How to think about people who don’t want to be studied: Further reflections on studying up

Abstract

It is now routine for anthropologists to study those who exercise power and control wealth and status in any number of societies. Implicit in anthropology’s long-standing commitment to apprehending societies in their totality, and explicit in the call to study up, paying attention to power is just one of the routine things that anthropologists do in the course of their fieldwork. That said, many theoretical and ethical norms in the discipline are calibrated to allow researchers to both know about and protect those with relatively little power who made up much of anthropology’s original topical area of interests. By contrast, studying people who exercise power entails special ethical and theoretical consideration. This article enumerates some of those considerations, and suggests that anthropologists need to have coherent theories of social action in addition to theories of social meaning. The article also suggests that some canonical disciplinary ethical norms are inappropriate for the study of the powerful for empirical and practical reasons.

“We have nothing to hide”: Legitimacy narratives, researcher positionality and the ethics of accessing the Dutch deportation apparatus

“…This is due, I believe, to the difficulty in assessing where the line between what we should see as "facts" and "interpretation" can be drawn – both for the strategic advisors and for myself. Contrary to Souleles' (2021) experiences, the strategic advisors thus never prohibited me from publishing certain findings nor asked me to exclude observations or interview narratives. Instead, they often requested me to further elaborate, nuance and clarify the organisational processes and practices I described in my writings.…”

“…My research, in short, seemed to be perceived as relatively harmless, due to me being a student and a "trusted insider." In 2019, this was different, as I was now negotiating with DT&V strategic advisors with whom I had not built previous rapport; this made me navigate and confront the inevitable power imbalances between researchers and research participants while "studying up" in a more conscious manner (see also Souleles, 2021). As I was dependent on their approval of my research plans, I consciously balanced my critical position with my engagement with the organisation and its personnel.…”

Do Not Recommend? Reduction as a Form of Content Moderation

“…For anything else, I have not disclosed specific details, though they inform my argument. Even so, I remain concerned that these routinized logics of secrecy and informality, especially in Silicon Valley, are a problematic barrier to qualitative inquiry, and that our ethical commitments may at times hamper us from investigating and challenging the strategies of the powerful (Souleles, 2021). I am keenly aware that my efforts to know these companies are entangled in their use of me.…”

ACTION AS METHOD:Ethnographic approaches for impact

“…As Daniel Souleles has shown, most financial elites have little reason to engage with researchers who offer them nothing. Souleles conducted ethnographic research on private equity investors who did not want to be studied (Souleles 2018(Souleles , 2021. There is another opportunity (at least for anthropologists working with philanthropists and impact investors) to create new and compelling reasons to engage because of the value of their research.…”