Another critical dimension of my ongoing research is methodological: developing a model of politically committed ethnographic research that uses engaged ethnography as a way to contribute to movement goals while using my embedded ethnographic position to generate knowledge of movement practices and dynamics. My research has asked the following questions: What methods are most appropriate for studying social movements, particularly if we are interested in everyday activist practices, experiences, and subjectivities? What is the particular role of ethnography? How can we address power imbalances between activists and researchers? How can we make our research useful to the movements we work with? What challenges and contradictions do we encounter when trying to conduct politically engaged ethnographic research?

Throughout my career, I have developed and implemented a model of politically engaged participant observation I call militant ethnography. Such an approach is meant to challenge the divide between researcher and activist, using my dual position as an organizer and anthropologist to not only gain access to movement networks, but also to generate deeper knowledge and more innovative theoretical insights about movement practices, experiences, emotions, and internal political struggles and debates than would otherwise be possible. I have also learned that it is important to maintain sufficient analytic distance in order to generate knowledge that is critical and useful for academics, members of the public, and activists themselves. Some of the challenges of such an approach include publishing in forums that are accessible to movements, negotiating heated internal conflicts, and finding a balance between political commitment and critical distance.