Abstract
Mark-Anthony Falzon’s edited collection on multi-sited ethnography is a welcome addition to the latest discussions of both contemporary anthropology and the anthropology of the contemporary (e.g. Rabinow et al., 2008). Relatively little has been published on what this research strategy means both practically and theoretically. Through a presentation of case studies the book aims to chart the development of multi-sited research, that is engage with its history, and, simultaneously, outline a programme for its second generation and project into the future. In this vain, it brings together chapters from established figures in the field such as George Marcus and Ulf Hannerz as well as younger researchers passionately defending the practice of multi-sited ethnography.
The contributions are ordered alphabetically rather than clustered into themes because, Falzon argues, cross-cutting themes recur throughout the book and defy any such endeavour at clustering. The case studies are wide-ranging in topic from migration studies (chapters by Gallo, Horst, Leonard, Mazzucato and Weißköppel), engagements with religion (chapters by Cook/Laidlaw/Mair and Hovland), different dimensions of environmental concerns in the widest sense (chapters by Fortun, Gatt and Krauss) to more theoretical discussions (chapters by Candea, Marcus, the Matsutake Worlds Research Group, Nadai & Maeder and Hannerz). Despite these diverse research foci, all of the chapters engage in one way or another with the criticisms which have been levelled against multi-sited ethnography: a lack of depth, assumptions of pre-existing fields and presumptions of holism. The questions in the different contributions therefore remain the same: What constitutes a site? How is the field constructed? How can the question of depth be addressed if not undermined?
While some contributions work as stand-alone pieces through their empirical discussions (e.g. Leonard, Gatt or Krauss) or their methodological and theoretical insights (e.g. Candea, Marcus or Nadai and Maeder) a greater benefit for the reader will ensue when chapters are read in relation to each other. In this sense, the book generates a multi-sited discussion of multi-sited ethnography through the connections and disconnections in the dialogue between contributions. For instance, Horst’s chapter on Somali’s refugees advocates longitudinal step-wise individual research in contrast to Mazzucato propagating the simultaneity achieved through research teams and the Simultaneous Matched Sample methodology. Similarly, the discussions of the meaning of ‘site’ and ‘field’ in Candea, Gallo, Nadai and Maeder and Weißköppel together seemingly simulate the ‘bouncing off each other’ so beneficial in collaborative research as discussed by the Matsutake Worlds Research Group. In addition, the contributors come from a wide geographical background and thus questions of translation which would be common in multi-sited research and international research teams are taken up regularly and become a constant reminder of the ‘spacy emptiness’ (Satsuka of the Matsutake Worlds Research Group, p. 203) between languages.
At the same time, this preoccupation with language and words can also perpetuate a trend towards overemphasising linguistic rather than substantive innovations. The use of new words, metaphors or concepts to describe established research strategies and experiences, e.g. ‘echolocation’ for what ultimately seems to be discussion between researchers, seems an unnecessary academic pastime. Hannerz succeeds in drawing attention to studies by earlier anthropologists which could be considered precursors and thus brings perspective to the originality of the multi-sited endeavour. Even Falzon admits in his introduction that ‘perhaps the main difference between single and multi-sited approaches is language’ (p. 13). While the edition on the whole is a worthwhile contribution to the literature, it is not one for the uninitiated in multi-sited research. Often enough, the foundational papers (e.g. Marcus, 1995) are mentioned but not discussed and the novice is directed to the older publications rather than introduced to them in this volume. Similarly, although the title of the book raises expectations on an engagement with ‘locality’, it is place, space and the different meanings of site or field which are discussed and only rarely do the multi-dimensional constructions of localities emerge from the chapters (Fortun’s chapter on Bhopal is the exception). Here, it would have been helpful to refer to other attempts at ethnographies dealing with space and place on the one hand or the connections between them on the other. Thus, Burawoy’s Global Ethnography (2000) is only mentioned once in the whole volume (in the chapter on sociological theory by Nadai and Maeder) and no reference at all is made to older (sociological) projects of understanding locality (Massey, 1991) if only as a ‘bouncing off’ point. This is indicative of the volume as one, after all, staying within the boundaries of its own discipline – anthropology – despite Krauss’ eloquent defense of multi-sitedness as a plurality of settings across disciplines. In the same vain, time or temporality as a parallel research category remains the elephant in the room. It is there as an undercurrent and as context but only rarely engaged with despite its integral relation with the spatial envoked in the introduction by the editor.
Despite these minor criticisms, the volume needs to be recommended for its contribution to the literature and the dialogue it instils between theory, method and empirical findings.