Lecture 1:

Thinking through the field

Paula Uimonen, Associate Professor
Department of Social Anthropology
SAM203: Social anthropological method

5 September 2018
Why fieldwork matters

(Borneman 2009)
Origins of fieldwork
● Bronislaw Malinowski
● https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otZDVauLnxM
● Immersion over extended period of time
– in ’exotic’ places
● Grasp the native’s point of view
● What people say and what they do
– and the differences between

participant observation
ethnography rite de passage
Fieldwork and the crisis of representation
(Borneman 2009: introduction)
● Colonial and postcolonial relations of domination
– Colonized people as objects of ethnographer’s gaze
– Emphasis on difference, othering

● Science and Enlightenment ideas

– Anthropology as human science, inspired by natural science (e.g. Radcliffe-
Brown: comparative sociology)
– Objective ’observation’ (ahistorical, decontextualised ’documentation’)

● Monographs, writing and authority

– detailed accounts, bounded and/or totalizing theory

● Critique of and within anthropology

– Anthropology and the Colonial Encounter (Asad 1973)
– Orientalism (Said 1978)
– Time and the Other (Fabian 1983)
– Writing Culture (Clifford & Marcus 1986)
– See also Lewis, H. 1998. The misrepresentation of anthropology and its
consequences. American Anthropologist 100(3):716-731
Fieldwork and crisis of representation
(Borneman 2009: introduction)
● Experimental alternatives to traditional fieldwork
– Putting things together (Marcus 1986)
– Hanging out (Clifford 1986)
– Follow global flows (Appadurai 1990)
● Focus on dialogism (to avoid power/domination),
performance (fictionalization in description and
interpretation) and representation (anthropologist’s gaze)
● Shortcomings:
– Repetitive theoretical claims (things are constructed, partial, plural,
unstable, historical, in-between etc)
– Surface over depth (thin description, ethnography as illustration)
– Discourse and textualism (instead of fieldwork and human action)
– Grand theory drives anthropology (trends in philosophy/social
theory instead of theories generated from ethnography)
 Why ’being there’ makes a difference
(Borneman 2009: 19-20)
● Fieldwork as experiental encounter, generates
experiental insights through visualization, observation,
linguistic exchange, (mis)translation, feelings, arguments,
discussions, fights, power tactics etc
● Fieldwork encounters as modes of ethical engagament,
reflexive experience, mediated exchange
● Dialectical objectification: reconceptualize relation
between observation, experience and representation
(relation subject/object more unstable and variable than
typical in critiques of colonialism or power/knowledge)

accumulative unsettling accidental

stage of career
incomplete uncertain improvised
Some examples (Tanzania and Russia)
● Sally Falk Moore in Tanzania: 1968-1993, started in her
40s, formerly lawyer. Chagga and coffee cooperative,
expected positive attitudes to socialism (ujamaa).
Methods: mapping and census (incl. absentees), archival
records. Politically suspect as white American.
● Eugene Rakhel: S:t Petersburg-Municipal Addiction
Hospital and House of Recovery, to study transformations
in Russian addiction medicine (started 2003).
Dissertation project (junior researcher, émigré).
Questions of anonymity and identity. Hospital:
psychologist or fellow expert. Center: recovering addict?
Another example (Cambodia)
● Fieldwork for MA thesis
● 10 weeks in 1994
● Minimum budget
● Topic: social memory among
Khmer peasants (history of
Pol Pot and khmer rouge)
● Challenges
– Security
– Logistics
– Language
– Illness
– Fear
– Guilt
– Powerlessness
Being where?

(Nader 2011, Coleman & Collins 2006)

Ethnography as theory (Nader 2011)
● Ethnography-a theory of description
– participant observation has always been combined with theory
● Historically: being there, holism, and politically ’blind’ (e.g. Geertz’ essay
on cock fight in Indonesia (1973), footnote on massacre)

● ’Unstated rule’: non-Western societies, bounded systems

● Theoretically heterodox: functionalism, structural-functionalism,

structuralism, interpretive, reflexive, critical etc.

● Globalization: innovative, eclectic and open-ended work, but also

criticized for being journalistic, political, unscientific (unspoken consensus
on exotic other versus us?)

● ”Science is not and cannot be politically neutral” (page 217)

Studying up/sideways/down/through
● Tendency to focus on marginalized peoples, even ’at
home,’ siding with the ’underdog’ (Nader 1972)
● Limited and one-sided theoretical understanding of
power relations, social change, agency etc
● Urgency of studying up:
– Theoretical: e.g. relations instead of groups, holistic rather than partial
understanding of phenomena
– Practical/political: usefulness, engagement

● Some challenges:
– Access: can be overcome, e.g. networks, public rules
– Participant observation: new methods required

● Also studying sideways and studying through

(Hannerz 2006)
Anthropology at home
● Defamiliarize the familiar
– ’At home’ often not so close to home (e.g. homeless)
– Challenge to study one’s own (e.g. middle class)
● Reflexivity and analytic distance
● Social networks for access
● Considerable advance knowledge
● Language and social codes
● Boundaries of field and fieldwork
● Theoretical insights?
● Practical/political use?
Anthropology in the world
(Coleman & Collins 2006)
● Globalization and interconnectedness
– following, circulation, connection, association
● Challenges scope and practice of ethnography
– fields can no longer be seen as disconnected
● Social anthropology primarily about social relationships, only
derivatively about places (Hannerz in Coleman & Collins, page
11-12), cf culture as network of perspectives (Hannerz 1992)
● Multidimensional fields, more than space/place
(vs. cartography of traditional fieldwork, e.g. maps in The Nuer)
● Construction of field as performance: constantly in process of
becoming (instead of fixed in time and space)

’Becoming there’ instead of ’being there’

Multi-sited fields (Hannerz 2003)
● Intensified with interest in globalization, but started
earlier (e.g. Malinowski-multilocal kula ring)
● Translocal topic/problem as basis: connections between
sites as important as relationships within them
– not just a comparative study of multiple sites
● Segments (e.g. professional lives of foreign
correspondents) rather than holism of a place/people
● Temporality: short-lived sites (e.g. conferences), mobile
professions (e.g. correspondents)
● Variety of materials: interviews, observations, media,
’polymorphous engagements’ (Gusterson 1997)
● Practical considerations: fieldwork in batches instead of
a block of time often more feasible
 Multi-sited example: Internet pioneers
(Uimonen 2001)

● Translocal focus: Internet development and globalization

● Macro-anthropology: ethnography of the Internet

● Studying up: professional elite

● Following the ’Internet pioneers:’ professionals involved in

Internet development in ’developing countries’

● Multi-sited fieldwork: Geneva, Malaysia, Laos, cyberspace

● Methods: interviews primarily, some participant observation

at conferences, online (mailing lists), Internet cafes,

collection of documents and information on websites

● Challenges: breaking new ground, ethnographically ’thin’,

theoretically difficult (Manuel Castells, postmodernism)

Single-sited fields
● A single site can be used to address global phenomena
– making connections, openness to here & there
(e.g. Post-diasporic Indian communities)
● Depth of immersion a valuable experience in itself
– Cf Borneman 2009
● Sites and strategic locations
– Theoretical interest + accessible/suitable site
● Temporality: a single site enables longer period of
immersion than multi-sited fieldwork

Should be experienced at least once in a career!

Variety in field sites
(Coleman & Collins 2006)
● The field is often delineated during and after fieldwork
● Different field sites to answer different research questions
● Reflexivity: positioning and perspective of researcher
● Combination of research methods:
– Participant observation
– Interviews
– Visual and sensory methods
– And….
● Some examples:
– Doing anthropology at MIT
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhCruPBvSjQ
Fields and career (Hannerz 2006)
● 4 sites over more than 4 decades:
– Washington D.C.: socio-linguistic project, 2 years (late 1960s),
hanging out in black neighbourhood, one city block
– Cayman Islands: (conference in Jamaica), 1970, local-level
politics, studying up and backwards
– Nigeria (1970s/1980s): urban community, ethnicity and
occupational structure, assistants and mini-fields
– Foreign correspondents (mid-1990s): multi-sited,
occupational category, interviews
● Anthropology by immersion/anthropology by appointment
● Role of chance, serendipity and improvisation
● Now global scape, but worry over geographic spread
Walking and place-making (Lee & Ingold 2006)
● Aberdeen 2004-2005 - Culture from the Ground: Walking
Movement and Placemaking
● Walking compared with participant observation
– One step at a time on the ground, cf directness and detail
– Places created by routes, cf understanding routes and
mobilities of others
– Walking with others and sociability, cf closeness and bonding
● Walking as embodied experience, reflection (thinking time),
rhythm (pace), channeling emotions, liminality etc
● Place-making: routes, timing of walks, environment
● Phenomenological instead of symbolic analysis (Geertz)
● Walking with sound recorder (MA student 2016)
Mobile subjects (Frohlick 2006)
● Mountaineering in Nepal, gender, global/local
● How to capture mobility of research subjects?
● Tensions between localizing ethnography and global
worlds as productive (instead of anxieties)
● Multi-sited ethnography to encounter how research
subjects circulate in global and social circuits
● Disruptions and negotiations of binary categories of
travel, e.g. locals (stationary)/tourists (mobile)
Social spaces (Nisbett 2006)
● Doctoral research in Bangalore cybercafé on young
middle-class men in new social spaces of modernity
● Role of different places in development of gendered
identities (cybercafés, Internet, new type of coffee shops)
● Cybercafé: Networld in suburb, catering to local
residents, college students, school children, workers
– Outside: timepass- sitting around, talking, smoking
– Inside: masculine space of modernity, progress,
connectedness
– Online: chatting with girls, expressing emotions
– Offline: meeting girls in modern coffee shops
Seminar 1 on Wednesday 26/9
● Topic: Essentials of fieldwork
● Assignment: methods paper (3-4 pages)
● Discuss critical aspects of ethnographic fieldwork,
including methods of participant observation and
interviews, selection and delineation of field sites, and
ethical considerations. Make sure to refer to the course
literature: Bornemann & Hammoudi (2009), Coleman &
Collins (2006), Hammersley & Atkinson (2003), Nader
(2011).
● Submit in Mondo by Tuesday 25/9 at 09:00