Mediating messiness: expanding ideas of flexibility, reflexivity, and embodiment in fieldwork

Abstract

This article aims to help researchers think about some big-picture challenges that occur in the early stages of fieldwork. In particular, we address the transition from a clear, concise research proposal to the often complicated, messy initiation of a project. Drawing on autobiographical accounts of our own PhD research projects, we focus on dilemmas that may arise for researchers guided by feminist epistemology and methodology. First, we discuss parameters regarding acceptable changes to original research plans and questions. Noting that the carefully planned proposal may dramatically change as fieldwork begins, we draw on feminist literatures to expand and concretize the notion of flexibility in the research process. Second, we puzzle out the relationship between theory, epistemology, and method as the researcher delves into her fieldwork. As logistical challenges may take priority, theoretical and epistemological concerns may temporarily wane. Third, we consider the many ways in which the researcher's personal and field life bleed into each other to shape the conduct of research. We emphasize the importance of considering – prior to research as well as during – what the concepts of reflexivity and embodiment mean in fieldwork, especially for the researcher in terms of personal needs and logistical realities. Finally, while we suggest that there are certain unique pressures that shape the early stages of the field research period for PhD students, we conclude the article by focusing on ways in which lessons learned during our own experiences might be broadly useful for any researchers in the beginning stages of fieldwork.

Este manuscrito apunta a ayudar a los investigadores y las investigadoras a pensar sobre los desafíos generales que se presentan en las primeras etapas del trabajo de campo. En particular, abordamos la transición desde una propuesta de investigación clara y concisa a la iniciación de un proyecto a menudo complicada y desprolija. Basándonos en registros autobiográficos de nuestros propios proyectos de investigación de doctorado, nos centramos en los dilemas que pueden surgir para investigadores e investigadoras guiados o guiadas por la epistemología y metodología feministas. Primero, analizamos los parámetros con respecto a cambios aceptables a las preguntas y planes originales de investigación. Tomando nota de que una propuesta cuidadosamente planeada puede cambiar dramáticamente cuando comienza el trabajo de campo, nos basamos en literaturas feministas para ampliar y concretar la noción de flexibilidad en el proceso de investigación. Segundo, nos preguntamos sobre la relación entre teoría, epistemología, y método a medida que la investigadora se sumerge en el trabajo de campo. Mientras los desafíos logísticos pueden volverse prioritarios, las cuestiones teóricas y epistemológicas pueden languidecer temporariamente. Tercero, consideramos las muchas formas en las que la vida personal y en el campo de la investigadora se entremezclan mutuamente para dar forma a la manera en que se lleva a cabo la investigación. Ponemos énfasis en la importancia de considerar – tanto antes como durante la investigación – qué significan en el trabajo de campo los conceptos de reflexividad y encarnación, especialmente para la investigadora en términos de las necesidades personales y las realidades logísticas. Por último, mientras sugerimos que hay ciertas presiones únicas que dan forma a las primeras etapas del período de la investigación de campo para los estudiantes de doctorado, concluimos el trabajo centrándonos en las formas en que las lecciones aprendidas durante nuestras propias experiencias podrían ser generalmente útiles para todos los y las investigadores/as en las primeras etapas del trabajo de campo.

Keywords:

• fieldwork
• methodology
• flexibility
• reflexivity
• embodiment
• Ecuador

Keywords:

• trabajo de campo
• metodología
• flexibilidad
• reflexividad
• encarnación
• Ecuador

Acknowledgements

We wish to thank Kafui Attoh, Kate Coddington, Dana Hill, Matthew Himley, Serin Houston, In Paik, and Katie Wells for extremely thoughtful, productive critical readings of various drafts of this manuscript, as well as two anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments.

Notes

 1. [email protected]

 2. Feminist geographers, in particular, have paid special attention to challenging the notion of the field as a place to go to that is discrete from the researcher's home (Driver 2000; England 1994; Hyndman 2001; Katz 1994; Kobayashi 1994; Sparke 1996), focusing instead on a notion of ‘betweenness’ that can displace the field as separate from the academy (Sparke 1996).

 3. Recognizing that each research project is unique and that we cannot generalize across projects, we focus instead on calling attention to the concrete challenges that emerged in the transition from proposal writing to field research.

 4. Movilidad Humana, a department within the Catholic organization Pastoral Social.

 5. We understand feminist epistemology as knowledge production permeated with constant awareness of socially constructed difference, particularly gender but also myriad other axes along which power hierarchies are built and maintained. Indeed, feminist epistemology focuses on relationships of power that can both ‘oppress’ and ‘privilege’ individuals and groups, producing different ways of knowing and influencing what counts as knowledge (Cope 2002).

 6. Cope (2002, 50) defines methodology as a ‘combination of a set of methods with a particular epistemology’. Jones et al. (1997) describe methodology as situated between theory and method, and as such, a dynamic and contested field (see also Jenkins et al. 2003).

 7. Fondo Ecuatoriano Populorum Progressio (FEPP).

 8. While Price (2001) urges researchers in rural places, especially women, to live with families whenever possible, Emily was both unable and unwilling to find a family to live with because of lack of space in indigenous families' houses, and dietary concerns and lack of drinking water.

 9. While living with the nuns limited her ethnographic research, Emily also found great value in a space and time separate from the ‘field’ (Myers 2001).

10. Frohlick (2002, 49) notes important exceptions in the parentheses at the end of this statement: ‘… (although see England 1994; McDowell 1992; Mattingly and Falconer Al-Hindi 1995; Bondi 2003)’.

11. Thanks to an anonymous reviewer for this point.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Nancy Hiemstra

1