This chapter deals with an inevitable form of subjectivity in field-oriented research on and with ethnically defined peoples in Latin America. It asks whether ethnographers can enter a research field marked by historical injustices and highly asymmetric power struggles without losing the standpoint of value-free outsiders. We argue that scholars in the field are not disconnected from local cultural and institutional settings, they cannot expect to conduct fieldwork without a substantial degree of subjectivity. Theoretically, a distinction is made between fieldwork and work in the field, emphasising the often-dual position of researchers: as scholars and activists. We argue that an activist stance is sometimes necessary, though stressing that the primary position must always be that of the scholar—particularly in those highly conflictive fields which often characterise the societal periphery of the Global South. Ethnographers are not merely spectators. Interpretations and conclusions will be affected by the passions and ideological positions encountered in the field. Moreover, ethnographers frequently enter the field with worldviews determined beforehand, a predisposition that may generate misunderstandings, exaggerations or even prejudice. Methodologically, the text draws on decades of fieldwork on indigenous peoples´ struggles and conflicts in Bolivia, Ecuador and Guatemala. The text problematises the intricate intersection between objec-tivity and research, on the one side, and trust and subjectivity, on the other. The authors conclude by stressing the importance of upholding an “objectivity” that does not clash with the basic premises of a communal narrative rooted in historical experiences and structural perceptions of the world. Situational and relational subjectivity is thus inevitable, but that does not imply that the ambition of academic objectivity must be sacrificed. Such objectivity should not be conflated with “neutrality”, lexically speaking.