Click the star to add/remove an item to/from your individual schedule.
You need to be logged in to avail of this functionality,
and to see the links to virtual rooms.
Log in
- Convenors:
-
Anna Gustafsson
(Stockholm University)
Victor Nygren (Stockholm University)
Hakon Caspersen
Send message to Convenors
- Stream:
- Who Speaks and for Whom?
- Sessions:
- Friday 2 April, -
Time zone: Europe/London
Short Abstract:
This roundtable focuses on the post-fieldwork period. We wish to emphasise and encourage discussion on responsibilities towards the experiences and emotions of the vulnerable anthropologist leaving and returning from the field.
Long Abstract:
Within anthropology much attention is given to preparation of fieldwork and the time in the field through discussions of methodology, ethics, funding opportunities and the possibilities of ethnography. We build on these conversations by focusing on various responsibilities after fieldwork - towards oneself, one's research participants and colleagues. Although fieldwork is often rewarding and enjoyable, we wish to foreground the ways in which we speak about and handle distressing or disturbing experiences of, for example, violence and harassment, and emotions such as guilt, heartbreak and regrets. How do we responsibly navigate changes in social relationships in the field and at home after research? Moreover, we need to interrogate how vulnerabilities of the home-coming fieldworker are situated within a context of multiple precarities that researchers may face with regards to lack of funding, zero-hour contracts and uncertain job prospects. We are interested in exploring why so little is talked about how vulnerabilities in the field continue to affect ethnographers at home, when similar experiences in a home environment might have been treated differently. What does it mean for our personal wellbeing to distance ourselves from fieldwork, as we often are encouraged to do, in order to understand our data?Based on these and related themes we invite researchers to contribute with reflections around the disciplinary, social, or moral responsibilities that emerge from the difficulties of the post-fieldwork period. Together we can make suggestions around what kind of responsibilities and support systems could be put in place after fieldwork.
Accepted papers:
Session 1 Friday 2 April, 2021, -Pascale Schild (University of Bern)
Paper short abstract:
This paper draws on the experience of witnessing a young woman's violent death during fieldwork. I discuss my inability to act as "ethnographic vulnerability" resulting from local power relations. I was forced to experience on my own body the structural violence that shapes my interlocutors’ lives.
Paper long abstract:
In this paper, I draw on my experience and memories of witnessing how a young woman committed suicide after she was forced into marriage during fieldwork in Pakistani-administrated Azad Kashmir.
While her family claimed that her death was an accident (caused by a broken gas cooker), rumours spread in the neighbourhood that the woman died because she had set herself on fire. Neighbours and friends believed that her suicide was a desperate act of protest against her forced marriage to a paternal cousin, which had taken place only a few days earlier. Despite the rumours, no investigation was taken up by the police. Like most people, I was terrified. I also felt guilty because I could not do anything to bring justice to her violent death. Did I fail to take responsibility as an anthropologist and friend?
I discuss my inability to act as “ethnographic vulnerability” resulting from the local power relations I was exposed to. As anthropologists we are not always in a privileged position to stand up against violence and injustice. In certain situations, we are terrified, paralysed and vulnerable in much the same way as our interlocutors are. It was painful and humiliating to witness my friend’s violent death because I was forced to act in a way I would never have acted at home. In this situation, I was forced to experience on my own body the structural violence that shapes the lives of many of my (female) interlocutors.
Lynette Sikic Micanovic (Ivo Pilar Institute of Social Sciences) Matthias Drilling (University of Applied Sciences FHNW)
Paper short abstract:
This paper discusses the complexity and different types of responsibilities we have as qualitative researchers after fieldwork with marginalised groups who have experiences of homelessness and social exclusion.
Paper long abstract:
Our responsibilities to do thorough, reliable and honest research amplify when working with marginalised groups who have experiences of homelessness and social exclusion. In this type of research, issues related to responsibility are more complex; they require our attention and reflection from the research design stage to dissemination. Even in the post-fieldwork stage, we have ongoing responsibilities to implement safeguards to ensure the protection and well-being of our participants. In this paper, we would like to discuss some of our responsibilities as PIs of a joint research project exploring homelessness and social inclusion in Swiss and Croatian cities (CSRP). Some of our ethical responsibilities after fieldwork have included: i) Handling the research material appropriately ensuring privacy through anonymisation and confidentiality; ii) Maintenance of boundaries and fittingly navigating changes in social relationships for analytical distance; iii) Managing the emotional impacts of sensitive research through protection and guidance; iv) Ensuring authentic and impartial representation by giving voice to our informants and by exposing injustices and structural violence; v) Informing our funders, institutions and partners about research findings rigorously; vi) Protecting and preserving the integrity of collected research materials to avoid unauthorised usage; and vii) Leaving the field professionally so that we and others can do further research to keep marginalised voices heard and contribute to policy change without fear of gate-keeping or negative consequences. It is hoped that this paper will contribute to more knowledge and discussions about the different types and degrees of responsibilities we have as qualitative researchers after fieldwork.