A less muddy glee? Perspectives from a disabled researcher in the era of virtual global south fieldwork

Abstract

Challenges to the changing spaces of geography fieldwork have been pronounced during the COVID‐19 pandemic, through one of the most significant shifts since Bracken and Mawdsley wrote ‘Muddy glee’ in 2004, from ‘doing’ to ‘imagining’ fieldwork. Drawing on personal involvement in conducting virtual qualitative fieldwork during the pandemic on the experiences of older people with incontinence and their caregivers in Ethiopia and Malawi as a researcher with cerebral palsy, this commentary assesses new forms of ‘muddiness’ and the possibilities of inclusive data collection to evoke a sense of glee in the virtual field. The commentary reflects on how, away from challenging environments and in the virtual field, researchers with disabilities can discover a less physically ‘muddy’ glee by being included in fieldwork conducted online. The commentary draws on the new, tacit sense of muddiness experienced due to the physical separation between researcher and participant during the virtual era. The author provides reflections on routes to a new glee using technology and redressing the imbalances of power between researchers from the global North and partners in the global South, to further round out the picture of fieldwork to include women with disabilities going beyond the COVID‐19 pandemic.

Re-imagining the ‘fields’ of fieldwork

“…Working towards a more equitable future for geographical thought and praxis, we argue, requires ongoing debate on how 'the field' is located and how it can be meaningfully worked and extended. In line with similar critiques, we call for more expansive and fluid notions of 'field' and 'fieldwork' in geography (Hyndman, 2001;Markham, 2013;Bhakta, 2022). We do so by pointing to creative practices and critical work challenging still-engrained orthodoxies around fieldwork.…”

“…This is often invaluable as sources of data, inspiration, surprise. Whilst fieldwork can be gleeful and productive (Bracken and Mawdsley, 2004), it should not be assumed that 'getting one's boots muddy', in the traditional sense, is necessarily the most academically productive, rigorous, or ethical approach (Bhakta, 2022;Guasco, 2022;Howkins, 2010;Mol and Atchison, 2019). As with any spatial formation (Massey, 2005), firmly anchoring the field in space and time is not as straightforward as unreflective uses of the terms 'field' and 'fieldwork' might suggest.…”

Commentary: Reviewing neurodiversity, autism, and healthcare by Jonathan Green (2023) from an autistic perspective

“…For example, academic research projects in health care and social sciences often involve autistic people as participants, rather than using their experiences to inform the development of research methods and techniques (Poulsen et al., 2022). This enforces neo‐colonial social hierarchies between the researcher and researched, in this instance the researcher often being nondisabled and the researched being disabled, meaning the researched responses can be devalued and misused by the researcher (Bhakta, 2022). Therefore, knowledge used in a clinical environment surrounding autism needs to consider autistic people to be human, not research specimens which have to fulfil a box‐ticking exercise.…”

Classics Revisited: ‘Muddy glee’ ‐ What geography fieldwork means in the current moment

“…This Classics Revisited collection was borne from the various authors contributing to a thought‐provoking workshop organised by the RGS‐IBG and Area editorial team. Herein, we have contributions reflecting on ‘Muddy glee’ from a broad range of intersectional perspectives, ranging from ‘women in tropical peatlands’ (Thornton et al, 2022), disabilities (Bhakta, 2022; Rose, 2022), those with intersectional identities (Lawrence, 2022), LGBTQ+ (Mackay & Bishop, 2022; Zebracki & Greatrick, 2022), race‐related (Hughes, 2022), mental health (Tucker et al, 2022), those with childcare responsibilities (Bastia et al, 2022) and gendered access to the field for children (Parsons & Halstead, 2022). Each contributor has reflected on ‘Muddy glee’ from their own perspective, some engaging deeply with the original piece, others using it only as a springboard for broadening the debate.…”