Chapter 4. Methodology
4.12 Reflections on Positionality: The political production of knowledge and
“Positionalities may include aspects of identity – race, class, gender, age,
sexuality, disability – as well as personal experience of research such as research training, previous projects worked on and the philosophical persuasion of the researcher.”
(Hopkins, 2007:391) The necessity to acknowledge one’s ‘position’ within a research context is of significant importance in order to consider reflexively the dynamics of power that come in to play when conducting research and producing knowledge (Jackson, 1993; Smith, 1993; Rose, 1997). Questions such as “who am I and how does this affect my research?” can enable us to better reflect upon our role within the research process, how this impacts the data we acquire, and how we engage with said data. In so doing, as researchers we challenge the notion that we exist separately from the research(ed), and that in fact our presence within moments of knowledge exchange and production has a direct impact on the manner in which such knowledge is formulated. In this sense, acknowledging one’s positionality also respects the notion that the makers and communicators of knowledge dictate the shape which such knowledge takes (Rose, 1997), and that within this process
103
there are deep and problematic power relations between the individuals and groups involved.
Furthermore, it is through positioning and situating knowledge that the idea of universality can be challenged. This is derived from realising and acknowledging the subjectivities (attributable to one’s positionality) which guide knowledge production and formation. Donna Haraway highlights the problematic nature of supposedly universal knowledge when she states:
“the eyes have been used to signify a perverse capacity - honed to perfection in
the history of science tied to militarism, capitalism, colonialism, and male supremacy - to distance the knowing subject from everybody and everything in the interests of unfettered power . . . but of course that view of infinite vision is an illusion, a god-trick”
(Haraway, 1991: 188-89)
Consequently, belief in a universally applicable knowledge rejects the notion of multiple knowledges as well as the subjective nature of knowledge production. The power that lies within a narrative of supposedly universal knowledge enables those within positions of power to monopolise the idea of what is “true”, and what “truth” should be. As Haraway states, this is inseparable from the capitalist political economic system, as well as the myriad of socio-political relations that have been dictated by it. In this sense, critical knowledge and critical enquiry does not simply involve looking out at the world, but is in fact a dialectic between the world and the self, realising the mutually constitutive relationship between the two and acknowledging the impact this has upon the production of knowledge. Therefore, when one reflects critically on one’s positionality, the narrative becomes not one of “knowledge” as a monolithic, objective, homogenous entity, but instead one of “my” knowledge, and how this interacts relationally with other knowledges of other people.
However, as Rose (1997) argues, the idea of being able to accurately identify one’s own positionality requires an impossible self-knowledge. Given the dialectical and relational manner in which one’s positionality emerges and functions, the assumption that a person can ever truly know their positionality (or positionalities) and the subsequent impacts upon the research is both hubristic and problematic. However, acknowledging
104
the fact that these facets exist, attempting to identify them reflexively, and critically engage with their effects on the research at hand, is certainly preferable to not doing so at all.
For example, I am a European, white, straight, tertiary educated male in his mid- to-late twenties. Each of these facets of my personality came to affect my research in some way, be it through my perspective on the world, the manner in which I would engage with participants, or the manner in which they would engage with (or perceive) me.
As I discussed in the previous section of this chapter, the notion of an
Insider/Outsider dichotomy can in some cases be problematic, particularly as one may gradually move between those categories over the duration of the research period. However, I feel confident in saying that at the beginning of my fieldwork I was most certainly an outsider (and no doubt remained as such in the eyes of some participants). I was not from Ecuador, nor from Latin America, and was what most would consider a “gringo” (foreigner). While I did not sense that this had a negative impact on my
research, it does not change the possibility that the same research might look different if it were done by, say, an Ecuadorian. Likewise, had the research been conducted by
someone who was already a member of one of the groups I was engaged with, again it may look different to mine. Consequently, it is important for me to recognise that the knowledge that I produce, and that which it presented within this thesis, is done so from my own personal standpoint, with data obtained through my own interpretations of the world, experiences, and events.
One particular aspect of my positionality that I wish to comment on is specifically related to me not being from Ecuador, and this is my position as a non-native speaker of Spanish, especially in the sense of Latin American, Ecuadorian, or indeed “Quiteño” Spanish. By this I refer to the use of informal language, and colloquialisms or ‘slang’ by some of my participants, which was very common. Not being a native Spanish speaker meant that initially the language I was using was quite formal, even in informal situations. Sometimes this would result in my participants finding my use of language amusing, often resulting in laughter and light-hearted jokes. However, over time I began to become very familiar with the colloquialisms and generally less-formal forms of the Spanish language that my participants were using, even using them myself (and I still do to this
105
day). This resulted in many participants commenting on how I now spoke “like a
Quiteño” (someone from Quito), or “like an Ecuadorian”. Whilst conducting my research I became very aware that my use of language (particularly in informal situations)
significantly affected the ways in which some participants would engage with me, for example becoming more relaxed around me; one group even commented jokingly that I was “now one of them” the first time that I used the phrase “super chevere” (really great) whilst in their company. This reflects the way that things such as language could impact the relationship between myself and my participants and can also play a significant role in the way that I was perceived and treated by them, which also had subsequent effects on the nature of the data I obtained.
Overall I feel that I was able to successfully negotiate my position as an insider/outsider within the research process, and that while my own positionality has indeed led to a particular character of data, much of this was difficult or impossible to separate myself from. However, it does serve as a reminder that further research by authors from many different positions should still be done on this topic, particularly those from already-existing Latin-American activist contexts.
4.13 Conclusions
In this chapter I have outlined the methods utilised in this research project. I have paid attention to the specific methodological tools and approaches that were used to obtain the data, as well as the effects these had on the research process. I have illustrated the conceptual and mechanical aspects of my own ethnographic enquiry into this topic, and I have justified why I feel that such an approach and the decisions behind it are relevant and credible. I have also reflected upon the importance of one’s positionality within the research process, and how my own positionality came to impact upon the research project as a whole.
Crucially, I maintain that the significant lesson that I learned throughout
conducting this research is that the different facets that make up the phases of fieldwork as well as analysis are not static, mutually exclusive, nor temporally linear. Rather, many phases can be working in tandem, such as recruitment and data collection, or analysis and writing. Therefore, I posit that it is important to embrace the fluidity, and the
106
me to be flexible in the field, which resulted in access to a wider range of participants; and it allowed me to be flexible throughout the analysis and writing periods of the research, which enabled a dialectical relationship between my data, the concepts I was drawing on, and the arguments I present throughout this thesis.
107