"Whatever our subjects make of us and how they make use of us is continuously negotiated with what we make of them and how we make use of them" From Sharon Traweek's essay appeared in Choreographing History, 1995.
What have my research subjects made of me so far? Let's see. I got a passing acquaintance with barely anyone in the lab except the lab director and the only (Korean) woman researcher in the group at the last meeting. I learned the news during the meeting that this woman was leaving the next day to Germany for a post-doc position. I caught her after the meeting and obtained some basic information. Her hometown, her current position and where she is heading to, in less than 5 minutes– perfectly understandable, as she is leaving this place the very next morning, which leaves her plenty of packing to do. As I asked her for her contact number, she said she's mainly focusing on theoretical physics and her affiliation with this team is just peripheral. Interestingly, her engagement with the core research activity of this team is what she thought of my primary concern. She assumed that my role in this lab is tangential to my engagement with this team doing certain kinds of science that does not fit squarely with her professional profiles. Another reading of her response is that she just wanted to get ride of me as soon as possible. I wouldn't know anyway.
It seems that what the subjects make of the ethnographers are socially enacted and materially reinforced. Socially, the dynamics of my non-participation in the boardroom and the seat I picked actively (re-) construct my role in the research process. Whether I chose to "hide in the back" (quote from the lab director) or took the exit seat near the entrance in case of exigency say something about my strategized role; whether I was the first one or the last one arriving at the meeting also tell something about my public persona. My sense is that many, if not all team members are constantly bewildered about my role and the proper etiquette in interacting with me. Due to the previous uneasy experience as the last one to walk through the door, I deliberately came 10 min. early, didn't quite expect I would be the first one walking into that door this time. A senior researcher came in after 5 picoseconds. He smiled at me and asked me politely what kind of work I did as a "political scientist". I don't think the underlying motive is so much about getting acquaintance with me than performing a social ritual. This is confirmed as he swiftly turned his attention away from me soon after a bunch of team members let themselves into the room. I can see how awkward this senior researcher felt in conversing with me as compared to his fellow team-mates. My use of "jargons" in clarifying my research interests both confound him (such as ethnographic account, participant-observation, even anthropology) and bored him in less than 1 picosecond. He found solace as he mentioned the efficacy of the latest computer imaging technology in simulating the molecular conductance of base pairs, something both he and his partners are comfortable and knowledgeable to talk about. My point is that it is not a problem between the dichotomy of subject/object and male/female. It is a co-constructed role play of inter-subjectivity, which bracketed with Traweek's quote.
The inter-subjectivity is also negotiated materially. Everyone knows the sequential procedure of getting access to the BioD-I (paper work, safety test, iris fingerprinting) boils down to a badge, with your photo ID and the name of your sponsor printed nicely on the laminated plastic case. The inscription on the badge is part of the process of constructing what we are and who we are. It does not reveal a lot of information, but enough to distinguish visitors (with a nondescript visitor badge) from non-visitors; employees working under the same sponsor from those working for other sponsors. My presence slightly broke the norm as I am not employed by the BioD-I. I am just an ordinary ASU citizen claiming regular access to this gargantuan building. I don't quite have a "sponsor" inside this PanOpticon. A core informant, yes; maybe a future collaborator; but definitely not a sponsor. I don't think I am the first one who violated this inscription of "sponsorship", yet the material inscription of "sponsorship" forms an important part of the negotiation process of inter-subjectivity with the research subjects. For now the badge publicly announced my research affinity and sponsorship in the BioD-I, unless I hide the badge intentionally which makes me look even more suspicious as everyone wears the badge in front of the chest with a prideful look.
I wonder how long the process of bewilderment and negotiation will last. Do not take my point otherwise: I do not want it to end. I hope that same researcher will be puzzled by some other features of me in a different way the next time he talks to me; I hope the lab director will interpret my engagement in his lab from sources other than my choice of seat; and I hope the Korean woman researcher will characterize our relationship from more diverse grounds if she ever comes back to ASU.
No comments:
Post a Comment