General Methodological Overview

Bearing in mind that due to its complexity, nearly every research project involving developmental issues in general and the questions in regard to the Fairtrade system in particular is multidimensional, the methodology used in answering my underlying research question will be similarly diverse. However, three qualitative methods will take the centre- stage: critical analysis, case study and comparative method. Following Jaffee's methodological approach (2007), which, as stated above, represents one of the most analytically rigorous studies in the Fair Trade literature, I did not limit myself solely to one "main" research method. This was due to the fact that I also consider that "the combination of different methods allow[s]... to triangulate or cross-check key findings, enhancing the validity of the results" (Ibid., p.278). This is also in line with how other experienced Fair Trade researchers, such as Doherty and Tranchell conducted their joint study as well (2007).

I have already used critical analysis in order to review, evaluate and analyse the Fair Trade literature in chapters II and III. This method aided me in construing my theoretical framework and it helped me in finding an answer to the first part of the puzzle of my doctoral research, the one regarding the internal normative and operational logic of the Fairtrade system, which has been breached by the exclusion of the nine producer-excluded upper- middle-income economies. The same method will be used as an important within-case method as well, focusing on the vast literature on Mexican Fairtrade, on Serbian poor and marginalised small-scale producers and on the UK (supported by Belgian), as well as Serbian Fairtrade traders and consumers in chapters V - VIII.

Secondly, I will use three case studies. The first two will be illustrative, focusing on Mexico and the United Kingdom, representing successful cases of firstly, Fairtrade producers' and secondly, Fairtrade traders and consumers' countries, clearly showing the historical, contemporary and future challenges for development of Fairtrade from all three perspectives. Divided by themes and countries, the initial case studies, supported by the field research conducted in both Mexico and the United Kingdom (which is enhanced with the fieldwork findings from Belgium on the same topics, i.e. Fairtrade traders and consumers), will be the comparative and lesson-drawing base for the main (third) case study, which will be focused on Serbia and its Fairtrade potentials.

Given the fact that this is a country from the producer-excluded group of upper- middle-income economies, which has never been fully explored by the Fair Trade literature before, the findings from the previous two case studies focused on the three key referent objects in the Fair Trade literature - Fairtrade producers, traders and consumers will be employed using a comparative method based on lesson-drawing principles. They will also be combined with original extensive data collection undertook during the field research in Serbia. In addition, the two illustrative case studies, i.e. Mexico and the UK, can be employed as a base for future research regarding other producer-excluded upper-middle-income economies in particular and other upper-middle-income economies in general, using the same methodology which I will below explain in detail.

Finally, the within-case methods are critical analysis and elite interviews, outlined below. Before I continue, I would like to point out that my current methodological choices evolved from methodological modules and IT training (see the section "Research Training", p.xv), which I undertook at the University of Warwick and Université libre de Bruxelles. Both aided me greatly in my research.

By using the above-stated methodology, I will again follow Jaffee's approach (2007, p.xv) combining the larger-level critical analysis with close-up case studies, thereby exploring the benefits, limits and contradictions of the Fairtrade system. In turn, this enables comprehensive, structured and rigorous analysis, and answers my underlying and attendant research questions, bridging the gaps in the literature and contributing to knowledge.

Time and Geographical Frameworks

Beginning with the time framework, the focus will be on the most recent, post-crises period, up until the end of 2014. As mentioned, I started my doctoral research at a time when Fairtrade trade and consumption were not present in Serbia. However, a major change happened at the beginning of 2012 with the introduction of Delhaize Serbia's Fairtrade food products and it significantly influenced my research. This change had both positive and negative methodological impacts and I will now detail each in turn.

To begin with, it clearly proved that Fairtrade trade and consumption are possible in Serbia and made my research even more ambitious, since now I wanted to know what the next steps of Fairtrade trade and consumption in Serbia are. Secondly, I was able to conduct a number of elite interviews with Serbian experts who were familiar with Fairtrade trade and sales. In this way, I acquired information thus far undiscovered by the Fair Trade literature. In addition, I now had clear referent objects for comparison, i.e. the Serbian Fairtrade traders and consumers. They can be directly compared with their correspondents in the initial stages of Fairtrade trade and consumption development in the UK (supported by the findings from Belgium as well). Finally, and interconnected with the previous point, the in-between development, the current moment and the future perspectives of the UK Fairtrade trade and consumption were an excellent direct starting point, a true lesson-drawing base, for the field

research about the present state, next steps and future perspectives of Fairtrade trade and consumption in Serbia.

On the other hand, the first challenge arose from the fact that I researched a moving target and that I had to double-check all of my data again and again in order to be sure that my findings reflect the most up-to-date situation on the ground. The second issue is connected with the previous, i.e. the fact that I will not have the benefit of hindsight that might otherwise allow me to see some of the practical developments taking place, but also to wait for additional academic works to cover some of the peripheral topics important for my research and therefore, enhance my findings. The ever-developing nature of the Fairtrade system is the challenge that all Fair Trade scholars eventually face, and my research was not unique in this aspect. I tried to amend it by limiting the scope of my research to December 2014, instead of September 2015, when I submitted my final work.

Regarding the geographical scope, the research took place across two continents and four countries, beginning in the United Kingdom, where I spent the first year of my doctoral studies (October 2011 - September 2012) at the University of Warwick, critically analysing the theoretical bases of my doctoral research in general and the UK Fairtrade system in particular and identifying my initial methodological choices.

It continued in Belgium, at the Université Libre de Bruxelles (which is a part of the GEM PhD School and my second academic institution) where I initially spent five months (October 2012 - February 2013). There, I was compiling data from the first fieldwork (the United Kingdom), prepared for the third (Mexico), while at the same time using the opportunity to interview relevant Fairtrade actors based in Brussels, focusing on questions related to Fairtrade traders and consumers, thus conducting the second fieldwork and compiling the data from it.

The doctoral research continued, firstly, with the third field research in Mexico (March and April 2013), in cooperation with the Instituto Tecnológico Autónomo de México (which is a part of the GEM PhD School) where the data about the Mexican Fairtrade system was gathered, focused on questions regarding Mexican Fairtrade producers. Furthermore, my research advanced with the fourth field research, now in Serbia during the second half of the academic year 2012-13 (April - September 2013), focusing on Serbian poor and marginalised small-scale producers, Serbian Fairtrade traders and consumers, Serbian overall Fairtrade potentials, and the possibility of creating a national Fairtrade-like system in Serbia.

The data from these two field trips were gathered, initially analysed and finally processed during the third year (October 2013 - September 2014), when the first drafts of chapters V, VI,VII and VIII were finished, and the first half of the fourth year (October 2014 - March 2015) when the first draft of the whole doctoral thesis was presented to my supervisors. Apart from my writing endeavours, which ended in September 2015 when I submitted my doctoral thesis, the third and the fourth year were spent on follow up field research in the UK and Serbia.

Methodological Remarks

In this part, I will put forward some of my remarks regarding issues concerning the methodology employed. Firstly, as a GEM PhD School's doctoral scholar, but also as a strong supporter of the Fairtrade movement25, during my PhD research, I had to constantly balance my academic detachment, with my practical engagement, in order to be able to present a comprehensive and rigorous analysis. Similar issues were recognised by Berg (2001) and Lofland (1995) as well, and Doherty and Tranchell (2007) put forward constant cross-

25 _{For example, I was one of the organisers of the Fairtrade Fortnight at the University of Warwick and a}

checking of both the Fair Trade literature and Fairtrade practitioners' points as a solution, and I followed their advice.

Apart from the tension between theory and practice, I often experienced a dilemma between my general support for the Fairtrade system and its numerous benefits, and my constructive, but strict critique aiming to explain the severe inconsistency between its declarative internal normative and operational logic and its current contradictory praxis. Therefore, I aimed to give suggestions for the next phases of the development of the Fairtrade system by identifying some of the issues it has to tackle, one of which is certainly the exclusion of producers from nine upper-middle-income economies from the Global North.

Thirdly, I fully recognised and acknowledged the critique identified by Jaffee (2007, pp.3-4) that Fair Trade research so far is too often based on anecdotal information and not on comprehensive and rigorous analysis. Therefore, I tried to follow his and other "best practices" in the field (Nelson and Pound 2009, Murray and Raynolds 2007 and Nicholls and Opal 2005, to state a few), which insist on systematic qualitative and/or quantitative research of the Fairtrade system.

The most important practitioners' institution is the above-mentioned Fairtrade International. Fairtrade International's global statistics and fundamental definitions stated in their official documents, such as global Fairtrade sales figures, or internal definitions of a Fairtrade producer, or a national Fairtrade organisations, represent a treasure trove for my research. Similarly, nearly all authors mentioned in my PhD dissertation have written about the Fair Trade movement in general and the Fairtrade system in particular using Fairtrade International 's data as starting points.

That being said, whenever possible, I will critically analyse, double-check, triangulate, and cross-check Fairtrade International's information with the findings from my fieldwork. In addition, I have reduced to a minimum the direct use of Fairtrade International's

normative statements, agenda and arguments, taking into account the possible bias. Whenever I did decide to use these, I will clearly communicate that and critically analyse, double-check, triangulate, and cross-check this information as well.

A few technical remarks regarding the languages used, translating and proofreading must be made at this stage as well. Firstly, the vast majority of the critically analysed literature was in English. However, there was a smaller part in Serbian, and a few titles in French as well. Whenever I have directly quoted or paraphrased from these titles, I have translated them into English, always trying to convey the sense of the original. Given the fact that English is my second language, in order to double-confirm the accuracy of my translations, all of my direct quotes from Serbian papers (there were no direct quotes from French ones) were, pro bono, additionally double-checked by another GEM PhD scholar from Serbia. Finally, my thesis waspro bono proofread by a University of Warwick alumni, who is a native speaker in English, as well as by a Serbian philologist, with proficiency in English and years of experience in translation.

Regarding my two final methodological remarks, I will firstly follow Smith's lead (1998, p.31) to caution that the works which I used in my thesis have their own distinct agendas, beyond the concerns of my work, and that this by no means exhausts what they have to say regarding the topic. Continuing from the previous point, I will also follow Gerring (2007, p.x), and as he did, I will also pass my acknowledgment to scholars who have written on the same subject that I am interested in before me and whose research was the starting point for my own.