INTERPRETIVE FIELDWORK IN POLITICAL SCIENCE, PHD, 2 CREDIT Instructor: Xymena Kurowska [email protected] SEMINAR DESCRIPTION Interpretive research puts the meaning‐making of those studied at the centre of a research project. Often guided by the abductive logic of inquiry, such research is commonly not driven by formal hypotheses or variables. Based on constructivist ontology and intersubjectivist epistemology, interpretive research generates data through talk, observation, and/or document selection and analyses them through a wide array of methods. The rationale and the readings in this seminar accordingly focus on the study of politics ‘from below’ and ‘from within’ to make sense of power relations in particular political settings. The seminar thus discusses examples of research questions that require an investigation into the meanings of specific political practices, and of concepts and processes to situational actors in order to illuminate wider‐ranging or more theoretical issues of political concern. The methodological aim of this seminar is twofold. First, it explains the vocabulary, processes, and quality standards consistent with the interpretive emphasis on meaning‐making. In this sense, it helps prepare interpretive research proposals in a systematic way. Second, it engages interpretive research practice by looking at how interpretive researchers think of and do fieldwork. The seminar is open to all researchers but will be most suitable to those that are currently planning empirical research or those who will do so in the future and intend to conduct fieldwork that requires interpretive sensibility and includes various modes of in‐situ interviewing (e.g. conversational interviewing, ordinary language interviewing), different degrees of participant observation, and the reconstruction of policy meanings. Those who have completed field research and are in the “writing up” stage will also benefit from several parts of the course, such as understanding and communicating (e.g., to reviewers) what the appropriate quality standards are for assessing interpretive work. While no extensive prerequisite knowledge of interpretive tradition is required for this seminar, general familiarity with, openness to and curiosity about different ways of doing research are necessary in order to have productive and mutually enriching discussions. EVALUATION 1. Seminar contribution – 10 % 2. Preparation, conduct, and reflection in class of an interview simulation – 20 % 3. Field notes from a site observation/participation – 20 % 4. Essay on methods ca. 2500 words– 50% SEMINAR BREAKDOWN 1. Introduction 11 Jan  Haverland, M and D Yanow (2012) ‘A Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Public Administration Research Universe’, Public Administration Review 72(3): 401–408  Darling, J (2014) ‘Emotions, Encounters and Expectations: The Uncertain Ethics of ‘The Field’’, Journal of Human Rights Practice 6(2): 1‐12. 2. The concept of method. The concept of objectivity. Political ethnography. 18 Jan  Rorty, R (1989) ‘Contingency’ in Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (background reading – skim read)  Schwartz‐ Shea, P and D Yanow (2002) ‘Reading’ ‘methods’ ‘texts’: How research methods texts construct political science’, Political Research Quarterly 55, 457‐86;  Leander, A (2015) ‘Ethnographic Contributions to Method Development: “Strong Objectivity” in Security Studies’, International Studies Perspectives, Early View; 
Doty, R (2010) ‘Autoethnography – making human connections’, Review of International Studies 36: 1047–1050;  Schatz, E (2009) ‘Introduction. Ethnographic Immersion and the Study of Politics’, in: E Schatz (ed) Political ethnography: What immersion contributes to the study of politics, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 1‐20;  Anderson, J et al (2010) ‘Positioning place: polylogic approaches to research methodology’, Qualitative Research, 10(5): 589‐404. Additional:  Law, J (2004) After Method. Mess in Social Science Research, London and New York: Routledge, chapters 1 and 7;  Pader, E (2006) ‘Seeing with ethnographic sensibility: explorations beneath the surface of public policies’ in: D. Yanow and P. Schwartz‐Shea (eds.) Interpretation and Method, New York and London: M.E. Sharpe, pp. 161‐175.  Fenno, R (1986) ‘Observation, context, and sequence in the study of politics’, American Political Science Review 80/1: 3‐15;  Pachirat, T (2009) ‘The Political in Political Ethnography: Dispatches from the Kill Floor’ in: E Schatz (ed) Political ethnography: What immersion contributes to the study of politics, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 143‐161; 3. Interpretive sensibility 25 Jan The basic premises of interpretive inquiry and interpretive research design  Geertz, C (1973) ‘Thick Description: Toward an Interpretive Theory of Culture’ in The Interpretation of Cultures, New York: Basic Books, ch 1;  Yanow, D and P Schwartz‐Shea (2012) Interpretive Research Design, London and New York: Routledge, ch 2 (henceforth IRD);  Burawoy, M (1998) ‘The Extended Case Method’, Sociological Theory 16(1): 4‐34;  Wadeen, L (2010) ‘Reflections on Ethnographic Work in Political Science’, Annual Review of Political Science 13: 255–72. Additional:  Pachirat, T (2014) ‘We call it a grain of sand. The interpretive orientation and a human social science’ in: D Yanow and P Schwartz‐Shea (eds) Interpretation and Method, Armonk, NY and London: M.E. Sharpe;  Rabinow, P and W Sullivan (1985) ‘The Interpretive Turn: A Second Look’, in: P Rabinow, P and W Sullivan, W Interpretive social science, Berkeley: University of California Press, pp. 1‐33;  Lynch, C (2013) Interpreting International Politics, Routledge, ‘Introduction’ and ch 1. 4. Abduction and concept development 1 Feb Elements of abductive reasoning and concept formation  IRD, ch 3;  Rytovuori‐Apunen, H (2009) ‘Abstractive Observation as the Key to the "Primacy of Practice” in in Forum on Pragmatism in International Relations, International Studies Review 11(3): 641‐5;  Schaffer, F Ch (2016) Elucidating Social Science Concepts. An Interpretivist Guide (entire), Routledge;  Becker, H (1998), ‘Concepts’, in: Tricks of the Trade: How to Think about Your Research While Doing It, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, pp. 109‐45. Additional:  Friedrichs, J and F Kratochwil (2009) ‘On Acting and Knowing: How Pragmatism Can Advance International Relations Research and Methodology’, International Organization 63(4): 701–31. 5. Reflexivity as methodology 8 Feb What is reflexivity? How it features in interpretive research design? What does it mean to see reflexivity as methodology?  Rose, G (1997) ‘Situating knowledges: positionality, reflexivity and other tactics’, Progress in Human Geography 21(3): 305‐320;  Proudfoot, J (2015) ‘Anxiety and phantasy in the field: the position of the unconscious in ethnographic research’, Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 33(6): 1135‐1152;  Steele B and J Amoureux (eds) (2016) Reflexivity and International Relations: Positionality, Critique, and Practice, London: Routledge, Introduction;  Lynch, M (2000) ’Against Reflexivity as an Academic Virtue and Source of Privileged Knowledge’, Theory, Culture & Society 17(3). Additional:  Leander, A (2002) ‘Do we really need reflexivity in IPE? Bourdieu’s two reasons for answering affirmatively’, Review of International Political Economy, 9(4);  Pillow, W (2003) ’Confession, catharsis, or cure? Rethinking the uses of reflexivity as methodological power in qualitative research’, International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 16(2);  Finley, L (2002) ’Negotiating the swamp: the opportunity and challenge of reflexivity in research practice’, Qualitative Research 2(2);  Jacoby, T (2006) ‘From the trenches: Dilemmas of feminist IR fieldwork, in: B Ackerly , M Stern and J True (eds) Feminist Methodologies for International Relations, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 153–173;  Alvesson, M and K Sköldberg (2009) ‘Applications of reflexive methodology: strategies, criteria, variety’ in: Reflexive Methodology: New Vistas for Qualitative Research, SAGE; 6. IR departmental seminar 15 Feb (change of hour: 15.30p.m) 7. NO CLASS – INTERNATIONAL STUDIES ASSOCIATION ANNUAL MEETING 22 Feb 8. Narrative 1 Mar  Dauphinee, E (2016) ‘Narrative Engagement and the Creative Practices of International Relations’ in: Steele B and J Amoureux (eds) (2016) Reflexivity and International Relations: Positionality, Critique, and Practice, London: Routledge;  Martini, E and M Jauhola (2014) ‘Journeys in Aidland: An Autobiographic Exploration of Resistance to Development Aid’, Journal of Narrative Politics, 1(1);  Shenhav, S (2015) ‘Analysing Social Narratives’, London: Routledge. 9. Constructing the field/ fieldwork and theory 8 March The notion of the field and its generation. Theory and evidence in interpretive fieldwork.  IRD, chs 4 and 5 (background reading)  Amit, V (2000) ‘Introduction: constructing the field’ in Amit, V (ed) Constructing the field: ethnographic fieldwork in the contemporary world, London & New York: Routledge, pp. 1‐18;  Bueger, Ch, ‘Conducting ‘field research’ when there is no ‘field’. Some notes on the praxiographic challenge’, draft chapter for The political anthropology of internationalized rule, edited by S Biecker, J Kagoro, and K Schlichte, forthcoming;  Wilkinson, C (2014) ‘On Not Just Finding What You (Thought You) Were Looking For’. Reflections on Fieldwork Data and Theory, in: D Yanow and P Schwartz‐Shea (eds) Interpretation and Method, Armonk, NY and London: M.E. Sharpe;  Feldman, G (2011) ‘If ethnography is more than participant observation, then relations are more than connections: the case for a non‐local ethnography in a world of apparatuses’, Anthropological Theory 11(4). Additional:  Cohn, C (2006) ‘Motives and methods: Using multi‐sited ethnography to study US national security discourses’ in: B Ackerly, M Stern, and J True (eds) Feminist methodologies for international relations, NY: Cambridge University Press, pp. 91‐107;  Zirakzadeh, C E (2009) ‘When nationalists are not separatists: Discarding and recovering academic theories while doing fieldwork in the Basque region of Spain’, in: E Schatz (ed) Political ethnography: What immersion contributes to the study of politics, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 97‐118;  Kurowska, X and B Tallis (2013) ‘Chiasmatic crossings: a reflexive revisit of a research encounter in European security’, Security Dialogue, 44(1). 10. Subjectivity 15 Mar – to be rescheduled due to holidays The notion of subjectivity as site and fodder of analysis. • Mansfeld, Nick (2000) Subjectivity. Theories of the self from Freud to Haraway, New York: New York University Press (background reading); • Boland, T (2007) ‘Critique as a technique of self: A Butlerian analysis of Judith Butler’s prefaces’, History of Human Sciences, 20(3); • Narayan, K (1993) ‘How Native is a ‘Native’ Anthropologist?’, American Anthropologist 95: 671‐86;  Baaz M and M Stern (2009) ‘Why Do Soldiers Rape? Masculinity, Violence, and Sexuality in the Armed Forces in the Congo (DRC)’, International Studies Quarterly 53: 495–518;  Gawlewicz, A (2016) ‘Language and translation strategies in researching migrant experience of difference from the position of migrant researcher’, Qualitative Research 16(1): 27‐42. Additional:  Riley, D (2000) The Words of Selves. Identification, Solidarity, Irony, Stanford: Stanford University Press;  Kristeva, J (1982) ‘Approaching Abjection’ in Powers of Horror: an Essay in Abjection, New York: Columbia University Press;  Kondo, D (1990) Crafting Selves. Power, Gender, and Discourses of Identity in a Japanese Workplace, Chicago: Chicago University Press, Part 1;  Yamamoto, T (1999) Making Selves, Making Subjects, Berkley and Los Angeles: California University Press;  Butler, J (2005) Giving an Account of Oneself, New York: Fordham University Press.  Shehata, S (2006) ‘Ethnography, Identity, and the Production of Knowledge’, in: D. Yanow and P. Schwartz‐Shea (eds) Interpretation and Method, Armonk, NY and London: M.E. Sharpe, pp. 244‐263;  Naficy, N (2009) ‘The Dracula ballet. A tale of fieldwork in politics’, in: G Marcus and J Faubion (eds) Fieldwork Is Not What It Used To Be: Learning Anthropology’s Method in a Time of Transition, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press;  Mueller, M. (2011) ‘Education and the Formation of Geopolitical Subjects’, International Political Sociology 5: 1‐17. 11. Talking with people: conversation and interrogation 22 Mar  Walsh, R (2004) ‘The methodological implications of Gadamer’s Distinction between statements and speculative language’, The Humanistic Psychologist 32(2): 105‐119;  Soss, J (2006) ‘Talking Our Way to Meaningful Explanations’, D. Yanow and P. Schwartz‐Shea (eds) Interpretation and Method, Armonk, NY and London: M.E. Sharpe, pp. 127‐150;  Schaffer, F (2006) ‘Ordinary Language Interviewing’, in: D. Yanow and P. Schwartz‐Shea (eds) Interpretation and Method, Armonk, NY and London: M.E. Sharpe, pp. 150‐160;  Gallagher, J (2015) ‘Interviews as Catastrophic Encounters: An Object Relations Methodology for IR Research’, International Studies Perspectives: 1‐17; 
Way, A et al (2015) ‘Dialogic Interviewing and Flickers of Transformation: An Examination and Delineation of Interactional Strategies That Promote Participant Self‐Reflexivity’, Qualitative Inquiry 1–12. Additional:  Fujii, L A (2010) ‘Shades of truth and lies: Interpreting testimonies of war and violence’, Journal of Peace Research 47/2: 231‐41;  Hockey, J and M Forsey (2013) ‘Ethnography is not participant observation: reflections on interview as participatory qualitative research’ in: J Skinner (ed) The Interview: an Ethnographic Approach;  Lippke, L and L Tanggaard (2014) ‘Leaning in to “Muddy” Interviews’, Qualitative Inquiry 20(2) 136– 143; 12. Interview simulation session 29 Mar