Signals misread: Affect, risk, and blind spots in ethnographic fieldwork

This paper reflects on an unexpected encounter during fieldwork in Predappio, Mussolini’s birth and burial place, during the centenary of the March on Rome. Alternating between narrative and analytical reflection, I explore how ethnographic attention becomes organised under conditions of ambiguity and affective intensity. Drawing on distinctions between blanks and blind spots and the concept of epistemic disconcertment, I argue that internalised framings of risk, heightened vigilance, and emotional strain shaped how uncertainty became il/legible in the field, particularly in relation to my local host: these pressures encouraged me to resolve ambiguity through available interpretative frameworks or recognisable forms of threat, narrowing the epistemic openness through which ethnographic knowledge is produced. I suggest that ethnographic openness is therefore a fragile condition: it requires not only remaining open to uncertainty, but also recognising when interpretative coherence has arrived too quickly and tolerating ambiguity long enough for alternative possibilities to become thinkable.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Ethnography
Published
2026-11-06
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/14661381261504628
Primary Topic
Qualitative Research Methods and Ethics
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
NOV
article

Signals misread: Affect, risk, and blind spots in ethnographic fieldwork

Silvia Binenti
2 links
Ethnography
Qualitative Research Methods and Ethics
article

Signals misread: Affect, risk, and blind spots in ethnographic fieldwork

Silvia Binenti
article en

Abstract

This paper reflects on an unexpected encounter during fieldwork in Predappio, Mussolini’s birth and burial place, during the centenary of the March on Rome. Alternating between narrative and analytical reflection, I explore how ethnographic attention becomes organised under conditions of ambiguity and affective intensity. Drawing on distinctions between blanks and blind spots and the concept of epistemic disconcertment, I argue that internalised framings of risk, heightened vigilance, and emotional strain shaped how uncertainty became il/legible in the field, particularly in relation to my local host: these pressures encouraged me to resolve ambiguity through available interpretative frameworks or recognisable forms of threat, narrowing the epistemic openness through which ethnographic knowledge is produced. I suggest that ethnographic openness is therefore a fragile condition: it requires not only remaining open to uncertainty, but also recognising when interpretative coherence has arrived too quickly and tolerating ambiguity long enough for alternative possibilities to become thinkable.

Ethnography
University of Cambridge (GB)
Openalex Percentile: Top 10%
Qualitative Research Methods and Ethics
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.

Laika access coming soon