The Boundaries of Research in an Authoritarian State

Abstract

This article provides a reflective analysis of a local scholar on methodological challenges of conducting research in Kazakhstan — a post-Soviet, authoritarian, Central Asian country. It specifically addresses the problems of getting access to government officials and the quality of data, describes the strategies applied by the researcher to mitigate these obstacles, and discusses the impact of the political environment on decisions relating to the research design, ethical integrity, safety of participants and researchers, and publication dilemma. This article will be of interest both for researchers who are doing or planning to conduct research in Kazakhstan and Central Asia and those who are researching in nondemocratic contexts as methodological challenges of an authoritarian regime stretch beyond the geographical boundaries.

Government involvement in academic research: Nazarbayev University case study

“…The arrest of Canadian scholar Alexander Sodiqov in Tajikistan and other similar unvoiced cases illustrate the limitations, impediments, and even safety implications for both researchers and research participants in Central Asian countries (The Guardian, 2014). There are many problems related to research in 'closed contexts' such as poor state governance, lack of collaboration between ministries and departments, and access to reliable data and information (Janenova, 2019). Closed contexts here are referred to as 'authoritarian', 'illiberal', or 'tightly-controlled' (Koch, 2013a;p.…”

“…Compared to other countries, Kazakhstan raised the issue of open data quite late, and only in 2015 adopted the Law on Access to Information . Notwithstanding the existing legislation, "statistical data can be unreliable as the government officials tend to portray "a better picture" to suit the political leadership and international community," says Janenova (Janenova, 2019). There have been cases where secondary data provided by authorities of Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, and Uzbekistan demonstrated alternating content compared to those by international organizations, e.g.…”

“…Government involvement in academic research has played and still does one of the critical roles in achieving academic success for scholars. Many times, researchers find themselves stumbled upon the indifference or unwillingness of the government to collaborate and aid their research, which further can affect its overall success (Janenova, 2019). Wall et al argue that there are numerous methodological and systematic problems with researching countries as Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Indonesia, and African countries (Wall, Wall, & Mollinga, 2008).…”

Central Asian Journalism Studies: Is There a Pathway From Conference Paper to Journal Publication?

“…A fourth challenge is lack of access to officials and prospective research participants. ‘Getting access to the government officials can be a frustrating, long, and disappointing process, posing many bureaucratic obstacles’ (Janenova, 2019, p. 3). For survey and focus group studies, Janenova (2019) found that prospective respondents ‘might initially agree, then keep postponing, and changing the date of the interview giving various reasons, and finally, refuse at the last minute … or keep delaying it in the hope that the researchers would stop their attempts’.…”

Public Administration Academies in Central Asia: ‘Government puppets’ or independent seats of learning?

“…Despite several rounds of civil service and administrative reforms over the last three decades, all Central Asian countries suffer from rampant corruption, Soviet legacy, excessive bureaucracy, and a high degree of politisation (Knox and Janenova, 2019). Access to official data in Central Asia is highly restricted for scholars, available statistical data might be unreliable, as well as policy consultation and policy evaluation are rarely conducted to avoid any potential risks for senior officials (Janenova, 2019). In summary, Central Asia presents a highly challenging context for public administration as an academic discipline: a context which is not tolerant of any criticism towards the government and open expression of views questioning the rationale for political directives from the top.…”