Wojciech Cendrowski ORCID 0000-0002-1884-3386 University of Warsaw A BLUE COLLAR AS AN ETHNOGRAPHER: A FEW REFLECTIONS ABOUT ETHNOGRAPHIC FIELDWORK IN THE CONTEXT OF THE POLISH UNIVERSITY 205 Ethnographic fi eldwork is the main marker of socio-cultural anthropology. The research methodology proposed in the early 20th century by Bronisław Malinowski revolutionized ethnology and it is still relevant today. Of course, for decades researchers have preferred diff erent ways of collecting data. Apart from interviews and visual observation, these have included also experience gained by the senses of taste, touch, and hearing. In a nutshell, anthropologists transform their own bodies into research tools. The close connection between the ethnographer and a place of fi eldwork is undeniable. All of activities which we undertake have an infl uence on us and our research partners; the experience of fi eldwork thus changes both ourselves and our interlocutors (Kairski and Buliński 2015, 5–6). Postmodernist Wojciech Cendrowski anthropologists suggested that there was no objective knowl- edge in the ethnographic endeavor – they pointed out that ethnographic research could look only for an inter-subjective point of view. As a consequence, ethnographers have stopped being invisible. We have started to be present in our texts. Additionally, we invite our interlocutors to be coauthors of our books and articles.1 The anthropological community has gained awareness that even if the topic and the site are the same, dif- ferent researches will yield diff erent results. For instance, during ethnographic fi eldwork, each researcher might establish rapport with diff erent persons, and various unexpected accidents might elicit emotional reactions. Aware of these realities, anthro- 206 pologists have abandoned positivist theories of knowledge, focusing on the inter-subjective character of the collected data. Such factors as the experience of researchers, new theories, regular exchange of ideas, including conversations with other researchers, can infl uence our personality and have impact on our scholarly interests and approaches to knowledge. This infl uence is a part of what has been referred to as serendipity (Bloch 2016; Hazan and Hertzog 2012). Most descriptions of serendipity in anthropological investigation treat it as a strike of chance that can change direction of research, provide answers to research problems, and, last but not least, be helpful in choosing the subject of our interests. Below I provide a short discussion of the specifi c kind of serendipity in the trajectory 1 As an aside, I would like to mention that within the ecological humanities, which strive for knowledge that is non-anthropocentric, non-European-centered, and goes beyond the nature–culture dichotomy, the most radical propositions involve incorporating the other species as contributors (Domańska 2013, 31). A BLUE COLLAR AS AN ETHNOGRAPHER... of Polish anthropology, predicated on the assumption that the 19th century plays the key role in the history of anthropolog- ical investigations. All around the world, anthropology has been a discipline closely related to the political situation. Especially at its out- set, this meant engagement of anthropologists in colonialism. Europeans had the opportunity to conduct their research because they could organize expeditions to their colonies. The situation in Poland was quite diff erent. In the 19th century, the territory of Poland was divided between three counties, the Austrian Empire, the Kingdom of Prussia, and the Russian Empire. In the second part of the century, many Poles were persecuted for terrorism, participation in uprisings, and disloyalty, especially 207 on Russian territory. The common punishment for these crimes was exile. One of these exiles was Bronisław Piłsudski, who took part in an attempt to assassinate Tsar Alexander III and was sentenced to hard labor on the Sakhalin Island. However, his relegation transformed into ethnographic research on the Ainu people. Wacław Sieroszewski was likewise punished for political activity. He was exiled to Sakha, where he also started to conduct ethnographic research. Yet not only exiles had the opportunity to conduct research beyond Europe. Bronisław Grąbczewski was an offi cer of the Imperial Russian Army who left plenty of ethnographic fi eldnotes regarding Central Asia. Maria Czaplicka and Bronisław Malinowski studied in England and that laid foundation for their later fi eldworks: Czaplicka investigated the Evenki people in Siberia, Malinowski explored Papuan islands. In my opinion, both of them played a key role Wojciech Cendrowski in the development of ethnographic research methodology, even if it was only Malinowski who became known as a father of social anthropology. When Poland regained independence in 1918, there was a rich ethnographic tradition, so institutes of ethnology/anthropology which were created in the reborn state could rely on experienced fi eldworkers. Unfortunately, the general situation in the Polish university system has not allowed to conduct research according to Malinowski’s direc- tives. Instead, Polish research has mostly built on another tradition from which it stems: that of fi eldwork conducted close to home, usually in multiple shorter stays. The history of Polish academic tradition in ethnology during the 20th century deserves 208 a separate monograph, and shorter attempts to present it were undertaken by such prominent scholars as Buchowski (2012), Jasiewicz (2018), Posern-Zieliński (1995). In keeping with the topic of this volume, having drawn the historical background for my considerations, I would like to focus here on my personal experience in conducting fi eldwork and my own refl ections about the condition of ethnology and anthropology in the Polish university system. SOME GENERAL PROBLEMS REGARDING THE FIRST EXPERIENCE OF ETHNOGRAPHIC FIELDWORK My training as an anthropology student at Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań included a course called Methodological Laboratory, which consisted in a two-week-long group research A BLUE COLLAR AS AN ETHNOGRAPHER... trip. The coordinators of each group chose an area and prepared a research topic. Students from my cohort conducted research in Malbork, a town in northern Poland with almost 40,000 inhab- itants, famous for its 13th century castle, which is listed as a UNESCO World Heritage Site. Students were divided into four groups and everyone explored diff erent topics, from folk- lore to political economy. Within Methodological Laboratory, the choice of destination depends on the coordinator, number of students, and fi nancial support. Among the fi eldwork sites in other academic years were towns and villages like Szydłowiec, Dubicze Cerkiewne or Ludwikowice Kłodzkie. Obviously, there is initial training in data collection during earlier semesters. The obligatory courses before the laboratory 209 were Ethnographic Interview, Ethnographic Observation and Methodology of Ethnographic Research. The aim of these courses is to acquire and train basic skills in collecting data. Unfortunately, the basic textbooks of ethnographic research methodology are written by representatives of other social sciences, like David Silverman, Martyn Hammerley, and Paul Atkinson (Buliński and Kairski 2013, 13), who do little to emphasize the specifi cally anthropological tradition of fi eldwork. The books written strictly by anthropologists are marginalized in the Polish publishing space and Polish academia.2 Despite this downside, the methodological courses are really helpful in developing research skills in young anthropologists. 2 One example of an interesting anthropological work which addresses the infl uence of chance on fi eldwork is Nigel Barley’s The Innocent Anthropologist: Notes From a Mud Hut (Barley 1983). In Poznań, it is obligatory reading for the course Ethnographic Observation. Wojciech Cendrowski However, there are a few obstacles to this way of educating new generations of fi eldworkers: − Lack of possibility to gain meaningful experience in research. − Problem with funding research projects within the Polish university system. − Confusion among anthropologists as to the characteristics of fi eldwork and the topics for anthropological consider- ations. The two-weeks-long group trip is the only fi eldwork that is compulsory for all students. They are encouraged to conduct their own fi eldworks as basis for bachelor’s and master’s theses, 210 but this is not funded and therefore not obligatory. An undoubted advantage in this regard is the fact that academic teachers organize additional fi eldworks as electives, spending their own time to look for fi nancing. Thanks to them, many of the students have an opportunity to learn much more about methodology of ethnographic research and use this knowledge in practice. In my opinion, one of the brightest cases has been a project coordi- nated by Natalia Bloch, called “(Re)gained Migration Memory,” which was part of a multi-stage program. The course was based around letters of Polish emigrants in the US and Brazil, collected by Witold Kula. The main idea of fi eldwork was to fi nd the addressees of these undelivered letters. It was also a plea to investigate the infl uence of migration on the collective memory of modern locals. The result was the publishing of a book comprising a reportage as well as exhibition catalogue and educational program (Bloch 2016, 13–22, 155–56; Bloch 2017, A BLUE COLLAR AS AN ETHNOGRAPHER... 337–39). This, however, is only one case and it is important to notice