Meeting the ‘organs’: the tacit dilemma of field research in authoritarian states

Gentile, Michael

doi:10.1111/area.12030

Cited by 29 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Michael Gentile (, this issue) considers a different kind of research intermediary in his contribution: that of state surveillance authorities. He positions certain post‐communist states as ‘closed contexts’ in their continued reliance on these secret service agencies (known there as the ‘organ’).…”

Section: Field Methods In Closed Contextsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Introduction – Field methods in ‘closed contexts’: undertaking research in authoritarian states and places

Koch

2013

Area

103

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This special section on field methods in authoritarian states and places aims to move beyondthe normative language of the liberal/illiberal binary by foregrounding the ways in which closure can be an authoritarian act. Illustrating the variety of scales and places at which these practices unfold, the contributors are concerned with what implications they have for conducting geographic fieldwork. The main questions raised by this set of papers are: how is research in 'closed contexts' different from (or similar to) more 'open' settings? Does it raise unique ethical and methodological dilemmas? In what ways are field methods themselves informed by particular notions of power, agency, and freedom, and how might these differ between more-or less-closed settings? This article first provides some theoretical contextualization, before then introducing how each author variably highlights these themes through a critical reflection on their own experiences of conducting fieldwork in closed contexts, ranging from Vietnam to Kazakhstan, Mozambique, and the United States.

show abstract

Section: Field Methods In Closed Contextsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Introduction – Field methods in ‘closed contexts’: undertaking research in authoritarian states and places

Koch

2013

Area

103

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…During these trips, I stayed in the home of a local family. 32 Gentile 2013, Wackenhut 2017. 33 Gentile 2013.…”

Section: Notesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Beyond the Field: Ethics after Fieldwork in Politically Dynamic Contexts

Knott¹

2019

Perspect. polit.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As researchers, when do our ethical obligations end? How should our ethical obligations respond to dynamic and unstable political contexts? Political scientists frequently work in dynamic political situations that can pose new ethical questions beyond those existing at the point of fieldwork. Yet, research ethics are often conceived in terms of a static, if not hermetically sealed, field site that remains frozen in time at the point we conduct fieldwork and collect data. I argue, first, that we need to consider more systematically how a dynamic field intersects with ethical obligations. Second, I argue that new and unexpected ethical questions can emerge after exiting the field, including responsibilities to research participants, dissemination, and publication, and returning to the field, which should be a part of how we conceive of ethical obligations.

show abstract

“…Successful inculcation of the population with regime's guiding idea (Brandenberger 2014) helps people rationalize the need for repression (Adler 2012) and creates a religious-like devotion to the regime (Gentile 2013). Indoctrination has particularly durable effects due to its reliance on education (Alesina and Reich 2013) targeted at the impressionable young as well as due to the creation of new social identities (Fitzpatrick and Ludtke 2009).…”

Section: Anti-dictator Biasmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Ideological Shadow of Authoritarianism

Dinas

Northmore-Ball

2017

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How do the labels left and right take on meaning in new democracies? Existing explanations point to the universality of the left-right scheme or, reversely, emphasize regionally dominant social cleavages. We propose an alternative legacy-focused theory based on two observations: dictatorships are not ideologically neutral, and are negatively evaluated by most citizens and elites after democratization. These premises lead us to expect that when the authoritarian regime is associated with the left (right), the citizens of a new democracy will display an anti-left (anti-right) bias in their left-right self-identification. We test this hypothesis across Latin American and European new democracies. We find significant bias, which in the case of new democracies following left-wing regimes is concealed due to inter-cohort heterogeneity. While older cohorts denote a positive bias, cohorts born after Stalin's era denote negative bias against the left. Consistent with our expectations, repression exacerbates this bias whereas indoctrination mitigates it. Finally, we look at how these biases apply to party preferences. The findings have important implications for understanding of authoritarian legacies and party system development in new democracies.

show abstract

Meeting the ‘organs’: the tacit dilemma of field research in authoritarian states

Cited by 29 publications

References 13 publications

Introduction – Field methods in ‘closed contexts’: undertaking research in authoritarian states and places

Introduction – Field methods in ‘closed contexts’: undertaking research in authoritarian states and places

Beyond the Field: Ethics after Fieldwork in Politically Dynamic Contexts

The Ideological Shadow of Authoritarianism

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About