Send message to Author

Paper short abstract

A common reason for fictionalization in ethnographic writing is to protect research partners. This involves considerations of vulnerability and the researcher’s authority to decide when and how to fictionalize. This paper discusses the politics of naming and the ethics of fictionalized ethnography.

Paper long abstract

Apart from literary or methodological concerns, the most prominent reason for fictionalization in ethnographic writing is risk mitigation related to those featured in the research output. This involves considerations of vulnerability, but also the researcher’s authority to decide when and how to fictionalize. A fictional story can be an artistic way to present ethnographic findings and a deliberate response to positivist claims about “telling the truth.” It can also be a way of telling a story without endangering those involved, if there is no other way to preserve their integrity. However, regardless of the intention behind its use, fictionalization decontextualizes research partners from their operative identities and environments. At the same time, the researcher who fictionalizes is usually not anonymous, thereby establishing their authorial authority over the outcome. The possibility that their interlocutors may want to reveal their identities does not always absolve researchers of the ethical dilemma of making decisions based on their own risk calculations. However, this can easily become an act of patronage. Who decides which life stories are told, how, and by whom — whether in nonfiction or fiction? As with anonymization, fictionalization usually involves a hierarchical relationship. The author receives a name, unless they choose not to, while those whose story it is do not. Delving into the politics of naming, this paper discusses the ethical challenges, potential, and creative variants of authorship in fictionalized ethnography.