by Lynn Ng
I have a love-hate relationship with fieldwork. I’m sure many researchers can relate to this, and previous authors of this blog have reported on their ups and downs in the field and after fieldwork (Klien, 2023; Luzi, 2024). I was no different. I started my research in the area of the former Fukushima nuclear exclusion zones in 2019 and have followed the lives of many of my research participants over the past five years: I observed the early courtship of a young couple in 2019 and congratulated them on their second child last Christmas. I listened to an enthusiastic civil servant explain his vision for Fukushima and watched him retire in the spring of 2024. I watched the demolition of abandoned houses and the construction of new buildings and saw the unexpected departure of old entrepreneurs and the exuberant entry of new entrepreneurs.
Throughout these events, however, I was always aware of my status as an outsider observing the field and its people and taking notes. Field researchers often reflect upon positionality and ethics: we discuss whether you should be friends with your research participants and how much you should interfere in their lives (see for example McLaughlin, 2020). I would think about whether these questions are rhetorical: Can one really examine the field without befriending the field? Nevertheless, these questions and boundaries have haunted and exhausted me over the years. I attended local barbecues and dinners of my research participants just to try to take as many notes as discreetly as possible. My research participants, of course, knew me as “Lynn, the researcher.” I never tried to hide the fact that I was researching them, although I often wished I wasn’t. I often wanted to just be their friend rather than write a dissertation about them. I often wished I could enjoy the moments without the worries of research hovering over me.
Thus, in March 2024, as my flight departed Japan for Germany, I breathed a deep, long sigh of relief – my time in the field, albeit fragmented, had finally come to an end. The long flight was of bittersweet significance as I emotionally drew closure to my position as a researcher of Fukushima and Japan. I was ready to switch off research-mode and begin writing my thesis. And after the thesis? I would return to Japan as a visitor enjoying all Japan and Fukushima offers. In the summer of 2024, however, I was unexpectedly presented with a chance to revisit my field through the university’s summer school program in collaboration with IRIDES at Sendai University. Amidst all the internal emotional conflict with the field, I joined the summer school. For ten days, I visited places new and old and listened to intellectual debates on the recovery and revitalization of Tohoku after 2011. Despite my apprehension, I was again filled with curiosities for the field – the same curiosities that first drove me to research Fukushima in 2019. New observations had led to new questions and the urge to seek answers. I was eager to learn more, to ask more questions, and to experience more of the field.
In the end, ten days was too short. On my flight back to Germany, I wondered when I would be able to return to Japan to get my new questions answered. In the end, I wonder if I will ever be able to finish my work as a field researcher. In the meantime, I am trying to finish my PhD and use the positive energy of this last and unexpected visit to my field to look at the data I collected before from a new perspective. And hopefully I will return to Japan soon, both as a friend and as a researcher.
Reference:
McLaughlin, Levi (2020), “How to do fieldwork: Studying Japan in and outside of Japan,” in: Kottmann, Nora and Reiher, Cornelia (eds.), Studying Japan: Handbook of Research Design, Fieldwork and Methods, Baden-Baden: Nomos, pp. 157-168.