Advertisement

Introduction: Affective Dimensions of Fieldwork and Ethnography

  • Ferdiansyah Thajib
  • Samia Dinkelaker
  • Thomas StodulkaEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Theory and History in the Human and Social Sciences book series (THHSS)

Abstract

This introduction explores the role of researchers’ emotions and affects in understanding “the field.” Anthropologists have widely discussed and debated fieldwork reflexivity in terms of fieldwork ethics, methodological practices, colonial traditions inscribed in ethnographic encounters, and modes of ethnographic representation. This chapter focuses on methodological implications that bring to awareness the potentials of researchers’ affects and emotions that less hinder than enable processes of anthropological and social scientific knowledge construction. It extends on classic and recent contributions from psychological and feminist anthropology and aims to provide intellectual space for methodological and epistemological debates, and expound the potentials and the limits of affectively aware scholarship.

Keywords

Affect Emotion Ethnography Fieldwork Methododology montage 

References

  1. Amit, V. (Ed.). (2003). Constructing the field. Ethnographic fieldwork in the contemporary world. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  2. Asad, T. (Ed.). (1973). Anthropology and the colonial encounter. London: Ithaca Press.Google Scholar
  3. Beatty, A. (2010). How did it feel for you? Emotion, narrative, and the limits of ethnography. American Anthropologist, 122(3), 430–443.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1548-1433.2010.01250.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Behar, R. (1996). The vulnerable observer: Anthropology that breaks your heart. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  5. Behar, R., & Gordon, D. (Eds.). (1995). Women writing culture. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  6. Berger, P. (2010). Assessing the relevance and effects of ‘key emotional episodes’ for the fieldwork process. In D. Spencer & J. Davies (Eds.), Anthropological fieldwork: A relational process (pp. 119–143). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
  7. Burkitt, I. (2014). Emotions and social relations. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Caduff, C. (2011). Anthropology’s ethics: Moral positionalism, cultural relativism, and critical analysis. Anthropological Theory, 11(4), 465–480.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1463499611428921CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Caplan, P. (Ed.). (2003). The ethics of anthropology: Debates and dilemmas. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Clifford, J., & Marcus, G. E. (Eds.). (1986). Writing culture: The poetics and politics of ethnography. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  11. Crapanzano, V. (2010). At the heart of the discipline: Critical Reflections on Fieldwork. In Davies, James/Spencer, Dimitrina (Hg.): Emotions in the Field. The Anthropology and Psy-chology of Fieldwork Experience. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press, S. 55–78.Google Scholar
  12. Davies, J., & Spencer, D. (Eds.). (2010). Emotions in the field: The psychology and anthropology of fieldwork experience. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Davies, J., & Stodulka, T. (2019). Emotions in the field. In P. A. Atkinson, S. Delamont, M. A. Hardy, & M. Williams (Eds.), SAGE encyclopedia of research methods. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  14. De Laine, M. (2000). Fieldwork, participation and practice: Ethics and dilemmas in qualitative research. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  15. Dilger, H., Huschke, S., & Mattes, D. (2015). Ethics, epistemology and engagement: Encountering values in medical anthropology. Medical Anthropology, 34(1), 1–10.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01459740.2014.960565CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Ellis, C. (2004). The ethnographic I: A methodological novel about autoethnography. Walnut Creek: Alta Mira.Google Scholar
  17. Fabian, J. (1990). Presence and representation: The other and anthropological writing. Critical Inquiry, 16(4), 753–772.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fischer, M. M. J. (2018). Anthropology in the Meantime: Experimental Ethnography, Theory, and MEthod for the Twenty-First Century. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Fluehr-Lobban, C. (Ed.). (1991). Ethics and the profession of anthropology. Dialogue for a new era. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
  20. Gupta, A., & Ferguson, J. (1997). Discipline and practice: ‘The field’ as site, method and location in anthropology. In A. Gupta & J. Ferguson (Eds.), Anthropological locations. Boundaries and grounds of a field science (pp. 1–46). Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  21. Hastrup, K. (2010). Emotional topographies: The sense of place in the far north. In J. Davies & D. Spencer (Eds.), Emotions in the field: The anthropology and psychology of fieldwork experience (pp. 191–211). Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Hollan, D. (2008). Being There: On the Imaginative Aspects of Understanding Others and Being Understood. Ethos, 36(4), 475–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hollan, D., Throop, C. J. (2008). Whatever Happened to Empathy?: Introduction. Ethos, 36(4), 385–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hubbard, G., Backett-Milburn, K., & Kemmer, D. (2001). Working with emotion: Issues for the researcher in fieldwork and teamwork. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 4(2), 119–137.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13645570116992CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jackson, M. (2010). From anxiety to method in anthropological fieldwork. An appraisal of George Devereux’s enduring ideas. In J. Davies & D. Spencer (Eds.), Emotions in the field: The anthropology and psychology of fieldwork experience (pp. 35–54). Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Jackson, M., & Piette, A. (Eds.). (2015). What is existential anthropology? New York: Berghahn.Google Scholar
  27. Keil, J. (2019). Gefühle in der Wissenschaft. Wie an nichtmenschlichen Primaten Forschende die Gefahren- und Nutzenpotentiale ihrer Empfindungen managen. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Freie Universität, Berlin.Google Scholar
  28. Lehmann, J., & Stodulka, T. (2018). A “steady eye” in “a moving world”: Comparative perspectives on travel writing and ethnography. Journeys – The International Journal of Travel and Travel Writing, 19(2), 23–43.  https://doi.org/10.3167/jys.2018.190202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Leibing, A., & McLean, A. (2007). Learn to value your shadow! An introduction to the margins of fieldwork. In A. Mc Lean & A. Leibing (Eds.), The shadow side of fieldwork. Exploring the blurred borders between ethnography and life (pp. 1–28). Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  30. Liebal, K., Lubrich, O., & Stodulka, T. (Eds.). (2019). Emotionen im Feld – Gespräche zur Ethnographie, Primatographie und Reiseliteratur. Bielefeld: Transcript.Google Scholar
  31. Lubrich, O., & Stodulka, T. (2019). Emotionen auf Expeditionen – Ein Taschenbuch für Feldforscher. Bielefeld: Transcript.Google Scholar
  32. Lubrich, O., Liebal, K., & Stodulka, T. (2017). Affekte im Feld – Ein blinder Fleck der Forschung? Interdisziplinäre Anthropologie, 5, 179–197.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-19556-4_13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. MacDougall, D. (1998). Transcultural cinema. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Marcus, G. (1995). Ethnography in/of the world system: The emergence of multi-sited ethnography. Annual Review of Anthropology, 24, 95–117.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.an.24.100195.000523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Narayan, K. (1993). How native is a native anthropologist? American Anthropologist, 95(3), 671–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Okely, J. (2012). Anthropological practice: Fieldwork and the ethnographic method. London: Berg.Google Scholar
  37. Rabinow, P. (1977). Reflections on fieldwork in Morocco. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  38. Rappaport, J. (2008). Beyond participant observation: Collaborative ethnography as theoretical innovation. Collaborative Anthropologies, 1, 1–31.  https://doi.org/10.1353/cla.0.0014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rosaldo, M. (1980). The use and abuse of anthropology: Reflections on feminism and cross-cultural understanding. Signs, 5, 389–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rosaldo, R. (1989). Culture and truth: The remaking of social analysis. Boston: Beacon.Google Scholar
  41. Rosaldo, R. (2014). The day of Shelly’s death: The poetry and ethnography of grief. Durham: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Röttger-Rössler, B., & Stodulka, T. (2014). Introduction: The emotional make-up of stigma and marginality. In T. Stodulka & B. Röttger-Rössler (Eds.), Feelings at the margins: Dealing with violence, stigma and isolation in Indonesia (pp. 11–29). Frankfurt: Campus.Google Scholar
  43. Sanjek, R. (1991). The ethnographic present. Man, 26(3), 609–628.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2803772CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Scheper-Hughes, N. (1995). The primacy of the ethical: Propositions for a militant anthropology. Current Anthropology, 36(3), 409–440. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2744051CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Shah, M. (2018). Affe und Affekt. Die Forschungsmemoiren der Primatologie. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Bern, Bern.Google Scholar
  46. Sluka, J. A., & Robben, A. (2012). Fieldwork in cultural anthropology: An introduction. In A. Robben & J. A. Sluka (Eds.), Ethnographic fieldwork: An anthropological reader (pp. 1–45). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  47. Smith, L. T. (1999). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples. London: Zed Books.Google Scholar
  48. Spencer, D. (2010). Introduction. Emotional labour and relational observation in anthropological fieldwork. In D. Spencer & J. Davies (Eds.), Anthropological fieldwork: A relational process (pp. 1–34). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
  49. Spencer, D. (2011). Emotions and the transformative potential of fieldwork: Some implications for teaching and learning anthropology. Teaching Anthropology, 1(2), 68–97.  https://doi.org/10.22582/ta.v1i2.301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Stoczkowski, W. (2008). The ‘fourth aim’ of anthropology: Between knowledge and ethics. Anthropological Theory, 8, 345–356.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1463499608096643CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Stodulka, T. (2014). Feldforschung als Begegnung – Zur pragmatischen Dimension ethnographischer Daten [Fieldwork as encounter: The pragmatic dimension of ethnographic data]. Sociologus, 64(2), 179–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Stodulka, T. (2015). Emotion work, ethnography, and survival strategies on the streets of Yokyakarta. Medical Anthropology, 34(1), 84–97.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01459740.2014.916706CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Stodulka, T. (2017a). Towards an integrative anthropology of emotion – A case study from Yogyakarta. In A. Storch (Ed.), Consensus and dissent: Negotiating emotion in the public space (pp. 9–34). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Stodulka, T. (2017b). ‘Storms of slander’ – Relational dimensions of ‘envy’ in Java, Indonesia. In R. Smith, M. Duffy, & U. Merlone (Eds.), Envy at work and in organizations (pp. 297–320). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Stodulka, T. (2017c). Coming of age on the streets of Java. Coping with marginality, stigma and illness. Bielefeld: Transcript.Google Scholar
  56. Stodulka, T., Thajib, F., & Dinkelaker, S. (2016, February 11). Behind the scenes. Reflexive accounts on ethnolab. Retrieved from http://ethnolab.kunci.or.id/2016/02/11/reflective-accounts/
  57. Stodulka, T., Selim, N., & Mattes, D. (2018). Affective scholarship: Doing anthropology with epistemic affects. Ethos, 46(4), 519–536.  https://doi.org/10.1111/etho.12219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Stodulka, T., Dinkelaker, S., & Thajib, F. (2019). Fieldwork, ethnography, and the empirical affect montage. In A. Kahl (Ed.), Analyzing affective societies: Methods and methodologies. (pp. 279–295). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  59. Stoller, P., & Olkes, C. (2012). The taste of ethnographic things. In A. Robben & J. A. Sluka (Eds.), Ethnographic fieldwork: An anthropological reader (pp. 465–479). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  60. Suter, F. (2016, February 12). Troublesome tourism: Informal guiding in Yogyakarta. Retrieved from http://ethnolab.kunci.or.id/2016/02/12/troublesome-tourism-fermin-suter/
  61. Tierney, W. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (1997). Representation and the text: Re-framing the narrative voice. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  62. Veissière, S. P. L. (2009). Making a living: The gringo ethnographer as pimp of the suffering in the late capitalist night. Cultural Studies ↔ Critical Methodologies, 10(1), 29–39.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1532708609351152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Visweswaran, K. (1994). Fictions of feminist ethnography. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  64. White, D. (2017). Affect: An introduction. Cultural Anthropology, 32(2), 175–180.  https://doi.org/10.14506/ca32.2.01CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Wolf, D. L. (Ed.). (1996). Feminist dilemmas in fieldwork. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ferdiansyah Thajib
    • 1
  • Samia Dinkelaker
    • 1
    • 2
  • Thomas Stodulka
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Institute of Social and Cultural Anthropology, Freie Universität BerlinBerlinGermany
  2. 2.Institute for Migration Research and Intercultural StudiesOsnabrück UniversityOsnabrückGermany

Personalised recommendations