Reflexivity

Field Note 002: Re-entry and Method

Subtitle: On participant trust, observer bias, and the ethics of studying your own communities

Researcher: Megan A. Green
Field location: Northern New Jersey corridor
Date: October 2025

Abstract

This field note examines the methodological tension of conducting ethnography within one’s own social circles.
Returning to familiar networks—blind and disabled peers, former cult contacts, and long-time collaborators—requires constant negotiation between empathy and distance.
Re-entry brings both access and bias: the privilege of insider language, and the risk of over-identification.

Field Conditions

The air in North Jersey hums with recognition. People greet the researcher not as an academic, but as Rosie, Leah, or Megan-the-voice-writer.
Every name triggers a separate field dynamic. To gather data ethically here is to practice self-splitting: a deliberate toggling between witness and participant.

Community members often ask whether I’m “back for work or healing.” The answer is both.
The boundary between observation and participation collapses when the field site is your childhood bus route and your interviewee remembers your first cane.

Methodological Challenges

1. Familiarity Bias – People who know me pre-research tend to curate their stories, omitting what they assume I already understand.
2. Projection Bias – My presence evokes their memories of Leah, the persona trained in control. Participants sometimes test whether that persona still exists.
3. Compassion Fatigue – Long-term engagement in trauma fields can dull response accuracy. To counter this, I schedule decompression periods and run transcript reviews through accessibility tools for emotional tone calibration.

Ethical Framework

I operate under a trauma-informed consent model: participants may retract, revise, or anonymize contributions at any stage.
Notes are logged with pseudonyms and sensory tags instead of demographics.
Because many subjects share overlapping disability and cult-exit identities, confidentiality depends less on redaction and more on context obfuscation—shifting small details without altering truth value.

Research here is reciprocal. Each conversation must leave the participant at least as grounded as before it began.

Reflexive Notes

Re-entry feels like walking through layered time: each street corner holds a version of me that once observed from survival, not scholarship.
To study that landscape now is to admit that method can never be fully clean.
Bias is not failure—it’s a variable to be documented.

TL;DR

Studying your own communities is both privilege and peril.
The insider lens grants clarity others can’t access, but it also demands radical transparency about motive, memory, and method.