‘Studying up’: Researcher as Supplicant in Feminist Studies of Elite Spaces of Work

Abstract

This paper explores the process of 'studying up' in feminist qualitative research, including how to approach and gain access to participants in elite spaces of work. I offer a discussion of supplication and the search for positional spaces as a qualitative research methodology across Northern and Southern 'post' colonial research contexts. I focus on the process of access to interviews with trade negotiators using field notes from 2005-06 fieldwork in Canada and CARICOM countries where the failed Free Trade Area of the Americas Agreement was negotiated. Researcher positionality and specifically the idea of 'researcher as supplicant' are then explored in the (post) colonial research setting. In contrast to research relationships in which the researcher and participant are imagined as sharing power, I argue that supplication and seeking out positional spaces with interviewees are productive ways of negotiating research relationships with interviewees who exercise economic and political forms of power that the researcher has no or little access to.Keywords: gender, postcolonial, trade negotiation, feminist methodology, qualitative methodology Feminist research methodologies are centrally concerned with acknowledging that research relationships are unequal and situate issues of power as central to feminist research projects (Lal, 1996;Esim, 1997; Mullings, 1999;Ramazanoğlu and Holland, 2002;Naples, 2003;Harding and Hintikka, 2003). As Mullings (1999) notes, feminist qualitative methodologies have been largely shaped by the reality that feminists often conduct research with communities who are vulnerable to exploitation, and may be poorer or subordinated to the researcher in some way (338).

From the Academy to the Boardroom: Methodological Challenges and Insights on Transnational Business Feminism

“…Issues of building trust and empathy within the research setting and creating knowledge that is beneficial to the participants have been brought to the fore. To enter into dialogues with some of the more powerful TBF elite actors may, however, entail having to break through walls of corporate opacity and protectiveness and the researcher turning into a ‘supplicant’ (Johnson, 2014). At the same time, we are aware of fellow feminist researchers who have secured access to TBF programmes through internships, while others have accepted funding to do research with and for various corporate gender programmes.…”

“…There are no immediate answers to dilemmas around ethical and critical commitments. Individual choices must be considered carefully, and in doing so, it is important to connect TBF research with other areas of feminist scholarship that have addressed the often fraught relationships that have emerged when feminists have travelled to complex and less obviously welcoming locations (e.g., McDowell, 1998; England, 2002; Conti and O’Neill, 2007; Johnson, 2014). Moreover, we would like to underscore the importance of building and supporting critical transnational feminist networks of scholars and activists.…”

“…Feminist methodological debates on fieldwork involving elites converge around open-ended demands for a rigorous analysis of the role and positionality of the researcher in the production of knowledge, a reflexive analysis of the micropolitics of the research process (McDowell, 1998; Conti and O’Neil, 2007; Becker and Aiello, 2013; Johnson, 2014) and a nuanced understanding of the operations and fluid dynamics of power in elite interviews (Smith, 2006; Faria and Mollett, 2016; Williams, 2017; Sohl, 2018). In laying bare relations and experiences of power during the research process, feminists can reflexively account for how knowledge is created and what knowledge is disseminated (Conti and O’Neil, 2007; Becker and Aiello, 2013).…”

“…Feminist researchers have acknowledged that there are distinct difficulties in accessing corporate elites and international civil servants (McDowell, 1998; England, 2002; Conti and O’Neill, 2007; Johnson, 2014), and that such difficulties are magnified by a lack of established contacts within elite networks. In the context of debates on TBF, Kathryn Moeller (2014, 2018) has suggested establishing contacts by participating at conferences and events where corporations, international civil servants and NGOs meet and exchange best practices.…”

Everyday power dynamics and hierarchies in qualitative research: The role of humour in the field

“…On the other hand, some theoretical and methodological attention has also been paid to ‘studying up’ (Nader, 1969; Priyadharshini, 2003; Ruan, 2020): research situations where power balance clearly favours the research participant. These can include the researcher experiencing the ‘glass ceiling’ when trying to gain access (Gusterson, 1997; Johnson, 2014) or the participants withholding information and attempting to dictate the research process, for instance, interview as well as research questions (Petkov and Kaoullas, 2016; Natow, 2019).…”