Il ‘campo’ geografico di un’etnografia sottile. Cinque esperimenti di fieldwork

Titolo Rivista RIVISTA GEOGRAFICA ITALIANA
Autori/Curatori Alberto Valz Gris, Chiara Iacovone, Astrid Safina, Andrea Pollio, Francesca Governa
Anno di pubblicazione 2022 Fascicolo 2022/1
Lingua Italiano Numero pagine 27 P. 5-31 Dimensione file 0 KB
DOI 10.3280/rgioa1-2022oa13364
Il DOI è il codice a barre della proprietà intellettuale: per saperne di più clicca qui

Vedi l'articolo Scarica l'articolo open access

FrancoAngeli è membro della Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA)associazione indipendente e non profit per facilitare (attraverso i servizi tecnologici implementati da CrossRef.org) l’accesso degli studiosi ai contenuti digitali nelle pubblicazioni professionali e scientifiche

Negli ultimi 20 anni, esperienze e pratiche di ricerca etnografica si sono progressivamente affermate nella ricerca geografica fino a diventarne una componente fondamentale. Eppure ‘fare etnografia’ in geografia non è certo né scontato: richiede un adattamento alle esigenze e agli obiettivi della riflessione geografica, ma anche alla complessità del ‘campo’ della ricerca nelle scienze sociali contemporanee. In particolare, i tempi, i luoghi e le forme di un’etnografia thick (Geertz, 1973) sembrano inadatte a confrontarsi con le complessità spazio-temporali delle dinamiche socio-spaziali attuali, con le trasformazioni del campo di ricerca, del soggetto che fa ricerca e del contesto in cui si fa ricerca, ma anche, e più radicalmente, con i limiti derivanti dal retaggio coloniale della ricerca etnografica. Attraverso il riferimento a cinque radicalmente diverse esperienze di ricerca sul campo, l’articolo pone la questione del fare etnografia nella ricerca geografica ed esplora le possibilità di un suo ripensamento critico nella direzione di una positiva e necessaria sottigliezza e superficialità.;

Keywords:; etnografia, thin description, campo, metodo

  1. Meyerhoff E., Johnson E., Braun B. (2011). Time and the university. ACME: An International Journal for Critical Geographies, 10(3): 483-507.
  2. Mosse D., a cura di (2011). Adventures in Aidland: The anthropology of professionals in international development. New York: Berghahn Books.
  3. Id. (2017). Notes on the ethnography of expertise and professionals in international development. Paper presentato a Ethnografeast III: Ethnography and the public sphere.
  4. Curran W. (2015). For slow scholarship: A feminist politics of resistance through collective action in the neoliberal university. ACME: An International Journal for Critical Geographies, 14(4): 1235-1259.
  5. Nader L. (1969). Up the anthropologist: perspectives gained from studying up. In: Hymes D., a cura di, Reinventing Anthropology. New York: Pantheon.
  6. National Bureau of Statistics of China (2019). China Statistical Yearbook.
  7. Onwuegbuzie A.J., Leech N.L. (2005). On becoming a pragmatic researcher: The importance of combining quantitative and qualitative research methodologies.
  8. International journal of social research methodology, 8(5): 375-387. DOI: 10.1080/13645570500402447
  9. Pandian A. (2019). A possible anthropology: methods for uneasy times. Durham: Duke University Press.
  10. Peck J., Theodore N. (2012). Follow the policy: A distended case approach. Environment & Planning A, 44(1): 21-30. DOI: 10.1068/a44179
  11. Philip L.J. (1998). Combining quantitative and qualitative approaches to social research in human geography – an impossible mixture? Environment & Planning A, 30(2): 261-276. DOI: 10.1068/a300261
  12. Pieke F. (2000). Serendipity: reflections on fieldwork in China. In: Parkin D., Dresch P., James W., a cura di, Anthropologists in a Wider World. Oxford: Berghahn Books.
  13. Pink S. (2009). Situating sensory ethnography: from academia to intervention. In: Pink S., Doing Sensory Ethnography. London: Sage.
  14. Ead., Horst H., Postill J., Hjorth L., Lewis T., Tacchi J. (2016). Digital ethnography. London: Sage.
  15. Ead., Morgan J. (2013). Short‐term ethnography: Intense routes to knowing. Symbolic Interaction, 36(3): 351-361. DOI: 10.1002/symb.66
  16. Pollio A. (2020). Making the silicon cape of Africa: Tales, theories and the narration of startup urbanism. Urban Studies, 57(13): 2715-2732. DOI: 10.1177/0042098019884275
  17. Riles A. (2000). The network inside out. Ann Arbour: University of Michigan Press.
  18. Rist R.C. (1980). Blitzkrieg ethnography: On the transformation of a method into a movement. Educational researcher, 9(2): 8-10. DOI: 10.3102/0013189X009002008
  19. Roy A. (2010). Poverty capital: Microfinance and the making of development. London: Routledge.
  20. Ead. (2012). Ethnographic circulations: Space-time relations in the worlds of poverty management. Environment & Planning A, 44(1): 31-41. DOI: 10.1068/a44180
  21. Rozelle S., Hell N. (2020). Invisible China. How the urban-rural divide threatens China’s Rise. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
  22. Sheppard E. (2001). Quantitative geography: representations, practices, and possibilities. Environment & Planning D, 19(5): 535-554. DOI: 10.1068/d307
  23. Smith F. (1996). Problematising language: limitations and possibilities in ‘foreign language’ research. Area, 28: 160-166.
  24. Sokol M. (2017). Financialisation, financial chains and uneven geographical development: Towards a research agenda. Research in International Business and Finance, 39: 678-685. DOI: 10.1016/j.ribaf.2015.11.007
  25. Stacey J. (1988). Can there be a feminist ethnography? Women’s Studies International Forum, 11(1): 21-27. DOI: 10.1016/0277-5395(88)90004-0
  26. Stellmach D. (2020). The field is ever further: In search of the elusive space of fieldwork. Ethnography. DOI: 10.1177/1466138119898744
  27. Streule M. (2020). Doing Mobile Ethnography: Grounded, Situated and Comparative. Urban Studies, 57(2): 421-38. DOI: 10.1177/0042098018817418
  28. Sundberg J. (2003). Masculinist Epistemologies and the Politics of Fieldwork in Latin Americanist Geography. The Professional Geographer, 55(2): 180-190. DOI: 10.1111/0033-0124.5502006
  29. Thøgersen S. (2016). Beyond Official Chinese: Language Codes and Strategies. In: Heimer M., Thøgersen S., a cura di, Doing Fieldwork in China. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.
  30. Id., Heimer M. (2016). Introduction. In: Heimer M., Thøgersen S., a cura di, Doing Fieldwork in China. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.
  31. Yaneva A. (2009). Made by the Office for Metropolitan Architecture: an ethnography of design. Rotterdam: 010 Publishers.
  32. Watson E.E. (2004). ‘What a dolt one is’: language learning and fieldwork in geography. Area, 36(1): 59-68.
  33. Zaloom C. (2006). Out of the pits: Traders and technology from Chicago to London. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  34. Zhu J. (2009). Architecture of Modern China: A Historical Critique. Abingdon and New York: Routledge.
  35. Abbott D. (2006). Disrupting the ‘whiteness’ of fieldwork in geography. Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography, 27: 326-341. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9493.2006.00265.x
  36. Abidin C., De Seta G. (2020). Private messages from the field: Confessions on digital ethnography and its discomforts. Journal of Digital Social Research, 2(1): 1-19. DOI: 10.33621/jdsr.v2i1.35
  37. Amin A., Thrift N. (2017). Seeing like a city. Cambridge: Polity Press (trad. it. Governa F., Lancione M., a cura di [2020]. Vedere come una città. Milano: Mimesis).
  38. Appadurai A. (1988). Putting hierarchy in its place. Cultural Anthropology, 3: 36-49. DOI: 10.1525/can.1988.3.1.02a00040
  39. Arabindoo P., Delory C. (2020). Photography as urban narrative. City, 24(1-2): 407-422. DOI: 10.1080/13604813.2020.1739413
  40. Ash J., Kitchin R., Leszczynski A. (2018). Digital turn, digital geographies? Progress in Human Geography, 42(1): 25-43. DOI: 10.1177/0309132516664800
  41. Barndt D. (2007). Tangled routes: Women, work, and globalization on the tomato trail. New York: Rowman & Littlefield.
  42. Barnes T. (2019). The importance of ‘being various’: A commentary on ‘Moving beyond Anglo-American economic geography’. International Journal of Urban Sciences, 23(2): 170-176. DOI: 10.1080/12265934.2018.1532313
  43. Benjamin R. (2019). Race After Technology: Abolitionist Tools for the New Jim Code. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
  44. Bie T., Jong B., Derudder B. (2015). Greater Pearl River Delta: Historical evolution towards a global city-region. Journal of Urban Technology, 22(2): 103-123. DOI: 10.1080/10630732.2014.971575
  45. Boellstorff T., Nardi B., Pearce C., Taylor T.L. (2012). Ethnography and virtual worlds. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  46. Brenner N. (2018). Debating planetary urbanization: For an engaged pluralism. Environment & Planning D: Society and Space, 36(3): 570-590. DOI: 10.1177/0263775818757510
  47. Callon M. (2006). What does it mean to say that economics is performative? Parigi: Centre de Sociologie de l’Innovation.
  48. Caselli D. (2020). Esperti. Come studiarli e perché. Bologna: Il Mulino.
  49. Chan K.W. (2010). Fundamentals of China’s urbanization and policy. The China Review 10(1): 63-94.
  50. Chong K. (2018). Best practice: management consulting and the ethics of financialization in China. Durham: Duke University Press.
  51. Clifford J., Marcus G.E. (1986). Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography. Berkeley: University of California Press.
  52. Cook I. (2004). Follow the thing: Papaya. Antipode, 36(4): 642-664. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8330.2004.00441.x
  53. Id. (2006). Geographies of food: following. Progress in Human Geography, 30(5): 655-666. DOI: 10.1177/0309132506070183
  54. Crang M. (2002). Qualitative methods: the new orthodoxy? Progress in Human Geography, 26(5): 647-655. DOI: 10.1191/0309132502ph392pr
  55. Dal Maso G. (2020). Risky Expertise in Chinese Financialisation: Returned Labour and the State-Finance Nexus. Singapore: Springer.
  56. DeLyser D., Sui D. (2013). Crossing the qualitative-quantitative chasm II: Inventive approaches to big data, mobile methods and rhythmanalysis. Progress in Human Geography, 37(2): 293-305. DOI: 10.1177/0309132512444063
  57. Ead., Id. (2014). Crossing the qualitative-quantitative chasm III: Enduring methods, open geography, participatory research, and the fourth paradigm. Progress in Human Geography, 38(2): 294-307. DOI: 10.1177/0309132513479291
  58. Denzin N.K. (1989). Interpretive interactionism. Newbury Park: Sage.
  59. Desmond M. (2014). Relational ethnography. Theory and Society, 43(5): 547-579. DOI: 10.1007/s11186-014-9232-5
  60. Elyachar J. (2005). Markets of dispossession: NGOs, economic development, and the state in Cairo. Durham: Duke University Press.
  61. Fields D. (2019). Automated landlord: Digital technologies and post-crisis financial accumulation. Environment & Planning A: Economy and Space, 0(0): 1-22. DOI: 10.1177/0308518X19846514
  62. Florida R., Gulden T., Mellander C. (2008). The rise of the mega-region. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 1(3): 459-476. DOI: 10.1093/cjres/rsn018
  63. Frassoldati F., Casonato L. (2010). Persistence & Transition. Water, farmland and human settlements in the Zhujiang Delta. Guangzhou: Sandu.
  64. Freeman M. (2014). The Hermeneutical Aesthetics of Thick Description. Qualitative Inquiry, 20(6): 827-833. DOI: 10.1177/1077800414530267
  65. Gade D.W. (2001). The languages of foreign fieldwork. Geographical Review, 91: 370-379. DOI: 10.2307/3250839
  66. Geertz C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books.
  67. Id. (1998). Deep hanging out. The New York Review of Books, 45(16): 69.
  68. Gibson-Graham J.K. (2014) Rethinking the economy with thick description and weak theory. Current Anthropology, 55(9): 147-153. DOI: 10.1086/676646
  69. Graham M., Shelton T. (2013). Geography and the future of big data, big data and the future of geography. Dialogues in Human geography, 3(3): 255-261. DOI: 10.1177/2043820613513121
  70. Günel G., Saiba V., Watanabe C. (2020). A Manifesto for Patchwork Ethnography.
  71. Fieldsights. Testo disponibile al sito: https://culanth.org/fieldsights/a-manifesto-forpatchwork-ethnography (consultato il 23 dicembre 2021).
  72. Hannerz U. (2003). Being there… and there… and there! Reflections on multi-site ethnography. Ethnography, 4(2): 201-216. DOI: 10.1177/14661381030042003
  73. Heimer M., Thøgersen S., a cura di (2016). Doing Fieldwork in China. Copenhagen: NIAS Press.
  74. Herbert S. (2000). For ethnography. Progress in Human Geography, 24(4): 550-568. DOI: 10.1191/030913200100189102
  75. Hine C. (2000). The virtual objects of ethnography. In: Hine C., a cura di, Virtual ethnography. London: Sage.
  76. Ead. (2005). Virtual Methods: Issues in Social Research on the Internet. New York: Berg Publishers.
  77. Hitchings R., Latham A. (2019). Qualitative methods II: On the presentation of ‘geographical ethnography’. Progress in Human Geography, 44(5): 972-980. DOI: 10.1177/0309132519879986
  78. Howell S. (2017). Two or three things I love about ethnography. HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory, 7(1): 15-20. DOI: 10.14318/hau7.1.004
  79. Ingold T. (2014). That’s enough about ethnography! HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory, 4(1): 383-395. DOI: 10.14318/hau4.1.021
  80. Jackson JR J.L. (2013). Thin description. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
  81. Jacobs J.M. (2006). A geography of big things. Cultural geographies, 13(1): 1-27. DOI: 10.1191/1474474006eu354oa
  82. Johnson R.B., Onwuegbuzie A.J., Turner L.A. (2007). Toward a definition of mixed methods research. Journal of mixed methods research, 1(2): 112-133. DOI: 10.1177/1558689806298224
  83. Kaplan C. (2018). Aerial Aftermaths: Wartime from Above. Durham: Duke University Press.
  84. Katz C. (1992). All the world is staged: intellectuals and the projects of ethnography. Environment & Planning D, 10: 495-510. DOI: 10.1068/d100495
  85. Ead. (1994). Playing the Field: Questions of Fieldwork in Geography. The Professional Geographer, 46(1): 67-72. DOI: 10.1111/j.0033-0124.1994.00067.x
  86. Knowles C. (2015). The flip-flop trail and fragile globalization. Theory, Culture & Society, 32(7-8): 231-244. DOI: 10.1177/0263276415576217
  87. Latham A. (2003). Research, performance, and doing human geography: some reflections on the diary-photograph, diary interview method. Environment & Planning A, 35: 1993-2017. DOI: 10.1068/a3587
  88. Madden R. (2010). Being ethnographic. London: Sage.
  89. Malinowski B. (1922). The Argonauts of the Western Pacific. Londra: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
  90. Marcus G.E. (1995). Ethnography in/of the world system: The emergence of multi-sited ethnography. Annual Review of Anthropology, 24(1): 95-117. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.an.24.100195.000523
  91. Ryle G. (1971). Collected papers. Volume II collected essays, 1929-1968. London: Hutchinson.
  92. Santos B.D.S. (2007). Beyond abyssal thinking: From global lines to ecologies of knowledges. Binghamton University Review, 30(1): 45-89. DOI: 10.3726/978-1-4539-1797-8/12
  93. Shepard W. (2015). Ghost Cities of China: The Story of Cities without People in the World’s Most Populated Country. London: Zed.

  • Migrant support volunteer tourism facing crises: Patchwork autoethnographies on Lesvos (Greece) Giovanna Di Matteo, Luca Daminelli, in Tourist Studies /2024 pp.34
    DOI: 10.1177/14687976231216127
  • La favola urbana. Reimmaginare lo spazio attraverso la realizzazione collettiva di film finzionali e parodici Alice Salimbeni, in RIVISTA GEOGRAFICA ITALIANA 3/2022 pp.78
    DOI: 10.3280/rgioa3-2022oa14591
  • Oltre l'emergenza abitativa. Crisi di abitabilità: il caso di Roma Margherita Grazioli, in RIVISTA GEOGRAFICA ITALIANA 2/2024 pp.26
    DOI: 10.3280/rgioa2-2024oa17807
  • Abdelmalek Sayad: dalla doppia assenza alla presentificazione come condizione storica delle migrazioni Nina Bacchini, Luca Daminelli, in REMHU: Revista Interdisciplinar da Mobilidade Humana e321940/2024
    DOI: 10.1590/1980-858525038800032108

Alberto Valz Gris, Chiara Iacovone, Astrid Safina, Andrea Pollio, Francesca Governa, Il ‘campo’ geografico di un’etnografia sottile. Cinque esperimenti di fieldwork in "RIVISTA GEOGRAFICA ITALIANA" 1/2022, pp 5-31, DOI: 10.3280/rgioa1-2022oa13364