In this reflexive account of a neglected aspect of cross-gender fieldwork, a male sociologist examines his use of the “right” masculinity in long-term fieldwork with wives of professional athletes. The gender and impression management strategy of “muted masculinity” was applied as a method to avoid the hegemonic masculinity these wives dislike. The ethnographic strategy is identified and examined by evaluating its characteristics and the part it played in developing collaborative relationships, conducting sequential interviews, establishing rapport and trust, becoming regarded as a male expert, and gaining acceptance into the wives’ private world. Although a male fieldworker’s gender can become a complicated issue in a female world, it is proposed that an outsider strategy can be constructed and applied in ways that benefit the fieldwork and the researched.
Angrosino, M. V. (1986). Son and lover: The anthropologist as nonthreatening male. In T. L. Whitehead & M. E. Conaway (Eds.), Self, sex, and gender in cross-cultural fieldwork (pp. 64-83). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
2.
Arendell, T. (1997). Reflections on the researcher-researched relationship: A woman interviewing men. Qualitative Sociology, 20, 341-368.
3.
Asher, R. M., & Fine, G. A. (1991). Fragile ties: Shaping research relationships with women married to alcoholics. In W. B. Shaffir & R. A. Stebbins (Eds.), Experiencing fieldwork: An inside view of qualitative research (pp. 196-205). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
4.
Back, L. (1993). Gendered participation: Masculinity and fieldwork in a south London adolescent community. In D. Bell, P. Caplan, & W. J. Karim (Eds.), Gendered fields: Women, men and ethnography (pp. 215-233). London: Routledge.
5.
Benedict, J. R. (1998). Athletes and acquaintance rape. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
6.
Berg, B. L. (2004). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
7.
Bird, S. R. (1996). Welcome to the men’s club: Homosociality and the maintenance of hegemonic masculinity. Gender & Society, 10, 120-132.
8.
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2003). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
9.
Bohan, J. S. (1993). Regarding gender: Essentialism, constructionism, and feminist psychology. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 17, 5-21.
10.
Connell, R. W. (1987). Gender and power: Society, the person and sexual politics. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
11.
Connell, R. W. (1995). Masculinities. Berkeley: University of California Press.
12.
Cotterill, P. (1992). Interviewing women: Issues of friendship, vulnerability, and power. Women’s Studies International Forum, 15, 593-606.
13.
Cotterill, P., & Letherby, G. (1994). The “person” in the researcher. In R. G. Burgess (Ed.), Studies in qualitative methodology: Issues in qualitative research (Vol. 4, pp. 107-136). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
14.
Daniels, A. K. (1967). The low-caste stranger in social research. In G. Sjoberg (Ed.), Ethics, politics, and social research (pp. 267-296). Cambridge, MA: Schenkman.
15.
De Andrade, L. L. (2000). Negotiating from the inside: Constructing racial and ethnic identity in qualitative research. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 29, 268-290.
16.
Deaux, K., & Major, B. (1990). A social-psychological model of gender. In D. L. Rhode (Ed.), Theoretical perspectives on sexual difference (pp. 89-99). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
17.
DeVault, M. L. (1999). Liberating method: Feminism and social research. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
18.
Douglas, J. D. (1976). Investigating social research: Individual and team field research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
19.
Dunbar, C., Rodriguez, D., & Parker, L. (2002). Race, subjectivity, and the interview process. In J. F. Gubrium & J. A. Holstein (Eds.), Handbook of interview research: Context & method (pp. 279-298). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
20.
Easterday, L., Papademas, D., Schorr, L., & Valentine, C. (1977). The making of a female researcher: Role problems in field work. Urban Life, 6, 333-348.
21.
Ellis, C., & Flaherty, M. G. (1992). An agenda for the interpretation of lived experience. In C. Ellis & M. G. Flaherty (Eds.), Investigating subjectivity: Research on lived experience (pp. 1-13). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
22.
Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R. I., & Shaw, L. L. (1995). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
23.
Finch, J. (1983). Married to the job: Wives’ incorporation in men’s work. London: Allen and Unwin.
24.
Fishman, P. M. (1978). Interaction: The work women do. Social Problems, 25, 397-406.
25.
Foster, G. M., Scudder, T., Colson, E., & Kemper, R. V. (Eds.). (1979). Long-term field research in social anthropology. New York: Academic Press.
26.
Foster, J. (1994). The dynamics of gender in ethnographic research: A personal view. In R. G. Burgess (Ed.), Studies in qualitative methodology: Issues in qualitative research (Vol. 4, pp. 81-106). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
27.
Frey, J. H., & Fontana, A. (1991). The group interview in social research. Social Science Journal, 28, 175-187.
28.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine.
29.
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NY: Anchor/Doubleday.
30.
Goffman, E. (1961). Role distance. In Encounters: Two studies in the sociology of interaction (pp. 82-152). Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill.
31.
Goffman, E. (1963a). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
32.
Goffman, E. (1963b). Behavior in public places: Notes on the social organization of gatherings. New York: Free Press.
33.
Goffman, E. (1967a). The nature of deference and demeanor. In Interaction ritual: Essays in face-to-face behavior (pp. 47-95). Chicago: Aldine.
34.
Goffman, E. (1967b). On face-work. In Interaction ritual: Essays in face-to-face behavior (pp. 5-46). Chicago: Aldine.
35.
Goffman, E. (1976). Gender display. Studies in the Anthropology of Visual Communication, 3, 69-77.
36.
Green, G., Barbour, R. S., Barnard, M., & Kitzinger, J. (1993). “Who wears the trousers?” Sexual harassment in research settings. Women’s Studies International Forum, 16, 627-637.
37.
Gurney, J. N. (1985). Not one of the guys: The female researcher in a male-dominated setting. Qualitative Sociology, 8, 42-62.
38.
Gurney, J. N. (1991). Female researchers in male-dominated settings: Implications for short-term versus long-term research. In W. B. Shaffir & R. A. Stebbins (Eds.), Experiencing fieldwork: An inside view of qualitative research (pp. 53-61). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
39.
Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P. (1995). Ethnography: Principles in practice (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
40.
Hochschild, A. R. (1979). Emotion work, feeling rules, and social structure. American Journal of Sociology, 85, 551-575.
41.
Hochschild, A. R. (1983). The managed heart: Commercialization of human feeling. Berkeley: University of California Press.
42.
Hochschild, A. R. (1990). Ideology and emotion management: A perspective and path for future research. In T. D. Kemper (Ed.), Research agendas in the sociology of emotions (pp. 117-141). New York: State University of New York Press.
43.
Holstein, J. A.,& Gubrium, J. F. (1995). The active interview. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
44.
Hunt, J. (1984). The development of rapport through the negotiation of gender in field work among police. Human Organization, 43, 283-296.
45.
James, W. (1892). Psychology: Briefer course. New York: Holt.
46.
Johnson, J. M. (1975). Doing field research. New York: Free Press.
47.
Johnson, N. B. (1986). Ethnographic research and rites of incorporation: Asex-and gender-based comparison. In T. L. Whitehead & M. E. Conaway (Eds.), Self, sex, and gender in cross-cultural fieldwork (pp. 164-181). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
48.
Jonassohn, K., Turowetz, A., & Gruneau, R. (1981). Research methods in the sociology of sport: Strategies and problems. Qualitative Sociology, 4, 179-197.
49.
Kadushin, C. (1966). The friends and supporters of psychotherapy: On social circles in urban life. American Sociological Review, 31, 786-802.
50.
Kemper, R. V., & Royce, A. P. (Eds.).(2002). Chronicling cultures: Long-term field research in anthropology. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.
51.
Kessler, S. J., & McKenna, W. (1978). Gender: An ethnomethodological approach. New York: John Wiley.
52.
Kiesinger, C. E. (1998). From interview to story: Writing Abbie’s life. Qualitative Inquiry, 4, 71-95.
53.
Kilmartin, C. T. (2000). The masculine self (2nd ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
54.
Kimmel, M. (1987). The cult of masculinity: American social character and the legacy of the cowboy. In M. Kaufman (Ed.), Beyond patriarchy: Essays by men on pleasure, power, and change (pp. 235-249). New York: Oxford University Press.
55.
Kleinman, S., & Copp, M. A. (1993). Emotions and fieldwork. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
56.
Kollock, P., Blumstein, P., & Schwartz, P. (1985). Sex and power in interaction: Conversational privileges and duties. American Sociological Review, 50, 34-46.
57.
Laslett, B., & Rapoport, R. (1975). Collaborative interviewing and interactive research. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 37, 968-977.
58.
Lofland, J., & Lofland, L. H. (1995). Analyzing social settings: Aguide to qualitative observation and analysis (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
59.
Lorber, J. (1994). Paradoxes of gender. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
60.
Lucal, B. (1999). What it means to be gendered me: Life on the boundaries of a dichotomous gender system. Gender & Society, 13, 781-797.
61.
McCubbin, H. L., Joy, C. B., Cauble, A. E., Comeau, J. K., Patterson, J. M., & Needle, R. H. (1980). Family stress and coping: Adecade review. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 42, 125-141.
62.
McKee, L., & O’Brien, M. (1983). Interviewing men: “Taking gender seriously.” In E. Gamarnikow, D. H. J. Morgan, J. Purvis, & D. Taylorson (Eds.), The public and the private (pp. 147-159). London: Heinemann.
63.
Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self and society: From the standpoint of a social behaviorist. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
64.
Messner, M. A. (1990). When bodies are weapons: Masculinity and violence in sport. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 25, 203-220.
65.
Messner, M. A. (1992). Power at play: Sports and the problem of masculinity. Boston: Beacon.
66.
Miller, S. M. (1952). The participant observer and “over-rapport.”American Sociological Review, 17, 97-99.
67.
Morgan, D. (1981). Men, masculinity and the process of sociological enquiry. In H. Roberts (Ed.), Doing feminist research (pp. 83-113). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
68.
Naples, N. A. (1996). A feminist revisiting of the insider/outsider debate: The “outsider phenomenon” in rural Iowa. Qualitative Sociology, 19, 83-106.
69.
Oakley, A. (1981). Interviewing women: A contradiction in terms. In H. Roberts (Ed.), Doing feminist research (pp. 30-61). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
70.
Ortiz, S. M. (1994a). When happiness ends and coping begins: The private pain of the professional athlete’s wife. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.
71.
Ortiz, S. M. (1994b). Clinical typifications by wives of professional athletes: The field researcher as therapist. Clinical Sociology Review, 12, 49-69.
72.
Ortiz, S. M. (1997). Traveling with the ball club: A code of conduct for wives only. Symbolic Interaction, 20, 225-249.
73.
Ortiz, S. M. (1998a, August). Strategizing marital survival: How wives of professional athletes cope with groupies. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, San Francisco.
74.
Ortiz, S. M. (1998b, April). Competing for power in sport families: The wife and controlling mother-in-law. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Pacific Sociological Association, San Francisco.
75.
Ortiz, S. M. (2001a). How interviewing became therapy for wives of professional athletes: Learning from a serendipitous experience. Qualitative Inquiry, 7, 192-220.
76.
Ortiz, S. M. (2001b, August). When sport heroes stumble: Stress and coping responses to extramarital relationships among wives of professional athletes. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, Anaheim, CA.
77.
Ortiz, S. M. (2002). Constructing dependency in coping with stressful occupational events: At what cost for wives of professional athletes?Sociology of Sport Online, 5(2). Retrieved from http://physed.otago.ac.nz/sosol/v5i2/v5i2_2.html.
78.
Ortiz, S. M. (2003a). Muted masculinity as an outsider strategy: Gender sharing in ethnographic work with wives of professional athletes. Symbolic Interaction, 26, 601-611.
79.
Ortiz, S. M. (2003b, April). Managing public encounters with groupies: A Goffmanesque analysis of strategic performances by wives of professional athletes. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Pacific Sociological Association, Pasadena, CA.
80.
Ortiz, S. M. (2004). Leaving the private world of wives of professional athletes: A male sociologist’s reflections. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 33, 466-487.
81.
Ostrander, S. A. (1993). “Surely you’re not in this just to be helpful”: Access, rapport, and interviews in three studies of elites. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 22, 7-27.
82.
Papanek, H. (1973). Men, women, and work: Reflections on the two-person career. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 852-872.
83.
Reay, D. (1995). The fallacy of easy access. Women’s Studies International Forum, 18, 205-213.
84.
Reay, D. (1996). Insider perspectives or stealing the words out of women’s mouths: Interpretation in the research process. Feminist Review, 53, 57-73.
85.
Reinharz, S. (with Davidman, L.). (1992). Feminist methods in social research. New York: Oxford University Press.
86.
Ridgeway, C. L. (1997). Interaction and the conservation of gender inequality: Considering employment. American Sociological Review, 62, 218-235.
87.
Riessman, C. K. (1987). When gender is not enough: Women interviewing women. Gender & Society, 1, 172-207.
88.
Ronai, C. R. (1992). The reflexive self through narrative: A night in the life of an erotic dancer/researcher. In C. Ellis & M. G. Flaherty (Eds.), Investigating subjectivity: Research on lived experience (pp. 102-124). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
89.
Ronai, C. R. (1998). Sketching with Derrida: An ethnography of a researcher/erotic dancer. Qualitative Inquiry, 4, 405-420.
90.
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (1995). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
91.
Scaglion, R. (1986). Sexual segregation and ritual pollution in Abelam society. In T. L. Whitehead & M. E. Conaway (Eds.), Self, sex, and gender in cross-cultural fieldwork (pp. 151-163). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
92.
Seidman, I. (1998). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and the social sciences (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.
93.
Sherif, B. (2001). The ambiguity of boundaries in the fieldwork experience: Establishing rapport and negotiating insider/outsider status. Qualitative Inquiry, 7, 436-447.
94.
Simmel, G. (1924). The sociological significance of the “stranger.” In R. E. Park & E. W. Burgess (Eds.), Introduction to the science of sociology (2nd ed., pp. 322-327). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
95.
Skipper, J. K., & McCaghy, C. H. (1972). Respondents’ intrusion upon the situation: The problem of interviewing subjects with special qualities. Sociological Quarterly, 13, 237-243.
96.
Stanko, E. A. (1994). Dancing with denial: Researching women and questioning men. In M. Maynard & J. Purvis (Eds.), Researching women’s lives from a feminist perspective (pp. 93-105). London: Taylor & Francis.
97.
Stone, G. P. (1962). Appearance and the self. In A. M. Rose (Ed.), Human behavior and social processes: An interactionist approach (pp. 86-118). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
98.
Taylor, M. G., & Hartley, S. F. (1975). The two-person career: A classic example. Sociology of Work and Occupations, 2, 354-372.
99.
Tillmann-Healy, L. M., & Kiesinger, C. E. (2001). Mirrors: Seeing each other and ourselves through fieldwork. In K. R. Gilbert (Ed.), The emotional nature of qualitative research (pp. 81-110). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
100.
Trujillo, N. (2000). Hegemonic masculinity on the mound: Media representations of Nolan Ryan and the American sports culture. In S. Birrell & M. G. McDonald (Eds.), Reading sport: Critical essays on power and representation (pp. 14-39). Boston: Northeastern University Press.
101.
Turnbull, C. M. (1986). Sex and gender: The role of subjectivity in field research. In T. L. Whitehead & M. E. Conaway (Eds.), Self, sex, and gender in cross-cultural fieldwork (pp. 17-27). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
102.
Turner, R. H. (1962). Role-taking: Process versus conformity. In A. M. Rose (Ed.), Human behavior and social processes: An interactionist approach (pp. 20-40). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
103.
Venkateswar, S. (2001). Strategies of power: An analysis of an encounter in the Andaman Islands. Qualitative Inquiry, 7, 448-465.
104.
Warren, C. A. B., & Hackney, J. K. (2000). Gender issues in ethnography (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
105.
Warren, C. A. B., & Rasmussen, P. K. (1977). Sex and gender in field research. Urban Life, 6, 349-369.
106.
Weinstein, L., & Mederer, H. (1997). Blue navy blues: Submarine officers and the two-person career. In L. Weinstein & C. C. White (Eds.), Wives and warriors: Women and the military in the United States and Canada (pp. 7-18). Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.
107.
Weiss, R. S. (1994). Learning from strangers: The art and method of qualitative interview studies. New York:Free Press.
108.
Welch, M. (1997). Violence against women by professional football players: A gender analysis of hypermasculinity, positional status, narcissism, and entitlement. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 21, 392-411.
109.
West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1987). Doing gender. Gender & Society, 1, 125-151.
110.
Wood, W. W. (2001). Rapport is overrated: Southwestern ethnic art dealers and ethnographers in the “field.”Qualitative Inquiry, 7, 484-503.
