Abstract
In ethnographic research, the dynamics between researcher and researched are particularly fragile. We seek an understanding that can only be achieved by forging bonds and building relationships of trust. And yet, at some point we have to withdraw, regain distance, and critically evaluate what we have experienced—leading to an analysis that might not be in line with what our research participants hoped for or expected us to conclude. The field of commercial surrogacy is an especially delicate research site in this regard. Being associated with economic exploitation and moral decay, surrogacy is a highly contested practice. These factors make questions of access challenging: in exchange for granting access, actors in the field of assisted conception tend to expect surrogacy-friendly research and feel betrayed by critical analyses. My article zooms in on a conflict between myself and a research participant that reflected this dynamic and left me with a sense of “uneasy thankfulness.” Drawing on this case, I discuss how expectations are nurtured and shaped by complex and shifting power relations and how these influence the way we present ourselves to (potential) research participants.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
In Russia, only heterosexual couples (regardless of marital status) and single women have the right to surrogacy, and in Ukraine only married heterosexual couples. Additionally, a so-called medical indication is required, meaning that women need to provide proof of their infertility or of prior miscarriages. As such, it is argued that men have no right to surrogacy because they suffer from so-called social, not physical, infertility. Nevertheless, there are cases of single men and gay couples using surrogacy in Russia, but the great majority of cases involve heterosexual couples.
References
Armbruster, H. (2008). Introduction: The ethics of taking sides. In H. Armbruster & A. Laerke (Eds.), Taking sides: Ethics, politics and fieldwork in anthropology (pp. 1–22). New York: Berghahn.
Duncombe, J., & Jessop, J. (2012). “Doing rapport” and the ethics of “faking friendship”. In T. Miller, M. Birch, M. Mauthner, & J. Jessop (Eds.), Ethics in qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 108–121). London: Sage.
Haraway, D. (1988). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies, 14(3), 575–599. https://doi.org/10.2307/3178066
Hochschild, A. R. (2012). The managed heart: Commercialization of human feeling. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Hsiung, P.-C. (1996). Between bosses and workers: The dilemma of a keen observer and a vocal feminist. In D. L. Wolf (Ed.), Feminist dilemmas in fieldwork (pp. 122–137). Boulder: Westview Press.
Kirsch, G. (2005). Friendship, friendliness, and feminist fieldwork. Signs, 30(4), 2163–2172. https://doi.org/10.1086/428415
Luff, D. (1999). Dialogue across the divides: “Moments of rapport” and power in feminist research with anti-feminist women. Sociology: The Journal of the British Sociological Association, 33(4), 687–703. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/42857994
Mauss, M. (1966). The gift: Forms and functions of exchange in archaic societies. London: Cohen & West.
Narayan, K. (1993). How native is a “native” anthropologist? American Anthropologist, 95(3), 671. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/198182120/?pq-origsite=primo
Riley, S., Schouten, W., & Cahill, S. (2003). Exploring the dynamics of subjectivity and power between researcher and researched. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 4(2), Art. 40. https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-4.2.713
Siegl, V. (2015). Märkte der guten Hoffnung. Leihmutterschaft, Arbeit und körperliche Kommodifizierung in Russland (Markets of Good Hope. Surrogacy, work and physical commodification in Russia). PROKLA Zeitschrift Für Kritische Sozialwissenschaft, 178, 99–115.
Smith, L. T. (2012). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples. London: Zed Books.
Stacey, J. (1988). Can there be a feminist ethnography? Women’s Studies International Forum, 11(1), 21–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/0277-5395(88)90004-0
Sudbury, J., & Okazawa-Rey, M. (2009). Introduction. In M. Okazawa-Rey & J. Sudbury (Eds.), Activist scholarship: Antiracism, feminism and social change (pp. 1–14). Boulder: Paradigm.
Thapar-Björkert, S., & Henry, M. (2004). Reassessing the research relationship: Location, position and power in fieldwork accounts. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 7(5), 363–381. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557092000045294
Wolf, D. L. (1993). Introduction: Feminist dilemmas in fieldwork. Frontiers, 13(3), 1–8. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3346740
Acknowledgments
My warmest thanks to the “Intimate Uncertainties” research team (Sabine Strasser, Gerhild Perl, Julia Rehsmann, Luisa Piart) and the members of the Graduate School of the Interdisciplinary Center of Gender Studies (University of Bern) for critical comments on prior versions of this chapter as well as for many stimulating debates over the years, parts of which have surely made their way into this text. I am also greatly indebted to the editors of this volume, particularly to section editor Mechthild von Vacano, who compelled me to “dig deeper” and tie up the loose ends. Last but not least, I would like to extend my gratitude to copy-editor Julene Knox for helping me find the right words.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Siegl, V. (2019). Uneasy Thankfulness and the Dilemma of Balancing Partiality in Surrogacy Research. In: Stodulka, T., Dinkelaker, S., Thajib, F. (eds) Affective Dimensions of Fieldwork and Ethnography. Theory and History in the Human and Social Sciences. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20831-8_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20831-8_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-20830-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-20831-8
eBook Packages: Behavioral Science and PsychologyBehavioral Science and Psychology (R0)