Muddying the Waters - Shannon M.

Muddying the Waters by Richa Nagar calls to our attention to possible research pitfalls and injustices that can  of alliance to academic methods and models that by, design, are too rigid to do right by the research or participants.  Established and traditional research paradigms aim to research something so narrowly that they can neglect and/or altogether dismiss the nuances of what has created the phenomena in the first place.  Life experiences, especially for people in the diaspora, are messy and politically influence by location and culture and gender and religion and the list goes on toward infinity.  Nagar acknowledges the precariousness of this endeavor since the ivory tower of the academy seems to prefer traditional research methods over innovative methods that can seem "muddied" by including as many intersectional influences as possible.  Even with this in mind she reminds us, as researchers, to question the quality of purpose and humanity behind the study if we are irresponsible about or dismisses the true nature of the phenomena being discussed.

Nagar's request to deviate from the traditional western academic hegemony also extends beyond the research itself and onto the researcher.  As many scholars agree, the researcher should responsibly reflect on their own identities, biases, assumptions, situated knowledge, etc and embark on an ongoing journey of exploring how the researcher's "self" influence their work and those participating in it.  Then, in addition to the self, Nagar encourages the researcher to consider a constant questioning of the structuring structure in order to finally recognize systems of power.  What are borders?  What is citizenship and who decides its authority?  What can be accepted as a valid knowledge source?  These questions are   Similarly, this breaks away from traditional forms of academic work but Nagar argues that without the researcher's self-reflexivity, the research is incomplete. 

Discussion question:
Are any of us truly capable of knowing how our own identities are set apart from our research participants'?  What are strategies for better defining ourselves so that we can be more proactively reflexive in our work?  Should we ask participants for an explanation of the perception of our presence or would this completely skew the data?