Navigating the safety implications of doing research and being researched in Kyrgyzstan: cooperation, networks and framing

Post-Liberal Statebuilding in Central Asia

“…Yet, to unpack the invocation and use of these registers in practices of peacebuilding and community security, the cooperative and dialogical approach I offer here has proven indispensable. As is the case in most longterm projects, this approach has evolved and been adjusted throughout time, as reflected in other more detailed discussions of the general importance of dialogical research (Lottholz and Kluczewska, 2017;Lottholz, 2018c), of its advantage in helping to avoid issues of access and personal safety of researchers and research participants (Lottholz, 2017b;Bekmurzaev et al, 2018) and of the grounding of this approach in decolonial and feminist standpoint theory (Lottholz, 2019b). Building upon these discussions and offering more detail in the chronological table of data gathered in Appendix 2, I focus my discussion here on my attempts to implement a cooperative approach in the partnership with three peacebuilding and security actors and offer reflections for further refinement of this approach in light of experiences during my research.…”

“…This increased the pressure to connect and get access in less time, but also had the advantage of building up contacts and relations through personal meetings. In talking to people from international and domestic NGOs and other platforms involved in peacebuilding, security and wider societal activities, I communicated the main objective of my research as understanding the reception and application of and resistance to globally dominant notions of democratic governance and statebuilding in Kyrgyzstan (see Bekmurzaev et al, 2018). In initiating cooperation, I presented my research project information sheet and possible questions I would ask if the respective entity agreed to participate in the research.…”

“…A final reflection concerns the more long-term experience with the cooperative and practice-based approach to research and especially regarding the idea of the dialogical knowledge production it entails (Bekmurzaev et al, 2018). The follow-up interaction with representatives from the three partner organizations has been of varying intensity, but overall indicated a sizeable gap between their and my respective priorities.…”

The Boundaries of Research in an Authoritarian State

“…Koch (2013b), based on her experience of conducting focus groups in Kazakhstan, calls for attention not just to the micro-political context of the research practices but also to the macro-political context (and its concomitant technologies of government) in the conduct of qualitative field research. Bekmurzaev, Lottholz, and Meyer (2018) highlight safety implications of doing security-related research in Kyrgyzstan by exploring the roles of cooperation, networks, and framing. They suggest a long-term and collaborative production of knowledge on security in Central Asia in order to reduce the bias and politicization of research (Bekmurzaev, Lottholz, & Meyer, 2018).…”

“…Bekmurzaev, Lottholz, and Meyer (2018) highlight safety implications of doing security-related research in Kyrgyzstan by exploring the roles of cooperation, networks, and framing. They suggest a long-term and collaborative production of knowledge on security in Central Asia in order to reduce the bias and politicization of research (Bekmurzaev, Lottholz, & Meyer, 2018). Overall, there is no single "recipe book" on how to conduct fieldwork in the highly challenging research environment of Central Asia, but a consensus among scholars that there is a critical demand for sharing experiences from a methodological perspective to improve our capacity of doing research in this region.…”