Appendix 1
181
treated as a researcher (private individual) first, and as an NGO representative secondly.
However, to begin this exploration of the Romani aspect of my fieldwork it is useful to
consider one of the unexpected benefits the organization has lent my fieldwork.
While in the field I discovered that MERIA serves as a meeting point for various
experts in the areas of, for example, advocacy, healthcare, law, and government. The
opportunity to create focused dialogue between people of various areas of expertise and
background has been tremendously advantageous. The NGO acts as a kind of “center of
study” involving academics, professionals, and local consultants (grassroots intellectuals).
The issues the group explores are always focused on MERIA initiatives and community
needs, but often stray into more theoretical areas to do with policy, history, and social
change. These conversations also serve as useful starting points for private interviews.
Interestingly, Roma have been the most enthusiastic participants in these dialogues,
which was unexpected considering the usual reticence some researchers encounter from
this community when exploring subjects concerning suffering and injustice.
According to my Romani consultants, MERIA meetings (formal and informal) are
considered safe discursive spaces where the details of sensitive areas of private life can
be shared with non-Roma. I would like to suggest here that the Romani participants
deem discussions in the context of NGO consultation safe for two principal reasons: first,
the organization and those that belong to it have proven themselves to be sympathetic
towards the community (there is little fear that comments might produce negative
repercussions); and second, these exchanges approximate the conditions of “true speech”
in which Romani men often engage. True speaking refers to a particular style of
discourse that occurs at times when men are experiencing moments Ofheightened