The article revisits my personal relationships with fieldwork members in an ethnography on transnational migration between Ecuador and Italy. As this focused on the social relationships and practices that may connect emigrants with their motherland, the import of my interpersonal relationships was a crucial one. In reflecting on their development and impingements, I draw on three interpretive categories: respect, in terms of reciprocal recognition and legitimation with the members of the social group I had selected for my fieldwork; opportunities, i.e. the influence of structural factors, along with contingencies, on my ethnographic involvement; and interests, that is the motivations and objectives underlying my participant observation, along with the expectations emerging in those I met and stayed with. The implications and dilemmas of my field relationships are also sketched out, with respect both to the knowledge generated through my fieldwork, and to my own positioning within it. I finally reflect on the scope for collaboration, and for fair and ‘balanced’ relationships with the interlocutors of my research.
AdlerPAAdlerP (1987) Membership Roles in Field Research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
2.
Amit-TalaiV (1997) In precarious motion: from territorial to transnational cultures. CRSA/RCSA34(3): 319–332.
3.
BarryK (2006) Home and away: the construction of citizenship in an emigration context. New York University Law Review81(11): 11–59.
4.
BoccagniP (2009a) Tracce transnazionali. Vite in Italia e proiezioni verso casa tra i migranti ecuadoriani. Milan: Angeli.
5.
BoccagniP (2009b) «I’m not like all these Latinos». From ethnicization to selective ethnicity appropriation as a lever for social integration overseas. Paper presented at the IMISCOE Theory Conference Interethnic Relations: Multidisciplinary Approaches, Lisbon, May.
6.
BoccagniP (2010a) Private, public or both? On the scope and impact of transnationalism in immigrants’ everyday lives. In: BauböckRFaistT (eds) Diaspora and Transnationalism. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
7.
BoccagniP (2010b) Whom should we help first? Transnational helping practices in Ecuadorian migration. International Migration00: 1–00.
8.
BoccagniP (2010c) Exploring migrants’ affective ties at a distance: Is ‘multi-sited’ ethnography enough?University of Bielefeld, COMCAD working paper no. 72.
9.
ChuaLHighCLauT (2008) Introduction: questions of evidence. In: ChuaLHighCLauT (eds) How Do We Know?Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
10.
CliffordJ (1983) On ethnographic authority. Representations1(2): 118–146.
11.
CrowGPopeC (2008) Editorial foreword: the future of the research relationship. Sociology42(5): 814–819.
12.
DervinB (1998) Sense-making theory and practice. Journal of Knowledge Management2(2): 36–46.
13.
EmersonRFretzRShawL (2001) Participant observation and fieldnotes. In: AtkinsonPCoffeyADelamontSLoflandJLoflandL (eds) Handbook of Ethnography. London: Sage.
14.
FineGA (1993) Ten lies of ethnography: moral dilemmas of field research. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography22: 267–294.
15.
FineGA (2003) Towards a peopled ethnography. Ethnography4(1): 51–60.
16.
GansH (1979) Symbolic ethnicity. Ethnic and Racial Studies2: 1–20.
17.
GlaserBStraussA (1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.
18.
GoldRL (1985) Roles in sociological field observation. Social Forces36: 217–223.
19.
GoldRL (1997) The ethnographic method in sociology. Qualitative Inquiry3(4): 388–402.
20.
GrayB (2008) Putting emotion and reflexivity to work in researching migration. Sociology42(5): 935–952.
21.
GuptaAFergusonJ (1997) Discipline and practice: ‘the field’ as site, method and location in anthropology. In: GuptaAFergusonJ (eds) Anthropological Locations. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
22.
HageG (2005) A not so multi-sited ethnography of a not so imagined community. Anthropological Theory5(4): 463–475.
23.
HaleyBD (2009) Is collaborative anthropology better?Current Anthropology50(4): 577–579.
HolmesDGMarcusGE (2008) Collaboration today and he re-imagination of the classic scene of fieldwork encounter. Collaborative Anthropologies1: 81–101.
26.
ISTAT (2008) Rapporto annuale – La situazione del Paese 2008. Rome: Istituto Nazionale di Statistica.
27.
LassiterLE (2001) From ‘reading over the shoulders of natives’ to ‘reading alongside natives’. Journal of Anthropological Research57: 137–149.
28.
LassiterLE (2005) The Chicago Guide to Collaborative Ethnography. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
29.
LevittP (2001) The Transnational Villagers. Los Angeles: University of California Press.
30.
LevittPGlick-SchillerN (2004) Conceptualizing simultaneity. International Migration Review37(3): 1002–1039.
31.
LevittPJaworskyB (2007) Transnational migration studies. Annual Review of Sociology33: 129–156.
32.
MarcusGH (2007) Collaborative imaginaries. Taiwan Journal of Anthropology5(1): 1–17.
33.
MayRBPatilloM (2000) Do you see what I see? Examining a collaborative ethnography. Qualitative Inquiry6(1): 65–87.
34.
PortesA (2003) Theoretical convergencies and empirical evidence in the study of immigrant transnationalism. International Migration Review37(3): 874–892.
35.
RabinowP (2007 [1977]) Reflections on Fieldwork in Morocco. Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Van MaanenJ (2006) Ethnography then and now. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management1(1): 13–21.
44.
WacquantL (1989) Towards a reflexive sociology: a workshop with Pierre Bourdieu. Sociological Theory7(1): 26–63.
45.
WhyteWF (1955) Street Corner Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
46.
WhyteWF (1979) On making the most of participant observation. American Sociologist14: 56–66.
47.
ZolbergA (1987) «Wanted but not welcome»: alien labor in western development. In: AlonsoW (ed.) Population in an Interacting World. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
