Woman as Researcher

I entered the field with little consideration that the process of rapport building with children and establishing relationships with parents brought with it numerous challenges. One of such challenges was my position as a woman researcher. My status as a woman and a new mom only spiked the interest of the women in the village. Although I could make use of this curiosity, it still unsettled me when I became a point of discussion. My position as a mother who was conducting research also astonished the villagers as to how I was able to leave my newborn for an elongated span of time while I visited them or talked to people. I was conscious of the way I was perceived as a ‘nurturer’ more in comparison to being a researcher. As a result often the parents of my participants expected me to look after children in a similar way they would. The title of being considered as a ‘nurturer’ was thus not only given but an expectation as well. This expectation extended to children as well as they too viewed me as an extension of family in certain scenarios.

During the fieldwork, I would often find myself in the middle of situations where children would ask me to perform nurturing activities like dress a wound, or clean them up when they dirty themselves. As part of the culture and that of the village, it was considered to be common for a woman, especially a mother, to conduct such activities. However, such requests blurred the lines I wanted to create as a researcher. I had to keep in mind the reflexivity of the participants as well (May & Perry, 2017). It is not only the researcher who may be engaged in constant reflection, but also the participant. Hence, I needed to be aware of the dichotomy it brought forth. Soon, I deciphered that I was viewed in multiple roles, such as a nurturer by the parents, sometimes an english teacher; a storyteller to the kids who was their ‘aunty’, and a married woman to the villagers. These multiple identities often placed me in both privileged and precarious situations. I must acknowledge that my position of privilege paved the way for my research.

Apart from the obvious difficulty with being tagged as nurturer, the status of being a woman researcher became a hindrance while trying to access the male population. I had little to no interaction with the fathers of the family. When I visited homes or during the conversation, the men would detach themselves from the situations. I later realised through my conversations with women that this was done because I was a married woman and now an active part of the village. My familial ties required them to maintain a certain decorum that they could not ignore. Another reason was that my status as a woman set me apart. I was not someone with ‘legitimate authority’ to put forth a question. The patriarchal structure did not allow for a direct engagement with the male population. Even if I had a conversation it was mainly with ‘grandfather’s of the family’ because it changes the dynamics. Moreover, I also gained a sense of segregation through the conversation. Even if the men of the family performed household chores or other established gender roles, it was often seen that they believed that any questions related to the children were best answered by mothers. As they had a closer relationship to that of the child.

In order to have any contacts to most I had to sensitize myself to the details of the local language and adapt an understanding to the subtleties of the tone. To the local people, my fieldwork emerged as a constant state of curiosity. Any urban, educated married woman who had a newborn would be expected to rest and gain weight rather than ‘roam around’, visit unknown places, or sit for hours outside her home. My identity as a woman was a travesty. The local people couldn’t understand my position as a scholar; however, they aspire to become one.

Concluding Remarks

In conclusion, the experiences from the field brings a multifaceted perspective on the nuances of rural life and challenges one may face. It becomes imperative to talk about the subjectivities inherent in our fieldwork to enrich the local experiences and give a better understanding of what the field offers and how to face the challenges.

References

May, T., & Perry, B. (2017). Reflexivity: The essential guide. Sage Publications.

Author Bio: Mincy Ruby Mathew is a doctoral researcher with a focus on children’s literature, gender representation and reader response. Her ongoing work examines children’s responses to gender representation in storybooks. Her recent publication explores the relationship between parents’ literacy beliefs and practices and children’s response to literature.