“Disrupting” Fieldwork | Interrogating Current Methodological Perspectives in the Study of IR
EISA PEC 2019 SECTION 11
Dr. Péclard, senior lecturer at the University of Geneva, and myself have invited submissions to Section 11 Section on “Disrupting” Fieldwork at the EISA’s 13th Pan-European Conference on International Relations (11-14 September 2019 in Sofia, Bulgaria).
Apart from encouraging creative and inter-disciplinary submissions, we are particularly pleased we have gathered the works of both junior and senior researchers through 4 panels and over 15 participants, who can speak to each other and discuss the changes that have affected methods and methodologies in IR in the recent past
The study of IR has long employed epistemological standpoints that disseminate the hegemonic worldviews of a western political elite both within academia and policy circles. Unsurprisingly, the long-standing methodological bias towards powerful men, organizations and institutions, rule, formal documentation and policymaking has reproduced asymmetrical power relations along gender lines, between the so-called ‘West and the ‘Non-West’, and among higher-politics and ordinary citizens. Additionally, it has often failed, time and again, to move beyond crippling binaries that have pitted ‘structure’ against ‘agency’, the ‘local’ against the ‘global’, and qualitative against quantitative methods. As a result, a growing number of scholars has sought to address the numerous ethical, moral and political challenges these theoretical and methodological perspectives carry along with them. Focusing on the ‘practical’, theoretical and inter-disciplinary dimensions of ‘doing’ fieldwork in both documenting and producing (global) politics, this section aims to gather scholarly works that disrupt and interrogate the purposes, content and contours of international political inquiry, through a set of ‘disruptive’ approaches to gathering data ‘on the ground’.
In so doing, the panels address the following questions: How can we put in dialogue various disciplinary epistemologies and their different representations of ‘scientificity‘ within the social sciences? What are the concrete ethical and moral challenges pertaining to interviewing, visualizing and reporting on the lives of (sometimes subordinated) others? How do historical traces, colonial legacies and gender relations inform data-gathering processes ‘in the field’? Why might international political theory benefit from historicized, critical or ‘self-deprecating’ methodological approaches? How can these be implemented in both theoretical and methodological terms? How can IR make ‘the mundane matter’ (Enloe, 2011), and can inter-disciplinary perspectives change fieldworks and data analysis?
Researching Conflict | Doing Fieldwork in Divisive and Violent Contexts
This workshop intends to bring together both junior and senior scholars from a range of professional backgrounds and disciplinary traditions, working in different regions of the world and utilizing a variety of methodological tools to address the growing interest in the practicalities, ethics, and ‘sensitivities’ of conducting fieldwork in divisive or violent contexts. The aim of the workshop is to not only bring our shared experiences and expertise to bear on emerging discussions and debates on the conduct of fieldwork in challenging environments but to rethink, and in the process, re-center, and interrogate current intellectual debates on how we research (societal) conflict from a critical and inter-disciplinary lens.
Although disparate, the topics covered during those two days are deeply interrelated and rooted in the ‘real-life’ experiences of the participants as they seek, and sometimes struggle to, understand, interrogate, document and analyze conflict and dynamics of violence in a diversity of contexts and societies. Three overarching themes connect the various panels and group discussions presented below. First, presenters are to reflect, critically, on the unequal relations of power that have structured the ‘researcher-researched’ interactions both within daily experiences through the problems of affect, race, privilege and researcher positionality, and within the broader field of academic institutional life. Second, the discussion will also revolve around grater methodological issues of defining ‘conflict’ and elaborating on ways to foster research sensitivity via ethical concerns and risk mitigation, and tend to long-term research schemes and histories. Finally, the workshop participants will turn to the various patterns and challenges of knowledge production as they may probe, encounter and observe [international] actors of conflict and post-conflict intervention and research ‘brokers’ in conflict and sensitive environments.
Prior to the workshop (6-7th of June) a Public Discussion entitled “Conflicting Fields”, will be held on June 5th, with Peace Medie (University of Bristol) and Dennis Rodgers (The Graduate Institute, Geneva). You’ll find more information here, and you can register here.
Download the full programme here.
Peace Medie, University of Bristol
Dennis Rodgers, The Graduate Institute, Geneva
Luisa Enria, University of Bath
Gauthier Marchais, Sussex University
Emery Kalema, Stellenbosch University
Henri Myrttinen, International Alert
Janine Bressmer, The Graduate Institute, Geneva
Alice Baroni, The Graduate Institute, Geneva
Martina Santschi, swisspeace
Ursina Bentele, swisspeace
Caitlin Ryan, University of Groningen
Jonathan Austin, The Graduate Institute, Geneva
Surer Mohamed, Cambridge University
Swati Parashar, University of Gothenburg
Didier Péclard, Université de Genève