Search
Program Calendar
Browse By Day
Browse By Time
Browse By Person
Browse By Session Type
Browse By Topic
Personal Schedule
Main Menu (Submission Site)
Sign Out
Personal Schedule
Sign In
Deadlines
Policies
Updating Your Submission
Requesting AV
Accessible Presentation
FAQs
Deadlines
Policies
Updating Your Submission
Requesting AV
Accessible Presentation
FAQs
Search Tips
About Annual Meeting
Search Tips
About Annual Meeting
Beginning with the work of Sudhir Venkatesh, sociology has seen a trend of “rogue” ethnographies, in which the researcher investigates actors in illicit spaces as a participant observer. The logic behind these practices is born out of a feminist methodological tradition that seeks more authentic equalities between researchers and subjects, as well as a better understanding one’s positionality within the research site. As such, “rogue” ethnography intends to maximize researcher reflexivity transparency with research subjects. However, as we argue here, “going rogue” often has differential results for male and female researchers, such that male sociologists navigating the underground world of drugs and gangs emerge as charismatic heroes, while female ethnographers studying sex work must struggle to maintain academic legitimacy. We examine four “rogue” ethnographies, two written by men and two written by women, to understand how these differential returns occur as a result of the researchers’ experiences of 1) access and rapport with research subjects, 2) positionality and embodiment within the research site, 3) responding to illicit activities and ethical dilemmas in the field, 4) reception by the academy of their “dangerous” experiences, and 5) intentional presentations of an academic self.