Content uploaded by Cecilia Menjívar
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Cecilia Menjívar on Nov 10, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
Available via license: CC BY-NC-ND
Content may be subject to copyright.
Cahiers des Amériques latines
42 | 2003
Terrains d'enquête
Reflections from One Latino Field: Notes from
Research Among Central Americans in the United
States
Cecilia Menjívar
Electronic version
URL: http://cal.revues.org/7158
DOI: 10.4000/cal.7158
ISSN: 2268-4247
Publisher
Institut des hautes études de l'Amérique
latine
Printed version
Date of publication: 31 January 2003
Number of pages: 69-80
ISBN: 2-970163-35-1
ISSN: 1141-7161
Electronic reference
Cecilia Menjívar, « Reflections from One Latino Field: Notes from Research Among Central Americans
in the United States », Cahiers des Amériques latines [Online], 42 | 2003, Online since 09 August 2017,
connection on 11 October 2017. URL : http://cal.revues.org/7158 ; DOI : 10.4000/cal.7158
Les Cahiers des Amériques latines sont mis à disposition selon les termes de la licence Creative
Commons Attribution – Pas d’utilisation commerciale – Pas de modification 4.0 International.
REFLECTIONS FROM ONE LATINO
FIELD: NOTES FROM RESEARCH
AMONG CENTRAL AMERICANS
IN THE UNITED STATES
CECILIA MENJÍVAR*
I
N THIS PAPER ISHARE SOME REFLECTIONS about conducting fieldwork among Latin
American immigrants in the United States. These observations are based on
more than a decade of research in mostly Central American communities in
different US cities, such as San Francisco, Los Angeles, Washington DC, and
Phoenix. As a Central American imm igrant myself and given the qualitative natu-
re of my research, in each instance the interaction between m y study participants
and I has been central for the course of the research. Thus, given the significan-
ce of this interaction, it is important to note not only what was said, but also to
whom and in what context. As Renato Rosaldo (1993 : 169) points out, « In dis-
cussing forms of social knowledge, both of analysts and of human actors, one
must consider their social positions
»
. What are the complexities of the speaker’s
social identity? Does the person speak from a position of relative dominance or
relative subordination ?
My relations with my study participants have been undoubtedly shaped
by the power dynamics between the researcher and the researched, as « the
analyst’s position depends, in part, on the interplay of culture and power »
(Rosaldo, 1993 : 193). But linked to my researcher’s persona, my own social
positions, as dictated by multiple social characteristics, experiences, and tra-
jectories, have deeply affected the dynamics of such interactions. In this sen-
se, my different identities preclude a single, unified person, and instead I, as
the know ing person, am composed of different social identities that I deploy
dissimilarly given t he particular m oment and interaction during the collection
of data. I am a woman, a mother, a researcher, a Salvadoran, and an immi-
CAHIERS DES AMÉRIQUES LATINES N°42 69
* Associate Professor, School of Justice Studies, Arizona State University (menjivar@asu.edu).
C
ECILIA
M
ENJ
Í
VAR
DOSSIER
grant, to name only a few of my social positions. Consequently, as a resear-
cher I simply cannot be a detached observer looking neutrally at the social rea-
lity before m y eyes. My overlapping membership in the distinct communities
of birth, residence, education – to name a few – means that when I observe
as a social researcher I will do so through these different lenses.
At the same time, the people in my studies are not neutral participants
either. Just as I am, as a researcher, a « positioned subject » (Rosaldo, 1993),
my study participants are also analyzing subjects. As human beings engaged
in an interaction, my study participants and I are not blank slates. Their reac-
tions to my presence are very much informed by my own social identities
and positions, and thus, in the act of doing research we engage in a relatio-
nal interaction. The knowledge that is produced is very much the result of this
interaction, and it is intimately linked to the interpretation of each other’s
positions, or as Rosaldo (1993 : 207) refers to it, « the interpretation of cul-
tures. » It is in this light that I provide these reflections of how my own posi-
tions and identities might have influenced my relationship with my study
participants, and thus, shaped the nature of the data I gathered, the analysis,
and my writing.
Before I engage in this discussion I must make an observation regarding
reflexivity and self-disclosure on the part of the researcher. Briefly, in the
Unit ed States the civil rights movement and the emergence of political move-
ments responsive to internally oppressed peoples in the 1960s and 1970s
led to an interrogation of the canons of disciplinary teaching and research. By
bringing to the center of the analytical plane the concerns of groups whose
voices were marginal at best, this shift provided an im petus for academics to
take a critical position, not only of society itself, but also of their disciplines.
In t he field of ethnography, this has translated into debunking the myth of t he
detached, objective observer and replacing it with a politically conscious aca-
demic who can no longer remain impartial. This shift, of course, is not com-
pleted and t he crises it has produced continue to the present. But in the pro-
cess, social analysis has been reshaped and the questions academics pose
and how they decide to answer them (methodologically and substantively)
have also changed significantly.
At the same time feminist researchers have been advocating for special
research strategies that require listening carefully to subtleties, attitudes and
feelings, as crucial aspects of wom en’s lives are usually overlooked in social sur-
veys (Reinharz, 1992). These researchers propose a feminist ethic and com-
mitment to egalitarianism in research, which includes intimacy and self-dis-
closure (See Oakley, 1981). This distinct model for research involves developing
a relationship with the subjects and treating them as valued individuals and
not merely as data providers, immersing oneself in the social setting, and
aiming for the intersubjective understanding between researchers and those
studied (Reinharz, 1992). This approach also includes the option of down-
playing one’s professional status when studying people who may distrust
professionals and in this way fostering trust between themselves and those
being studied (Reinharz, 1992). In this way, even those who come from rela-
tively powerless groups may feel empowered to be able to ask questions and
obtain information from the researcher (Webb, 1984). Obviously, this
70 CAHIERS DES AMÉRIQUES LATINES N°42
approach stands in sharp contrast to the detached, hierarchical nature of
doing research in a more « scientific » tradition.
In the spirit of this tradition, at this point some self-disclosure on my part
is in order. I was born and raised in El Salvador in a middle class environ-
ment. I was educated in an all-girls private Catholic school, and m y family has
had the means to live very comfortably. M y migration to the United States was
in part precipitated by the civil war t hat raged in El Salvador from approximately
1980 to 1992. In m y last year of high school it seemed more and more dan-
gerous to enter college, as the main university campuses were the locus of
much political action and, thus, repression on the part of the government.
Thus, immediately after I finished high school, my family facilitated (and
urged) my departure for the United States to attend college. Thus, in many
ways my migration experience was quite dissimilar from that of most of the
Central Americans I have studied, as I migrated legally, never traveled the
dangerous routes they do in order to reach the United States, never lived in
the neighborhoods they com e to inhabit, and have continued to travel ext en-
sively after migrating.
My first few months of university life in the United States were dedicated
to learning English, as I had some familiarity with this language from trave-
ling annually to the United States for vacation, but I needed language ins-
truction in order to enroll in classes. Thus, like many immigrants, my first
months in the new country were spent learning the language and disentan-
gling the cultural ropes of the new environment. However, unlike most of
the immigrants in my studies, I did not have to work, and could dedicate
myself entirely to my studies. After finishing one degree, I continued on to earn
a postgraduate degree and then another, so that since my entry in college
upon arrival in the United States I never left the academic environm ent. In fact,
in contrast to the experience of many US colleagues who have had to hold
less remunerated non-academic jobs occupations to support themselves, I
have never held a job outside of academia. Undoubtedly, my work trajecto-
ry and my academic immersion reflect my relatively privileged social class
position, particularly in relation to the immigrants in my studies, and shape
in countless ways my own views and interactions with them in the field.
There is much I have shared with t he participants in my studies, however.
In addition to a common language, an immigrant background (though dis-
similar in many ways) and the nostalgia of living in a foreign environment, I
have been able to effortlessly navigate the cultural terrain of their daily lives.
I easily understand cultural subtleties, jokes, and references to a particular
place and date and can, of course, engage in conversations that might be
misunderstood by an outsider. I do not doubt that t his com mon ground and
identification prom oted meaningful conversations with my study participants.
And herein lies an interesting paradox of my persona as a Salvadoran and as
a researcher. From the beginning of my studies I knew that I would be cros-
sing different borders, of gender, age, class, education, background, and
later on, when I began doing research in Guatemalan communities, those
of nationality and ethnicity as well. Thus, I knew that I would be simulta-
neously an « insider » and an « outsider ». But my Salvadoranness (not only
my nationality, but the sociocultural codes that I inherited from having been
born and raised in El Salvador) positions me in the place of a « native » when
R
EFLECTIONS FROM
O
NE
L
ATINO
F
IELD
DOSSIER
CAHIERS DES AMÉRIQUES LATINES N°42 71
C
ECILIA
M
ENJ
Í
VAR
DOSSIER
I do research among Cent ral Americans. Thus, I could only distance m yself to
a certain degree. Similar to Dorinne Kondo’s (1986) experiences conducting
fieldwork as a Japanese-American in Japan, I have often felt pressured to
conform with certain norms more fully than would outsiders. Because of my
study participants’cultural expectations about me, a person who looks like
them and speaks their language – literally and culturally – they have com-
pelled me to act as a native, as fully one of them. This has both enabled and
constrained what I have been able to do in the field.
I am perfectly aware that my « nativeness» gave me numerous advantages
in the field, as I was able to gain rapid entry into m y study participants’social
worlds, something out siders would have found more difficult to do. However,
similar to Kondo’s experiences, the same « nativeness» that allow ed me to gain
quick entry and easily establish rapport with my study participants has simul-
taneously hindered m y data collection in other respects. I could not ask ques-
tions that would have been inappropriate given certain cultural expectation
regarding age, gender, or other social hierarchies. In many instances I could
not cross certain delicate status lines. Thus, like in Kondo’s case, I constructed
social knowledge through different power relations that involved different
degrees of distance, so that in the process of knowing, different parts of my
persona were deployed and, as such, these have represented m ultiple sources
of knowledge in my work.
In what follows I provide a discussion of the different social positions that
have been prominent at different points in the studies I have conducted.
Obviously I do not deploy each of these social positions alone, as it is the
combination of all and how they are articulated at different tim es and places
that bear upon the knowledge that I generate with m y research. Together they
should give the reader a sense of m y framework, of m y persona, and how this
shapes my int eractions in the field. M oreover, the discussion I present here does
not encompass all the possible identities that have shaped my research. We
cross several boundaries in our daily lives, some of which are more formal
and determ ined, such as the ones I will reference below, others less so. Borders
to cross arise from particular intersections, experiences and m oments in one’s
life course, and not only from the more formal determinants such as gender,
class, and race (Rosaldo, 1993). Life and death produce distinctive expe-
riences that often provide a common ground in human interaction through
which we are able to connect and establish meaningful relationships with
others, including during fieldw ork. For instance, I became part of the « com-
munity » of mothers when my son was born and the « community » of the
bereaved when my parents and aunt passed away. There are many other
« communities » of which I am similarly a part that lie at the core of other iden-
tities I posses.
The objective of the research I report in the following sections was gene-
rally to examine the social processes of the m igration of Central Americans in
the United States. I conducted field research among Salvadorans in San
Francisco from approximately 1989 to 1994, among Guatemalans in Los
Angeles throughout 1995, w ith Salvadorans in Washington DC from 1996 to
1997, and with a mix of Salvadorans, Guatemalans, Mexicans, and Cubans
in Phoenix from 1998 to 2001. These studies have allowed me to write about
social and kinship networks and family dynamics, intergenerational and gen-
72 CAHIERS DES AMÉRIQUES LATINES N°42
der relations, transnational activities, and these immigrants’perceptions of
the church and religion in their lives. In each study, I have used a combina-
tion of archival data, intensive interviewing and participant observation ; in t wo
of the four studies I have conducted trained graduate students in ethnogra-
phic data collection have aided me. The duration of the interviews and of
participant observation, where an interview and participant observation took
place, how the information was collected (tape-recorded, notes), and who else
could be present during an interview, were just a few of the practical details
of data collection that w ere affected by my different social characteristics (and
when I worked with research assistants, by those of my assistants as well).
GENDER
One of the most salient identities that has shaped the course of my resear-
ch and the kinds of data I have collected is the fact t hat I am a woman. Of cour-
se this does not occur in the absence of other characteristics I posses, but in
this section I will attempt to isolate the effects it has had on m y research acti-
vities. I will describe specific moments from the field to illustrate.
In the study I conducted among Salvadorans in San Francisco (Menjívar,
2000), whenever possible I spent time with the people I studied, such as
accompanying them on errands and to visit family members and acquain-
tances. I visited people in their homes and simply « hanged out » in the places
they conduced their daily lives. But because of my gender I could not accom-
plish this objective in the same way with men and women.
I would easily stop by my female study participants’homes, spend time with
them alone in their homes (even in their rooms), and give them rides in my
car to different places they needed to go. I simply could not establish the
same kind of rapport w ith my male informants. I could not invite them to eat
at a local restaurant or talk with them in their own rooms like I did with
women. But I had to interview men and women separately because almost
invariably the wom en and the men expressed themselves differently when they
were in the presence of other people, particularly of people from the oppo-
site sex. I could not do this easily with men, as I had to look for less intimate
spaces, such as an office I used during the course of fieldwork, to speak with
them alone lest our conversations would be misunderstood as invitations to
rom ance. Sometimes I would speak with t he partners, husbands, or brot hers
of the w omen I was visiting, or w ould participate in a conversation that inclu-
ded men. At a food distribution program where I contacted several of my
study participants I also spoke with men. In approximately four years of field-
work, only once I had coffee with an informant in a local restaurant, and after
having established a friendship with a group of four politically-active men
who shared a house (and who thought of themselves as « liberated »), did I
interview them.
Another area in which m y gender w as salient was in the course of conduc-
ting an interview. Some researchers argue that interviewing is particularly
suited to female researchers, as they perform an activity women are sociali-
zed to do, at least in Western societies (Reinharz, 1992). Indeed, Kathy
Charmaz (cited in Reinharz 1992) observes that interviewing draws on the
« feminine role, » that of an understanding, receptive person who is able to
R
EFLECTIONS FROM
O
NE
L
ATINO
F
IELD
DOSSIER
CAHIERS DES AMÉRIQUES LATINES N°42 73
C
ECILIA
M
ENJ
Í
VAR
DOSSIER
talk about the other person’s feelings in a non-threatening way. When I inter-
viewed women I simply carried on a conversation ; they would ask me ques-
tions almost as much as I did, and even though I based my inquiry on a set
of open-ended questions from a semi-structured interview schedule, I did
not look at it often during the interview. This happened in particular w hen the
women would expand on a topic and become very involved and even emo-
tional in their account (Menjívar, 1999a, 2000). During these moments I
found it insensitive to look down at a questionnaire to cont inue wit h the next
question. How ever, with the m en I would do exactly the opposite. The people
I studied in general, but some of the men in particular, appreciated the fact
that I show ed sincere interest in what they had to say, that I was receptive and
even wanted to hear more. For many of them our conversations were the
only opportunities they had had since arriving in the United States to vent their
worries, their preoccupations, their fears, and often the conversations would
be filled with emotion. An elderly man I interviewed told me, at the end of a
three and one-half hour conversation, that this had been the first time in
more than a year that he had actually sat down to speak about his views of
life in the United States. Because one part of the interview included personal
questions about marriage and relationships, whenever I got to this point, I
would make sure to look at the int erview schedule and read the questions when
I was interviewing m en, so that they would know this information was some-
thing I needed for my study, that I was not simply guided by more personal
curiosity or interest.
Therefore, I am aware that my closeness with my female study partici-
pants generated data I could not obtain from male participants, but I could
not risk « ruining » my reputation in the field, as I was known as a com patriot
who was doing a study, and getting too close to men would have been detri-
mental to the study. When m oving in a cult ural field w here orthodox gender
ideologies demarcate strict boundaries between men and women and their
field of movement, as a « native » I was obliged to behave according to a dis-
tinct set of cultural expectations that the people I studied had of me.
CLASS BACKGROUND
But, as Catherine Riessman (1987) observes, gender is not enough.
Accessing women who come from a lower class or educational background
may be as difficult for a native as for a non-native, or as difficult as accessing
men by a woman. Differences based on other social demarcations must be
overcome if one needs to access a wide rage of respondents. Like Ruth
Horowitz (Horowitz in her study of Chicano gangs points out, differences by
other form s of social differentiation, such as class, sexual identity, marital sta-
tus, and life style must be overcome in order to reach a diverse range of
women). Trust and bonds should be earned, and in my case, it was with both
men and women, of different social strata.
At first I was afraid that differences in educational levels, but mostly class
differences (both in El Salvador and in the United States), would create a bar-
rier between the people I studied and I, and we would be unable to conver-
se genuinely. Despite my trepidation about crossing class lines, I was surpri-
sed by the openness and the ease wit h which my study participants spoke to
74 CAHIERS DES AMÉRIQUES LATINES N°42
me about their lives. Only after conversing at length with them did I realize
that there were class-bound aspects of their lives that were alien to me. My
worries about the obstacle that our class differences would represent often were
dissipated when my informants would joke and tease me about my inade-
quacies in dealing with the hypothetical situations they would sometimes
pose to me, which w ere all too real in their daily lives – both past and present.
Often my study participants invited me to share with them the little they
had, and occasionally I was asked to attend a special event, such as a wedding,
a baptism, a birthday party, or even a funeral (Menjívar, 1999a, 2000).
Sometimes they would invite me over to their homes when they had prepa-
red a special Salvadoran dish that I had mentioned I particularly missed. On
one occasion, a female study participant had prepared pupusas (thick tor-
tillas filled with cheese, pork meat and/or beans), and as I was about to lea-
ve, she handed me three wrapped in foil paper. She was concerned that sin-
ce I lived « around Americans » I would become nostalgic for these Salvadoran
delicacies. Over the course of our meals my informants would talk about their
life both in the United States and in El Salvador, and w ould take these oppor-
tunities to ask me about my own life. Something that always puzzled them
was that even though I spoke English, had legal docum ents, had several years
of graduate education, and « worked at the university, » (at that time) as a
research assistant, I was not m aking much m ore money (and sometimes even
less) than they were. A perceptive woman explained to me that I had found
such a warm reception because some of my respondents probably expec-
ted m e to reciprocate at some point in the future. They did not necessarily want
something material, just a friendship with someone from a higher-class back-
ground. Indeed, some asked me for favors that needed im mediate attention,
whereas ot hers asked me for longer-term commitm ents, such as being the god-
mother of a child, an obligation that I gladly accepted.
My initial trepidation about the obstacles that m y social position might have
presented eventually dissipated. By this I do not mean to naively dismiss the
importance of social class differences and the dissimilar power relations that
they generate, for no matter how close I got to the people I studied neither
them nor I could shed our social class position off. I am sure that there were
certain subtleties I missed or information that was not revealed to me preci-
sely due to differences in social class position or educational level. But field
research was made possible by my rapport with my informants, which I belie-
ve created an environment for sincere interactions and candid conversations
both ways.
NATIONALITY
My research on Latin American immigrants has not been limited to
Salvadorans alone, as I have also conducted research among Guatemalans
(Menjívar, 1999a, 2002a, 2002b) and among Cubans and Mexicans as well
(Menjívar, 2001, 2003 ; Menjívar and Bejarano forthcoming ; Skop and
Menjívar, 2001), though in the last instance it was with the assistance of a
research team (M enjívar et al., 1999), thus my presence as a direct observer
was rather lim ited. But when I was in the field in the studies that included non-
Salvadoran immigrants I became more fully aware of my own nationality
R
EFLECTIONS FROM
O
NE
L
ATINO
F
IELD
DOSSIER
CAHIERS DES AMÉRIQUES LATINES N°42 75
C
ECILIA
M
ENJ
Í
VAR
DOSSIER
and, thus, the data I collected was shaped by this position. To outsiders a
researcher of Latin American origin should find it relatively easy to study im mi-
grants from Latin America. But precisely because I am of Latin American ori-
gin, my Salvadoran nationality became relevant for the Latin American im mi-
grants I studied, and I have no doubt that their knowledge of my nationality
shaped how they reacted to my presence and to my questions. But perhaps
it was the closeness of our nationalities that mattered, as I, a Salvadoran, was
interested for instance in what Guatemalan im migrants had to say about their
lives in the United States. Because I was not interviewing Salvadorans in Los
Angeles when I interviewed Guatemalans and when I introduced myself I
would explain that I was doing research only among Guatemalans, some of
the Guatemalans might have wondered why I did not simply go and talk to
my « own people. » In fact, some Salvadorans I met during the course of this
study asked me just that ; some were a bit offended that I was not interested
in talking with them. But I would explain that this time it was Guatemalans I
needed to talk to, since earlier I had done a much more involved study with
Salvadoran immigrants.
The Guatemalans would recognize a different accent and immediately
ask me where I was from. To m y response some would say, « Oh but you don’t
speak like a Salvadoran, » or « You don’t look like a Salvadoran, » or « I wasn’t
sure whether you were one or not. » In their own mind they were perhaps
trying to distance me from the Salvadorans with whom they come into dai-
ly contact (and letting m e know about it) because it is with Salvadorans that
they often marry, with whom they have children, with whom they live and
interact, with whom they commemorate an independence day, with whom
they pray in temples and churches, and with whom they celebrate religious
festivit ies and holidays. At the same time, it is wit h Salvadorans with whom they
compete for jobs or for housing, and with whom they fight for the meager
resources in the often-impoverished neighborhoods in which they live. So
my study participants, in a gesture that was meant w ell, tried to separate me
from those Salvadorans with whom they often have a close and complex
relationship, so as to see me as a person with whom they could talk openly.
Thus, even though I was doing research among people of a nationality very
close to my own, among whom I often felt like a « native, » I am certain that
there were points of view, perspectives, and other information that I simply
could not access because, paradoxically, of the very aspect of my life that
would bring me closer to them.
OTHER HIERARCHIES
It has been observed that when feminists research men or institutions with
considerable power, or in general « study up, » they are likely to demand
less (Reinharz, 1992), that they are reluctant to make demands on people of
greater social status or power than the researcher. This situation can arise in
a range or diverse contexts and hierarchies. For me, it came up when I stu-
died immigrants’relationship and perception of the church in their lives
(Menjívar, 1999b, 2001, 2003). I visited Evangelical churches, attended ser-
vices in these temples, and interviewed male pastors easily and without any
major concerns. Except for sometim es asking me to consider m y own conver-
76 CAHIERS DES AMÉRIQUES LATINES N°42
sion to their religion, I was never faced with any personal questions when I col-
lected data in these churches. I had a very different experience when I conduc-
ted fieldwork in Catholic churches and interviewed Catholic priests. Because
I am Catholic there were some questions, some events, some moments that
I had a difficult time recording or observing for the purposes of a study. I was
raised Catholic in a Latin American setting, where priests command more
authority than these religious workers do in the United States, and where
they are respected and almost never questioned about their professional acti-
vities. From this position, did I really have a right to question and probe what
a Catholic priest tells me? Sure I w as a researcher and consciously this was the
persona I deployed in my interviews with the priests, but was I not a Catholic
first, had I not received most of the sacraments before I became the resear-
cher that now is probing the priests for answers for a « scientific » study?
This issue was perhaps exacerbated because in the study I conducted in
Washington DC (Menjívar, 1999b) the priests I had to interview were
Salvadoran like me, and in a casual manner they would ask me something that
would remind me of my identity as a Catholic, like whether I had already
baptized m y son or if I was going t o attend a particular religious celebration.
Perhaps a non-Catholic person (or even a Catholic not raised in Latin America?)
would have seen no reason for any trepidations about asking priests to explain
exactly what they mean by something, or « playing devil’s advocate » and ask
them t o consider hypothetical negative consequences for t heir actions. But as
a person who was raised in a deeply Catholic family and in an environment
where the Catholic religion and culture often overlap, I did. From m y position
as a Catholic priests command great authority and respect and are linked to
eternal questions and spiritual realms, and even though I was perfectly awa-
re that they were, like other study participants, subject to my research ques-
tions, something precluded me from fully demanding answers from them.
Something similar occurred when I conducted participant observation
during Catholic celebrations, particularly in masses. Very often I had to pau-
se and remind m yself that I was attending a mass as a researcher, not simply
as a Catholic, that I had to « observe » a familiar, intimate event but from a
different position and through the lens of my research persona. I have atten-
ded countless masses in my life, including the obligatory daily masses of my
childhood and adolescence, so being in this utterly familiar environment
trying to keep a distance in order to « observe » was not easy. Interestingly,
this exercise allowed me to reflect on certain aspects of the ritual that I had
never seen before, even though I had wondered about the usefulness of
attending a ritual I knew by heart for my study. The only thing I simply could
not do was to take extensive notes during a mass.
I am well aware that I did not collect certain types of information that an
outsider could have easily collected since from my own social position I could
not make too many demands from the Catholic religious workers. At the
same time, being Catholic (and perhaps Salvadoran in the cases I interviewed
Salvadoran priests) opened doors and provided me with quick and easy access
to these religious workers and even to other kinds of information that perhaps
an outsider could not have recorded.
R
EFLECTIONS FROM
O
NE
L
ATINO
F
IELD
DOSSIER
CAHIERS DES AMÉRIQUES LATINES N°42 77
C
ECILIA
M
ENJ
Í
VAR
DOSSIER
FINAL OBSERVATIONS
As should be clear from these reflections, the process of knowing and ana-
lysis can be done either from up close, as in the case of a native, or from a dis-
tance, either as a near native or as an outsider. Both are equally valid and
produce important, yet different, knowledge that either one could not gene-
rate alone. Doing research from one of these positions alone may accompli-
sh much, but too severely restricts what might otherw ise be legitim ate sources
of knowledge for the study of social dynamics. Furthermore, as demonstra-
ted above, the demarcation between an « insider » and an « outsider » is not
always clear-cut, as researchers who are insiders in one respect m ay very well
be outsiders in multiple others. The important aspect of reflecting on one’s posi-
tion vis-à-vis our research is that it allows us to rethink objectivism, and as
Rosaldo (1993) points out, to go beyond being social analysts to become
social critics.
Although I have separated some of my social positions here for the purpose
of the discussion, I want to reiterate that it is the confluence of all impinges
on the observations I have made, the data I have collected, and the analysis
I have conducted. Each identity makes a part of me, and as Kondo (1986)
observes, the process of knowing takes the whole person. In this sense, rather
than trying to remain detached and « objective » one should explicitly reco-
gnize each of our identities as potential avenues of knowing, as legitimate
sources of knowledge. This kind of positioning and the research conducted,
therefore, can lead to building new theories and explanations, in particular
unveiling forms of oppression and inequality that may remain hidden to a
more « scientific » detached observer.
My background and m ultiples ident ities created differential power relations
that shaped the nature of my exchanges with my study participants. No one
entered the int eractions we had as blank slates, as we reacted t o each other from
our multiple social positions. A shared nationality or ethnicity and language
helped somewhat to counter – not to erase – important differences and to
give me quick access to t he groups I have studied. Furthermore, perhaps becau-
se my study participants and I were all in a foreign land, I was perceived as
som eone who could at least understand, if not share, their experiences. However,
because of our proxim ity, those same characteristics that were key to my resear-
ch also constrained me from obtaining certain kinds of information.
The tradition of self-disclosure is intimately linked to engagement and
political consciousness and advocacy for the people we study. Thus, I have
taken part in the imm igrants’lives. I have tried to contribute to improve their
lives in various ways, both with the knowledge I have gained through my
research and as a researcher in the field. In the studies I have conducted
among immigrants, it has not been possible (or desirable) to keep distant or
to abide by principles of detachment and neutrality. I have encouraged and
then transported pregnant women – many of them undocumented – to sign
up for prenatal or other forms of medical care. I have helped some to locate
suitable resources and t o fill out the necessary paperwork, at the very mom ent
when politicians were attacking immigrants for supposedly draining the sta-
te of resources. I have helped to translate docum ents and to fill out imm igration
forms. I have given rides to my study participants and their families and
78 CAHIERS DES AMÉRIQUES LATINES N°42
friends. Occasionally I have even provided job contacts. In sum, my role as a
researcher has become an informal one, as my study participants’networks tem-
porarily expanded to include me as a potential source of assistance. Beyond
the personal level, I have also organized an informational fair to provide im mi-
grants with information about community resources (using as a guide to
organize it my study participants’concerns about information they needed in
their daily lives) and have provided interviews and statements used in various
forums to help improve conditions for immigrants. In this way, in my mind,
I have contributed from my ow n position and in the measure that my resources
allow, so that the imm igrants represented in my studies can live more digni-
fied lives. Certainly, I have not remained detached.
References
Horowitz, Ruth, 1982, Honor and the American Dream : Culture and Social Identity in a
Chicano Community. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Kondo, Dorinne, 1986, « Dissolution and Reconstruction of Self: Implications for
Anthropological Epistemology », dans Cultural Anthropology, 1, pp. 74-88.
Menjívar, Cecilia, 1999a, « The Intersection of Work and Gender: Central American
Imm igrant Women and Employm ent in California », dans American Behavioral Scientist, 42
(4), pp. 595-621.
Menjívar, Cecilia, 1999b, « Religious Institutions and Transnationalism: A Case Study of
Catholic and Evangelical Salvadoran Immigrants », dans International Journal of Politics,
Culture and Society, 12 (4), pp. 589-612.
Menjívar, Cecilia et al, 1999, Contemporary Latino M igration to the Phoenix M etropolitan
Area. Report presented to the Center for Urban Inquiry, Arizona State University.
Menjívar, Cecilia, 2000, Fragmented Ties: Salvadoran Immigrant Networks in America.
Berkeley, University of California Press.
Menjívar, Cecilia, 2001, « Latino Immigrants and Their Perceptions of Religious Institutions:
Cubans, Salvadorans, and Guatemalans in Phoenix, AZ », dans Migraciones
Internacionales, 1 (1), pp. 65-88.
Menjívar, Cecilia, 2002a, « The Ties that Heal: Guatemalan Immigrant Women’s Networks
and Medical Treatment », dans International Migration Review, 36 (2), pp. 437-466.
Menjívar, Cecilia, 2002b, « Living in two worlds?: Guatemalan-origin children in the
United States and emerging transnationalism », dans Journal of Ethnic and Migration
Studies, 28 (3), pp. 531-552.
Menjívar, Cecilia, 2003, « Religion and Immigration in Comparative Perspective :
Salvadorans in Catholic and Evangelical Communities in San Francisco », « Phoenix and
Washington D.C. » dans Sociology of Religion, 64 (1), pp. 21-45.
Menjívar, Cecilia and Cindy Bejarano, forthcoming, « Latino Immigrants Perceptions of
Crime and of Police Authorities: A Case Study From the Phoenix Metropolitan Area »,
dans Ethnic and Racial Studies.
Oakley, Ann, 1981, « Interviewing Women : A Contradiction in Terms » dans Helen Roberts
(ed.), Doing Feminist Research. London : Routledge and Kegan Paul, pp. 30-61.
Reinharz, Shulam it, 1992, Feminist M ethods in Social Research. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Riessman, Catherine, 1987, « When Gender is Not Enough : Women Interviewing
Women », dans Gender & Society, 2 (1), pp. 172-207.
Rosaldo, Renato, 1993, Culture & Truth : The Remaking of Social Analysis. Boston, Beacon Press.
R
EFLECTIONS FROM
O
NE
L
ATINO
F
IELD
DOSSIER
CAHIERS DES AMÉRIQUES LATINES N°42 79
C
ECILIA
M
ENJ
Í
VAR
DOSSIER
80 CAHIERS DES AMÉRIQUES LATINES N°42
Fondé sur plus d’une décennie de travail
de terrain auprès des communautés
d’immigrés centro-américains dans
différentes villes des États-Unis d’Amé-
rique, l’auteur présente une réflexion sur
ses relations avec les personnes qui y
participaient. Elle analyse la façon dont
ses multiples caractéristiques, expé-
riences et trajectoires ont profondément
affecté la dynamique de ces interactions.
Paradoxalement, les mêmes caracté-
ristiques qui rendent facile l’accès à un
groupe ou à un individu peuvent
empêcher la collecte d’information sur ce
même groupe. En soulignant les
différences et les similitudes entre
chercheur et enquêtés, l’auteur conclut
que les chercheurs utilisant les démar-
ches qualitatives, loin d’être neutres, sont
engagés dans l’acte même d’investi-
gation. Dans ce sens, les caractéristiques
personnelles tant du chercheur que des
enquêtés informent la nature des
données obtenues, l’analyse qui en est
faite et, en dernier lieu, le produit écrit.
***
Basándome en más de una década de
trabajo de campo en comunidades de
inmigrantes centroamericanos en diffe-
rentes ciudades de EEUU, en el presente
trabajo reflecciono sobre mis relaciones con
las personas que han participado en dichos
estudios. Relato como mis múltiples
características, experiencias y trayectorias
han afectado profundamente la dinámica
de dichas interacciones. Paradojicamente,
las mismas características que facilitan
acceso a un grupo o individuo pueden
impedir la recolección de datos en ese
grupo. Subrayando diferencias y similitudes
entre los participantes en mis estudios y yo,
propongo que lejos de ser investigadores
neutros, investigadores que utilizan
metodologías cualitativas son actores
comprometidos en el acto de la investi-
gación y por lo tanto, las características
personales tanto de la investigadora como
de los estudiados afectan la naturaleza de
los datos, el análisis y lo que se escribe.
***
Based on more than a decade of research
in Central American immigrant
communities in different US cities, I share
reflections about my interactions with
study participants in the different
communities I have studied. I recount
how my multiple social characteristics,
experiences, and trajectories have deeply
affected the dynamics of such inter-
actions. Paradoxically, those same
characteristics that might facilitate access
to a particular individual or groups can
simultaneously hinder data collection
among the same group. Highlighting
differences and similarities between my
study participants and myself, I argue
that far from being a detached observer,
the qualitative researcher is engaged in
the act of conducting research, and thus,
personal characteristics of both the
researcher and the researched shape the
nature of the data gathered, the analysis,
and ultimately what is written.
Skop, Emily and Cecilia Menjívar, 2001, « Phoenix : The Newest Latino Immigrant
Gateway »? dans Association of Pacific Coast Geographers Yearbook, 63, pp. 63-76.
Webb, Christine, 1984, « Feminist Methodology in Nursing Research », dans Journal of
Advanced Nursing, 9, pp. 249-256.
R
ÉSUMÉ
- R
ESUMEN
- A
BSTRACT
Mots clés: États-Unis, villes, immigrés, centraméricains,
démarches qualitatives
Palabras claves: Estados Unidos, ciudades, inm igrantes, centroaméricanos,
metodologías cualitativas
Keywords: United States, cities, immigrants, centroamericans, qualitative
research
