IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/rsocxx/v13y2018i3-4p429-443.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Risky closeness and distance in two fieldwork sites in Brazil

Author

Listed:
  • Andreza Aruska de Souza Santos

Abstract

This article discusses how closeness and distance affected my ethnographic research in two Brazilian cities. I first address the pitfalls I encountered researching Luz, a run-down transportation hub and residential area in São Paulo’s city centre, also known as Crackland for its drug trade and consumption. In Luz, I was confronted with everyday hostility in an environment of unknown others and an ever-changing cityscape: users of cultural offerings, temporary residents and by-passers, police removal of drug users, house evictions and demolition in deteriorated buildings, and contentious and short-lived state policies with regard to the area. The second part of the article contrasts this experience with living and conducting research in Ouro Preto, a Brazilian UNESCO World heritage site where residents have a strong sense of social cohesion. While, for me, the violence and disorder of Luz made conducting research there impossible, the strong networks and familiarity in Ouro Preto created its own challenges. Drawing on 15 months of fieldwork in these two distinct contexts, I discuss how researchers can face intimidation brought about by both distance from informants and excessive closeness, and how research questions and findings are often limited by such personal possibilities and positions.

Suggested Citation

  • Andreza Aruska de Souza Santos, 2018. "Risky closeness and distance in two fieldwork sites in Brazil," Contemporary Social Science, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(3-4), pages 429-443, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:rsocxx:v:13:y:2018:i:3-4:p:429-443
    DOI: 10.1080/21582041.2017.1418524
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/21582041.2017.1418524
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/21582041.2017.1418524?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:rsocxx:v:13:y:2018:i:3-4:p:429-443. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/rsoc21 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.