Intergenerational ethnographic research poses several practical, epistemological, and ethical challenges. This study seeks to address these complexities by encouraging researchers to construct personalised ethnographic toolkits that provide insights into uncovering the complex subjectivities of research populations through intergenerational narratives. Based on over two years of research among the Turkish community in London, the study reveals compelling examples of symbolic communication used by individuals of different generations, genders, and social roles. Using various data collection methods, including interviews, observation, drawing, and television viewing, the research illustrates how this ethnic community uses language, fashion, and religion to integrate into multicultural environments and manifest their belonging in transnational contexts. By incorporating methodological tools such as unplanned moments, reflexivity, and positionality, the study aims to understand the underpinnings of cultural identity by examining how different generations respond to social conditions shaped by migration.
AboimSVasconcelosP (2014) From political to social generations: a critical reappraisal of Mannheim’s classical approach. European Journal of Social Theory17(2): 165–183. DOI: 10.1177/1368431013509681.
2.
AckerlyBTrueJ (2008) Reflexivity in practice: power and ethics in feminist research on international relations. International Studies Review10(4): 693–707.
3.
AnthiasF (2002) Where do I belong? Narrating collective identity and translocational positionality. Ethnicities2(4): 491–514.
4.
BeckACorakMTiendaM (2012) Age at immigration and the adult attainments of child migrants to the United States. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science643(1): 134–159.
5.
BeharR (1996) The Vulnerable Observer: Anthropology that Breaks Your Heart. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
6.
BourdieuP (1985) The social space and the genesis of groups. Theory and Society14: 723–744.
7.
BourdieuP (1990) The Logic of Practice. Redwood City, CA: Stanford University Press.
8.
CaetanoA (2015) Personal reflexivity and biography: methodological challenges and strategies. International Journal of Social Research Methodology18(2): 227–242.
9.
ChaudhryLN (1997) Researching ‘my people,’ researching myself: fragments of a reflexive tale reflexive tale. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education10(4): 441–453.
10.
Chiseri-StraterE (1996) Turning in upon ourselves: positionality, subjectivity, and reflexivity in case study and ethnographic research. In: MortensenPKirschGE (eds) Ethics and Representation in Qualitative Studies of Literacy. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English, 115–133.
ColemanS (2002) “But are they really christian?” Contesting knowledge and identity in and out of the field. In: SpickardJVShawn LandresJMcGuireMB (eds) Personal Knowledge and beyond: Reshaping the Ethnography of Religion. New York, NY: NYU Press.
17.
DaviesCA (2008) Reflexive Ethnography: A Guide to Researching Selves and Others. London: Routledge.
18.
DaviesJSpencerD (eds) (2010) Emotions in the Field: The Psychology and Anthropology of Fieldwork Experience. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
19.
De FinaA (2011) “We are not there. In fact now we will go to the garden to take the rain”: researcher identity and the observer’s paradox. In: AngouriJMarraM (eds) Constructing Identities at Work. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
20.
EisenstadtSN (2001) Sociology of generations. In: SmelserNJBaltesPB (eds) International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Amsterdam: Elsevier, Vol. 9, 6055–6061.
21.
EnglandKVL (1994) Getting personal: reflexivity, positionality, and feminist research. The Professional Geographer46(1): 80–89.
22.
EnneliPModoodTBradleyH (2005) Young Turks and Kurds: A Set of ‘Invisible’ Disadvantaged Groups. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
23.
FernandezJ (1986) Persuasions and Performances: The Play of Tropes in Culture. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
24.
FinlayL (2002) Negotiating the swamp: the opportunity and challenge of reflexivity in research practice. Qualitative Research2(2): 209–230.
25.
FoleyDE (2002) Critical ethnography: the reflexive turn. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education15(4): 469–490.
26.
FonerN (1984) Ages in Conflict: A Cross-Cultural Perspective on Inequality between Old and Young. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
27.
FujiiLA (2015) Five stories of accidental ethnography: turning unplanned moments in the field into data. Qualitative Research15(4): 525–539.
28.
GansHJ (1979) Symbolic ethnicity: the future of ethnic groups and cultures in America. Ethnic and Racial Studies2(1): 1–20.
GlenND (2003) Distinguishing age, period, and cohort effects. In: MortimerJShanahanM (eds) Handbook of the Life Course. New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
31.
HallS (1990) Cultural identity and diaspora. In: RutherfordJ (ed) Identity: Community, Culture, Difference. London: Lawrence & Wishard.
32.
HennighL (1981) The anthropologist as key informant. In: MesserschmidtDA (ed) Anthropologists at Home in North America: Methods and Issues in the Study of One’s Own Society. Cambridge and New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 121–132.
33.
HillR (1970) Family Development in Three Generations: A Longitudinal Study of Changing Patterns of Planning and Achievement. Milton Park: Routledge.
34.
HuismanK (2008) “Does this mean you’re not going to come visit me anymore?”: An inquiry into an ethics of reciprocity and positionality in feminist ethnographic research. Sociological Inquiry78(3): 372–396.
35.
HumeLMulcockJ (2004) Introduction: awkward spaces, productive places. In: HumeLMulcockJ (eds) Anthropologists in the Field: Cases in Participant Observation. New York, NY: Columbia University Press. xi–xxvii.
36.
JacobsonPH (1964) Cohort Survival for Generations Since 1840. New York, NY: Milbank Memorial Fund Q, Vol. 42, 36–53.
KingRThomsonMMaiN, et al. (2008) ‘Turks’ in London: Shades of İnvisibility and The Shifting Relevance of Policy in The Migration Process. Brighton: University of Sussex, Sussex Centre for Migration Research Working Paper, Vol. 51.
39.
LaslettP (2005) Interconnections over time: critique of the concept of generation. Journal of Classical Sociology5: 205–213.
40.
LauferRS (1971) Sources of generational consciousness and conflict. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science395(1): 80–94. DOI: 10.1177/000271627139500108.
41.
LichtermanP (2017) Interpretive reflexivity in ethnography. Ethnography18(1): 35–45.
42.
MannheimK (1952) The problem of generations. In: PaulK (ed) Karl Mannheim: Essays. London: Routledge, 276–322.
43.
MarcusG (2009) Introduction: notes towards an ethnographic memoir of supervising graduate research through anthropology’s decades of transformation. In: FaubionJMarcusG (eds) Fieldwork Is Not what it Used to Be: Learning Anthropology’s Method in a Time of Transition. Ithaca, NY and London: Cornell University Press, 1–34.
44.
Mehmet aliA (1985) Why are we wasted?Multi-Ethnic Education Review4(1): 7–12.
45.
MerriamSBJohnson-BaileyJLeeMY, et al. (2001) Power and positionality: negotiating insider/outsider status within and across cultures. International Journal of Lifelong Education20(5): 405–416.
46.
MiledN (2017) Muslim researcher researching Muslim youth: reflexive notes on critical ethnography, positionality and representation. Ethnography and Education14(1): 1–15.
47.
MolinaMMSinhaS (2017) The role of researcher positionality in interpreting interview data: a narrative from the field. Qualitative Report22(2): 318–328.
48.
NahirnyVCFishmanJA (1965) American immigrant groups: ethnic identification and the problem of generations. The Sociological Review13(3): 311–326. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-954X.1965.tb01143.x.
49.
NeedhamR (2004) Age, category, and descent. In: NeedhamR (ed) Remarks and Inventions. London: Tavistock, pp. 37–73.
50.
Ortega y GassetJ (1933) The Modern Theme. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company.
51.
PrusR (1997) Subcultural Mosaics and Intersubjective Realities: An Ethnographic Research Agenda for Pragmatizing the Social Sciences. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
52.
PurhonenS (2016) Generations on paper: Bourdieu and the critique of ‘generationalism’. Social Science Information55(1): 94–114. DOI: 10.1177/0539018415608967.
53.
ReyesV (2020) Ethnographic toolkit: strategic positionality and researchers’ visible and invisible tools in field research. Ethnography21(2): 220–240.
54.
ScholteB (1972) Toward a reflexive and critical anthropology. In: DellH (ed) Reinventing Anthropology. New York, NY: Pantheon.
55.
SchutzA (1966) The problem of transcendental intersubjectivity in Husserl. In: SchutzA (ed) Collected Papers III: Studies in Phenomenological Philosophy. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.
56.
ScourbyA (1980) Three generations of Greek Americans: a study of ethnicity. International Migration Review14(1): 43–52.
57.
ShwederR (1997) The surprise of ethnography. Ethos25(2): 152–163.
58.
SpitzerAB (1973) The historical problem of generations. The American Historical Review78(5): 1353–1385.
59.
SultanaF (2007) Reflexivity, positionality and participatory ethics: negotiating fieldwork dilemmas in international research. ACME: An International E-Journal for Critical Geographies6(3): 374–385.
60.
TonnaerA (2012) Fifteen minutes in limbo: on the intricacies of rapport in multi-sited fieldwork on tourism. Qualitative Research12: 565–574.
61.
TriggerDForseyMMeurkC (2012) Revelatory moments in fieldwork. Qualitative Research12: 513–527.
62.
TsingA (1993) In the Realm of the Diamond Queen: Marginality in an Out-Of-The-Way Place. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
63.
Van der GeestS (1996) Grasping the child’s point of view? An anthropological reflection. In: BushP (ed) Children, Medicines and Culture. New York, NY: Haworth Press.
64.
VinovskisMA (1977) From household size to the life course: some observations on recent trends in family history. American Behavioral Scientist21(2): 263–287.
65.
WardCR (1999) The intergenerational field needs more ethnographic research. Child & Youth Services20(1–2): 6–23. DOI: 10.1300/J024v20n01_02.
66.
WestP (2005) Holding the story forever: the aesthetics of ethnographic labour. Anthropological Forum15(3): 267–275.
67.
YoungJ (2005) On insiders (emic) and outsiders (etic): views of self, and othering. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 18 (2): 151–162.
68.
ZulfikarT (2014) Researching my own backyard: inquiries into an ethnographic study. Ethnography and Education9(3): 373–386.
