What does it mean to "work from home"? Despite the way the phrase rolls easily off the tongue, there is nothing simple or transparent about it. The essays in this issue stake out a different territory in which home is not only the location of work but also its subject and perhaps its methodology. While working from home may sound (and be) perfectly acceptable, this close parsing of the phrase also suggests that home-work is not necessarily the "natural" order of things. These essays seek to explore the dynamic of acceptability and normalization in terms that are personal, political, intellectual, and disciplinary. At the same time, the essays also recognize that "home" simultaneously names Indian worlds that exist on their own terms, worlds that are hardly called into being by academic inquiry. Native academics often find themselves in a double bind, confronting the doubled audiences and structures that originate from work that must speak both to "home"--often experienced as family, community, or location--and to something that is "not-home"--the media, the academy, non-Native audiences. If "home" is not only location and subject but also a figure of both obligation and desire, then it is worth interrogating in close detail how the relations at home get played out. The essays by Susan Hill, Robert Innes, and Mary Jane Logan McCallum offer readers much of that detail, to be sure, though they also offer a set of metaframes. In that sense they might see this issue as concretely anchored by Malinda Maynor Lowery, Heather Ponchetti Daly, and Kristina Ackley, all of whom offer illustrative case studies of the pitfalls of working from and on "home."