Welcome to our conversational archive
On this page, you can find the realisations and revelations we made as a group. This page is designed to give an insight into the four meetings that took place.
Meeting 1 Intensions and introductions
Date: 19-09-25
Locatie: De Zaak, Utrecht
Time: 11:15-13:00
Short summary
During the first meeting of Academic Professional, we immediately set a date for the following week, which turned out to be quite a challenge due to everyone’s busy schedules. Eventually, we found a morning that suited all of us. We met at a café with an outdoor area, which was a pleasant change from Science Park. Beforehand, we had all read the assignment and reflected on questions such as “What are you afraid of?”
During the meeting, we took turns sharing our academic backgrounds: Rocío (anthropology from Chile), Mayra (economics and tourism), and Madelief (sociology). It was inspiring to see how different our paths had been. When discussing fears, I spoke about my concern of being hypocritical in my research and how my position and privilege influence my work. We also reflected on the concept of representation and what it means to tell other people’s stories as researchers.
We ended the discussion on a heavier note: hope. We talked about feelings of helplessness regarding global injustices, but also shared ways to stay motivated and support each other. Later, Thirza and Janna joined our group, adding new perspectives. Finally, we created a rough schedule for the year and planned an extra meeting during fieldwork to stay connected and help one another.
Preparation
Firstly, I am pleased that during the first lecture of Academic Professional, we immediately set a date for the following week. It was no small task to find a date that suited all four women (later six) when one person was available, another had to work, and vice versa. Fortunately, we were eventually able to find a morning that worked for everyone.
The meeting
The weather was perfect that morning, so as I cycled to the train station, the sun was shining on my face. I was glad we had chosen a location with an outdoor area and weren't sitting in a stuffy classroom. Because we chose a location other than Science Park, I was even more excited. The café where we had agreed to meet is also a place I like to go in my personal time. When I arrived, the other girls were already there, so I quickly ordered a cup of tea. Before we got together, we had all read through the assignment and had an idea of the questions we would ask each other. I had already given this some thought on the train, as the question “What are you afraid of? ” requires a certain amount of reflection. This is something I will try to do later during the other assignments as well.
We started by taking turns telling each other something about our backgrounds. I needed some clarification on this: did we mean our academic backgrounds or our life experiences? As we looked at each other doubtfully, we decided to go with academic background, otherwise we would still be here tomorrow. What a shame. Rocío started by telling us about her background, with a bachelor's degree in Anthropology that she had obtained in Chile. She had been working as an anthropologist since 2022. It was fascinating to hear how she had organised that for herself. Mayra then explained how she had specialised in tourism from an economics background and had not been particularly enthusiastic about her studies during this period, except for a project she had done that required her to use a lot of anthropological sources. That is why she chose to do the pre-master's programme and now the master's programme. Madelief comes from a completely different background. She studied sociology and wanted to delve deeper into qualitative research rather than quantitative research. Super interesting, and I think this will give her a broad scope when conducting research in the future.
While discussing the question about what we are afraid of, I shared my fear of being hypocritical during my research. During my studies, I feel my privilege of being where I am and doing what I do seeping through everything. Which is not wrong, of course. Sometimes I have to ignore the neoliberal pressure about the fact that I am not working during my studies. Discussing this with the other women, it became clear that I consider my positioning important and would like to discuss this with the others during future meetings so that I can see multiple perspectives on it. Mayra explains how she sometimes wants to feel more confident as a researcher. That she doesn't just come to take, but also to give something. We discuss how, with the best of intentions and a listening ear, you can certainly create added value for the people you are researching. In addition, I now realise that as an anthropologist, you are mainly listening and understanding in order to be able to write down the story and the essence. In a way, that is representing. With the elections just around the corner in the Netherlands, this isn't a word that is popping up out of nowhere.
We eindigen de meeting met een wat zwaarder onderwerp; hoop. Er wordt gedeeld dat de studie tot nu toe wel erg zwaar is aangezien er voor de problemen en onrechtvaardigheden in de wereld geen oplossingen bij worden geboden. Wanneer er dan naar gevraagd wordt is het antwoord ‘Het wordt nu meer besproken onder de mensen’. Dit wordt gezien als een schijn van goed nieuws en na langen na niet genoeg gezien de stand van zaken. Een gevoel van ‘niet genoeg doen’. Ik snap heel goed dat dit onderwerp wordt geopperd en het laat me denken aan hoe ik twee jaar geleden in de wedstrijd lag na de eerste twee maanden van de pre-master. Ik had een lijstje om mijn telefoon bijgehouden van activiteiten die ik kon doen op het moment dat alles even te veel werd of er toch wat levensmoeheid naar binnen gniepten. Ik heb deze tip met de rest van de groep gedeeld.
Door de andere van de groep worden ook motiverende argumenten gegeven die zich richten op wat we met de studie juist wel doen en enige tips die je in je privé-leven kan implementeren.
Later, we gained two new group members, free of charge! Thirza and Janna are taking the course part-time, which is why they joined us later. We caught up with each other digitally so that we could learn about their academic backgrounds and other answers to the questions mentioned in the syllabus. Thirza told us about her background in a language bachelor's degree and a gender studies master's degree. Super interesting! She started the programme to challenge herself to do more practical research, such as talking to strangers on the street. She is also curious about what people will do after completing this programme in terms of work. She is also very happy to be able to join a group of people who are in the same boat, so that we can support each other during the fieldwork period, for example.
Now let's focus on the more pragmatic issues discussed during this meeting. We have drawn up a rough schedule until the end of the academic year. This gives us a comfortable feeling and will hopefully ensure that this subject does not get lost under the pressure of other things that need to be done. An additional meeting has even been scheduled in the middle of our fieldwork period so that we can support each other during this time, which can be somewhat lonely, and help each other where necessary.
Meeting 2 Motivation and start fieldwork
Date: 25-01-26
Locatie: De Zaak, Utrecht
Time: 10:30-12:00
Short summary
During this meeting, the group had one last chance to discuss matters before the fieldwork period officially commences. This involved discussing certain areas that we are nervous about or, conversely, very excited about. We also took the opportunity to clarify once more what exactly each of us will be researching. Not everyone in the group will remain in the Netherlands, so those who are travelling will join the next meetings online.
Apart from that, the De Zaak café will remain our regular gathering place where we will enjoy our coffee and tea while completing the collective assignments for this course.
Extended version
We held the second meeting for academic professionals on a Sunday morning with tea and coffee at our favourite coffee shop in the centre of Utrecht.
All groep members are up to their ears in their own thesis projects, as we have just had to submit our proposals and the fieldwork starts in a week. One by one, we discuss what everyone is going to research and where. The topics are so diverse and interesting, and we are very curious about each other's progress.
However, none of us in the group have done much with our portfolios yet.
Most of us have already mapped out our networks, and we discuss how we can tactically choose someone to have coffee with. For example, someone you meet during your fieldwork period, assuming you are researching something that you find interesting and might want to work in later. We then help each other with tools to set up websites to present our portfolios.
Lastly, we talked about certain things we're nervous about in the upcoming fieldwork or any obstacles we can already imagine. Mine was mainly about finding the balance between approachability and professionalism. Rocio had a good tip for this: when applying methods, announce that you are switching to professional mode. I also felt it was important that my positionality is independent and clear to the interlocutors, as I work with people from the municipality and social humanitarian organisations. After that, we wished each other good luck and success in the field and said goodbye until the next meeting.
Meeting 3 Support and advice
Date: 31-03-26
Location: Online
Time: 17:00-19:00
During the third reflection session, the group reviewed the progress of the fieldwork and the associated challenges. A key theme that emerged was the extent to which everyone was actually out in the field. Some students indicated that they were spending less time in the field than expected, whilst others were observing extensively and consequently encountering situations they had not previously come across in the literature. This led to a broader discussion about the relationship between theory and empirical fieldwork, and how these do not always relate to one another in a linear fashion.
Later during the meeting, time management became an important topic of discussion. Almost everyone had conducted around fifteen interviews and had only recently started the coding process. At the same time, it became clear that the feedback on the second report had been rather limited for some, which created some. During this meeting the feeling that we were in a transitional phase was reinforced: moving from data collection towards interpretation and analysis.
Another important point concerned the positionality in the field, what kind of anthropologist are we? I aim to be an approachable researcher that comes across relaxed and a good listener. The field also presented some challenges about being neutral, particularly when certain statements were politically charged. In such moments, it was considered important to adopt an analytical attitude and not respond purely from a personal perspective, but rather from the role of the researcher. Furthermore, I mentioned how I had to struggle with the pragmatic and sometimes direct way in which Ukrainian residents were discussed in my field. This raised questions about distance, involvement, and moral positioning. At the same time, it was noted that people outside academia often have little understanding of what anthropology actually entails. Remarks such as “Shouldn’t you be digging somewhere?” were experienced as both frustrating and humorous.
A valuable contribution during the meeting came from Rocio, who shared advice she had received from one of her professors: anthropological writing is, in a sense, similar to fiction because it is always based on the observations and interpretations of the researcher. At the same time, it remains truthful as long as the situations described are recognisable to the interlocutors and confirmed by them. This insight helped to better understand the tension between subjectivity and representation. Practical advice was also exchanged. For example, it was emphasized that talking to people outside the fieldwork can help with reflection, especially during periods in which one spends less time in the field. In addition, listening back to interviews can contribute to a sharper analysis, although this can sometimes feel confronting.
Finally, the group reflected on the question of how researchers can give something back to their interlocutors. Examples included sharing findings through social media, helping with practical work, setting up initiatives such as a book club, or simply participating actively in the community. This connected to a broader reflection on the role of the anthropologist as someone who is approachable and engaged.
Personally, this meeting further shaped my understanding of anthropology. I realized how important it is for me to be part of the everyday life within the field. At the same time, I experience tension when my research shifts towards a more institutional context, such as conducting interviews at the town hall, which reduces my direct connection with the shelter locations. Activities such as setting up a book club help me maintain this connection. In addition, I intend to conclude my fieldwork carefully and respectfully, partly by presenting my findings to the people involved.
Meeting 4 Ethics and reflection
Date: 18-05-26
Location: University Utrecht
Time: 16:00-17:30
Tijdens onze laatste meeting begonnen we met het terug kijken naar het afgelopen jaar en wat we binnen dit jaar hebben geleerd over ethics. De bestaande standaarden en de notes die we voor onself hebben gemaakt als voorbereiding op het veldwerk. Hieronder een paar toevoegingen die ik heb gemaakt nu zo na het veldwerk:
- Make the other person(s) feel comfortable is priority
- Mention when you want to ask something more invasive beforehand
- If you want to use quotes, dubble check with the interlocutor
- Trust intuition and follow random straints of information when they come up
- Be aware of the wall that is created through temporal presence, be considered of this in relationships.
Madelief and I both presented ethical dilemmas for the group to analyze; these dilemmas illustrate just how complex power dynamics can be in fieldwork. During research, you often find yourself in situations where personal values, professional goals, and relationships with interviewees clash. This requires not only methodological insight but also constant self-reflection. The concepts of reflect, investigate, contemplate, and evaluate help us better understand and manage these tensions.
In my example, it became clear how language use can play an uncomfortable role when interacting with refugees. People committed to helping refugees sometimes used nicknames that could be seen as hurtful or inappropriate. An initial reaction might be to distance yourself from these individuals because their behavior does not align with your own standards and values. Yet this example shows that it is important to first reflect on the situation before passing judgment. Why do people use these words? Is it a form of coping, group culture, or perhaps a way of dealing with difficult circumstances? By not immediately breaking off relationships, but first investigating further, space is created to better understand the behavior.
At the same time, this raises an ethical dilemma. How far can you go in maintaining relationships without compromising your own principles? During the discussion, it became clear that relationships with interview partners are essential for qualitative research. Without trust and open communication, it is difficult to gain insight into the experiences and perspectives of others. Yet this does not mean that all boundaries must disappear. Precisely for this reason, it is important to continually reflect on where that boundary lies. Researchers must constantly ask themselves: when is showing understanding valuable, and when does remaining silent become complicity in behavior you do not endorse?
Madelief’s example ties in well with this. She interacted with people whose political and ethical convictions differed greatly from her own. In such situations, a tension arises between being honest about your own views and maintaining an open conversation. Sometimes, voicing your opinion can cause conversation partners to shut down, resulting in the loss of valuable insights. On the other hand, remaining completely silent can feel like you are betraying your own convictions. This requires a constant evaluation of the situation: what contributes most to mutual understanding and to the research objective at that moment?
These examples make it clear that fieldwork is never completely neutral. Researchers constantly navigate power dynamics in which they themselves also play a role. That is why reflection is essential. By critically examining yourself, your position, and your reactions, you can be more mindful of the choices you make.
During our reflection we also found a differnce between my situation and Madalief's, since she beforehand was prepared for an extent to the arguments from her interlocutors being different than her own. In my situation the using inapropriate names was something I was not expecting to encounter in the humanitarian scene.
Maak jouw eigen website met JouwWeb