Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T16:32:28.810Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Fieldwork, Identities, and Intersectionality: Negotiating Gender, Race, Class, Religion, Nationality, and Age in the Research Field Abroad: Editors' Introduction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 April 2009

Candice D. Ortbals  and
Meg E. Rincker
Candice D. Ortbals
Affiliation:
Pepperdine University
Meg E. Rincker
Affiliation:
Purdue University Calumet
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Political scientists who have conducted research abroad experience excitement as well as great disappointment. Meeting and utilizing the help of knowledgeable, responsive interviewees can be exhilarating; yet a cancelled interview, illness, and lack of funds dampens the social scientific enterprise. In this symposium, we discuss the nuts and bolts of field research and we explore the constraints and opportunities that arise from the interaction of researchers' personal identities (gender, race, class, religion, nationality, and age) and their research context. We contend that most training received before fieldwork focuses little, if at all, on the personal consequences of leaving one's home for a year, trying to integrate into another culture, and facing (mis)perceptions based on one's identity. As the quotations above indicate, the symposium hopes to demonstrate how a researcher can be gutsy in the uncharted waters of fieldwork, especially with interactions pertaining to one's identities. Although we acknowledge that no preparation will entirely eradicate disappointing days in the field and misperceptions of identity, we encourage new field researchers and graduate students to be aware that the process of accessing data abroad is an intensely personal one. The symposium contributors are comparativists, mainly at the career stages of assistant professor and recently tenured professor, who have researched in Argentina, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Brazil, Columbia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Ecuador, Ethiopia, France, India, Jamaica, Japan, Kenya, Mexico, Mozambique, Peru, Poland, Russia, Spain, Uruguay, and Venezuela.

Type
Symposium
Information
PS: Political Science & Politics , Volume 42 , Issue 2 , April 2009 , pp. 287 - 290
Copyright
Copyright © The American Political Science Association 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adamson, Joy, and Donovan, Jenny L.. 2000. “Research in Black and White.” Qualitative Health Research 12 (6): 816–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alcalde, M. Cristina. 2007. “A Feminist Anthropologist's Reflections on Dilemmas of Power and Positionality in the Field.” Meridians: Feminism, Race, Transnationalism 7 (2): 143–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Angrosino, Michael V. 1986. “Son and Lover: The Anthropologist as Nonthreatening Male.” In Sex, Self, and Gender in Cross-Cultural Fieldwork, ed. Whitehead, Tony Larry and Conaway, Mary Ellen. Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 64–83.Google Scholar
Crenshaw, Kimberle. 1991. “Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence Against Women of Color.” Stanford Law Review 43 (6): 1241–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Andrade, Leila Lomba. 2000. “Negotiating from the Inside: Constructing Racial and Ethnic Identity in Qualitative Research.” Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 29: 268–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowling, Robyn. 2000. “Power, subjectivity, and ethics in qualitative research.” In Qualitative Methods in Human Geography, ed. Hay, Iain. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 23–36.Google Scholar
Gatrell, Caroline. 2006. “Interviewing Fathers: Feminist Dilemmas in Fieldwork.” Journal of Gender Studies 15 (3): 237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gould, Stephen. 1981. The Mismeasure of Man. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Gouldner, Alvin W. 1970. The Coming Crisis of Western Sociology. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Hancock, Ange-Marie. 2007. “When Multiplication Doesn't Equal Quick Addition: Examining Intersectionality as a Research Paradigm.” Perspectives on Politics 5(1): 63–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mazzei, Julie, and O'Brien, Erin. 2005. “You Got It, So When Do You Flaunt It? Field Work Settings and the Strategic Deployment of Gender.” Presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington D.C.Google Scholar
Mohanty, Chandra Talpade. 1988. “Under Western Eyes: Feminist Scholarship and Colonial Discourses.” Feminist Review 30: 61–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riessman, Catherine Kohler. 1987. “When Gender Is Not Enough: Women Interviewing Women.” Gender & Society 1 (2): 172–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scheyvens, Regina, and Leslie, Helen. 2000. “Gender, Ethics and Empowerment: Dilemmas of Development Fieldwork.” Women's Studies International Forum 23 (1): 119–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sundberg, Juanita. 2003. “Masculinist Epistemologies and the Politics of Fieldwork in Latin Americanist Geography.” The Professional Geographer: the Journal of the Association of American Geographers 55 (2): 180–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Takacs, David. 2002. “Positionality, Epistemology, and Social Justice in the Classroom.” Social Justice 29 (4): 168–81.Google Scholar
Vanderbeck, Robert M. 2005. “Masculinities and Fieldwork: Widening the Discussion.” Gender, Place and Culture 12 (4): 387–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Visweswaran, Kamala. 1992. Fictions of Feminist Ethnography. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Wax, Rosalie H. 1979. “Gender and Age in Fieldwork and Fieldwork Education: No Good Thing Is Done by Any Man Alone.” Social Problems 26 (5): 509–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yanow, Dvora, and Schwartz-Shea, Peregrine, eds. 2006. Interpretation and Method: Empirical Research Methods and the Interpretive Turn. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.Google Scholar