We finished issue 17.2 by appreciating the fact that the methodology of anthropology was being used by other fields: we had an article from a sociologist (Ahmad Shekarchi) and one by a political scientist (William Miles). During the COVID-19 period, our methodology of participant observation was put into abeyance by some scholars, as it would not be advisable for researchers to be displaced, in consideration of their own health during the time they travelled and the health of the community they were going to study. Some scholars engaged in online research, interviewing people through the social media or simply phone calls, but the viability of this online method is definitely not proven. Actually, this is posed as a problem today, and some reflection is going on about it in our field.

We are happy that in this issue we have a number of articles that prove very clearly that this methodology is viable. We have an interesting article by Professors Heiens and Pleshko in marketing, and we know that for decades those in marketing and advertisement have used our methodology of participatory observation. These authors refer to “unobtrusive observational research” referring to observing without being participants to the gatherings of the people they were doing research about. Albeit their claim that “alternative methodologies, including anthropological research techniques, have been slowly gaining acceptance in the field of marketing (Martin and Woodside 2017) . . . to generate a more accurate understanding of the consumer” and “researchers have been slowly embracing unobtrusive observational research as a method to examine . . . behaviour (Seiler and Pinna 2017),” even back in 1990s I personally used our method in marketing research in Paris, something that was not new. This methodology has enabled the above-mentioned authors to study intersectionality of food services industry, the persistence of tobacco use, and the impact of social influence on consumption patterns. The location of this study has been mainly the diwaniya in Kuwait where people could “listen to music, recite poetry, share jokes, [and] entertain themselves.” The authors have found it sufficient to do “unobtrusive observation” and not necessarily interview people but observe the hour they spent in these locations, and the things they consumed and the tobacco they smoked.

The first article of this issue is by Mehmet Ali Sevgi. “The Invisible Inhabitants of a Cultural Limbo: Religious Identities among Igdir Ja'faris” shows the steps a young anthropologist takes in what he expected to be a hybrid city of different ethnicities—Turks, Kurds, Armenians, Azeris, Russians, and Iranians. He takes us through his research of Shi'ism in Igdir, at the border of today's Türkiye and Iran, in search of cultural identity of the Igdiri. Using Stuart Hall's reflections and theories regarding identity (1990 and 1996), we see how his interviews help him understand the Turkish identity of the border, through their oral traditions of “myths, legends, narratives, satires, hymns, and rituals,” which he calls “the unstable points of identification.” It is his continuous interviews during his stay in Igdir (from September 2020 to January 2022) that helps him to understand these rituals. The author pays attention to details such as seeing the picture of Atatürk and religious portraits side by side in a pastry shop. It is also through his writing in first person that we can follow him step-by-step in his struggle to gain credibility in front of the people he interviewed and become integrated into the society to “obtain authentic observational data.” He shows how the ritual of Muharram creates a sense of guilt, and this process gives identity to the Shi'ites. This is not something fixed, as individuals have to relate their own personal history and understanding and experiences in life to the martyrdom of Imam Hussein, that is, for every person it can be a different experience every year. So, while the ritual makes the scene, the content is left to the individual to recreate every year. It has remained meaningful for years, and it is only through direct interview of participants that the author can understand and communicate his research: sharing historical events of the seventh century, and hearing people say “all year we expect the month of Muharram,” which gives a meaningful dimension to ritual. These are the details that support and sustain the points raised by the author, besides his powerful and personal use of language (reporting on his personal experience and writing in first person).

The author reflects on difficulties of research and speaks about his limitations in writing, as certain individuals would not sign a letter allowing him to use their interviews. This is to say that anthropologists do recognise the difficulties they are facing in using their methodology. While during research they might have gained the confidence of people to speak to them and allow them to write their interviews, but not allowing them to write them publicly limits them in their reporting and presenting their arguments. Ethically they find certain points that they cannot write on paper for all, and this can be very frustrating. This fascinating article also shows the relationship between state and religion (Atatürk and Shi'ism) in this small, border town. He has a refined sensitive approach to his topic and explains in detail in a way to prove his definition of identity as something not framed and stable for all time. This is how rituals are defined (following Hall) to be a process, they are constantly played, moved, and constructed. Finally, the author writes on the feast of Nowruz (the arrival of spring), but it is a pity that he did not have enough documents from the other side of the border to know that the Feast of the Dead, which he attributes to the Turkish traditions, is celebrated by for example, Iranian Lors in Western Iran. Just before 21 March, cooking of food for the dead takes place to bring home the recently deceased spirits. Through this article we can really see that despite many problems the researcher faces in the field, participant observation cannot be replaced by phone calls.

Our next article is by Michelle Lokot. “Gendered power struggles among Syrian mothers-in-law and daughters-in-law” questions a few stereotypes in the Middle East literature, such as the dichotomy of men versus women and proposes women of different ages as having bones of contention. According to the author, social workers and humanitarian organisations prefer to think the patriarchal system has created the problem, and the solution will issue from their or a police intervention. The author questions this stereotype and finds that with age women gain power and exercise this power over the younger women who are the daughters-in-law who become members of the family. The field work for this research has taken place during nine months in Jordan among Syrian refugees. The author insists on having used the well-accepted feminist perspective and logic of induction, thus participant observation has been part and parcel of this research. She uses certain methods such as taking group pictures together and discussing them afterward, which is good for recognising the people and determining their relationships. Perhaps even their positions in the picture can help the researcher. She also mentions that this method has been helpful for building relationship with respondents. During her research, she found situations where men were victims between their women, and they tried not to take sides. Through quarrels between women of different ages, Michel Lokot shows family dynamics and how conflicts are resolved. So, we see power struggles are not only gendered but determined by age. She challenges humanitarian agencies’ assumptions of “imagined harmony” among women, and the need to “empower” women against men. She goes even further to say that women use power and even violence traditionally framed as a male tool, and thus power should not be imagined to be static.

Age is again discussed in an article by critical anthropologist Esther Hertzog and Dr. Assaf Lev when they study the young and the old engaging in fitness activities at the gym, and they find discrimination toward the elderly. Age identity is an addition to ethnic identity, gender identity, religious identity, and the anthropologists try to show how discrimination is enacted through words, glances, symbols, and how this behaviour can change. The authors have studied the topic from their two different participant observation perspectives, and death, which is constantly pushed outside the social experience of modern states, comes staring back at the elderly who try to remain fit for the last period of their lives. Exclusion, loneliness, and fear of decadence imbues their daily practices. This is a very timely article that highlights many difficulties in modern society.

Francoise Aubaille-Sallenave's article in anthropology of food is a masterpiece in ethno-history, a totally different article. She shows how a bird's becfiques-history due to its medical qualities and taste has been recorded in various texts from Aristotle to the Holy Bible in the Middle East to Egypt, Rome, and Greece, to today where it was still in restaurants in 2005 in Aleppo, Syria, and Lebanon in 2018, till now when it is prohibited to be hunted, at least in Europe. The author gives a glossary of names in various languages, and a number of recipes for this bird's preparation.

Our last article, in economic anthropology by Hsain Ilahiane, “Mobile Phones, Farmers, and the Unsettling of Geertz's Moroccan Bazaar Economy,” shows the author in the field. He engages in structured interviews and participant observation. Generally, discussions on mobile phones relate to the social mode of existence, but their positive impact on economic relations are less discussed. Here the author's field research in rural areas of Morocco make the topic noteworthy.

He studies the inhabitants of the Ziz River Valley, which has a unique geography and environment, and he studies the respondents in their socioeconomic characteristics, their communicative ecology, and their frequency of voice-calls. The author comes to the conclusion that the use of mobiles has made the farmers reach more markets and establish wider contacts, and thus increase their opportunities and social network for their work. The author has found that there is an increase of 23.7 per cent in farmers’ annual income, a shift from dealing with itinerant peddlers to wholesalers in major cities, and what has made their products travel to a wider radius.

He speaks comparatively when he says the “bazaar was organised around the attempt to control the flow of information,” and, through bargaining, the peddlers who controlled the information prevented the farmers from ready access to information. Today the farmers need not depend upon such information from peddlers, and they go directly to the bazaars in need of their products. Knowledge of the local language and direct relationships with farmers and stores in the area could make such research possible. It now remains to do research on peddlers and see how they are perhaps using the mobile phones and if they have switched their occupations or not. Also, the use of mobile phones in rural areas by different members of rural areas could become supplementary to this fascinating study.

To return to our first topic of methodology, we find that while it is spreading to other fields, certain countries and universities are finding it not possible to continue in the spirit that it was used before, and they allow their students to engage in gathering information via questionnaires and telephone interviews or social media. This is very unfortunate, and we hope that the hallmark of our field remains our methodology while at certain points of time, such as the COVID-19 period, exception may be allowed. Presenting a variety of very good papers as we have in this issue can prove to young researchers the viability of this methodology, across social sciences, and within the field.