic fieldwork in London. It did not take long to understand why. Soon, I too, a racialised Muslim, experienced fear: fear of speaking out against the War on Terror, fear of writing words I may regret. My fieldwork is laced with experiences and narratives of treading that fine line between health and politics. But are these divided? How do my experiences inform the ethnographic process and indeed the field itself? These are some of the questions that will be addressed when discussing healthcare as an apolitical and amoral space. This paper does not 're-politicise' ethnography but discusses its erasure and my anxiety in making the political visible again; the limitations of my own willingness to push moral boundaries. As an activist against the silencing of dissent, the purpose of this submission is to provide auto-ethnographic observations on the challenges of researching controversial policies, and I explore the benefits of ethnography to unearth unique expressions of resistance which may otherwise go untold.

Paper short abstract:

Addressing experiences in the field which conflict with a researcher's core beliefs as a mental health concern is fundamental to ethical ethnography. Maintaining mental health in the field is a process with improves the research practice for both the researcher and the participants.

Paper long abstract:

The ethical practice of 'acknowledging our biases' has long existed within anthropology; examining how our core beliefs may affect our perceptions and interactions in the field. Meanwhile, despite improved mental health competencies, we rarely address the interaction of mental health and fieldwork. I advocate for going beyond the acknowledgement of our own core beliefs, to actively engage with the question of how fieldwork may create mental health concerns for us when our field situation is in conflict with our world view; and continuously re-evaluating how we can best care for our mental health in the field. I examine my own process and experiences, conducting fieldwork in Israel with a base in Jerusalem, and approximately 25-30% of my Haredi (ultra-orthodox Jewish) participants living in the West Bank. Due to these locations, sometimes what was important for my physical safety was at odds with what might have improved my mental health. I conducted fieldwork with a community of which I was once a part, but which I had chosen to leave. Furthermore, while research with those with whom I disagree is a fundamental underpinning of my research rationale, it can nevertheless be stressful and overwhelming, compounding issues that already exist in the isolating and exhausting practice of fieldwork. My pursuit of positive mental health in fieldwork has led me to some surprising solutions, and impacted both my methods and the focus of my research, resulting in a stronger contribution to the field of anthropology.

Paper short abstract:

Starting from reflexions on the use of financial remuneration in my own research in this presentation I argue for an open discussion about if and how we are spending money during fieldwork on research-related expenses and the broader implications of (not) having money in the field.

Paper long abstract:

Conducting ethnographic research on sex work in Berlin came with many methodological, ethical and also personal challenges. And while I gladly engage in discussions about all of these challenges, it is usually one particular issue that catches the attention of an anthropological audience: I offered my interlocutors a small amount of money for participating in the research.

This explicit use of money in fieldwork still seems to be taboo for ethnographers and contradict certain ideas of what constitutes a good relationship between them and their interlocutors. However, on a closer look money often does play a role in establishing or maintaining connections in the field, although in a less direct matter (e.g. when we invite informants for lunch or coffee, contribute to urgent expenses etc.). All of these financial involvements need to be - and are - discussed in the context of research ethics, but reflexions on money in the field often seem to leave out some important questions: Where does this money come from? What kind of expenses in ethnographic research are covered by scholarships, grants or our institutions? And what happens when we cannot afford to spend money in the field? Especially in times of growing precarity among (early career) academics we need to address those questions and their (potential) impacts on our ability to carry out fieldwork.

Paper short abstract:

This paper considers the challenge that mental illness presents to the category of 'anthropologist', using the diagnosis of Borderline Personality Disorder as a case study. It asks what practical steps can be taken to further true epistemic inclusion in our departments.

Paper long abstract:

What kind of person makes a good anthropologist? Will a mental illness seriously affect the quality of your data? Are there people who simply shouldn't be anthropologists? This paper is an attempt to reckon with these taboo questions, taking as an example the diagnosis of Borderline Personality Disorder. BPD is a chronic condition characterised by severe deficiencies in interpersonal functioning, identity formation, and emotional regulation. It is thought to stem from an impaired ability to 'mentalize'; that is, to understand how beliefs and mental states affect behaviour, both in oneself and in others. That this impairment stands at profound odds with normative perceptions of the skills required to produce good ethnography made the coincidence of my own diagnosis with the outset of my doctoral fieldwork a challenging one. Beginning with a brief account of how BPD affected my experience of fieldwork, I outline the challenge that mental illnesses - particularly those associated with social impairment - pose to the category of 'anthropologist'. I argue that true epistemic inclusion requires bravery that begins in our departments. On the one hand, emphasis must be given to practical development of social skills associated with fieldwork, rather than their a priori assumption. On the other, we must commit to interrogating our reliance on normative forms of knowledge and experience. Careful navigation of these countervailing concerns reveals that there is still much to learn about what it is an anthropologist is and does.

Paper short abstract:

This paper is based on the reflection and experience about facing challenges obtained from a cooperative fieldwork in a village in the West of China. One major theme of the project was how the lives of Chinese peasants have changed during the last 100 years. It has recently be published in a book named after the village Golden Goose.

Paper long abstract:

This paper results from the research conducted in a village in the south of Sichuan Province conducted by two researchers, one Chinese and the other English. The researchers explored different aspects of the local culture including government, education, marriage, gender, business, migration, medicine and agriculture. One major theme was how the lives of Chinese peasants have changed during the last 100 years and how this was understood by the people themselves. The oldest members of the community were illiterate and spoke a distinct dialect of Chinese, which required that interviews be translated from the dialect to Mandarin and then to English. This was possible because the Chinese researcher spoke the dialect and was known to the community. As researchers we entered a community with some unforeseen issues as both ‘insider’ and ‘outsider’ and sometimes ‘together’.

In order to reduce and avoid some issues which might happen during the field work, we tried our best to plan the field work. The narrative of the various individuals were written in a manner that sought to capture the perspective and feelings of each person. It has recently be published in a book named after the village Golden Goose (Liu and Burnett 2019). Throughout the project, questions about prevention and treatment for unforeseen circumstances, ethical clearance for both fieldworkers and research participants, and new challenges and opportunities in anthropological research arose. The paper is based on the reflection and experience obtained from the project.