This moment encapsulated how my positionality was shaped by multiple identity markers. As Gelir (2021) notes, research positionality cannot be neatly defined as “insider” or “outsider”; it is multifaceted and shaped by gender, professional roles, and relational dynamics. My social identity as a member of a Scheduled Tribe, combined with my gender and regional familiarity, became both a gateway and an anchor. These shared identity markers facilitated access, while simultaneously generating an ethical sense of accountability, reciprocity, and responsibility.

Even before entering the field, my identities shaped opportunities. By drawing upon my gender and tribal belonging as well as my father’s contacts in Pratapgarh I was able to secure suitable accommodation. My landlords, who saw me as a daughter, not only provided a safe environment but also supported my connections within the community.

However, this sense of belonging was neither automatic nor sufficient. While tribal identity helped secure entry, it was my gender and sustained engagement that deepened relational ties. Women interlocutors landladies, hostel residents, and students—extended affective solidarity, often positioning me as a “daughter” or “sister.” This framing enhanced my legitimacy and enabled open conversations, as families felt more comfortable sharing their concerns about their daughters’ futures with someone they perceived as “their own.”

Challenges

Fieldwork also exposed the structural and interpersonal challenges faced by women researchers. Institutional gatekeepers, particularly college principals, often questioned my legitimacy, doubted the relevance of my research, and sometimes imposed normative expectations about marriage and career paths. One male principal even suggested I abandon the PhD and prepare for UPSC, offering to “arrange” data and thesis material if needed. Such encounters revealed the gendered and hierarchical structures through which academic work is validated. Navigating the terrain both literal and metaphorical posed further challenges. Accessing interior villages required negotiating hilly forests, rough roads, and unsecured pathways, often on a scooter. These logistical struggles mirrored the everyday realities of my interlocutors, who faced unsafe transport, infrastructural neglect, and inaccessible geographies.

Ethical Reflections: Reciprocity and Responsibility

A particularly difficult question posed during fieldwork was: “How will your research benefit us?” Initially, I responded by citing the potential policy relevance of my study. Yet, the question highlighted a deeper dissonance between academic pursuits and community needs. It forced me to reflect critically on my motivations and the asymmetries inherent in research relationships. At times, this led to feelings of guilt wondering if my work was extractive rather than reciprocal. Over time, however, the field became a space of shared vulnerability, trust, and co-learning. My participants’ willingness to open their homes, lives, and emotions to me was not merely a methodological success but a profound human gesture of connection. They reminded me that ethnography is not simply about data collection; it is about building relationships, embracing discomfort, and being reflexively accountable to those whose stories we represent.

Conclusion

Fieldwork within one’s own community is never a straightforward process of “insider” privilege. It requires navigating complex relationships, ethical dilemmas, and personal uncertainties. My time in Pratapgarh revealed that shared identity can facilitate entry, but sustained trust emerges only through patience, presence, and humility. Academic research often demands structured analysis and clear outcomes, yet lived realities rarely align neatly with those categories. My interlocutors compelled me to think more deeply about the purpose of research—not only for academic publication but also for its social relevance. Their stories, questions, and generosity challenged me to reimagine ethnography as a practice rooted in empathy, reciprocity, and care. Belonging, I came to understand, is not static. It is continually negotiated in the space between the familiar and the unfamiliar. Meaningful research, especially with marginalized communities, must therefore extend beyond intellectual curiosity to embrace ethical responsibility and human connection.

Author Bio: Dr. Deepika Kumari Meena is an Assistant Professor at MICA, Ahmedabad. She has earned her Doctoral degree from the Indian Institute of Technology, Gandhinagar, in Humanities and Social Sciences. Her PhD thesis focuses on Higher education among the tribal girls of Pratapgarh, Rajasthan. She completed her Master’s from Central University of Rajasthan in Public Policy, Law and Governance.