Call for book chapters- Decolonizing Fieldwork: A Practical Guide for the Humanities and Social Sciences

Decolonizing Fieldwork: A Practical Guide for the Humanities and Social Sciences

Editors: Kira Jumet (Hamilton College) and Merouan Mekouar (York University) 

In January 2016, the brutal killing of Giulio Regeni, a 28-year-old Cambridge University student  who was conducting fieldwork in Cairo, Egypt, marked a turning point for Western scholars working on the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region. The abduction, torture, and  subsequent death of the young graduate student shook the academic community focusing on  that area of the world and reminded many more of the numerous difficulties faced by researchers  conducting fieldwork in authoritarian settings. Since then, a number of new publications have  sought to examine the challenges faced by social scientists conducting research in the MENA  region (Bank and Busse (2021), Krause and Szekely (2020), Clark and Cavatorta (2018), among  others) as well as other non-democratic regions such as Central Asia (Janenova 2019, Driscoll  2021), parts of the Caribbean (Bell 2013), parts of Sub-Saharan Africa (Laher, Fynn and Kramer  2019), Eastern Europe and Russia (Goode 2010, 2016), and East Asia (Reny 2016, Wang 2019). 

However, while these contributions addressed and theorized about the important challenges faced by Western academics conducting research under authoritarian regimes (Glasius et al.  2018, Grimm et al. 2020), they largely failed to examine the distinct difficulties confronted by  native scholars, such as Chinese Uyghur historian Iminjan Seydin, who was disappeared and sent  to a government work program (Yang 2020), and Walid al-Shobky, an Egyptian graduate student  disappeared after conducting a research interview and later accused of “spreading false news  and joining a terrorist group” (Mada Masr 2018). Thus, while native academics face many of the 

challenges highlighted in existing publications (i.e., surveillance, ethical questions related to  research involving vulnerable populations, access to informants, personal safety, and data  security), they also face additional risks and distinct obstacles, the discussion of which has been  consistently absent in the literature. These challenges include governmental pressure on friends  and family, legal threats from local authorities, questionable access to consular assistance for  dual nationals, influence of ascribed characteristics on social interactions, and exploitation by  Western colleagues. 

The proposed manuscript seeks to address this important gap in the literature. The first section  will present testimonies from scholars who conducted fieldwork in their native repressive  countries and who faced sets of challenges directly related to their position as native scholars.  These researchers will share their personal experiences in the field, the material and  psychological hurdles they faced while conducting research in a difficult environment and the  specific strategies they developed to address these challenges. The various contributions will  examine cases in some of the world’s most repressive countries, such as Algeria, Iran, Egypt,  China, Russia, and Cuba. 

The second section will build on the contributions collected in the first to offer practical advice  to academics committed to conducting fieldwork in their native non-democratic states. The  practical handbook will help graduate students, early-career researchers, and established  scholars develop suitable research designs before engaging in their fieldwork, while also offering  practicable coping strategies for their time in the field.

Main goals and guiding questions: 

By bringing together contributions from a wide range of native academics familiar with difficult environments, the book will answer the following questions: 

  • What are the specific risks and challenges that native scholars experience while  conducting fieldwork in repressive countries? 
  • What strategies have these scholars developed to address the specific risks they  encounter in their work? 
  • What specific lessons can be drawn for research-design and fieldwork?

Contributions and Themes: 

We are seeking native (or dual national) contributors from states characterized as repressive or  authoritarian (e.g., rated Not Free or Partly Free by Freedom House) willing to write empirical  and/or analytical pieces about the challenges they faced while conducting fieldwork in their  home country. The contributions should fit within one of the following themes: 

1- Weight of family history/ethnic identity/religious identity

While Western colleagues often experience the burden of various identity markers such as  family histories, ethnic identities, and religious affiliations, these markers often take on  oversized importance in the cases of native scholars conducting fieldwork in their home  countries. In particular, they may face more resistance when conducting research among  wary compatriots who regard them with suspicion, or even hostility. 

2- Gender identity/sexual orientation. 

Gender identity and sexual orientation can be a challenge for academics conducting research  in any setting. However, native scholars working in illiberal settings cannot benefit from the  relative tolerance extended to foreigners and must scrupulously adhere to local cultural  norms and laws. 

3- Legal and penal threats to native scholars (including banning and purging) The arrests of Alexander Sodiqov in Tajikistan in 2014 and Fariba Adelkhah in Iran in 2019  illustrate the dangers that native academics experience when conducting fieldwork in non democratic settings. However, while these two cases have received some coverage, many  other jailed academics such as Moroccan historian Dr. Maati Monjib, regularly detained in his  home country, or Dr. Konstantin Syroyezhkin, a Kazakh academic jailed for 10 years and  stripped of his citizenship in 2019 (Radio Free Europe 2019), have received comparatively  little attention from international media outlets or even academic circles. In addition to legal  risks, native scholars, many of whom work in universities where job security is contingent on  the ruling regime’s approval, also face significant professional risks. 

4- Risks to friends and families of native scholars. 

In addition to the risks outlined above, the families of native academics critical of their repressive governments have been targeted by those governments. In some cases, the  partners, parents, or friends of native researchers have experienced harassment or threats, suffered house raids without a warrant, incurred travel bans, or been arrested. 

5- Exploitation by foreign scholars and foreign agents

Many native scholars are approached over the course of their research with the expectation  that they will provide various services to their non-native colleagues (e.g., contacts). These  solicitations often carry material and/or psychological costs, and the contributions of native  scholars are often only superficially recognized, if acknowledged at all. Moreover, native  scholars may also be approached by a range of foreign actors whose goals and interests are  not always clear. These foreign actors can include embassy personnel, nongovernmental  organizations (NGOs), and members of intelligence services. 

Contributions should be 5000 to 7000 words in length (including bibliographies) and should  follow a Chicago citation style. Interested contributors are invited to send a 250-400 word  abstract to mmekouar@yorku.ca and kjumet@hamilton.edu and indicate which dominant  theme they would like to address in their contribution.  

Bibliography 

Akerman, James R. 2017. Decolonizing the Map: Cartography from Colony to Nation. Chicago:  University of Chicago Press.  

Azadovskii, Konstantin, and Boris Egorov. 2002. “From Anti-Westernism to Anti-Semitism: Stalin  and the Impact of the “Anti-Cosmopolitan” Campaigns on Soviet Culture.” Journal of  Cold War Studies 4 (1): 66-80. 

Bank, André, and Jan Busse. 2021. “MENA Political Science Research a Decade after the Arab  Uprisings: Facing the Facts on Tremulous Grounds.” Mediterranean Politics 1–24. Bell, Karen. 2013. “Doing Qualitative Fieldwork in Cuba: Social Research in Politically Sensitive  Locations.” International Journal of Social Research Methodology 16 (2): 109-124. Clark, Janine A., and Francesco Cavatorta, . 2018. Political Science Research in the Middle East  and North Africa: Methodological and Ethical Challenges. New York: Oxford University  Press. 

Clibbon, Jennifer. 2014. “Alexander Sodiqov, University of Toronto researcher, being detained  in Tajikistan.” CBC, July 17. 

Driscoll, Jesse. 2021. Doing Global Fieldwork: A Social Scientist’s Guide to Mixed-Methods  Research Far from Home. New York: Columbia University Press. 

Goode, Paul J. 2016. “Eyes Wide Shut: Democratic Reversals, Scientific Closure, and the Study of  Politics in Eurasia*: Eyes Wide Shut.” Social Science Quarterly 97 (4): 876–93.

———. 2010. “Redefining Russia: Hybrid Regimes, Fieldwork, and Russian Politics.” Perspectives  on Politics 8 (4): 1055–75. 

Grimm, Janis, Kevin Koehler, Ellen Lust, Ilyas Saliba, and Isabell Schierenbeck. 2020. Safer Field  Research in the Social Sciences: A Guide to Human and Digital Security in Hostile  Environments. 1. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publishing. 

Janenova, Saltanat. 2019. “The Boundaries of Research in an Authoritarian State.” International  Journal of Qualitative Methods. 

Kraus, Peter, and Ora Szekely, . 2020. Stories from the Field: A Guide to Navigating Fieldwork in  Political Science. New York: Columbia University Press. 

Laher, Sumaya, Angelo Fynn, and Sherianne Kramer, . 2019. Transforming Research Methods in  the Social Sciences: Case Studies from South Africa. Johannesburg: Wits University Press. Mada Masr. 2018. “University of Washington PhD student, missing for 4 days, brought before  prosecution and detained.” Mada Masr, May 28. 

Reny, Marie-Eve. 2016. “Authoritarianism as a Research Constraint: Political Scientists in  China*: Authoritarianism as a Research Constraint.” Social Science Quarterly 97 (4): 909– 22. 

Wang, Zhen. 2019. Conducting Fieldwork and Interviews: Researching China’s Performance  Evaluation System. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.

No comments yet.

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.