Replying to Chris Keylock, Dan Know wrote:
>While fieldwork and the 'results' of such are very personal, I am not
>sure
>that the argument that 'I was there and therefore I know' is especially
>useful. OK, so we accept to some extent that this particular person
>*was*
>there and observed whatever but...do we believe this person to be a
>reasonable, well-read, informed, intuitive person ?
Like Dan, I don't think it is enough to say 'I was there and therefore know'
because clearly who we are as individual researchers influences what we see,
who will talk to us (and what they will disclose) as well as how we
interpret the events we witness and the information we record. As such, I
think that it is vitally important that both in the process of carrying out
fieldwork and then also when we come to write it up, we critically reflect
on our own positionality as a researcher in relation to the research we
doing.
Dan continues (ironically, I think)
>Perhaps we
>could
>all take up awful travel writing, or write for the Sunday broadsheets. I
>think
>this kind of writing is useful and largely constitutes my own 'field
>diary'
>which is perhaps *too* personal to be shared. It is a shame though that
>more
>of this style of thought doesn't escape from such documents.
It follows from what I have just said (I think) that if we are really to
take a more reflexive approach to our role in the research we carry out,
there is an arguement *not* to separate 'fieldnotes' from 'field diaries'.
I see this as being particularly important the more immersed one is in the
field - where does fieldwork stop and one's own life begin if you are
spending time living in the environment/location under investigation? Sure,
very personal events or emotions may occur that don't immediately appear to
relate to one's studies, but equally, they may have a very real impact on
the way one behaves in the field or indeed interprets events and data
recorded there.
If anyone wants to explore these issues further, I would recomend taking a
look at the various essays in the following collections:
Lewin, E. & Leap W. L. (eds.) (1996) Out in the field: reflections of
lesbian and gay anthropologists; Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois
Press
Kulick, D. & Willson, M. (eds.) (1995) Taboo: sex, identity and erotic
subjectivity in anthropological fieldwork; London: Routledge
Although the essays there are mostly written by anthropologists, and
anthropologists working around issues of sexuality at that, I think the
engagement with a broad range of epistemelogical issues thrown up in the
field have much wider applicability.
I'll leave the issues of theory, referencing and impenetrable language to
others (or another time), except to say that while at times I get irritated
by gratuitous referencing, and overly unreadable texts, I think it is
important that we don't allow these irritations to drag us down into the
realms of 'anti-theory' posturing. It is important to engage with the
theorectical work that has gone before us, either as a means of legitimating
our own current work or to question earlier ways of interpreting things and
move things forward.
After all, if we are 'critical geographers', surely this implies that we are
critically engaging with some kind of theoretical understanding of how the
world is or should be...... ? Just a thought.
Hope this provokes further discussion.
Gavin Brown
PG Researcher
Dept. of Sociology & Anthropology
University of East London
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|