When fieldwork falls apart: Navigating disruption from political turmoil in research

Abstract

For many researchers, conducting fieldwork can often form a significant component of data collection. With a rich history across many disciplines, fieldwork has received significant reflexive examination, notably around when it is conducted in dangerous areas or used for researching high-risk situations. Less attended to, however, are the equally disruptive but less dangerous situations that researchers can face, such as conducting fieldwork during political turmoil. The aim of this paper is to explore the impact of political turmoil on fieldwork, and reflectively examine both the consequences of this and possible ways of mitigation. Through examining fieldwork notes and journals, the findings identified that despite political turmoil's significant disruption on processes of data collection, the researcher utilised notions of flexible positionalities and developed adaptive methodologies to circumvent these challenges. The paper provides new insights for managing the impact of disruption on fieldwork from political turmoil and encourages the continuation of publications focusing on reflective fieldwork accounts.

Fieldnotes, Field Research, and Positionality of a “Contested-Native Researcher”

“…The combination of three features constitutes the originality of this article. First, the experience brings insights that might help a researcher to undertake fieldwork within a culturally polarized context coupled with security uncertainties (Chambers, 2020). Second, the article reflects on how the author thinks he was perceived (Hervik, 1994).…”

“…As simplified, this dichotomy insider-outsider has been questioned in favor of the multiple faces of a researcher (Smyth, 2005). There have been growing researches stressing the blurred position of a researcher based on her positionality (Chambers, 2020; Smyth, 2005). Bruskin (2018) and Milligan (2016) argue that the blurred position can display multiple identities at the same time.…”

“…In addition, reflexivity-positionality literature has not yet thoroughly connected multiple positionalities within polarized socio-cultural settings. For instance, James Chambers who resorted to multiple positionalities to access interviewees during a turmoil period in Nairobi, his personal safety was not in significant danger (Chambers, 2020, p. 439). Similarly, Smyth (2005) reflects on multiple identities of an insider researcher in Ireland whose challenges revolves around unfamiliarity of the groups (participants) of the research.…”

“…Bruskin (2018) and Milligan (2016) argue that the blurred position can display multiple identities at the same time. The blurred position implies that there is no clear cut between insider-outsider (Chambers, 2020, p. 440). The article endorses Merriam et al (2001, p. 411) who contend that the dichotomy “insider versus outsider” oversimplifies a complex process characterizing researcher’s multiple identities.…”

“…In a back and forth complex process, the researcher’s position influences the outcome (Hervik, 1994, p. 92). Therefore, indicating the position of the researcher is highly commendable during this process (Chambers, 2020; Harvey, 2013). Reflecting on the position of the researcher and its implications on the research’s outcome is commonly known as being reflexive (Berger, 2015, p. 220).…”