Search

Many researchers return to field sites that are previously known in different capacities, thus upturning traditional notions of the "field," particularly in qualitative fieldwork, of unknown places whose depths the researcher encounters anew. Returning in a different capacity affects not just the researcher, but also participants, and raises questions about research ethics with regard to changing positionality. This paper looks at the process of returning to a field that is already "known," not just through books and writing, but through first‐hand experience. It explores the dynamics underlying the process of returning as a researcher, when one has a previously established identity in a place, in this case as a development worker. The paper will explore the nuances of attempting to bridge the divide between being a development worker and then a student doing ethnographic fieldwork in Assam. It will debate whether it is possible, or useful, to abandon one role for another. It also looks at the way a change in role affects the way we gain access, as well as how returning as a student reveals certain blind spots in the understanding of the field as it was known. Finally, the paper attempts to understand how changing positionality affects ethical concerns, such as those of how to engage as an outsider, and whether each return is marked by a different process. This paper looks at the "return" to a previously known field. It explores how this shift in positionality affects not just the researcher, but also participants, and brings up questions about research ethics with regard to changing positionality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The collaborative research relationship is a diffuse ideal amongst geographers conducting qualitative research with other organisations. The language of working 'with' other organisations is widely used in academic publishing and presentations and is being increasingly institutionalised through research funding protocols, university procedures and postgraduate training. Whilst there has been much debate over the nature of the research relationship and power in the encounter, these have tended to focus on relationships between individuals or with marginalised communities. This paper explores a research relationship between a researcher and a municipal network in India to discuss the dynamics of collaborating in 'the field'. I argue that this language of working 'with' others often hides a more complex research relationship and in some cases (such as the one I discuss) the power of the 'researched' organisation to shape the relationship away from the ideal of collaboration is not fully recognised, nor the potential clash in epistemology. I go on to suggest that in some instances this diffuse ideal may have permeated the discipline too far and geographers need to more critically assess the limitations of such a research relationship. Whilst the ideal of collaborating is an important one in certain instances, in others relationships built on different parameters may allow for more critical research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The identification of, and advocacy for bridging, a divide between economic and development geography has been a focus of considerable recent attention. Yet the practical challenges and opportunities involved in crossing sub-disciplinary boundaries, particularly at postgraduate level, are rarely examined. The processes which together shape various stages of postgraduate training and research are reflected on here. Through addressing approaches to research on the global South, specifically in the case of India's pharmaceutical industry, it is shown how in-depth fieldwork, including engagement with the empirical realities of stakeholder interviews, can make sub-disciplinary boundary crossing a necessity. Opportunities arise for postgraduate students to produce research that cuts across the more established academic boundaries and that may ultimately result in richer geographies of development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]