Positionality, Power, and Positions of Power: Reflexivity in Elite Interviewing

Abstract

There is growing consensus in political science methods literature that positionality is consequential for interview research in variable and important ways. At the same time, however, much of this literature reinforces a categorical distinction between elite and non-elite contexts and participants, and it assumes “elite” to be a static category that presents researchers with discrete challenges that require uniform strategies to address. This article draws on my experience in conducting interviews with more than 100 “elites” to address this divide in two ways. First, I show that the category of elite is not as monolithic as often asserted. Rather, speaking with educated and authoritative individuals is fraught with variable challenges related to positionality. Second, to address these challenges, I argue that researchers must engage in active reflexivity, interrogating the relational effects of positionality across all aspects of research. I focus particular attention on issues of access and interactions within interviews.

Power resources and the battle against precarious employment: Trade union activities within a tripartite initiative tackling undeclared work in Sweden

“…A limitation of our approach was that the information gathered came from interviews and documents from organisations with strong interests in the matter and thus likely to present problems and solutions from their own organisational perspective. The former high-level official of the Swedish Ministry of Labour, on the other hand, was no longer working for the government, and thus able to speak more freely without the evasiveness often connected to interviewing persons in positions of power (Glas, 2021). Another limitation was that the investigation only included insights from the grantee organisations, not organisations that had not applied for the grants.…”

Local and Transnational Identity, Positionality and Knowledge Production in Africa and the African Diaspora

“…This is a clear case of the powers of respondents to sway information to achieve a particularly "political and practical" end and thus influence research outcome (Chege 2015;Shinozaki 2012). It also demonstrates how elites evade probing or attempt to dominate the interactions, either to profit from the interviews and therefore portray themselves in a favorable light, or to derail an interview because it contradicts their perspectives (Batteson and Ball 1995;Glas 2021;Morris 2009).…”

“…Simply, elite interviewing reflects a setting in which the researcher’s background is not elevated or is relatively weak. According to Glas (2021), Morris (2009), and Batteson and Ball (1995), interviewing various types of elites, such as those in positions of authority and those who are educated, is often affected by positionality and power relations, which may impede data access. These elites can influence encounters through “intent and disinterest” (Glas 2021: 440) while their power and positionality can easily sway the directions of the research.…”

Insiders, Outsiders, and Credible Visitors in Research

“…Methodological statements tend to suggest that researchers are inherently an insider through shared elements of positionality (e.g., cultural affinity and/or personal history) or that they can become so through preparation and experience (e.g., time in research settings, language training, and doing one’s “homework”) (Cammett 2013; Leech 2002). However, a growing literature on the intersectional dynamics of positionality underscores that what renders a researcher inside or outside of a community is never given or static (Glas 2021). Rather, the intersectional and dynamic nature of identity dictates that a researcher will never be an insider or an outsider ideal type but instead will be perceived as a messy sense of both—and that these perceptions are likely to change over time and across interactions.…”