In-depth interviews

The in-depth interview constitutes the chief research method in this ethnography. The present study is, indeed, an interview-based ethnography drawing upon Bourdieu’s Theory of Practice. This research method has been employed, primarily,

311 _{B.H. Hancock, “Following Loïc Wacquant into the Field,” Qualitative Sociology 32(94) (2009).} 312 _{B.H. Hancock 2009, ibid, 94}

88

to collect data from China policy-research experts within U.S. think tanks – but also of contextual interviews from relevant experts not affiliated with think tanks in order to solicit non-self referential perspectives (i.e. affiliations such as academia, the U.S. State Department, and the business-sector).

During my three-month fieldwork, located in Washington, DC, I conducted in total 44 in-depth interviews. Table 1 below depicts the ‘universe of data’314 as far as the

interviews are concerned (interviewee and principal affiliation).

89

Table 1 – Interviewees and affiliations

Interviewee Principal Affiliation

1 Ms Ellen L Frost Peterson Institute for International Economics

2 Ms Louisa Greve National Endowment for Democracy

3 Mr Samuel Sherradan New America Foundation

4 Prof Andre Laliberte Woodrow Wilson Center for International Scholars

5 Dr Bryce Wakefield Woodrow Wilson Center for International Scholars

6 Ms Sue Levenstein Woodrow Wilson Center for International Scholars

7 Dr Philip Levy American Enterprise Institute

8 Mr Dan Blumenthal American Enterprise Institute

9 Prof Stein Tønnesson US Institute for Peace

10 Dr Adam Hersh Center for American Progress

11 Mr Peter Marsters Woodrow Wilson Center for International Scholars

12 Mr Seth Cropsey Hudson Institute

13 Mr John Feffer Institute for Policy Studies

14 Dr Andrew Scobell RAND Corporation

15 Dr Satu Limaye East-West Center

16 Dr Robert Hathaway Woodrow Wilson Center for International Scholars

17 Mr Dale Swartz American Enterprise Institute

18 Dr Charles Horner Hudson Institute

19 Mr Nathaniel Ahrens Formerly, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

20 Mr Walter Lohman The Heritage Foundation

21 Dr Douglas H. Paal Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

22 Mr Iskander Rehman German Marshall Fund

23 Ms Debra Liang-Fenton US Institute for Peace

24 Dr Banning Garrett Atlantic Council

25 Mr Alan D Romberg Henry L. Stimson Center

26 Dr Paragh Khanna New America Foundation

27 Male policy researcher World Resources Institute

28 Dr Keith Crane RAND Corporation

29 Dr Kenneth G. Lieberthal Brookings Institution

30 Mr Kevin Tu Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

31 Mr Ed Paisly New American Foundation

32 Ms Bonny Glaser Center for International and Strategic Studies

33 Ms Sandy Pho Woodrow Wilson Center for International Scholars

34 Mr Pieter Bottelier SAIS John Hopkins and Carnegie

35 Dr Jamie Metzl Asia Society

36 Mr Leland Miller America Foreign Affairs Council

37 Mr Dan Rosen Peterson Institute for International Economics

38 Female policy researcher Institute for National Strategic Studies

39 Ms Malou Innocent Cato Institute

90

Table 2 shows the distributions between primary and contextual (secondary) interviews.

Table 2 – Primary and contextual (secondary) interviews

Primary (think tanks) Contextual (affiliation)

Dr Steven Balla (George Washington University)

Prof Bruce Dickson (George Washington University)

Dr Deepa Ollapally (George Washington University)

Prof Hugh Gusterson (George Mason University)

Total: 40 Total: 4

Table 3 presents the average duration of the interviews as well as number of think tanks and average number of interviewees per think tank.

Table 3 – Average duration (interviews)

Primary Interviews Contextual Interviews No. Think Tanks Per think tank 57 minutes 55 minutes 26 1.5

The in-depth interviews were conducted in a semi-structured, thematic fashion with open-ended questions aligned with the research philosophical foundation of the study – the constructionist symbolic interactionist model.315

It was similar to what Burgess calls ‘a conversation with a purpose’.316 The interviews focused on respondents’

construction of meaning and ‘social reality’ in regard to ‘China’ and effectively ‘American-ness’. This is diametrical to the positivist stimuli model (evolved from behaviourism) where the aim is to compare or achieve statistically generalisation

315 _{J.P. Spradley 1979, The Ethnographic Interview, op.cit. A.B. Thomas 2004, Research skills, op.cit. 152-154.} 316 _{R.G. Burgess 1984, In the Field, op.cit. 102.}

91

based on testing hypotheses, and assumes that people respond in the same way on physical stimuli.317

Interviewing is acknowledged to be a powerful technique to elicit in-depth understanding of context,318 and thus a particular advantage when the aim is to

obtain rich and deep knowledge about a little understood social phenomenon. Furthermore, it facilitates for improved understanding of how respondents construct meaning and social reality, and being constructed by it. Importantly, this included allowing myself to be informed “bottom-up” – for example, I would not set any parameter for what I considered to be an ‘expert’ on China policy-research. Consequently, if they identified themselves as one – he or she was included in the “sample”. “Prompts” were frequently used, i.e. seeking a more extensive response,319

as well as improvised follow-up questions in order to capture the ‘native categories’ of respondents and central lines of inquiry amongst the policy-researchers. Identical questions would only distort the rigour of the data collection due to respondents’ constructions and narratives do not fit into the same set of pre-decided taxonomic categories. I have also assumed there to be an “observational element” integral in interviewing, herein policy-researchers’ own observations imparted through their oral accounts and personal narratives.

All interviews were audio-digitally recorded, except for two respondents who requested otherwise (placing significant inhibitions of what the individual would feel comfortable to convey in an interview), and one wanting to be “off-the-record” due

317 _{Thomas 2004, op.cit.}

318 _{Marschan-Piekkari et al. 2004, op.cit.}

92

to returning to a federal department. Most interviews were solicited via email contact based on my perusal of all policy-researchers across more than 50 think tanks based in Washington, DC. I used McGann’s ranking as well as general directories.320

I also benefited from personal introductions and interacting with policy-researchers at think tank events. In total, I invited close to 130 policy-researchers whom I had identified as relevant research subjects. The main reason for unsuccessful requests were time constrains – in addition to a few declining reporting back due to the following: not agreeing with the premise of my study (relevance of culture) including misunderstanding of the scope (i.e. culture as explanation of Chinese economic development), not stationed in Washington, DC (for example working at a sub-office abroad and/or living elsewhere), and my inability to showcase that my study would contribute to “world peace”! Approximately, 15 interviews did not materialise due to changing schedules and/or not having sufficient with time whilst I was located in Washington, DC.