コロナ禍以降のフィールドワーク―「あちら側／こちら側」をめぐるリフレクション―

The spread of the COVID-19 has created a situation where it is impossible to go out into the field. Such a situation requires us to reconsider our usual understanding of fieldwork, which is to return “here” and then write about the experience of “being there” in ethnography. Therefore, this paper poses two questions. The first question is: Under what assumptions is it possible to conduct an overseas field study? The second question is: Is not being able to go “over there” fatal to fieldwork? To answer these questions, we drew the following conclusions. First, the data obtained from field research “out there” are influenced by at least six preconditions - the global environment, institutions, research field, research resources, the researcher's own life, and history. It must be said that the facts obtained through participatory observation in the field are partial facts, seen and heard under specific conditions, constraints, and histories. Second, if, as Tim Ingold argues, the purpose of fieldwork is to “take others seriously,” then the inability to get to “the other side” is not necessarily fatal. This is because “others” exist on “this side” as well, and it is possible to experiment with ways of learning with people. Finally, I argued that the distinction between “this side” and “that side” becomes blurred when fieldwork is understood as a method for “taking others seriously.