This article emerges from struggles we, two American–Israeli women, have encountered while conducting research in Israel on issues related to Jewish-Arab dynamics. Since beginning our research we have faced a single question in nearly every interview: “Where are you from?” Embedded in this question are a whole host of other queries: “Are you American? Israeli? Jewish? Arab?” “What is your native language?” This article engages in the methodological consequences of our responses to these questions and broader identity-negotiations during qualitative interviews. What happens when we, as researchers, foreground or background, particular identities? Furthermore, how does the fluidity of our identities inform the specific information we gather? We analyze two case studies in which the fluidity of our identities unfolds during an interview to highlight the coconstruction of interviews and the active process involved in presenting facets of ourselves, a process that conditions subsequent data collection and knowledge production.
Abu El-HajN. (2001). Facts on the ground: Archaeological practice and territorial self-fashioning in Israeli society. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
2.
AlatoutS. (2009). Bringing abundance into environmental politics: Constructing a Zionist network of water abundance, immigration, and colonialization. Social Studies of Science, 39, 363-394.
3.
BhabhaH. (1994). The location of culture. London, UK: Routledge.
4.
Bar-TalD. (2000). From intractable conflict through conflict resolution to reconciliation: Psychological analysis. Political Psychology, 21, 351-365.
5.
BekermanZ. (2003). Never free of suspicion. Cultural Studies ↔ New Methodologies, 3(2), 136-147.
6.
CarspeckenP. F. (1996). Critical ethnography in educational research: A theoretical and practical guide. New York, NY: Routledge.
7.
CassellC. (2005). Creating the interviewer: Identity work in the management research process. Qualitative Research, 5, 167-179.
8.
Central Bureau of Statistics, Israel. (2001). Characteristics of local authorities and socioeconomic status of population. Retrieved from http://www.cbs.gov.il/locals.htm (English)
9.
CollinsP. (2002). Connecting anthropology and Quakerism: Transcending the insider/outsider dichotomy. In ArweckE.StringerM. D. (Eds.), Transcending faith: The insider/outsider problem in the study of ritual (pp. 77-96). Birmingham, UK: University of Birmingham Press.
10.
Corbin DwyerS.BuckleJ. L. (2009). The space between: On being an insider-outsider in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 8(1), 54-63.
11.
De FinaA. (2009). Narratives in interview—The case of accounts: For an interactional approach to narrative genres. Narrative Inquiry, 19, 233-258.
12.
DineroS. (1999). Reconstructing identity through planned resettlement: The case of the Negev Bedouin. Third World Planning Review, 21(1), 19-39.
13.
EnoshG.BuchbinderE. (2005). The interactive construction of narrative styles in sensitive interviews: The case of domestic violence research. Qualitative Inquiry, 11, 588-617.
14.
FalahG. (1989). Israeli state policy toward Bedouin sedantarization in the Negev. Journal of Palestine Studies, 18(2), 71-91.
15.
FensterT. (1997). Spaces of citizenship for the Bedouin in the Israeli Negev. Progress in Planning, 47, 291-306.
16.
FortmannL. (1996). Gendered knowledge: Rights and space in two Zimbabwe villages: Reflections on methods and findings. In RocheleauD.Thomas-SlayterB.WangariE. (Eds.), Feminist political ecology: Global issues and local experiences (pp. 211-223). London, UK: Routledge.
17.
GuptaA.FergusonJ. (1992). Beyond “culture”: Space, identity, and the politics of difference. Cultural Anthropology, 7(1), 6-23.
18.
GustersonH. (1997). Studying up revisited. PoLAR: Political and Legal Anthropology Review, 20(1), 114-119.
19.
HarawayD. (1988). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies, 14, 575-599.
20.
HardingS. (1995). Strong objectivity: A response to the new objectivity question. Synthese, 104, 331-349.
21.
HartsockN. C. M. (2004). The feminist standpoint: Developing the ground for a specifically feminist historical materialism. In HardingS.HintikkaM. B. (Eds.), Discovering reality: Feminist perspectives on epistemology, metaphysics, methodology, and philosophy of science (pp. 283-310). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
22.
KedarA. (2003). On the legal geography of ethnocratic settler states: Notes towards a research agenda. Current Legal issues, 5, 401-441.
23.
LatherP. (1986). Issues of validity in openly ideological research: Between a rock and a soft place. Interchange, 17(4), 63-84.
24.
LatourB. (1999). Give me a laboratory and I will raise the world. New York, NY: Routledge.
25.
LavieS.RouseF. (1993). Notes on the fantastic journey of the Hajj, his anthropologist, and her American passport. American Ethnologist, 20, 363-384.
26.
LeVineM. (2005). Overthrowing geography: Jaffa, Tel Aviv, and the struggle for Palestine 1880-1948. Berkeley: University of California Press.
27.
MarxE. (1984). The changing Bedouin. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
28.
MitchellT. (2002). Rule of experts: Egypt, techno-politics, modernity. Berkeley: University of California Press.
29.
MolA. (2002). The body multiple: Ontology in medical practice. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
30.
MoradM.ShvartsS.MerrickJ.BorkanJ. (2006). The influence of Israel health insurance law on the Negev Bedouin population—A survey study. Scientific World Journal, 6, 81-95.
31.
NaderL. (1972). Up the anthropologist—Perspectives gained from studying up. In HymesD. H. (Ed), Reinventing anthropology (pp. 284-311). New York, NY: Pantheon Books.
32.
Nagar-RonS.Motzafi-HallerP. (2011). My life? There is not much to tell: On voice, silence and agency in interviews with first-generation Mizrahi Jewish women immigrants to Israel. Qualitative Inquiry, 17, 653-663.
33.
NarayanK. (1993). How native is a “native” anthropologist?American Anthropologist, 95, 671-686.
34.
PlesnerU. (2011). Studying sideways: Displacing the problem of power in research interviews with sociologists and journalists. Qualitative Inquiry, 17, 471-482.
35.
PrakashG. (1999). Another reason: Science and the imagination of modern India. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
36.
RabinowitzD. (1997). Overlooking Nazareth: The ethnography of exclusion in Galilee. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
37.
RapleyT. J. (2001). The art(Fulness)of open-ended interviewing: Some considerations on analysing interviews. Qualitative Research, 1, 303-323.
38.
Saville YoungL. (2011). Research entanglements, race, and recognizability: A psychosocial reading of interview encounters in (post-) colonial, (post-) apartheid South Africa. Qualitative Inquiry, 17(1), 45-55.
39.
SpivakG. (1988). Can the subaltern speak. In NelsonC.GrossbergL. (Eds.), Marxism and the interpretation of culture (pp. 271-313). Basingstoke, UK: Macmillan.
40.
SteinR. (2008). Itineraries in conflict: Israelis, Palestinians, and the political lives of tourism. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
TedlockB. (1991). From participant observation to the observation of participation: The emergence of narrative ethnography. Journal of Anthropological Research, 47(1), 69-94.
