CONICET | Buscador de Institutos y Recursos Humanos

In ethnobotanical studies, the expressions ?unit of analysis? and ?unit of study? are commonly used interchangeably. Other authors differentiate them, considering the ?study unit? to the physical scope and the ?analysis unit? to the study subjects or their relationships. The aim of this contribution is to reflect on differences between those expressions and the importance of defining them when conducting ethnobotanical studies in urban contexts. In the first instance, we consider the ?analysis unit? as the higher or representative entity of what will be the specific subject of study in a measurement, and refers to what or who is the subject of interest in an investigation (e.g., studies considering the domestic unit as an analysis unit), and may include more than one study unit or observation unit. Considering that in urban pluricultural contexts, such as the study area, new possibilities for study and methodologicalapproaches arise, it is essential to reflect on the ?analysis units? construction. For this purpose, a bibliographic review was carried out on ethnobotanical works of a different nature on the use of these expressions in such investigations. From this background, we propose as ?analysis units? the ?sale sites?, where different variables can be analyzed, such as practices, knowledge, and values of sellers and consumers, their interactions, the knowledge origin, the products? availability, among others. As an example, the results obtained in ?dietéticas? (health food stores) and ?leñeras? (firewood and coal stores) in Buenos Aires Metropolitan Area (Argentina), where similarities and differences are analyzed. We concluded on the value of the ?sale sites? in urban botanical knowledge construction, and consequently their relevance for the urban ethnobotany.