The explosion of the mirror

The aim of this article is to make visible the mechanisms of data production with which we elaborate our scientific production. Based on qualitative research conducted with non-domestic cleaning workers, both women and men, in the city of Córdoba (Argentina), we seek to critically reflect on how, with whom, and why we do qualitative research. Among the main findings, four analytical dimensions are addressed: the tension between horizontal and/or hierarchical relationships that are built during the research process; the tendency to romanticize the objects of research and the effects that such romanticization may have on the process under scrutiny; the often “toxic” relationships we establish with the theoretical frameworks we work with; and the collision between “native categories” and “theoretical categories,” a process that occurs when the field tells us something different from what is expected. These reflections are not intended to be a methodology manual, but rather to bring to the table those aspects that emerge during fieldwork and are sometimes left out of ethnographies.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Hau Journal of Ethnographic Theory
Published
2025-10-24
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1086/737940
Primary Topic
Political and Economic history of UK and US
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

The explosion of the mirror

María José Magliano, María Lorena Capogrossi
Hau Journal of Ethnographic Theory
Political and Economic history of UK and US
article

The explosion of the mirror

María José Magliano, María Lorena Capogrossi
article en

Abstract

The aim of this article is to make visible the mechanisms of data production with which we elaborate our scientific production. Based on qualitative research conducted with non-domestic cleaning workers, both women and men, in the city of Córdoba (Argentina), we seek to critically reflect on how, with whom, and why we do qualitative research. Among the main findings, four analytical dimensions are addressed: the tension between horizontal and/or hierarchical relationships that are built during the research process; the tendency to romanticize the objects of research and the effects that such romanticization may have on the process under scrutiny; the often “toxic” relationships we establish with the theoretical frameworks we work with; and the collision between “native categories” and “theoretical categories,” a process that occurs when the field tells us something different from what is expected. These reflections are not intended to be a methodology manual, but rather to bring to the table those aspects that emerge during fieldwork and are sometimes left out of ethnographies.

Hau Journal of Ethnographic TheoryVol. 15(3)
Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (AR)
Openalex Percentile: Top 65%
Political and Economic history of UK and US
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.