Weiwei Li

One of the most challenging aspects of this fieldwork was recognizing how strongly my initial research question shaped what I expected to find. I entered the project with a clear interest in how Chinese Gen Z encounter censored or fragmented histories, but I also carried an assumption: that exposure to suppressed information would lead to a moment of rupture or distancing from nationalism. This assumption influenced not only the questions I asked, but also how I listened. As the fieldwork progressed, it became increasingly clear that this framing was limiting. My interlocutors did encounter gaps, contradictions, and silences in historical knowledge, but these moments did not function in the way I had anticipated. Instead of producing disillusionment, they were often integrated into existing attachments to China. At first, this felt like a failure of my research design. I worried that I was not asking the “right” questions, or that my fieldwork had not reached the kind of insight I was looking for. Over time, however, I realized that the problem was not the field, but my expectations. My questions were shaped by my own position by critical narratives I was familiar with, and by an assumption that “awakening” is a natural or desirable outcome when people encounter historical complexity. This made it harder for me to see what my interlocutors were actually doing: adjusting their understandings, holding contradictions, and continuing forward without the need for resolution. This recognition shifted how I approached the field. Rather than looking for turning points, I began paying attention to how people navigated uncertainty in everyday ways: how they spoke cautiously, how they used humor or English to manage sensitive topics, and how they positioned themselves ethically in relation to China despite incomplete knowledge. These patterns were subtle, but they were consistent. This experience taught me that fieldwork is closely tied to what the researcher is prepared to notice. Our interests and assumptions allow us access to certain insights, but they also create blind spots. One key lesson from this project is the importance of situating one’s research questions within broader political and social contexts, and remaining open to revising them when they no longer align with what the field reveals. Rather than producing the answers I expected, this fieldwork required me to rethink my analytical starting point. That process, though difficult, ultimately led to a more grounded and attentive ethnography.