ABSTRACT
Keeping the question of the researcher’s voice in the focus, the author disputes the potential dangers of misappropriating the authenticity of the testimonies. Combining raw materials from the field with the researcher’s own knowledge and experiences, she claims, produces new narratives that are no less “true” or “authentic” than any other story shared among a particular group of people in a particular context and at a particular time. Positioning the researcher and her voice in the centre of the research, furthermore, prevents the threats of secondary trauma. To keep their positions in a competitive academic market, many researchers self-sabotage and deny the signs and symptoms of burnout and emotional fatigue. Individual researchers possess very different capacities and therefore require different levels and layers of self-care, emotional and physical recovery, and recharge in the aftermath of field work. It is therefore crucial to demand and establish an institutional ethos that addresses the fact that researchers can be negatively affected by their work, and that institutions have obligations to present material on indirect trauma and to provide systems of prevention and support.
