Fieldwork, as a static process, has been questioned in the existing debates on ethnography. Field is often changing, unpredictable and is ridden with complexities (Billo and Hiemstra 2013; Mukherjee 2020). These complexities are manifest in the relationship between the researcher and the researched. Ethnographic research is deeply situated within larger social structures that affect interaction between the researcher and the researched, through their multiple identities based on gender, caste, religion, marital status, race and so on. The power dynamic between the researcher and the researched also shapes fieldwork and often demands the methodological approach to be flexible and adaptive. This research note reflects on impact of this power relation and the gendered experience of navigating the field for a female researcher while negotiating her position in the field.   

This note draws on a four-year long research conducted on Kalbeliya women performers of Rajasthan in India. Kalbeliya women performers, who despite being recognized as intangible heritage bearers by UNESCO in 2010, are victims of stigma today because of the intersection between their low caste status and occupation of dance (Ranwa 2021). The stigma around their nomadic lifestyle has further compounded this deep-rooted intersection. Despite recognition of various performing traditions as intangible heritage, their safeguarding as heritage still seems to be a far-fetched idea in India due to lack of proper measures. Lack of awareness among local heritage bearers themselves about their recognition bars them from participating in the safeguarding process and has kept them deprived of their rights and prestige as heritage bearers at societal level. The research on Kalbeliya performers aimed to uncover their marginalized voices and role of the state in safeguarding their heritage.

The fieldwork for this research journey began in 2017. It entailed travelling to Jaisalmer, Jodhpur, Jaipur and Pushkar regions of Rajasthan. From in-depth interviews with Kalbeliya women performers and observations of their performances in commercial as well as state-organized settings to taking dance lessons from these performers, and observing their everyday lifestyle in their deras (camps), the field was navigated using different sources and approaches, culminating into a research journey that involved various challenges and dilemmas.

The identity of a researcher is often recognized as a potential factor shaping an ethnographic fieldwork. A researcher embodies multiple identities along gender, caste, linguistic, geographic, and occupational lines. The feminist scholarship on methodology views gender identity as potentially affecting field experiences as it interacts with other identities such as caste, class, or race (England 1994). My field interactions with state tourism officials in Rajasthan were invariably shaped by the process of gendering being a married woman researcher. The idea of a woman researcher visiting deras (camps) of Kalbeliyas, often situated at the outskirts of cities and villages, for interviews and for learning their dance seemed incomprehensible to some state officials while ridiculed by others.

While a researcher investigates, she or he also simultaneously becomes a subject of investigation. The respondents or the researched also enquire, assign, and define a researcher’s identity that shapes the research process. This undeniably acts as source of power exercised by the researched that needs a nuanced attention in emerging scholarship. During interviews with state officials, the focus often shifted from state-led initiatives to enquiries about my personal life, more specifically about my marital status and caste affiliation. In the absence of any visible markers of marriage worn by me, I often encountered confused stares and constant attention directed towards assessing my marital status. After revealing my married status, I instantly became a recipient of unsolicited advices of changing the research area being a woman researcher. While some state officials were helpful in locating the Kalbeliyas, others often dismissed the research as unsubstantial and risky for a married woman researcher to do. The ways in which a woman researcher is stereotyped by gender and consequently how her work gets dismissed or trivialized were explicit. The idea of learning dance from Kalbeliya performers, who belonged to low caste, sometimes made them suspicious about my caste identity. These suspicions partially derived from historically deep-rooted discourses around morality, domesticity and public-private dichotomy constructed around women, more pronounced in the case of upper caste middle class women.

In general, interviews in the field unraveled stereotypes around Kalbeliyas being unruly, alcoholic, and uncivilized, often referring to their low caste status. While trying to break through their stereotypical depiction, dealing with an overemphasized concern of safety around my gender identity and undermining of my research, all of it did succeed in underlining my sense of vulnerability in the field and affected my access to the field. However, contrary to these stereotypes, I met some really hospitable and helpful Kalbeliya men and women who talked at length with me, offered me food and accommodation and invited me for weddings of their relatives. Nonetheless, I was repeatedly advised to keep the fieldwork restricted to daylight by gatekeepers at every level or if access to the field was facilitated by some state official, a male informant often accompanied who ended up dominating the fieldwork more than being helpful. This form of gendered protection or surveillance sometimes controlled and tampered with the research process significantly.

The sense of fear and vulnerability, accentuated through my gender identity, accompanied me and got further intensified when my presence as female researcher, while talking to Kalbeliya women about their work experiences, was suspiciously frowned upon by some Kalbeliya men as well. The ambiguity around my caste and marital status irked a few while sometimes it resulted in a barrage of personal remarks, questions revolving around caste affiliation and romantic advances. The personal questions posed by the respondents made me reflect upon and empathize with respondents’ discomfort of revealing their lives to strangers during fieldwork. It can also make a researcher question the position of privilege held by her or him and the colonizing nature of research process.

The idea of interviewing Kalbeliya women separately seemed to challenge the patriarchal authority of Kalbeliya men. Reinforcing the gendered unequal division of labor, Kalbeliya men helmed the decision-making process and managerial roles in the occupation of dance despite the fact that Kalbeliya dance was learnt, practiced and performed by Kalbeliya women. As a result, their unease with Kalbeliya women being vocal and discussing their work experiences with me was evident, leading to a lot of interventions by them. While the worldview of Kalbeliya males was significant for the research, they often sidelined Kalbeliya women’s viewpoints as unnecessary and suppressed their opinions. Hence, resorting to casual conversations with women initially about their childhood and lifestyle while they cooked, or engaging with their handicrafts and dresses helped in dealing with discomfort of men. Interestingly, such similar digressions in approaching them proved more enriching for the fieldwork. Despite repeated interventions that demanded changes in methodological approaches and tools, such encounters also uncovered gendered power dynamics between Kalbeliya men and women that was significant for the research.

Within unsolicited advices, interruptions, discouragement and suspicions, that are viewed as challenges to a pre-planned research process, lie immense potential of enriching an ethnographic fieldwork by uncovering the larger social and political context surrounding the research subjects. They become opportunities to attain a nuanced understanding of the field and help in uncovering more about the field. Methodological challenges and dilemmas due to uncertainty and risks in the field are often not given due attention as it may determine the validity of a research or its findings (McArthur 2012). However, contemplation or reflections on methodological challenges and coping strategies used in response to them, require more space in published research.

References:

England, K. 1994. ‘Getting Personal: Reflexivity, Positionality and Feminist Research’, Professional Geographer, 46: 80-89.

Billo, E. & n. Hiemstra. 2013. ‘Mediating Messiness: Expanding Ideas of Flexibility, Reflexivity, and Embodiment in Fieldwork’, Gender, Place and Culture, 20 (3)313-328

Mukherjee, S. 2020. ‘Gendered Embodiment of the Ethnographer during Fieldwork in a Conflict Region of India’, Social Epistemology, 34 (1): 43-54.

McArthur, J. 2012. ‘Virtual Mess and Wicked Clarity: Sturggle in Higher Education’, Higher Education Research and Development, 31 (3): 419-430.

Ranwa, R. 2021. ‘Heritage, Community participation and the State: Case of the Kalbeliya Dance of India’, International Journal of Heritage Studies, 27 (10): 1038-1050.

***

Ruchika Ranwa is a Visiting Faculty in Sociology at Manipal University Dubai.