Advertisement

Research in Times of Turmoil and the Merits of Participant Observation

  • Thomas Hüsken
Chapter
Part of the Palgrave Series in African Borderlands Studies book series (PSABS)

Abstract

This chapter presents an overview of the applied methodology and the empirical basis of this book. It deals with the challenges of fieldwork in times of turmoil related to the Arab revolutions in Egypt and Libya and the subsequent civil war in Libya. The chapter highlights the merits of participant participation based on trust, reliability and confidentiality.

Bibliography

  1. Abu-Lughod, Lila. 1989. Zones of Theory in the Anthropology of the Arab World. Annual Review of Anthropology 18: 267–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Banner, Stuart. 2013. Commodification and the Media. Yale Journal of Law & the Humanities 18(3): 179–201. http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/yjlh/vol18/iss3/13.
  3. Bierschenk, Thomas. 1989. Vorwärts mit der Tradition der Fulbe! Die Genese einer ethnischpolitischen Bewegung in der VR Benin. Sozialanthropologische Arbeitspapiere 20. Berlin: Das arabische Buch.Google Scholar
  4. ———. 2014. From the Anthropology of Development to the Anthropology of Global Social Engineering. In Current Debates in Anthropology, ed. Ursula Rao, special issue, Zeitschrift für Ethnologie, Band 139, Heft 1: 73–97.Google Scholar
  5. Clifford, James, and George E. Marcus. 1986. Writing Culture. The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography. Berkeley: University of California.Google Scholar
  6. Davis, John. 1987. Libyan Politics: Tribe and Revolution. London: I.B. Tauris.Google Scholar
  7. Elwert, Georg. 2003. Feldforschung. Orientierungswissen und kreuzperspektivische Analyse. Sozialanthropologische Arbeitspapiere, Heft 96, Institut für Ethnologie, Freie Universität Berlin. Berlin: Verlag Hans Schiler.Google Scholar
  8. Escobar, Arturo. 1991. Anthropology and the Development Encounter: The Making and Marketing of Development Anthropology. American Ethnologist 18 (4): 658–680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Flick, Uwe. 2008. Triangulation. Eine Einführung. Wiesbaden: VS.Google Scholar
  10. Goffman, Erving. 1989. On Fieldwork. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 18: 123–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Goldstein, Daniel M. 2014. Qualitative Research in Dangerous Places: Becoming an “Ethnographer” of Violence and Personal Safety. DSD Working Papers on Research Security no.1. Drugs, Security and Democracy Program, Social Science Research Council, Brooklyn.Google Scholar
  12. Häberlein, Tabea. 2014. Teilnehmende Beobachtung als dichte Teilhabe – Ein Plädoyer zur ethnologischen Forschung über soziale Nahbeziehungen. Sociologus: Dichte Teilhabe: Erkenntnisse aus sozialen Beziehungen im Feld 64 (2): 127–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hannerz, Ulf. 2004. Foreign News: Exploring the World of Foreign Correspondents. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Heym, Stefan. 1973. The King David Report. New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons.Google Scholar
  15. Klute, Georg. 2013b. Tuareg-Aufstand in der Wüste. Ein Beitrag zur Anthropologie der Gewalt und des Krieges. Cologne: Köppe.Google Scholar
  16. Kovats-Bernat, Christopher J. 2002. Negotiating Dangerous Fields. Pragmatic Strategies for Fieldwork amid Violence and Terror. American Anthropologist 104 (1): 208–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lewis, Herbert S. 2014. In Defense of Anthropology: An Investigation of the Critique of Anthropology. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  18. Marcus, George E. 1995. Ethnography in/of the World System: The Emergence of Multi-Sited Ethnography. Annual Review of Anthropology 24: 95–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Meyer, Christian, and Nikolaus Schareika. 2009. Neoklassische Feldforschung: Die mikroskopische Untersuchung sozialer Ereignisse als ethnographische Methode. Zeitschrift für Ethnologie 134 (1): 79–102.Google Scholar
  20. Nordstrom, Carolyn, and Antonius C.G.M. Robben, eds. 1996. Fieldwork Under Fire: Contemporary Studies of Violence and Survival. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  21. Price, David H. 2008. Anthropological Intelligence: The Deployment and Neglect of American Anthropology in the Second World War. Durham/London: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Salman, Ton, and Willem Assies. 2009. Anthropology and the Study of Social Movements. In Handbook of Social Movements across Disciplines, ed. Bert Klandermans and Conny Roggeband, 205–265. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Sanjek, Roger, ed. 1990. Fieldnotes: The Makings of Anthropology. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Schielke, Samuli. 2014. Egypt in the Future Tense. Hope, Frustration, and Ambivalence before and after 2011. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Spittler, Gerd. 2001. Teilnehmende Beobachtung als Dichte Teilnahme. Zeitschrift für Ethnologie 126: 1–25.Google Scholar
  26. ———. 2014. Dichte Teilnahme und darüber hinaus. Sociologus 64 (2): 207–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas Hüsken
    • 1
  1. 1.University of BayreuthBayreuthGermany

Personalised recommendations