The aim of the article is to introduce and demonstrate a research strategy which incorporates experiences of sexual harassment in the field into analysis. Violence in the field, while discussed more frequently after #MeToo, is still often referred to in separate descriptions, usually articles with the function of breaking the taboo, cautioning and giving advice. In the article a different approach is proposed, namely, regarding difficult encounters in the field as data, providing important information about the field of research. Three situations of sexual harassment by male research participants are analyzed. First, as their strategies to gain control and power in interview situations. It is possible because gender hierarchies prevail in the research set up. Second, as indicators in a broader context: the organizational culture of an institution, of the interviewee’s life situation and strategies, and of the power dynamics of a couple.
ChangHeewonNgunjiriFaith WamburaHernandez.Kathy-Ann C.2013. Collaborative Autoethnography. Vol. 6. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press, Inc.
4.
ConnellR. W.1987. Gender and Power. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
5.
CotterillPamela. 1992. “Interviewing Women. Issues of Friendship, Vulnerability, and Power.” Women Studies Int. Forum15(5/6): 593–606.
6.
EdwardsDelyth. 2023. “‘No, you’re not doing your research today. This is us spending some nice time together’ Coercive behaviour, sexual harassment and being ‘working class’ in the ‘field’.” In Sexual Misconduct in Academia. Informing an Ethics of Care in the University, edited by PritchardE.EdwardsD., 115–31. London & New York: Routledge.
7.
EdwardsRosalind. 1990. “Connecting Method and Epistemology: A White Woman Interviewing Black Women.” Women’s Studies International Forum13 (5): 477–90.
8.
EllisCarolyn S.BochnerArthur P.2015. “Analyzing Analytic Autoethnography. An Authopsy.” Journal of Contemporary Ethnography35 (4): 429–49.
9.
FinchJanet. 1984. “‘It’s Great to Have Someone to Talk to’: The Ethics and Politics of Interviewing Women.” In Social Researching: Politics, Problems, Practice, edited by BellC.RobertsH., 70–86. London: Routledge.
10.
FineGary Alan. 1993. “Ten Lies of Ethnography: Moral Dilemmas in Field Research.” Journal of Contemporary Ethnography22 (3): 267–94.
11.
FodorÉva. 2006. “A Different Type of Gender Gap: How Women and Men Experience Poverty.” East European Politics and Societies20 (1): 14–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888325405284248
12.
GaileyJeannine A.ProhaskaAriane. 2011. “Power and Gender Negotiations during Interviews with Men about Sex and Sexually Degrading Practices.” Qualitative Research11 (4): 365–80. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794111404315
13.
GearingJean. 1995. “Fear and Loving In the West Indies. Research from the Heart (as Well as the Head).” In Taboo: Sex, Identity, and Erotic Subjectivity in Anthropological Fieldwork, edited by KulickD.WillsonM., 186–218. London and New York: Taylor & Francis Routledge.
14.
GreenGillBarbourRosaline S.BarnardMarinaKitzingerJenny. 1993. Who Wears the Trousers? Sexual Harassment in Research Settings. Women’s Studies International Forum16 (6): 627–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-5395(08)80007-6
15.
GudemanStephen. 2001. The Anthropology of Economy. Community, Market, and Culture. Malden, Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
16.
HannChris. 2006. “The Gift and Reciprocity: Perspectives from Economic Anthropology.” Handbook of the Economics of Giving, Altruism and Reciprocity1 (06): 207–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1574-0714(06)01004-9
17.
HansonRebeccaRichardsPatricia. 2017. “Sexual Harassment and the Construction of Ethnographic Knowledge.” Sociological Forum32 (3): 587–609. https://doi.org/10.1111/socf.12350
18.
HansonRebeccaRichardsPatricia. 2019. Harassed. Gender, Bodies and Ethnographic Research. Oakland, CA: University of California Press.
19.
HarriesBethan. 2022. “Disturbing Hierarchies. Sexual Harassment and the Politics of Intimacy in Fieldwork.” Qualitative Research22 (5): 668–84. https://doi.org/10.1177/14687941221098926
20.
KacperczykAnna. 2014. “Autoetnografia – Technika, Metoda, Nowy Paradygmat? O Metodologicznym Statusie Autoetnografii.” Przegląd Socjologii Jakościowej10 (3): 32–74.
21.
KloßSinah Theres. 2017. “Sexual(Ized) Harassment and Ethnographic Fieldwork: A Silenced Aspect of Social Research.” Ethnography18 (3): 396–414. https://doi.org/10.1177/1466138116641958
22.
KubisaJulia. 2005. “O Molestowaniu Seksualnym w Miejscu Pracy w Polsce.” Humanizacja Pracy (4–5): 59–69.
23.
KulickDonWillsonMargaret, eds. 1995. Taboo: Sex, Identity, and Erotic Subjectivity in Anthropological Fieldwork. London and New York: Taylor & Francis Routledge.
24.
LeeDeborah. 1997. “Interviewing Men: Vulnerabilities and Dilemmas.” Women’s Studies International Forum20 (4): 553–64.
25.
LimerickBrigidBurgess-LimerickTraceyGraceMargaret. 1996. “The Politics of Interviewing: Power Relations and Accepting the Gift.” International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education9 (4): 449–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/0951839960090406
26.
ListerRuth. 2005. The Links Between Women’s and Children’s Poverty. London: Women’s Budget Group.
27.
MartinPatricia Yancey. 2003. “‘Said and Done’ versus ‘Saying and Doing’: Gendering Practices, Practicing Gender at Work.” Gender and Society17 (3): 342–66. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243203017003002
28.
MaussMarcel. 2002. The Gift: The Form and Reason for Exchange in Archaic Societies. London & New York: Routledge.
29.
McLuhanArthur. 2020. “Feigning Incompetence in the Field.” Qualitative Sociology Review16 (2): 62–7.
30.
MorenoEva. 1995. “Rape in the Field. Reflections from a Survivor.” In Taboo: Sex, Identity, and Erotic Subjectivity in Anthropological Fieldwork, edited by KulickD.WillsonM. 219–50. London and New York: Taylor & Francis Routledge.
31.
MüggeLiza M.2013. “Sexually Harassed by Gatekeepers: Reflections on Fieldwork in Surinam and Turkey.” International Journal of Social Research Methodology16 (6): 541–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2013.823279
32.
NewtonEsther. 1993. “My Best Informant’s Dress: The Erotic Equation in Fieldwork.” Cultural Anthropology8 (1): 3–23.
33.
OakleyAnn.1981. “Interviewing Women: A Contradiction in Terms.” In Doing Feminist Research, edited by RobertsH., 30–61. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
PahlJan. 1989. Money and Marriage. London: Macmillan.
36.
PascoeC. J.2018. “What to Do with Actual People? Thinking Through a Queer Social Science Method.” In Other, Please Specify. Queer Methods in Sociology, edited by ComptonD.MeadowT.SchiltK., 291–303. Oakland, CA: University of California Press.
37.
PiniBarbara. 2005. “Interviewing Men: Gender and the Collection and Interpretation of Qualitative Data.” Journal of Sociology41 (2): 201–16.
38.
PollardAmy. 2009. “Field of Screams: Difficulty and Ethnographic Fieldwork.” Anthropology Matters11 (2): 1–24. https://doi.org/10.22582/am.v11i2.10
39.
ErinPritchardEdwardsDelyth, eds. 2023. Sexual Misconduct in Academia. Informing an Ethics of Care in the University. London & New York: Routledge.
40.
ReyesVictoria. 2020. “Ethnographic Toolkit: Strategic Positionality and Researchers’ Visible and Invisible Tools in Field Research.” Ethnography21 (2): 220–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/1466138118805121
41.
RibbensJane. 1989. “Interviewing – an ‘Unnatural Situation’?” Women’s Studies International Forum12 (6): 579–92.
42.
RiessmanCatherine Kohler. 1987. “When Gender Is Not Enough: Women Interviewing Women.” Gender and Society1 (2): 172–207.
43.
SharabiAsaf. 2022. “A Male Ethnographer’s Perspective on Sexual Harassment in Fieldwork: A Research Note.” Qualitative Research22 (2): 328–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794120976967
44.
SharpGwenKremerEmily. 2006. ‘The Safety Dance: Confronting Harassment, Intimidation, and Violence in the Field’. Sociological Methodology36: 317–27.
45.
SmartCarol. 1984. The Ties That Bind. London: RKP.
46.
SmithDorothy E.1990. The Conceptual Practices of Power. A Feminist Sociology of Knowledge. Boston: Northeastern University Press.
47.
SmithDorothy E.2005. Institutional Ethnography. A Sociology for People. Lanham, New York, Toronto, Oxford: AltaMira Press.
TangNing. 2002. ‘Interviewer and Interviewee Relationships Between Women’. Sociology36 (3): 703–72.
50.
TarkowskaElzbieta. 2002. “Intra-Household Gender Inequality: Hidden Dimensions of Poverty among Polish Women.” Communist and Post-Communist Studies35 (4): 411–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0967-067X(02)00028-4
51.
TitkowAnna. 1994. “Status Evolution of Polish Women – the Paradox and Chances.” In The Transformation of Europe. Social Conditions and Consequences, edited by AlestaloM.AllardtE.RychardA.WesołowskiW., 316–36. Warszawa: IFiS Publishers.
ViaeneLieselotteLaranjeiroCatarinaTomMiye Nadya. 2023. “The Walls Spoke When No One Else Would. Autoethnographic Notes on Sexual-Power Gatekeeping within Avant-Garde Academia.” In Sexual Misconduct in Academia. Informing an Ethics of Care in the University, edited by PritchardE.EdwardsD., 208–25. London & New York: Routledge.
54.
VryanKevin D.2006. “Expanding Analytic Autoethnography and Enhancing Its Potential.” Journal of Contemporary Ethnography35 (4): 405–9.
WedelJanine. 1986. The Private Poland: An Anthropologist’s Look at Everyday Life. New York and Oxford: Facts on File.
57.
WilliamsChristine L.2023. Still a Man’s World. Men Who Do ‘Women’s Work’. Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press.
58.
WojnickaKatarzyna. 2020. “Sex and the Fieldwork: Gender, Sexuality, Nationality, and Social Class in Research on European (Heterosexual) Men.” International Journal of Qualitative Methods19: 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406920938964
59.
Yassour-BorochowitzDalit. 2012. “‘Only If She Is Sexy’: An Autoethnography of Female Researcher-Male Participants Relations.” Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal31 (5–6): 402–17. https://doi.org/10.1108/02610151211235433
