Zeitschrift für Ethnologie 141 (2016) 215–232 © 2016 Dietrich Reimer Verlag What are you really looking for? Ethnography while (feeling) under surveillance Anna Zadrożna Anthropology Department, Yeditepe University, Istanbul Abstract: Establishing rapport, trust and credibility is crucial for undertaking proper ieldwork. In areas of conlict or heightened political tensions, however, establishing this type of bond can become a chal- lenge. Seen as a spy, an agent or simply as a suspicious outsider, the ethnographer may never gain trust. Moreover, s/he can become a subject of (counter-)surveillance, whereby s/he is observed and controlled; consequently, the feeling of being under suspicious eyes may alter the research output and possibly cause anxiety and unease. In this paper I explore how (the feeling of) being under surveillance inluences the ethnographer, the research process and the knowledge she produces as a writer. Are there spaces and is- sues that should be silenced or ield sites to be abandoned? And what can s/he learn from the experience of being under surveillance in the ield? [(counter-)surveillance, protective surveillance, diicult ields, ieldwork ethics, embodiment] Introduction During the last few decades, the academic approach regarding ethnographic ieldwork methods has gone through considerable transformation. Postmodern and feminist critiques highlighted the issue of power relations between the ethnographer and the interlocutors, questioned previous research approaches as biased and problematised the ethnographer’s status as often privileged, abusive or oppressive towards the local population and culture (Abu-Lughod 1991; Cliford 1988; Delamont 2009; Gupta and Ferguson 1992; Marcus and Cliford eds. 1986; Moore 1987; Wolf 1996). Con- sequently, current research methodologies give a good deal of attention to ethics and to the researcher’s position in the ield, and propose relexivity (Marcus and Cliford eds. 1986) and collaboration (Rappaport 2008). Ideally, the ethnographer would work together with her/his interlocutors, who become guides through their ‘culture’ or even co-authors in the inal writing. Nonetheless, this often remains an ethnographic utopia. In reality, ield sites might turn out to be diicult or dangerous (Kovats-Bernat 2002; Nilan 2002) and the re- search topics may be considered sensitive or risky (Ashtalkovska 2011; Verdery 2012), making the presence of the researcher barely welcome. Relationships in the ield are rarely of a harmonious nature: both ethnographer and interlocutors continuously nego- tiate positions, and each of them may silence information if it is considered shameful or