Sexualised researchers in ethnographic encounters | Amsterdam University Press Journals Online
2004
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publicaties
  3. Tijdschrift voor Genderstudies
  4. Volume 27, Issue 2/3
  5. Artikel
Volume 27, Issue 2/3
  • ISSN: 1388-3186
  • E-ISSN: 2352-2437
file format pdf download PDF

Samenvatting

Abstract

Despite decades of feminist critique on androcentric biases in academia, mainstream academic literature and training of ethnographic research typically neglects the gendered and sexualised dynamics between researchers and interlocutors, in particular the prevalence of sexualised harassment in fieldwork settings. This article outlines why this topic remains overlooked within anthropological training and education and, more importantly, how we can move towards a more inclusive approach to signalling, acknowledging, and processing these experiences as an integral element of ethnography. We contend that this encompasses an epistemological concern, as knowledge production is based upon intersubjective and situated encounters (Haraway, 1988). We identified three dimensions in the discussion of the sexualised and gendered vulnerabilities of research practice – the pedagogical, the institutional and the epistemological – and propose a set of educational opportunities as a response. Drawing upon feminist pedagogies, these include a reconsideration and systemic critique of methodological and epistemological training, more vulnerable approaches to teaching, writing and representing ethnography, and the institutionalisation of a network of support that resists the individual responsibility that the neoliberalisation of education pushes towards.

© Lise Zurné & Loes Oudenhuijsen. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-ND BY 4.0 license. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.5117/TVGN2024.2-3.005.ZURN
2024-09-01
2024-09-27
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/13883186/27/2/3/TVGN2024.2-3.005.ZURN.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.5117/TVGN2024.2-3.005.ZURN&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Appadurai, A. (1997). Discussion: Fieldwork in the era of globalization. Anthropology and Humanism, 22(1), 115–118.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Art, M. (2021). (Re)positioning the researcher: Fieldwork and vulnerability. Lova Journal of Feminist Anthropology and Gender Studies, 42, 41–68.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Atkinson, P., Coffey, A., Delamont, S., Lofland, J., & Lofland, L. (2001). Handbook of ethnography. London: SAGE Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Babel, A. (2018). The invisible walls of the whisper network. Anthropology News, 59(3), e67–e72.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Beatson, N.J., Tharapos, M., O’Connell, B.T., De Lange, P., Carr, S., & Copeland, S. (2022). The gradual retreat from academic citizenship. Higher Education Quarterly, 76(4), 715–725. doi:10.1111/hequ.12341
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Beemyn, G. (2019). Trans people in higher education. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Behar, R. (1996). The vulnerable observer: Anthropology that breaks your heart. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Bell, D., Caplan, P., & Wazir-Jahan Begum Karim (Eds.). (1993). Gendered fields: Women, men, and ethnography. London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Bernard, H.R. (2011). Research methods in anthropology: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (5th ed.). Lanham: AltaMira Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Bernard, H.R., & Gravlee, C. (Eds.). (2015). Handbookofmethods in cultural anthropology (2nd ed.). Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Bovill, C. (2020). Co-creating learning and teaching: Towards relational pedagogy in higher education. St Albans: Critical publishing.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Bradford, D.J., & Crema, E.R. (2022). Risk factors for the occurrence of sexual misconduct during archaeological and anthropological fieldwork. American Anthropologist, 124(3), 548–559. doi:10.1111/aman.13763
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Bryman, A. (2016). Social research methods (5th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Clancy, K.B.H., Nelson, R.G., Rutherford, J.N., & Hinde, K. (2014). Survey of academic field experiences (SAFE): Trainees report harassment and assault. PLOS ONE, 9(7), e102172–e102172
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Clawson, R.A. (2024). Combatting sexual harassment in the field is fundamental to the research enterprise. PS: Political Science & Politics, 1–5. doi:10.1017/S1049096523000951
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Dall’Alba, G. (2009). Learning to be professionals. Dordrecht: Springer.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Davids, T., & Willemse, K. (2014). Embodied engagements: Feminist ethnography at the crossing of knowledge production and representation. Women’s Studies International Forum, 43, 1–4. doi:10.1016/j.wsif.2014.02.001
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Fujimura, J.H. (2006). Sex genes: A critical sociomaterial approach to the politics and molecular genetics of sex determination. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 32(1), 49–82.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Green, A, & Wong, A. (2015). LGBT students and campus sexual assault. The Atlantic, 22September, Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/09/campus-sexual-assault-lgbt-students/406684/
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Golde, P. (1970). Women in the field: Anthropological experiences. Chicago: Aldine Publishing.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Guarino, C.M., & Borden, V.M.H. (2017). Faculty service loads and gender: Are women taking care of the academic family?Research in Higher Education, 58(6), 672–694. doi:10.1007/s11162-017-9454-2
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Hall, R. (2004). ‘It can happen to you’: Rape prevention in the age of risk management. Hypatia, 19(3), 1–19.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Hanasono, L.K., Broido, E.M., Yacobucci, M.M., Root, K.V., Peña, S., & O’Neil, D.A. (2019). Secret service. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 12(1), 85–98. doi:10.1037/dhe0000081
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Hanson, R., & Richards, P. (2017). Sexual harassment and the construction of ethnographic knowledge. Sociological Forum, 32(3), 587–609.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Hanson, R., & Richards, P. (2019). Harassed: Gender, bodies and ethnographic research. Oakland, CA: University of California Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Haraway, D. (1988). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies, 14(3), 575–599.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Hartley, G. (2018). Fed up: Emotional labor, women, and the way forward. New York: HarperOne. Retrieved from https://school.library.nashville.org/Record/CARL0000744861
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Hilhorst, D.J.M., Hodgson, L., Jansen, B.J., & Mena Fluhmann, R.A. (2016). Security guidelines for field researchers in complex, remote and hazardous places. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/1765/93256
     [Google Scholar]
  29. hooks, b. (1994). Teaching to transgress: Education as the practice of freedom. New York: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Hunt, S.L. (2022). Sexual harassment and assault during field research. PS: Political Science & Politics, 55(2), 329–334.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Jaggar, A.M. (1989). Love and knowledge: Emotion and feminist epistemology. In A.M.Jaggar & S. R.Bordo (Eds.), Gender/body/knowledge: Feminist reconstructions of being and knowing (pp. 151–176). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Järvinen, M., & Mik-Meyer, N. (2024). Giving and receiving: Gendered service work in academia. Current Sociology, 0(0). https://doi-org.ezproxy.leidenuniv.nl/10.1177/00113921231224754
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Jemielniak, D., & Kostera, M. (2010). Narratives of irony and failure in ethnographic work. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences / Revue Canadienne Des Sciences de l’Administration, 27(4), 335–347.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Johansson, L. (2015). Dangerous liaisons: Risk, positionality and power in women’s anthropological fieldwork. Journal of the Anthropological Society of Oxford, 7(1), 55–63.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Karrouche, N.F.F. (2012). Dat is nu echt typisch Riffijns. De positie van een gerenommeerd antropoloog, een etnografie en een jonge historica in het Berberactivisme. In L.G.Jansma, D.Hak, & M.de Koning (Eds.), Ervaren en ervaren worden. Opstellen over langdurig sociaalwetenschappelijk onderzoek (pp. 193–208). Utrecht: Uitgeverij Eburon.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Kloß, S.T. (2017). Sexual(ized) harassment and ethnographic fieldwork: A silenced aspect of social research. Ethnography, 18(3), 396–414.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. KNAW, NFU, NWO, TO2-Federatie, Vereniging Hogescholen, & VSNU. (2018). Nederlandse gedragscode wetenschappelijke integriteit (Report). Retrieved from Nederlandse+gedragscode+wetenschappelijke+integriteit_2018_NL.pdf (nwo.nl)
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Kulick, D., & Wilson, M. (Eds.). (1995). Taboo: Sex, identity, and erotic subjectivity in anthropological fieldwork. New York: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Lindquist, C., & McKay, T. (2018). Sexual harassment experiences and consequences for women faculty in science, engineering, and medicine. In RTI Press Policy Brief. RTI Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Llewellyn, K.R., & Llewellyn, J.J. (2015). A restorative approach to learning: Relational theory as feminist pedagogy in universities. In T.Penny Light, J.Nicholas, & R.Bondy (Eds.), Feminist pedagogy in higher education: Critical theory and practice (pp. 11–32). Waterloo: Wilfried Laurier University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Massoud, M.F. (2022). The price of positionality: Assessing the benefits and burdens of self-identification in research methods. Journal of Law and Society, 49(S1), S64–S86.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Morley, L. (2005). Opportunity or exploitation? Women and quality assurance in higher education. Gender and Education, 17(4), 411–429. doi:10.1080/09540250500145106
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Nedelsky, J. (1989). Reconceiving autonomy: Sources, thoughts and possibilities. Yale Journal of Feminism, 1(1), 7–36.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Nelson, R.G., Rutherford, J.N., Hinde, K., & Clancy, K.B.H. (2017). Signaling safety: Characterizing fieldwork experiences and their implications for career trajectories. American Anthropologist, 119(4), 710–722.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. O’Reilly, K. (2012). Ethnographic methods (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Oudenhuijsen, L. (2021). Desiring researchers: Reflecting on sexuality and fieldwork in Senegal. Lova Journal of Feminist Anthropology and Gender Studies, 42, 21–38.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Oudenhuijsen, L. (2023, May). Pak stress écht aan (en niet met een cursusje yoga of comfort food koken). Leids Universitair Weekblad Mare. Retrieved from https://www.mareonline.nl/opinie/pak-stress-echt-aan/
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Page, T. (2017). Vulnerable writing as a feminist methodological practice. Feminist Review, 115, 13–29.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Parreiras, C. (2021). Vulnerabilities and the dilemmas of writing: Gender-based violence in the field. Lova Journal of Feminist Anthropology and Gender Studies, 42, 69–92.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Penny Light, T., Nicholas, J., & Bondy, R. (Eds.). (2015). Feminist pedagogy in higher education: Critical theory and practice. Waterloo: Wilfried Laurier University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Robben, A.C.G.M., & Sluka, J.A. (2007). Ethnographic fieldwork: An anthropological reader. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Rosa, R. & Clavero, S. (2020). The challenge of neoliberalism and precarity for gender sensitivity in academia. In E.Drew & S.Canavan (Eds.), The gender-sensitive university: A contradiction in terms? (pp. 16–27). New York: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Schneider, L.T. (2020). Sexual violence during research: How the unpredictability of fieldwork and the right to risk collide with academic bureaucracy and expectations. Critique of Anthropology, 40(2), 173–193.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Schneider, M., Lord, E., & Wilczak, J. (2021). We, too: Contending with the sexual politics of fieldwork in China. Gender, Place & Culture, 28(4), 519–540. doi:10.1080/0966369X.2020.1781793
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Sharp, G., & Kremer, E. (2006). The safety dance: Confronting harassment, intimidation, and violence in the field. Sociological Methodology, 36(1), 317–327.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Tracy, S.J. (2013). Qualitative research methods: Collecting evidence, crafting analysis, communicating impact. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Van Eck, D., Van Amsterdam, N., & Van den Brink, M. (2021). Unsanitized writing practices: Attending to affect and embodiment throughout the research process. Gender, Work & Organization, 28, 1098–1114.
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Webb, L.M., Allen, M.W., & Walker, K.L. (2002). Feminist pedagogy: Identifying principles. Academic Education Quarterly, 6, 67–72
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Williams, B.C. (2009). ‘Don’t ride the bus!’: And other warnings women anthropologists are given during fieldwork. Transforming Anthropology, 17(2), 155–158.
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Zurné, L., & Heederik, J. (2021). Introduction: Harassment in the field (Special issue). Lova Journal of Feminist Anthropology and Gender Studies, 42, 5–17.
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Zurné, L. (2023). Afterword: Troubling fields. In L.Zurné, Performing contested pasts: An ethnography of historical re-enactments of war and revolution (pp. 179–193). Rotterdam: Erasmus University.
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.5117/TVGN2024.2-3.005.ZURN
Loading
Keyword(s): ethnography; fieldwork; neoliberalisation; sexualised harassment; universities

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

Dit is een verplicht veld
Graag een geldig e-mailadres invoeren
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error