Homeland sociology is an academic focus. Photo: TUCHONG 

Recent years have witnessed increasing reflections on “homeland sociology” as a research methodology, which is closely related to the qualitative research traditions of early Chinese sociology and anthropology. Essentially, the qualitative methods of “homeland sociology” can be considered as employing one’s “homeland” as the “field,” involving fieldwork conducted in one’s own locality or “quasi-homeland.” Consequently, “homeland sociology” involves studying and observing people from one’s hometown or those close to oneself. This qualitative research method and its traditions are not limited to Chinese studies alone, necessitating reflection from broader methodological perspectives. 

Tradition of ‘homeland sociology’  

  In the development of early Chinese sociology, the interdisciplinary fusion between sociology and anthropology was relatively obvious. Generally, the application of qualitative research methods of anthropological fieldwork was relatively mature.  Early “homeland sociology” research often exhibited the anthropological trait of “thick description,” analyzing various aspects of rural villages and towns. This approach aimed to present a comprehensive view of the cultural customs and community organizational structures of traditional Chinese rural villages. Although there were differences in focus, community and family issues were central to the field research in early Chinese sociology and anthropology. The methodology involved in-depth, micro-level case studies of hometowns, with the goal of understanding the overall characteristics of rural Chinese culture.

‘Homeland sociology’ & emotions 

In qualitative research, “homeland sociology” consistently engages with critical issues of the researcher’s cultural “emic” and “etic” and the dynamics between “internal” and “external” perspectives. As noted, the localized orientation of the researcher’s cultural “emic” may be taken for granted in current anthropological field research and qualitative research. However, the tension between “internal” and “external” remains a significant methodological and ethical challenge in participant observation. 

“Homeland sociology” uniquely embodies an internal form of participant observation, characterized by long-term, often unconscious immersion in the researcher’s own community. Researchers may engage in this extended and frequently inadvertent participation observation even before they formally begin their social investigations and disciplinary thinking. In comparison, other general forms of participant observation generally involve a more deliberate external entry by the researcher. 

As an internal form of participant observation, “homeland sociology” is unique in that it may not always involve direct participation by the researcher alone. Instead, it often includes extensive observation assisted by the researcher’s family or friends over a longer time span. This extended involvement not only prolongs the duration of participant observation but also facilitates deeper social connections, making it easier to revisit and restart years later. As a result, compared to more conventional external forms of participant observation, the internalized “homeland sociology” typically entails a greater degree of personal emotional investment. 

Empirical limitations 

As previously discussed, “homeland sociology” often represents a form of participant observation characterized by the researcher’s internal involvement. Compared to external participant observation methods, internalized “homeland sociology” may be particularly suited to anthropological field research with cultural studies as major research topics. However, it often comes with limitations regarding the choice of survey locations and research subjects. Despite these constraints, shifts in research perspectives and the in-depth accumulation of field data can, to some extent, overcome these limitations. 

It should be said that while “homeland sociology” may have limitations in the selection of research subjects, it consistently excels in terms of investigation depth. The fundamental challenge for empirical research lies in effectively identifying and interpreting issues based on collected investigation data. 

Theoretical expansion  

From the perspective of contemporary sociology, “homeland sociology” need not be confined to traditional anthropological ethnography focused on contextual narratives. Instead, it can engage in sociological causal mechanism analysis with clear problem focus and explanatory logic. Therefore, “homeland sociology” is not limited to ethnography or personal or family biographies but can also incorporate the case study methods that involve precise problem selection, research object positioning, and analytical unit definition. In particular, it requires researchers to determine effective analytical units based on specific research problems and adjust them as necessary during the course of the study, informed by the problems identified and existing empirical data. In this sense, “homeland sociology” may possess unique theoretical distinctions compared to other field research and case study methods. 

In fact, Xiang Biao, in the interview for his book Self as Method: Thinking Through China and the World, emphasizes the importance of “problematizing personal experience” in research. Broadly speaking, “quasi-homeland sociology” is not limited to the localized investigation of one’s hometown but rather involves the projection of personal experiences, emotions, and social knowledge. However, this approach still requires rigorous normative research methods to be effective. 

In this sense, the personal insights of “homeland sociology” or “quasi-homeland sociology” are not limited to qualitative research, but also have important implications for the choice of research problems and causal analysis in quantitative research. Therefore, internalized “homeland sociology” resembles ongoing debates on “indigenous sociology” or the “localization of sociology” in that it may require more than simple affirmation or negation or getting stuck in a methodological debate over qualitative and quantitative methods. Rather, it should focus on deriving effective analytical concepts and theoretical frameworks from empirical research. 

In summary, “homeland sociology” and the broader concept of “indigenous sociology” should aim for a methodological approach more oriented towards the post-positivist interplay of empirical and theoretical research on the methodological level, with the long-term vitality of the approach lying in the internal and external linkage and theoretical expansion from the specific to the general.   

Shen Yi is a professor from the School of Social and Behavioral Sciences at Nanjing University.

Edited by ZHAO YUAN