Send message to Author

Paper short abstract

This paper describes ethnographic and ethical uncertainties I faced as my participants were displaced from their retirement residence. By not asking and not acting, I resisted allowing my research become an opportunistic disaster ethnography nor an overtly activist one. Was this the right decision?

Paper long abstract

This paper describes the ethnographic and ethical uncertainties I faced during fieldwork with residents being displaced from a for-profit retirement residence in Edmonton, Canada. I had not intended to study the last days of life in this institution, but as my fieldsite shifted I had to reconsider my research position: what was my role and responsibility to my research and to my participants when the field was falling apart?

“Who will fight for us?” Should I have advocated for them? I wanted to ask questions of management, about what was happening and why, but I had to balance transparency of ethical research with not being too conspicuous that I would be denied access. I chose not to become a vocal advocate, but to bear witness and help residents navigate the changes, which required not asking certain questions of those in power.

"Is our suffering interesting to you?" Witnessing the closing of a retirement home in real time provided a novel ethnographic opportunity when displacement is often studied after the fact. Yet while the situation offered a rich ethnography, I resisted allowing the misfortune of residents and staff to become the focus of my enquiry.

As the field changed, I held back during moments of possible disclosure and resisted shifting to an opportunistic disaster ethnography nor an overtly activist one. Was this the right decision? Part confessional, I share my research experience within a shifting fieldsite and ask how we are to navigate ethical parameters of knowing and acting.