Michel de Certeau: Ethnography and the challenge of plurality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
devoted to his work and published since his death in 1986 attest to his broader influence.De Certeau's work has therefore been revisited and reassessed in numerous disciplinary circles.Curiously, however, anthropology, so seemingly sponge-like in its theoretical fashions, has not engaged extensively with de Certeau's work. 2 This is despite the fact that de Certeau's primary thematic concerns were peculiarly anthropological in nature.Issues of representation and resistance, marginality and minorities, power and plurality dominated his studies which spanned topics as diverse as early modern mysticism, travel narratives of the new world, urban everyday life, and contemporary policy on multi-culturalism.Furthermore, de Certeau was an architect of a theory of practice and of historical enquiry both of which have gained considerable relevance to anthropological perspectives since the 1960s.We are not arguing here that de Certeau has been completely forgotten by anthropologists, of course and for examples see (Pandolfi, 1992;Ivy, 1995;Ferme, 2001;Hernândez, 2002), but that his recognition in anthropology is very limited compared to that in other disciplines (history, literature, religious studies, cultural studies).So why has de Certeau's thinking been so little used in our discipline?The papers collected here originated out of an attempt to consider this question.Each contributor, from their own perspective, asks why de Certeau is not cited
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".