首页> 外文期刊>Annales de geographie >'Le terrain, c'est moi?' Reflections on the emergence of the field in translocal research [?Le terrain, c'est moi?? Réflexions sur l'émergence du terrain en recherche des connexions ?trans-locales?]
【24h】

'Le terrain, c'est moi?' Reflections on the emergence of the field in translocal research [?Le terrain, c'est moi?? Réflexions sur l'émergence du terrain en recherche des connexions ?trans-locales?]

机译:“是我吗?”关于跨领域研究领域出现的思考[?Le Terrain,c'est moi ??对寻找“跨本地连接”领域的思考

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

"Le terrain" or "the field" has long been a rather unquestioned and uncriticized dimension of geographical research. Nevertheless, over the last decades, with an increasing interest in qualitative methodologies as well as the rising importance of a reflexive approach, geographers have begun to examine critically the meaning of the field, fieldwork and the position and role of the researcher within the field. Generally it is agreed that the field refers to the specific location where the empirical research is done, including the people and objects in this place. Whereas in most cases the field is a certain region, city or neighbourhood, the recent interest in translocal connections and networks has led not only to multisited research but also to mobile methodologies which increases the complexity of defining the field. Seeing the field as a set of relations rather than as points on maps, defining the field also means to create the field! Following the ideas of Latour or Deleuze requires one to follow the established lines and connections, but where can the limits be set? Where is the centre of the network or rhizome for the research? And where should the study stop following the networks? Ultimately, it is the researcher's decision how to delimit the field. Using examples from my own mobile ethnographic research on mobility, translocality and commercial connections of young Zanzibari, I will explore the process of creating the field. Considering ideas of Latour and Deleuze, I will critically examine the connections between methodology, the researcher's positionality and the construction of the field, to try to open up discussions on the "arbitrariness" of the field and its relevance for the production of geographic knowledge.
机译:长期以来,“地形”或“田野”一直是地理研究的一个不受质疑和未被批评的领域。然而,在过去的几十年中,随着人们对定性方法的兴趣日益增加,以及反思性方法的重要性日益提高,地理学家已开始批判性地研究田野的意义,田野调查以及研究人员在田野中的地位和作用。一般认为,该领域是指进行实证研究的特定位置,包括该位置的人和物体。尽管在大多数情况下,该领域是某个地区,城市或邻里,但最近对跨地域连接和网络的兴趣不仅导致了多站点研究,而且导致了移动方法,这增加了定义该领域的复杂性。将字段视为一组关系而不是地图上的点,定义字段也意味着创建该字段!遵循拉图尔(Latour)或德勒兹(Deleuze)的思想,要求人们遵循既定的路线和联系,但在哪里可以设置限制?研究的网络或根茎的中心在哪里?研究应该在哪里停止遵循网络?最终,这是研究者决定如何划界的决定。我将使用我自己的移动人种志研究中有关年轻Zanzibari的流动性,跨地域性和商业联系的示例,来探讨创建该领域的过程。考虑拉图尔(Latour)和德勒兹(Deleuze)的思想,我将批判性地研究方法论,研究人员的位置和领域建设之间的联系,以尝试就该领域的“任意性”及其与地理知识的产生的相关性展开讨论。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号