1

REVIEW

MULTI-SITED ETHNOGRAPHY: THEORY, PRAXIS AND

LOCALITY IN CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH (ED.) MARK-

ANTHONY FALZON. 2009. ASHGATE. ISBN 978-0-7546-

7318-7.

TEREZA KULDOVA (TESSA VALO), PHD FELLOW, MUSEUM OF

CULTURAL HISTORY, OSLO

This edited volume consisting of fourteen research papers by renowned social scientists and an introduction by

Mark-Anthony Falzon and an afterword by Ulf Hannerz, takes us right into the middle of the theoretical

dilemmas and practical challenges posed by さdoiﾐgざ multi-sited ethnography. The discussion on multi-sited

research can be viewed in the context of the changing realities of the world since the 1970s (commonly

connected with terms like globalization, transnationalism, world system, diaspora, etc.). It can thus be viewed in

the context of times when the single-sited methodology is felt as inadequate and when the social sciences are

struggling with their relationship to the local, while searching for larger scales of analysis and better ways how

to capture the connections between people, things, and places and in the context of times when the concept of

さcultureざ no longer stands the critique of a great deal of anthropologists. In this sense this edited volume comes

in the right time and is of great value. It presents something that Iould He laHeled as a さseIoﾐd geﾐeヴatioﾐざ multi-sited ethnography; it overflows with theoretical suggestions, prospects and critique based on highly

valuable empirical examples from research and fieldwork. All articles are theoretically oriented; they lead us

towards rethinking of the IoﾐIept of さﾏulti-sitedざ iﾐ ┗aヴious diヴeItioﾐs aﾐd fヴoﾏ ┗aヴious positioﾐs, at the same

time as they fuel their theoretical discussions with the concrete empirical problems and needs experienced

during research in multiple localities. In short, Multi-sited Ethnography deals with the accusations of

さdepthlessﾐessざ or absence of thick descriptions in multi-sited research, with the practical problems of working

in diverse localities, the challenges of projects based on collaboration, the problem of implicit holism of the

classical statements of multi-sited ethnography (Marcus 1995), and much more. This edited volume is a highly

reflexive piece of work and, I believe, a must read for any specialist in anthropology, sociology, and

de┗elopﾏeﾐt aﾐd ﾏigヴatioﾐs studies, oヴ aﾐ┞oﾐe dealiﾐg ┘ith the さﾏulti-sitedざ iﾐ theiヴ ヴeseaヴIh.

This being said, I now proceed to a discussion of several selected articles (as sadly there is not enough space to

disIuss all of theﾏ), ┘hiIh I peヴsoﾐall┞, as aﾐ aﾐthヴopologist ┘ho is Iuヴヴeﾐtl┞ plaﾐﾐiﾐg a さﾏulti-sitedざ field┘oヴk, considered most inspirational. This is not to say that articles which I do not include here are of any less value or

any less inspirational. In a same way as the researcher must be aware of and actively pursue the processes of

bounding and self-limitation when delimitating his field (Candea ibid: 28), the reviewer must restrict herself to a

limited amount of selected contributors and ideas, based mostly on personal preferences, tastes and an idea of

what might be a valuable information for the readers as well as what might make them want to know more.

Let me first turn our attention to the critique of multi-sited ethnography by Mateo Candea in his article

Arbitrary Locations: In Defense of the Bounded Field-Site (ibid: 25-46), which ignited and inspired many of the

theoretical discussions, not only, present in this volume. Candea targets in his critique what he sees as a latter-

day implicit holism. This is to be found iﾐ さa suggestioﾐ that Huヴstiﾐg out of ouヴ field-sites will enable us to

pヴo┗ide aﾐ aIIouﾐt of totalit┞ けout theヴeげざ (ibid: 27). He challenges this implicit holistic idea through his proposal

to reconsider the value of the delimited field-sites. He aヴgues that ethﾐogヴaph┞ is aHout settiﾐg up けaヴHitヴaヴ┞ loIatioﾐsげ, he uヴges us to opt foヴ けself-iﾏposed ヴestヴiItioﾐsげ aﾐd to take the path of けself-liﾏitatioﾐげ; to be

2

reflexive and self-critical in our methodological decisions, to take responsibility for those decisions and to take

ヴespoﾐsiHilit┞ foヴ ┘hat ┘e iﾐIlude aﾐd ┘hat ┘e e┝Ilude. He Helie┗es that Heiﾐg さe┝pliIit aHout the ﾐeIessit┞ of leaving ceヴtaiﾐ thiﾐgs けout of Houﾐdsげざ ┘ould tuヴﾐ さ┘hat feels like aﾐ illiIit iﾐIoﾏpleteﾐess iﾐto aﾐ aItual ﾏethodologiIal deIisioﾐ, oﾐe ┘hiIh the ethﾐogヴapheヴ ヴefleIts upoﾐ aﾐd takes ヴespoﾐsiHilit┞ foヴざ (ibid:34).

AヴHitヴaヴ┞ loIatioﾐ foヴ Caﾐdea is さﾐot aﾐ oHjeIt to He e┝plaiﾐed, Hut a Ioﾐtiﾐgeﾐt ┘iﾐdo┘ iﾐto Ioﾏple┝it┞ざ (ibid:

37). E┗eﾐ though the title ﾏight ﾏislead soﾏe, Caﾐdeaげs aヴtiIle should ﾐot He ヴead as aﾐ attaIk oﾐ ﾏulti-sited

ethﾐogヴaph┞, ヴatheヴ, it ┗ie┘s けﾏulti-sitedげ as a positi┗e de┗elopﾏeﾐt, a development which brought a new wave

of methodological reflexivity. And it is on this wave of methodological reflexivity that Caﾐdeaげs article is sailing

and Ihalleﾐgiﾐg the iﾏagiﾐed totalit┞ of けIultuヴal foヴﾏatioﾐsげ. Caﾐdeaげs aヴtiIle is oﾐe of those that push ┞ou to

think further, and whatever your opinion might be, it definitely makes you sit down and rethink your own

approach to multi-sited ethnography, though maybe in a different direction than his.

The article What if There is No Elephant? Towards a Conception of an Un-sited Field by Joanna Cook, James

Laidlaw and Jonathan Mair (ibid: 47-72), is a further rethinking of the holistic charge against multi-sited

ethﾐogヴaph┞ aﾐd iﾐ ﾏ┞ ┗ie┘ it Hヴiﾐgs Caﾐdeaげs Iヴitiケue a step fuヴtheヴ. The authors intend to lie to rest the

holistic assumption that has haunted the first generation of multi-sited research and to carry the disconnection

of ethﾐogヴaphiI field fヴoﾏ spaIe to its logiIal IoﾐIlusioﾐ thヴough theiヴ pヴoposal of けuﾐ-sited fieldげ. Studying the

Buddhist ethics of self-cultivation in a multi-sited project has led them to question both the implicit holistic

assumptions of multi-sited research and similar assumptions present in the theory of world religions. They

pヴoIlaiﾏ that さthe ┘idespヴead assuﾏptioﾐ H┞ adheヴents of self-IoﾐsIiousl┞ ┘oヴld ヴeligioﾐs, that theヴe けﾏust Heげ a coherent whole of which they are part is itself a religious commitment, and one that is framed in distinctively

ﾏodeヴﾐ teヴﾏsざ (ibid: 54). This line of thinking, I believe, is rather fruitful and it led the authors to the

elaboration of the IoﾐIept of けuﾐ-sited fieldげ. Un-sited field means abandoning the idea of sited field altogether

and acknowledging the three-fold distinction between space, place and field. AHaﾐdoﾐiﾐg the さidea of sited field

makes it possible to admit that it never was possible to achieve a complex description of any area or group of

people, but in exchange for acknowledging that fields are always constructed out of a too-rich reality, we would

gain the freedom to determinate theiヴ Houﾐdaヴies e┝pliIitl┞, iﾐ ヴelatioﾐ to ouヴ ヴeseaヴIh ケuestioﾐsざ (ibid: 58).

This theﾐ ﾏeaﾐs that さa ┗alid ethﾐogヴaphiI field ﾐeed ﾐot Ioヴヴespoﾐd to a spatial eﾐtit┞ of aﾐ┞ kiﾐd, aﾐd ﾐeed ﾐot He a holistiI eﾐtit┞ けout theヴeげ to He disIo┗eヴedざ (ibid: 68). I too believe that our construction of field should

be a primarily reflexive activity throughout the whole fieldwork period and even after and that we should be led

by our research questions when determining what is within the boundaries we demarcate and what is beyond

them. This reflexivity cannot be other than productive as is the clear distinction between space, place and field

which Is proposed.

Another article which discusses, among others, the question of holism is Ester Gallos In the Right Place at the

Right Time? Reflections on Multi-Sited Ethnography in the Age of Migration (ibid: 87-102). In this article Ester

Gallo discusses her research experience among the Malayali migrants in Rome and in Ernakulam (Central

Kerala, India). She notes that it was first retrospectively that she articulated her fieldwork in Rome and in Kerala

in terms of multi-sited ethnography. What she emphasizes is the iﾏpoヴtaﾐIe of pa┞iﾐg ﾐotiIe to the けﾏeaﾐiﾐgs of ﾏo┗eﾏeﾐtげ iﾐ┗ol┗ed iﾐ the processes of following people. Movement tends to be easily taken for granted,

particularly in the migration studies. But in her view the meanings of movement must become objects of study

rather than its premises (cf. Hage 2005). Further discussing the question of holism, she believes that さoﾐIe ┘e move away from the holistic aspirations of multi-sitedness, we can look at how its application results in the

cross-fertilization and reciprocal limitations between different levels of ethnographic perspectiveざ (ibid: 89-90).

Multi-sitedness in heヴ ┗ie┘ thus iﾏplies さHoth e┝paﾐsioﾐ aﾐd liﾏitatioﾐ of the けsiteげ, as aﾐal┞tiIal fヴaﾏe┘oヴk aﾐd ヴelatioﾐal pヴaItiIeざ (ibid: 90). I like the idea of けIヴoss-feヴtilizatioﾐ of sitesげ, ┘hiIh Esteヴ Gallo Ioﾏes up ┘ith, it suggests the opening of new questions, possibilities and important connections which can be perceived only

when expanding, at the same time as bounding the field. She accentuates, that what is so particular about

3

multi-sitedﾐess さis the possiHilit┞ it offeヴs to iﾐteヴヴogate the けsiteげ of ヴeseaヴIh, not as a preconstituted dimension

of soIial iﾐケuiヴ┞, Hut as ヴelatioﾐal pヴoIess aﾐd ﾏethodologiIal de┗iIeざ (ibid: 99).

The last article I chose for a closer discussion is Strong Collaboration as a Method of Multi-Sited Ethnography:

On Mycorrhizal Relations (ibid: 197) by Matsutake Worlds Research Group (Timothy Choy, Lieba Faier, Michael

Hathaway, Miyako Inoue, Shiho Satsuka, and Anna Tsing). I chose it because it is different both in its object of

study and in its approach to multi-sited research. In their project the Matsutake Worlds Research Group follows

a mushroom – matsutake – a highly sought after mycorrhizal mushroom that grows in Asia, Europe and North

America and that is an important element of Japanese cuisine. But this mushroom is not just something that is

followed; it is literary taken seriously as a collaborator in their research and collaboration is thus turned into

what is followed along with the mushroom. Not only does this article invite us in a world of strong collaboration

between scientists and into what pros and cons such collaboration has, but also into a world of strong

collaboration with the non-human world, discovering the various potential relationships with it. The authors

explore both the negative possibilities of collaboration, such as its at times even traitorous nature and positive

possibilities and the question of why it is attractive to anthropologists. They urge the fieldworker to use his

senses, to sensually immerse in the field. さTaste, sight, souﾐd, touIh, sﾏell, heat, body awareness, pain, anger,

frustration, balance, weight, scope, acceleration, logic, instinct, hunger, belief. The senses we engage when we

conduct fieldwork are nodal points between our ethnographic environments and us. Through them, we become

ethnogヴapheヴs. Thヴough theﾏ, ouヴ Hodies HeIoﾏe ouヴ ヴeseaヴIh iﾐstヴuﾏeﾐtsざ (ibid: 201). As an example we can

take the さIheﾏiIal interactions, including sﾏellざ that さoffer one register of relationality in which humans and

non-humans, alike, can participateざ. When discussing the strong collaboration between the researchers Lieba

Faieヴ uses the teヴﾏ けeIholoIatioﾐげ, ┘hiIh is さaﾐ iﾐteヴaIti┗e seﾐse that eﾐaHles a Iヴeatuヴe to fiﾐd its ┘a┞ H┞ ヴeaIhiﾐg out to otheヴ Hodies ┘ith souﾐds that ヴetuヴﾐ to it tヴaﾐsfoヴﾏedざ (ibid: 202). She relates echolocation to

the practice of strong collaboration and draws on a particular example in which more ethnographers engaged

with the same matsutake wholesaler, but their depictions of him were radically different. From this

IollaHoヴatioﾐ さa more multidimensional picture of him emerged than any single ethnographic perspective could

have provided. Perhaps ethnographic echolocation is one of many new kinds of senses that can be cultivated

through multi-sited, stヴoﾐg IollaHoヴatioﾐsざ (ibid: 202). The idea of echolocation as another sense of the

ethnographer might prove fruitful in the future, as well as the emphasis on strong collaboration. At the same

time collaboration, even though conceptualized as a dialectical practice, may lead to conflicts and unintended

power struggles, caused by the often not compatible views or perceptions of the situation and struggle for

peヴsoﾐal ヴeIogﾐitioﾐ. At the saﾏe tiﾏe let us listeﾐ to ┘hat Matsutake ヴeseaヴIh gヴoup has to sa┞: さWh┞ do ethnography? One reason is to spurn spectacular capitalism, which fills our screens with glamorous happy thin

elites playing with their globally-standard expensive toys. The world – in its materiality and its diversity – is

worth more than that, as ethnography can remind us. But anthropology too is full of glamour stars, all in rush

to けHヴaﾐdげ theiヴ ideas aﾐd ﾏaヴket theiヴ ┘a┞ to top. What ﾏight it take to Huild a slo┘eヴ, ヴiIheヴ sIholaヴship, iﾐ which we might connect with the living sensual textures of our still diverse world? Might strong collaboration

help?ざ (ibid: 206). I let e┗eヴ┞oﾐe judge foヴ theﾏsel┗es. But let ﾏe add oﾐe ﾏoヴe ケuotatioﾐ: さMushrooms remind

us: We are all collaborators. Just because matsutake is not cultivated does not mean it does not collaborate

with humans and other beings. Rather matsutake urges us: Strain to find lines of connection. Just as matsutake

forms relations with host trees in its essential becoming, strong collaboration makes us remember that all

becoming is relational. Taking non-humans – not just fungi but also trees, animals and climate – as

collaborators stimulates surprise and wonder. Non-human forms of recognition are not our forms. Thus they

opeﾐ up the fヴaﾏe┘oヴk thヴough ┘hiIh ┘e appヴeIiate ヴelatioﾐalit┞ざ (ibid: 211-2). This article is according to me

a must read and it cannot be fully appreciated in this short abstract. It urges us to rethink our relationship with

the non-human and to open ourselves to new ways of thinking and conceptualizing not only of the multi-sited

research, but the world itself, as well as of our work in it as anthropologists and ethnographers.

4

What follows is a list of the remaining articles, which though not included, I highly recommend to anyone who is

interested in multi-sited research and who enjoyed the tasting I presented above:

Introduction: Multi-Sited Ethnography: Theory, Praxis and Locality in Contemporary Research (Mark-Anthony

Falzon)

Scaling and Visualizing Multi-Sited Ethnography (Kim Fortun)

Emplacement and Environmental Relations in Multi-Sited Practice/Theory (Caroline Gatt)

Expanding Sites: The Question of けDepthげ Explored (Cindy Horst)

Follow the Missionary: Connected and Disconnected Flows of Meaning in the Norwegian Mission Society (Ingie

Hovland)

Localizing Climate Change: A Multi-Sited Approach (Werner Krauss)

Changing Places: The Advantages of Multi-Sited Ethnography (Karen Isaksen Leonard)

Multi-Sited Ethnography: Notes and Queries (George E. Marcus)

Bridging Boundaries with a Transnational Research Approach: A Simultaneous Matched Sample Methodology

(Valentina Mazzucato)

Contours of the Field(s): Multi-Sited Ethnography as a Theory-driven Research Strategy for Sociology (Eva

Nadai, Christoph Maeder)

Traversing Cultural Sites: Doing Ethnography Among Sudanese Migrants in Germany (Cordula Weissköpl)

Afterword: The Long March of Anthropology (Ulf Hannerz)

References:

Hage, G. 2005. A not-so multi-sited ethnography of a not-so imagined community. Anthropological Theory 5:4,

463-75.

Marcus, G. E. 1995. Ethnography in/of the World System: The Emergence of Multi-Sited Ethnography. Annual

Review of Anthropology, 24, 95-117.