To flirt, or not to flirt, that is the ethnographic question

Despite the title suggesting a focus on contemporary dating practices, this commentary is not yet another take on (post)#MeToo dating practices. Instead, it is an attempt to add my two cents to the discussion on flirting as a methodological strategy in ethnographic, anthropological, and sociological research, which is the focus of Anna Jochymek's “I Got Caught in My Own Trap.” In this highly engaging article, the author reflects on her fieldwork experiences as part of a research project in the UK on far-right activists with a migration background. Many of them are of Polish origin, and so is the author. This made her a perfect person to conduct the interviews, since she was immediately defined as a specific type of insider, which in research involving migrants is usually (but not always) considered an asset (e.g., Pustulka et al., 2019). Moreover, most far-right activists in the UK (and elsewhere) are cismen (Ralph-Morrow, 2022), and the author is a ciswoman. Their gender identities played a pivotal role in the fieldwork dynamic, in which the flirtation, initiated by one of the research participants, is the main plot of the article, touching on questions of agency, risk, and security during fieldwork, emotional labor, and ethics, as well as on third-wave feminism. In other words, the article adds some new perspectives to the ongoing discussions on the positionality of female (and male) academics in research on masculinities and (with) men, developed over three decades within critical studies on men and masculinities (Pini & Pease, 2013). Jochymek's article is an interesting addition to this scholarship, given that flirting during fieldwork has already been a prominent issue (Kaspar & Landolt, 2016; Rodríguez-Dorans, 2018; Wojnicka, 2020) and is discussed mostly in the context of benefits and risks associated with the practices of flirting with the (mostly male) research participants. And there are many of both. Among the benefits, one can list access to participants, which is usually easier for female researchers, as exemplified in Jochymek's article and elsewhere (e.g., Mügge, 2013; Wojnicka, 2020). The relative ease of discussing sensitive topics, such as intimate relationships and family issues, also appears to be linked to the dynamic between female researchers and male research participants. But the dark sides of flirting include the risk of sexual harassment, the potential undermining of the researcher's credibility, as mentioned by Jochymek, and, not least, the difficulty of leaving the field. A particularly compelling aspect of the article is its engagement with the concept of agency. Jochymek discloses that her decision to employ “flirting methodology” was intentional, and drawing on Kaspar and Landolt (2016), she frames it as an exercise of agency in using her gender, sexuality, and body within research practice. She articulates how this choice influenced both her fieldwork and her academic positionality. What we know far less about is the impact of flirting on research participants. While the author notes that the participant initiated the flirtation, little is known about the consequences for participants when this data-collection approach is used. Existing literature suggests that many interviewees, particularly migrants, may experience loneliness (Wojnicka, forthcoming). The chance to have meaningful conversations with an attentive female researcher may be difficult for them to decline. Yet questions remain about their experiences after fieldwork concludes: How do they process the emotions generated during these interactions? How do they cope with the inevitable separation when the researcher returns to her personal and professional life, while participants remain in their previous circumstances? As a female researcher who has conducted qualitative studies with men for over 20 years, I've always encountered the flirting issue. Although most of my research participants, who today can be numbered in the hundreds, did not flirt with me, in almost every project I have been involved in, some men have tried to do so. As a young scholar, I was initially shocked by these situations; then I got used to them; then I started developing strategies aimed at minimizing the opportunities for flirting (which rarely even worked). Eventually, I wrote papers in which I address “flirting methodology” and its pros and cons (Wojnicka, 2020). I choose to avoid flirting in fieldwork for several reasons. Part of this is motivated by the risks discussed above, but at the current stage of my career, I am mostly concerned about the research participants and how flirting affects them and their lives after the fieldwork ends. From my practice, I know that for many of them, meeting a researcher who listens can feel like an opportunity to start a new relationship. This is especially evident for single men, with whom I usually interact because of the specificity of my research projects. Even years after the interview, I sometimes receive messages from them asking how I am, telling me what they are up to, and sharing what bothers them in life. And this happens despite my decision to avoid flirting at any cost. What happens to research participants when flirting is part of the data-collection process remains unknown and should not be ignored. Hence, whether to flirt is a critical question for female ethnologists, anthropologists, and sociologists researching men and masculinities, and it should be considered the next time we establish contact with a potential research participant.