In this article, the author examines how fieldwork serves as an interactional context through which the qualitative researcher’s racial identity and the racial identities of those under study are actively managed, negotiated, and solidified. Focusing on the context of feminist interviewing, the author highlights how the researcher and the researched, as they both construct their symbolic worlds through talk of it, rely on taken-for-granted notions about what whiteness means and in doing so, embed these notions within the research encounter. She gives particular consideration to the relations of talk through which whiteness gains meaning to theorize how her own racial position as racial insider/ outsider became meaningful through and to research. Defining whiteness as interactional accomplishment, the author argues that as researchers do research, they also are actively engaged in doing race. Two interviews conducted for an ethnography of high school proms serve as the basis of this analysis.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Anataki, C., & Widdicombe, S. (1998). Identities in talk. London: Sage.
2.
Anderson, E. (1976). A place on the corner. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
3.
Arendell, T. (1997). Reflections on the researcher-researched relationship: A woman interviewing men. Qualitative Sociology, 20, 341-368.
4.
Berger, J. (1977). Ways of seeing. New York: Penguin.
5.
Berger, P., & Luckmann, T. (1967). The social construction of reality. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
6.
Best, A. L. (2000). Prom night: Youth, schools and popular culture. New York: Routledge.
7.
Blee, K. (2000). White on White: Interviewing women in U.S. White supremacist groups. In F. W. Twine & J. W. Warren (Ed.), Racing research, researching race: Methodological dilemma in critical race studies (pp. 93-111). New York: New York University Press.
8.
Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
9.
Bogdan, R., & Taylor, S. (1984). Introduction to qualitative methods: The search for meaning. New York: John Wiley.
10.
Bowles, G., & Klein, R. D. (1983). Theories of women’s studies. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
11.
Clifford, J. (1983). On ethnographic authority. Representations, 1, 118-146.
12.
Collins, P. H. (1990). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness and the politics of empowerment. New York: Routledge.
13.
Denzin, N. K. (1992). Symbolic interactionism and cultural studies: The politics of interpretation. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
14.
DeVault, M. (1990). Talking and listening from women’s standpoint: Feminist strategies for interviewing and analysis. Social Problem, 37, 96-116.
15.
DeVault, M. (1995). Ethnicity and expertise: Racial ethnic knowledge in sociological research. Gender and Society, 9, 612-631.
16.
DeVault, M. (1999a). Liberating methods: Feminism and social research. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
17.
DeVault, M. (1999b). Talking back to sociology: Distinctive contributions of feminist methodology. In M. DeVault (Ed.), Liberating methods: Feminism and social research (pp. 93-111). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
18.
Duneier, M. (1999). Sidewalk. New York: Farrar, Strauss and Giroux.
19.
Duneier, M. (2000). Race and peeing on Sixth Avenue. In F. W. Twine & J. W. Warren (Eds.), Racing research, researching race: Methodological dilemma in critical race studies (pp. 215-227). New York: New York University Press.
20.
Emerson, J. P. (1970). Behavior in private places: Sustaining definitions of reality of gynecological examinations. In P. Dreitsel (Ed.), Recent sociology (pp. 74-97). New York: Macmillan.
21.
Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R. I., & Shaw, L. (1995). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
22.
Fensternmaker, S., & West, C. (2002). Doing gender, doing difference: Inequality, power and institutional change. New York: Routledge.
23.
Fine, M. (1992). Disruptive voices: The possibilities of feminist research. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
24.
Fine, M., & Weis, L. (1998). The unknown city: The lives of poor and working class young adults. Boston: Beacon.
25.
Fine, M., Weis, L., Powell, L. C., & Wong, L. M. (Eds.). (1997). Off White: Readings on race, power and society. New York: Routledge.
26.
Frankenberg, R. (1993). White women, race matters: The social construction of whiteness. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
27.
Frankenberg, R. (Ed.). (1997). Displacing whiteness: Essays in social and cultural criticism. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
28.
Gallagher, C. (2000). White like me? Methods, meaning and manipulation in the field of White studies. In F. W. Twine & J. W. Warren (Eds.), Racing research, researching race: Methodological dilemma in critical race studies (pp. 67-93). New York: New York University Press.
29.
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
30.
Gubrium, J. F., & Holstein, J. A. (1997). The new language of qualitative method. New York: Oxford University Press.
31.
Guillamine, C. (1995). Racism, sexism, power and ideology. London: Routledge.
32.
Harding, S. (1987). Feminism and methodology: Social science issues. Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.
33.
Hochschild, A. R. (1983). The managed heart: Commercialization of human feeling. Berkeley: University of California Press.
34.
Kenny, L. D. (2000). Daughters of suburbia: Growing up White, middle class and female. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
35.
Liebow, E. (1967). Tally’s corner. Boston: Little, Brown.
36.
Lofland, J., & Lofland, L. H. (1995). A nalyzing social settings. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
37.
Long, J. (1999). Telling women’s lives: Subject, narrator, reader, text. New York: New York University Press.
38.
Lugones, M., & Spelman, E. (1983). Have we got a theory for you! Feminist theory, cultural imperialism and the demand for “the woman’s voice.” Women’s Studies International Forum, 6, 573-581.
39.
Minh-ha, T. T. (1989). Women, native, other: Writing postcoloniality and feminism. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
40.
Miron, L. F., & Inda, J. X. (2000). Race as a kind of speech act. Cultural Studies: A Research Annual, 5, 85-107.
41.
Mueller, A. (1995). Beginning in the standpoint of women: An investigation of the gap between Cholas and “women in Peru.” In M. Campbell & A. Manicom (Eds.), Knowledge, experience and ruling relations: Studies in the social organization of knowledge (pp. 96-105). Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
42.
Neilsen, J. M. (1990). Feminist research methods: Exemplary readings in the social sciences. Boulder, CO: Westview.
43.
Nespor, J. (1998). The meaning of research: Kids as subjects and kids as inquirers. Qualitative Inquiry, 4, 369-388.
44.
Oakley, A. (1981). Interviewing women: A contradiction in terms. In H. Roberts (Ed.), Doing feminist research (pp. 30-62). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
45.
Omi, M., & Winant, H. (1986). Racial formation in the United States. New York: Routledge.
46.
Patai, D. (1991). U.S. academics and Third World women: Is ethical research possible? In S. B. Gluck & D. Patai (Eds.), Women’s worlds: The feminist practice of oral history (pp. 137-153). New York: Routledge.
47.
Perry, P. (2002). Shades of White: White kids and racial identities in high school. London: Duke University Press.
48.
Proweller, A. (1998). Constructing female identities: Meaning making in an upper middle class youth culture. Albany: State University of New York Press.
49.
Reinharz, S. (1992). Feminist methods in social research. New York: Oxford University Press.
50.
Reisman, C. K. (1987). When gender is notenough: Women interviewing women. Gender and Society, 1, 172-207.
Russel y Rodriguez, M. (1998). Confronting anthropology’s silencing praxis: Speaking of/from a Chicana consciousness. Qualitative Inquiry, 4, 15-40.
53.
Smith, D. (1987). The everyday world as problematic. A feminist method. Boston: Northeastern University Press.
54.
Smith, D. (1990a). The conceptual practices of power: A feminist sociology of knowledge. Boston: Northeastern University Press.
55.
Smith, D. (1990b). Texts, facts and femininity: Exploring the relations of ruling. New York: Routledge.
56.
Stacey, J. (1988). Can there be a feminist ethnography? Women’s Studies International Forum, 11, 21-27.
57.
Stack, C. (1996). Writing ethnography: Feminist critical practice. In. D. Wolf (Ed.), Feminist dilemmas in fieldwork. Boulder, CO: Westview.
58.
Thorne, B. (1983). Political activist as participant observer: Conflicts of commitment in a study of the draft resistance movement of the 1960s. In R. Emerson (Ed.), Contemporary field research: A collection of readings (pp. 216-235). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.
59.
Thorne, B. (1993). Gender play: Girls and boys in school. Rutgers, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
60.
Tierney, W. G. (1998). Life history’s history: Subjects foretold. Qualitative Inquiry, 4, 49-70.
61.
Twine, F. W., & Warren, J. W. (Eds.). (2000). Racing research, researching race: Methodological dilemma in critical race studies. New York: New York University Press.
62.
Van Maanen, J. (1988). Tales of the field. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
63.
Van Maanen, J. (Ed.). (1995). Representation in ethnography. London: Sage.
64.
Visweswaran, K. (1997). Fictions of feminist ethnography. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
65.
Whyte, W. F. (1955). Street corner society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
66.
Williams, B. (1996). Skinfolk, not kinfolk: Comparative reflections of the identity of participant observation in two field situations. In D. Wolf (Ed.), Feminist dilemmas in fieldwork. Boulder, CO: Westview.
67.
Wolf, D. (Ed.). (1996). Feminist dilemmas in fieldwork. Boulder, CO: Westview.
68.
Zavella, P. (1996). Feminist insider dilemmas: constructing ethnic identity with Chicana informants. In D. Wolf (Ed.), Feminist dilemmas in fieldwork. Boulder, CO: Westview.
