Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to offer an overview of contemporary approaches to the challenge of managing positionality and to discuss their applicability to fieldwork in contested fields.

Design/methodology/approach

The paper is driven by the author's experience of disconcertment during her fieldwork for a study of economic prioritization of access to new pharmaceuticals. Here she was pushed to take sides between health economists, clinicians and patients. Based on an iterative literature review, the paper identifies contemporary approaches to side-taking and discusses their practical applicability by constructing counterfactual accounts of a specific situation related to her fieldwork.

Findings

The author provides an overview of three “modes of intervention” characteristic of contemporary ethnography: political activism, organizational development and intervening description. The author presents the research agenda, the methodological principles and the means of intervention of each of the three modes, and discusses their applicability to the fieldwork process.

Practical implications

The overview of contemporary approaches to managing positionality is relevant for researchers doing fieldwork in contested fields. The paper discusses the strengths and weaknesses of the different approaches, and is intended as a resource for ethnographers who want to clarify their own positionality and prepare or improve their strategies on how to take sides in the process of doing fieldwork.

Originality/value

While the question of how to take sides is a classical challenge for organizational ethnographers, only few studies exist that look across contemporary ethnographic positions on how to manage positionality in the process of doing fieldwork. In addition to providing an overview for the individual ethnographer, this paper aims to participate in a collective academic conversation on the subject of managing positionality in the process of doing fieldwork.

中文翻译：

---

如何支持：应对位置管理的挑战

目的

本文的目的是概述管理位置性挑战的当代方法，并讨论它们在有争议领域的野外工作中的适用性。

设计/方法/方法

该论文是基于作者在实地考察获得新药品的经济优先次序的田野调查过程中的不合格经验而得出的。在这里，她被迫站在健康经济学家，临床医生和患者之间。在反复文献综述的基础上，本文确定了当代的旁观方法，并通过针对与她的田野调查有关的特定情况构建反事实说明，讨论了它们的实际适用性。

发现

作者概述了当代民族志的三种“干预方式”：政治行动主义，组织发展和干预性描述。作者介绍了这三种模式中每种模式的研究议程，方法原理和干预手段，并讨论了它们在野外工作过程中的适用性。

实际影响

当代管理位置方法的概述与在有争议领域进行田野调查的研究人员有关。本文讨论了不同方法的优缺点，旨在为希望阐明自己的立场并准备或改进其在实地调查过程中支持立场的人种志研究者提供资源。

创意/价值

尽管对组织民族志学家而言，如何支配的问题是一个典型的挑战，但很少有研究涉及跨民族志的当代民族志立场，以探讨如何在实地调查过程中管理立场。除了提供个人民族志专家的概述之外，本文的目的是在实地调查过程中参加有关管理位置性主题的集体学术对话。