Research, Ethics and Risk in the Authoritarian Field

Glasius, Marlies; Lange, Meta de; Bartman, Jos; Dalmasso, Emanuela; Lv, Aofei; Sordi, Adele Del; Michaelsen, Marcus; Ruijgrok, Kris

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-68966-1

Cited by 90 publications

(64 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Indeed, it has been Russia's prerogative to compare Russia's annexation Crimea to western involvement in Kosovo, to legitimise the need to pre-emptively protect ethnic Russians in Crimea to prevent a Kosovo-like massacre. 37 In the wake of the PhD researcher, Giulio Regeni, while conducting field research in Egypt these debates have been especially salient; see Glasius et al 2017, Wackenhut 2017. 38 Malejacq and Mukhopadhyay 2016.…”

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

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

show abstract

“…Conducting social research in the authoritarian context involves many challenges (Goode and Ahram, ). Although there are some reflections on being a foreign social researcher in authoritarian countries, there is a lack of discussion about what it means to be a homegrown social researcher in that context (see, e.g., Glasius et al., ). How does authoritarianism affect the questions local social researchers ask, the methodology they choose, and their reflections on their position in the field in general?…”

Section: Minority Studies Under Authoritarianism and Specifics Of Beimentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although the limitations on the variety of public discourses on certain topics or the marginalization of particular discussions exist in any society, the crucial difference of authoritarian regimes is that these limits are enforced coercively. It has been observed that ethnic and religious cleavages in society are usually red lines (i.e., issues that are too dangerous to be discussed publicly) in authoritarian regimes (Glasius et al., :39). Thus, the national and local research agenda on ethnicity and nationalism in illiberal societies is strictly framed by preferences of the main client—the state.…”

Section: Minority Studies Under Authoritarianism and Specifics Of Beimentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, authoritarianism does not necessarily undermine the generation of meaningful data (Reny, ). In spite of academic reflections on risks, challenges, and ethics in doing fieldwork in authoritarian settings (Glasius et al., ; Wackenhut, ; Goode and Ahram, ; Goode, ), there is a lack of reflection on methodological difficulties of doing research on ethnic minorities in such contexts. This article aims to provide such a reflection, which is necessary for developing a better methodology to explore national connotations in daily practices of ethnic minorities under illiberal regimes through everyday ethnicity and nationalism approach.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Exploring Sensitive Topics in an Authoritarian Context: An Insider Perspective*

Yusupova

2019

Social Science Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Object. This article examines the methodological challenges of ethnographic research on ethnic and religious minorities, in an authoritarian context in the Russian Federation, conducted by an insider researcher. Method. The article focuses on the peculiarities of the insider position in the field of research on understudied topics concerning ethnic and religious minorities. These cover issues of influence of national and local academic agendas on the process of the research, credibility management in a highly dynamic political environment, research safety, and the researcher's influence on the field. Results. The article identifies three main challenges in doing ethnography in illiberal settings. First, the imposition of oblique political limitations on the research agenda of local researchers creates a form of methodological nationalism, leading to a paucity of research on some critical topics. Second, the continuous introduction of new restrictive legislation not only results in difficulties of accessing the field, but also demands constant reevaluation of the sensitivity of the questionnaire. Respondents often express anxiety while discussing even quotidian practices because it becomes difficult for them to anticipate whether, when, or how new restrictive legislation will be enforced. Thus, they expect insider researchers to be aware of the legal ramifications of their research. Not only does this nullify the author's ability to adopt a stance of naivety, it also means that researchers bear a greater burden in convincing respondents that the information provided will be handled responsibly. Finally, the ethnographer is constantly faced with difficult decisions regarding both scholarly and ethical reliability and, hence, is required to continuously review research ethics in such a dynamic political context. This article offers suggestions for overcoming these difficulties by means of social networking services and constant critical reflexivity. Conclusion. Authoritarian settings pose many challenges to insider researchers. The study of minority groups can be particularly sensitive since illiberal regimes often seek to homogenize their populations and portray minority groups as a threat to justify the state's increasing control over the population. Exploring even mundane, everyday manifestations of ethnicity in such situations can become highly sensitive and raise methodological problems such as limitation of available academic literature and funding, greater responsibility for research and participants' safety, and forced partisanship.Scholars of authoritarianism often argue that apart from the lack of fair elections, authoritarian regimes are also characterized by violations of the rights to freedom of expression and access to information, which make fieldwork in areas under such regimes especially difficult. However, authoritarianism does not necessarily undermine the generation of meaningful data (Reny, 2016). In spite of academic reflections on risks, challenges, and ethics in doing fieldwork in authoritari...

show abstract

“…In the last decade, many European universities introduced procedures for assessing risks to researchers who intend to conduct fieldwork abroad. Researchers have debated the challenges to conduct research in conflict-affected countries or those with authoritarian governments that restrict academic freedom (Glasius et al, 2017). However, in some countries, like the UK and Norway, recent developments have seen university management pushing for new risk assessment regimes, 1 which have been introduced without much input from the researchers (Andersson, 2016;Peter and Strazzari, 2017).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Unintended Consequences of Risk Assessment Regimes: How Risk Adversity at European Universities Is Affecting African Studies

Piccolino

Franklin

2019

Africa Spectrum

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many European universities have introduced procedures for assessing risks to social researchers. These procedures are inspired by occupational and safety health standards, whose logic is driven by the suppression of uncertainty. The rise of risk assessment also fits into a broader global trend of increasingly representing marginalised areas of the world as risky and insecure. While there is a lack of evidence about the actual impact of these procedures on mitigating risks, they are posing an increasing burden on researchers in terms of time, effort, and financial resources, affecting particularly research in and about Africa. Risk assessment can also influence the choice of research methods and reinforce neocolonial patterns of knowledge production by encouraging the transfer of risk to local partners, whose views are rarely integrated in the risk assessment process. This analysis discusses the unintended impact of risk assessment and gives some suggestions for improving processes of preventing risk to social researchers.

show abstract

Research, Ethics and Risk in the Authoritarian Field

Cited by 90 publications

References 4 publications

Beyond the Field: Ethics after Fieldwork in Politically Dynamic Contexts

Beyond the Field: Ethics after Fieldwork in Politically Dynamic Contexts

Exploring Sensitive Topics in an Authoritarian Context: An Insider Perspective*

The Unintended Consequences of Risk Assessment Regimes: How Risk Adversity at European Universities Is Affecting African Studies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About