「回歸家鄉」已經成為20世紀70—80年代以來人類學與社會學研究的一個鮮明轉向，其與異鄉研究的方法論爭議也延續至今。本文以「中國」為起點梳理這段學術史，指出家鄉學者在批評異鄉研究的不足並宣稱自己的近距離優勢時，不能將其抽象、簡化並沉溺於自我優勢，以此豁免對自身侷限的反思與超越。筆者結合自己家鄉浙北鄉村的田野經歷，對研究者與當地人的角色身份、相互關係、個人特徵與交往過程及相關問題重新進行定位和反思，發現家鄉研究未必有其學術群體聲稱的那麼多本地優勢，也未必有一些異鄉學者批評的那麼多內部侷限。由於和當地人的文化距離不同，兩者的遭遇既有相似，也有不同，各有利弊。核心處境差異是家鄉學者面臨學術與生活的高度融合，及其引發、放大並複雜化的各種田野與學術問題。從文化特殊性角度說，在浙北鄉村做田野調查，家鄉學者要更充分考慮當地／中國／華人／漢人社會之文化因素的深度捲入對田野和生活的雙重獲益或損害；擴展到中國學術―文化場域及其與世界學術―文化體系的關係看，家鄉／本土學者以文化近距離優勢與本土方法論立場貶低或排斥異鄉研究，既容易強化雙方的二元對立，導致民族主義、意識形態和自我殖民等學術―政治問題趁虛而入，也違背田野工作、論著書寫和學術交流的根本意圖，還可能成為一些家鄉／本土學者在本地學術―文化場域中攫取學術名利、鞏固私人圈子的知識工具。總之，家鄉／本土研究的方法論探討指向一條對「自我」和「我們」的、徹底的認識、反思與超越之路。

“Returning home” became a distinct turn within anthropological and sociological studies in the 1970s-1980s, and the methodological disputes between “home” and “foreign” studies have lasted till today. Taking “foreign” study as a contrast, this paper first discusses the connotations of “home” study, and then takes China as the starting point to sort out this academic history and its core ideas. When criticizes the limitations and deficiencies of “foreign” study, and claims their own close-range advantages in entrance, language, culture, role, identity, relationships, communication, understanding, criticism, resistance, etc., the home or native scholars should not abstract and simplify problems within it and become self-indulgent. Or they may be exempt themselves from reflection and unable to transcend their own limitations. In order to concretize the issues of the influence of the researcher’s (close) cultural background on their field research, the author combines the fieldwork experience in his hometown of contemporary rural northern Zhejiang, to situationally position and empirically reflect on their multirole identity, mutual relations, personal characteristics and interaction process between researchers and the locals, as well as the emotions, trust, power, interests and ethical issues behind them. Furtherly, the author examines the home scholar’s position and identity in native society and the larger academic-cultural fields, and their complex influence on home or native studies, and then attempts to rethink the advantages as well as the limitations of home study and how to overcome them. According to this research, “home” study may not have as many advantages as its academic group claims, nor does it have as many inherent limitations as some foreign scholars have criticized. Due to different cultural distance from the locals, the two sets of scholars have both similarities and differences in the related fieldwork methodology issues, each having their own advantages and disadvantages. The common goals of home and foreign scholars are vigilance against authority, resistance to solidification, opening communication, understanding similarities and differences, respecting for differences, maintaining diversity, seeking consensus and promoting harmony. The core difference between them is the high integration of the home scholar’s research and life, and various practical problems caused, amplified and complicated by it. Therefore, from the perspective of cultural particularity, the home scholar should fully consider the double influences (benefit or damage) of role, guanxi, trust, renqing, mianzi, identity, status, power and ethics of the local Chinese or Han people’s society on their field work and daily life. If handled properly, the home scholars can consolidate their life circle while gaining academic achievements. If handled carelessly, it will cause more over-sheltering and damage in the academic and life fields. Extending this to the academic-cultural field in mainland China and its relationship with the global academic-cultural system, if the home scholars overemphasize their proximity advantages and native methodology standpoint, and belittle or reject the foreign scholars’ studies, they are likely to reinforce the systematic and essential binary opposition between the two sides, then leading to the academic-political problems of (han) nationalism, (socialist) ideology, and self-colonization, going against the fundamental intentions of field work, ethnographic writing, and academic communication, and becoming only the intellectual tools and academic rhetoric used to achieve academic fame and personal wealth, and consolidating the private circles in the home or indigenous academic field. In conclusion, the methodological thinking of home, native, or indigenous studies fundamentally points to a more radical path of anthropological and sociological understanding, reflection and transcendence of “self” and “us”. This methodological stance particularly applies to the home or indigenous research areas in mainland China. Due to the academic and cultural shackles from within and without China are extraordinarily complex, the home scholars need more courage and perseverance to carry out self-reflection and breakthrough.