Ethnographic Field Work in a Sexualized Research Setting Elisabeth Sheff Georgia State University Southern Sociological Society Annual Meeting 2010

The Settings Polyamorous Communities in the Western United States Respondent demographics Organized interactions: community meetings and support groups Free-form interactions: parties and camp outs

Kink Communities in the Southeastern United States Respondent demographics Organized interactions: munches, play parties, and focus groups Free-form interactions: munches and play parties

Womens Sexuality Women more sexualized than men in general Female researchers have a long tradition of dealing with sexuality in the field – Ethnographers and other field workers across disciplines – Sociologists: Warren and Rassmusen 1977; Carolyn Ellis pioneer in authoethnoraphy – Feminist researchers examine power, link with sexuality (Acker, Bordo, Fine, Harding) – Extensive discussion of fieldwork in strip clubs and other forms of sex work (Bright, Califia, Christina, Frank, Queen)

Mens Sexuality Heterosexual men emblematize hegemonic sexuality and remain invisible in its privilege – Exception is the rare researcher who admits to using it as a tool Gay men closeted in the past and join the autoethnographic movement – Remain marked as other

Strategies for managing sexuality in the field Verbal – Acrobatics with words: how to avoid having to say no directly – When to use big words – Constructing the absent partner

Non-verbal strategies What to wear? Physical positioning Looking attached – No Pest strip – Wedding ring – Co-conspirator

Relationships With Respondents Stated strategies assume desire to avoid contact Potential impacts on research methods and findings – Bias the findings? – Improve validity? Living in the real world - Online dating and protecting identities Research ethics – Going native versus autoethnography IRB issues