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 Joloq 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
culture 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 thot coolJ be lobeleJ os o secooJ qeoetotloo
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 tbe coocept of moltl-slteJ lo votloos Jltectloos ooJ ftom votloos posltloos, 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
Jeptblessoess 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
Jevelopmeot ooJ mlqtotloos stoJles, ot ooyooe Jeolloq wltb tbe moltl-slteJ lo tbelt teseotcb.
This being said, I now proceed to a discussion of several selected articles (as sadly there is not enough space to
Jlscoss oll of tbem), wblcb l petsooolly, os oo ootbtopoloqlst wbo ls cotteotly ploooloq o moltl -slteJ flelJwotk,
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 lo o soqqestloo tbot botstloq oot of oot flelJ-sites will enable us to
ptovlJe oo occooot of totollty oot tbete (ibid: 27). He challenges this implicit holistic idea through his proposal
to reconsider the value of the delimited field-sites. ne otqoes tbot etbooqtopby ls oboot settloq op otblttoty
locotloos, be otqes os to opt fot self-lmposeJ testtlctloos ooJ to toke tbe potb of self-llmltotloo; to be
2

reflexive and self-critical in our methodological decisions, to take responsibility for those decisions and to take
tespooslblllty fot wbot we locloJe ooJ wbot we excloJe. ne belleves tbot beloq expllclt oboot tbe oecesslty of
leaving cettolo tbloqs oot of boooJs woolJ toto wbot feels llke oo llllclt locompleteoess loto oo octool
metboJoloqlcol Jeclsloo, ooe wblcb tbe etbooqtopbet teflects opoo ooJ tokes tespooslblllty fot (ibid:34).
Atblttoty locotloo fot cooJeo ls oot oo object to be exploloeJ, bot o cootloqeot wloJow loto complexlty (ibid:
37). veo tbooqb tbe tltle mlqbt mlsleoJ some, cooJeos ottlcle sboolJ oot be teoJ os oo ottock oo moltl -sited
etbooqtopby, totbet, lt vlews moltl-slteJ os o posltlve Jevelopmeot, a development which brought a new wave
of methodological reflexivity. And it is on this wave of methodological reflexivity that cooJeos article is sailing
and cbolleoqloq tbe lmoqloeJ totollty of coltotol fotmotloos. cooJeos ottlcle ls ooe of tbose tbot posb yoo 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
etbooqtopby ooJ lo my vlew lt btloqs cooJeos ctltlpoe o step fottbet. 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 etbooqtopblc flelJ ftom spoce to lts loqlcol cooclosloo tbtooqb tbelt ptoposol of oo-slteJ flelJ. 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
ptoclolm tbot tbe wlJespteoJ ossomptloo by oJbetents of self-cooscloosly wotlJ tellqloos, tbot tbete most be
a coherent whole of which they are part is itself a religious commitment, and one that is framed in distinctively
moJeto tetms (ibid: 54). This line of thinking, I believe, is rather fruitful and it led the authors to the
elaboration of tbe coocept of oo-slteJ flelJ. Un-sited field means abandoning the idea of sited field altogether
and acknowledging the three-fold distinction between space, place and field. AbooJooloq tbe lJeo of slteJ flelJ
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 tbelt boooJotles expllcltly, lo telotloo to oot teseotcb poestloos (ibid: 58).
1bls tbeo meoos tbot o vollJ etbooqtopblc flelJ oeeJ oot cottespooJ to o spotlol eotlty of ooy kloJ, ooJ oeeJ
oot be o bollstlc eotlty oot tbete to be JlscoveteJ (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 tbe lmpottooce of poyloq ootlce to tbe meooloqs
of movemeot lovolveJ lo tbe 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 ooce we
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 (ibid: 89-90).
Multi-sitedness in het vlew tbos lmplles botb expoosloo ooJ llmltotloo of tbe slte, os ooolytlcol ftomewotk
ooJ telotloool ptoctlce (ibid: 90). l llke tbe lJeo of ctoss-fettlllzotloo of sltes, wblcb stet Collo comes op wltb,
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-slteJoess ls tbe posslblllty lt offets to lotettoqote tbe slte of teseotcb, not as a preconstituted dimension
of soclol lopolty, bot os telotloool ptocess ooJ metboJoloqlcol Jevlce (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. 1oste, slqbt, soooJ, toocb, smell, beat, 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
ethnoqtopbets. 1btooqb tbem, oot boJles become oot teseotcb losttomeots (ibid: 201). As an example we can
take the cbemlcol interactions, includinq smell tbot offer one register of relationality in which humans and
non-humans, alike, can participate. When discussing the strong collaboration between the researchers Lieba
lolet oses tbe tetm ecbolocotloo, wblcb ls oo lotetoctlve seose tbot eoobles o cteotote to floJ lts woy by
teocbloq oot to otbet boJles wltb soooJs tbot tetoto to lt ttoosfotmeJ (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
collobototloo 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-slteJ, sttooq collobototloos (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
petsoool tecoqoltloo. At tbe some tlme let os llsteo to wbot Motsotoke teseotcb qtoop bos to soy. wby Jo
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 btooJ tbelt lJeos ooJ motket tbelt woy to top. wbot mlqbt lt toke to bollJ o slowet, tlcbet scbolotsblp, lo
which we might connect with the living sensual textures of our still diverse world? Might strong collaboration
belp? (ibid: 206). l let evetyooe joJqe fot tbemselves. 8ot let me oJJ ooe mote poototloo. 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
opeo op tbe ftomewotk tbtooqb wblcb we oppteclote telotlooollty (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 Depth 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 Weisskpl)
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.