ABSTRACT
This chapter argues that when doing fieldwork on transnational networks and flows amongst members of the same community in different contexts, depth and multi-sitedness can well be combined. It discusses changing perceptions of the fieldsite. The research focus in Norway was shaped by the work that had done earlier in Dadaab and Minneapolis, and subsequent studies in Dadaab benefited from insights gained in Minneapolis and Oslo. Almost ten years later, Coleman and Collins's introductory chapter, addressing very similar issues as Gupta and Ferguson's, is still relevant and topical. In addition to deconstructing the centrality of Malinowskian fieldwork Coleman and Collins trace how boundaries, embodied in the distinction of a single geographically delimited field site, have been useful for cultural comparison in anthropology. Neither authors accept that the challenges to Malinowskian fieldwork signal the demise of ethnography; like Amit, they offer proposals for a reinterpretation of fieldwork. Gupta and Ferguson argues that the anthropological 'site' is a social construction.
