Abstract
Is fieldwork as anthropologists do it simply a method among others? This article disagrees, drawing on the concept of “serendipity” as introduced by German scholar Ina-Maria Greverus. Beyond the prescribed way of any method, anthropology’s specificity articulates as “discovery”, in this case: an unexpected discovery of remains of the Soviet past in Estonia, through the author’s family life.
Highlights
Looking back at the work of Ina-Maria Greverus, one finds a seminal polyhedric endeavour and an interest in the kind of knowledge that is capable of extending beyond all particular disciplines
After being invited to revisit her work and connect it to my own research, I have to admit that I especially enjoyed reading her reflections on the context of discovery, reminding us that it is not always clear when fieldwork begins and ends, and claiming for an anthropology open to unexpected encounters, juxtapositions, and research questions to be followed
I believe that Greverus contributed to re-examine and redefine what counts as ethnography as method, in a way advancing current changes that point at a shift in what is considered an anthropological mode of inquiry and an epistemic partner (Holmes and Marcus 2004; Estalella and Sánchez Criado 2018)
Summary
Looking back at the work of Ina-Maria Greverus, one finds a seminal polyhedric endeavour and an interest in the kind of knowledge that is capable of extending beyond all particular disciplines. Other new studies have noted a changing relation between discoveries and methodological creativity, related to particular ways of being open, experimental, and public (Back and Puwar 2012; Estalella and Sánchez Criado 2018; Fabietti 2009; Hazan and Hertzog 2009; Lury and Wakeford 2012).
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
