97

“Le terrain” or “the field” has long been a rather unquestioned and uncriticized dimension of geographical research. Nevertheless, over the last decades, with an increasing interest in qualitative methodologies as well as the rising importance of a reflexive approach, geographers have begun to examine critically the meaning of the field, fieldwork and the position and role of the researcher within the field. Generally it is agreed that the field refers to the specific location where the empirical research is done, including the people and objects in this place. Whereas in most cases the field is a certain region, city or neighbourhood, the recent interest in translocal connections and networks has led not only to multisited research but also to mobile methodologies which increases the complexity of defining the field. Seeing the field as a set of relations rather than as points on maps, defining the field also means to create the field! Following the ideas of Latour or Deleuze requires one to follow the established lines and connections, but where can the limits be set? Where is the centre of the network or rhizome for the research? And where should the study stop following the networks? Ultimately, it is the researcher’s decision how to delimit the field. Using examples from my own mobile ethnographic research on mobility, translocality and commercial connections of young Zanzibari, I will explore the process of creating the field. Considering ideas of Latour and Deleuze, I will critically examine the connections between methodology, the researcher’s positionality and the construction of the field, to try to open up discussions on the “arbitrariness” of the field and its relevance for the production of geographic knowledge