Author: Candea, Matei

Source: The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, Volume 13, Number 1, March 2007 , pp. 167-184(18)

Publisher: Wiley-Blackwell

Abstract:

The article offers a sympathetic critique of the original formulations of multi-local/multi-sited ethnography. The `multi-sited imaginary' values unboundedness and promotes methodological freedom, but it also implies a problematic reconfiguration of holism (on a grander scale). Whereas these formulations were extremely productive in straining against certain methodological rigidities, their very success in breaking down `boundaries' has given rise to new problems in the doing and writing of ethnography. Written from the perspective of a recent Ph.D. graduate and first-time fieldworker, the article suggests we reconsider the value of self-imposed limitations, of boundedness as a methodological tool. What role did the bounded field-site play for its so-called `traditional' practitioners in social/cultural anthropology? What role could it play for anthropologists who have taken on board the precepts of multi-sitedness? Based on a case study from my own fieldwork in Corsica, I argue that we could think of boundedness (paradoxically) as a productive way of challenging holisms and deferring closure. The bounded field-site, rethought as an `arbitrary location', becomes an explicitly `partial' and incomplete window onto complexity.

Document Type: Research article

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9655.2007.00419.x

Publication date: 2007-03-01

Related content

• In this: publication
• By this: publisher
• In this Subject: Anthropology & Archeology
• By this author: Candea, Matei

Website © Publishing Technology. Article copyright remains with the publisher, society or author(s) as specified within the article.

• Terms and conditions
• Privacy policy
• Information for advertisers