This paper critically examines the role of the epilogue in ethnographic writing, focusing on researchers who experience uncontrollable exits— departures caused by factors beyond their control. When such researchers return to the field, they often produce only fragmentary data alongside earlier immersive records. While these fragments may lack analytical depth, they still offer meaningful insight when incorporated into an epilogue. The paper argues that the epilogue is not merely a narrative addendum, but a political and reflexive practice that involves decisions about what counts as analysis. Drawing on literature and praxis, the paper offers strategies for more reflexive epilogue writing.
BurrowsD. (2023). A cautionary tale about “respondent validation”: The dissonant meeting of “field self” and “author self.” In SmithR. J.RobinJ. (Eds.), Leaving the field: Methodological insights from ethnographic exits (pp. 219–230). Manchester University Press.
3.
CliffordJ. (1986). Introduction: Partial truths. In CliffordJ.MarcusG. (Eds.), Writing culture: The poetics and politics of ethnography (2nd ed., pp. 1–26). University of California Press.
4.
CliffordJ.MarcusG. E. (Eds.). (1986). Writing culture: The poetics and politics of ethnography (2nd ed.) University of California Press.
5.
CoffeyA. (1999). The ethnographic self: Fieldwork and the representation of identity. Sage.
6.
CuratoN. (2012). Respondents as interlocutors: Translating deliberative democratic principles to qualitative interviewing ethics. Qualitative Inquiry, 18(7), 572–582.
7.
DaynesS.WilliamsT. (2018). On ethnography. Polity.
8.
DelamontS.SmithR. J. (2023). Leaving the field: An editors’ introduction. In SmithR. J.RobinJ. (Eds.), Leaving the field: Methodological insights from ethnographic exits (pp. 1–29). Manchester University Press.
9.
DesmondM. (2017). Evicted: Poverty and profit in the American city. Crown.
10.
EllisC. (1995). Emotional and ethical quagmires in returning to the field. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 24(1), 63–98.
11.
EmersonR.FretzR.ShawL. (1995). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes. The University of Chicago Press.
12.
GillanK.PickerillJ. (2012). The difficult and hopeful ethics of research on, and with, social movements. Social Movement Studies, 11(2), 133–143.
13.
GoffmanA. (2014). On the run: Fugitive life in an American city. Picador.
14.
HammersleyM.AtkinsonP. (1995). Ethnography: Principles in practice. Routledge.
IversenR. R. (2009). “Getting out” in ethnography: A seldom-told story. Qualitative Social Work, 8(1), 9–26.
17.
LesterJ. N.AndersA. D. (2023). Those who never leave us. In SmithR. J.RobinJ. (Eds.), Leaving the field: Methodological insights from ethnographic exits (pp. 101–112). Manchester University Press.
18.
MaddenR. (2010). Being ethnographic: A guide to the theory and practice of ethnography. Sage.
19.
MichailovaS.PiekkariR.PlakyoiannakiE.SalmiA. (2014). Breaking the silence about exiting fieldwork: A relational approach and its implications for theorizing. Academy of Management Review, 39(2), 138–161.
20.
NishiyamaK. (2022). Community of inquiry. In ErcanS.AsenbaumH.CuratoN.MendonçaR. (Eds.), Research methods in deliberative democracy (pp. 450–461). Oxford University Press.
21.
NakanoK.NishiyamaK. (forthcoming). Activist identity in motion. In BowmanB.SadiyaA. (Eds.), Routledge handbook on young people and environmental activism. Routledge.
22.
PösöT. (2023). Is ethnography only for early career researchers? In MarvastiA.GubriumJ. (Eds.), Crafting ethnographic fieldwork (pp. 77–92). Routledge.
23.
RogersA. (2023). Emotional honesty and reflections on problematic positionalities when conducting research in another country. In SmithR. J.RobinJ. (Eds.), Leaving the field: Methodological insights from ethnographic exits (pp. 243–253). Manchester University Press.
24.
SaundersB.SimJ.KingstoneT.BakerS.WaterfieldJ.BartlamB.BurroughsH.JinksC. (2018). Saturation in qualitative research: Exploring its conceptualization and operationalization. Quality & Quantity, 52(4), 1893–1907.
25.
SmallM. L.CalarcoJ. M. (2022). Qualitative literacy: A guide to evaluating ethnographic and interview research. University of California Press.
26.
SmithR. J.DelamontS. (Eds.). (2023). Leaving the field: Methodological insights from ethnographic exits. Manchester University Press.
27.
SnowD. (1980). The disengagement process: A neglected problem in participant observation research. Qualitative Sociology, 3(2), 100–122.
28.
SopranzettiC. (2018). Owners of the map: Motorcycle taxi drivers, mobility and politics in Bangkok. University of California Press.
29.
ThomasG. M. (2023). Unfinished business: A reflection on leaving the field. In SmithR. J.RobinJ. (Eds.), Leaving the field: Methodological insights from ethnographic exits (pp. 74–85). Manchester University Press.
30.
WhyteW. F. (1993). Street corner society: The social structure of an Italian slum (4th ed.). University of Chicago Press.
31.
WilliamsJ. (2023). On the importance of intermissions in ethnographic fieldwork: Lessons from leaving New York. In SmithR. J.RobinJ. (Eds.), Leaving the field: Methodological insights from ethnographic exits (pp. 180–191). Manchester University Press.
