本文分析研究者自身在田野現場中與被研究者因為性別角色與關 係而引發了一連串情感互動與遭逢的田野經驗、困惑與焦慮，指出研 究者與被研究者互為主體的知識生產的層次和過程：雙方各自的存在 論、文化預設和倫理觀、個別行動者的生活方式以及各自的生活世界 圖像等層次，如何彼此辯證地互動。筆者主張，在田野中尋求新技 法乃是一個關係性的（relational）知識過程，其間，研究者意識到雙 方在存在論與在地知識之本體論的立場，促成了田野技法必須與個人 知識論立場進一步相應。此一探究取徑除了呼應了當代人類學知識的 本體論轉向（ontological turn）――特別是梅若琳．史翠珊（Marilyn Strathern）及韋偉若斯．德．卡斯楚（Eduardo Viveiros de Castro）兩 位人類學家所倡言之地方社會自有其世界與知識的特殊本體論，更深 化現象學視域（vision）對人類生存世界與知識前提的理解對人類學知 識建構的作用，細緻勾繪並呈現被研究者在當代社會經濟情境下的在 世存有（being-in-the-world）與心之所繫。藉由將研究者與地方社會在 田野中有關性別與情感互動的多重遭逢（multiple engagements）視為存 在化的知識場域，筆者區辨並指出了研究者與被研究者各自的存在論 基礎及知識的本體論相互辯證的動態，以此細緻化謝國雄提出之「四 位一體」的知識觀。

This paper examines myriad of experiences, confusion and anxiety due to how the gender identity of an anthropologist is perceived and brought into affective, social interactions in fieldwork in order to delineate how the intersubjective processes and levels of knowledge-making are undergoing, in which the ontologies of being-in-the-world, cultural and ethnical assumptions in regard to gender and affect, ways of life and lifeworlds are brought into dialectical play. I then argue that fieldwork techniques are in essence part of relational process of knowledge-making instead of viewing research methods as isolated from the social reality an anthropologist encounters. In this relational process of knowledge-making, the awareness of the disparate epistemological and ontological stances between a researcher and people an anthropologist works with indeed prompts a researcher to conduct her/his subsequent fieldwork techniques in line with epistemological inquiries. Echoing the spirit of the ontological turn in anthropology, especially Marilyn Strathern’s and Viveiros de Castro’s thesis of the existence of alternative ontologies in local societies, I introduce a phenomenological vision into fieldwork to capture the existential worlds, their modes of being-in-the-world, and what concerns them most in contemporary contexts. Taking as an existentialist field of knowledge the multiple engagements with respect both to gender and to affective interactions between a researcher and people she/he works with, I then indicate the dialectical dynamics of the terrain of different ontologies and epistemologies on both sides, which definitely elaborates the construction of a quaternary practice of knowledge proposed by Gwo-shyong Shieh.