English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

The aim of this article is to show the difference between aninterpretative-hermeneutic ethnographic approach deeply embedded in thehistory of anthropology and ethnographic methods introduced as part of asocial science repertoire. Taking the classical "network" as an example, itcontrasts the way this concept is generally used in studies on translocalmobility with interpretations of ethnographic research. This not only opensup critical reflections on the role of  "networks" when it comes tounderstanding translocality as a lived experience, but also illustrates whatit actually means to follow an interpretative-hermeneutic approach in whichethnographic material is seen to serve as a way to ground, question andrefine abstract concepts. The article thus argues that it is throughethnographies and their inherent openness towards the field that a moreenriching and creative engagement with theories and methodologies can beachieved than qualitative social science approaches usually allow for

Ethnographie und ihre Folgen für die Kulturgeographie: eine Kritik des Netzwerkkonzepts in Studien zu translokaler Mobilität