Author name: sreejith

As a female researcher delving into the intricacies of education policy in rural areas, there is an opportunity to foster a deeper understanding of the policy’s impact on marginalized communities, especially women and girls.

To investigate the underlying socio-economic and educational status of children, the primary data was collected by conducting household surveys, interviews, and focus group discussions with slum dwellers living in selected slums of Patna.

Onsite fieldwork at a time when schools had been closed for almost 600 days, seemed impossible. Nevertheless, doctoral deadlines were ticking, funding was precarious, and the visa situation was tense. And so I had to, as was the lingo of the time, “pivot.”

This article is a reflection and recollection of accessing my field during the coronavirus or the COVID-19 pandemic. The pandemic and the ensuing “lockdown” presented a rare and scary situation for ethnographers. This article briefly presents my unique experiences as a researcher/ethnographer in the field. Toward the end of the article, I argue how ethnographers’ experiences (on the field) during the pandemic can contribute something new to methodological frameworks and theory.

Researching in conflict zones or even after a crisis has ended can be extremely difficult. As a researcher interacting with people and communities in the midst of  conflict I needed to proceed with caution and sensitivity. My doctoral thesis examines the effects of armed conflict on the management and operation of schools in Kashmir, as well as how state and non-state actors respond to such situations in order to mitigate the detrimental effects of armed conflict on education.

For me, a young male in the field who was a research scholar from a well-known university (Tata Institute of Social Sciences) allowed me access to the bureaucrats initially and later the inter-connectedness of the policy world allowed me to get in touch with other administrators – both retired and serving.