Higher Educa\on
4.5. Data Collection Issues and Techniques
4.5.4. Iraq Case-‐‑study
beliefs, and systems of meaning that inform their worldview. The majority of interviews were conducted in English with an Arabic-‐‑speaking local translator used where necessary.
4.5.4. Iraq Case-‐‑study
Primary data collection on Iraq occurred in a non-‐‑typical process over the majority of the length of study. Prior to commencing the doctoral programme the author became involved in the Scholar Rescue Fund Iraq (SRF) programme to support displaced Iraqi academics whilst working as a researcher in Amman, Jordan. Through acting as research assistant for Iraqi academics and frequent conversations a degree of familiarity with Iraqi HE was gained. In June 2010 involvement in a workshop partly organised by the Post-‐‑war Reconstruction and Development Unit (PRDU) on rebuilding Iraqi HE for Iraqi SRF Scholars in Amman, Jordan enabled greater knowledge of Iraqi HE and also access to a valuable group of potential participants. This experience shaped the decision to commence doctoral research on post-‐‑war reconstruction and HE in Iraq at the University of York in October 2010.
Between June 2010 and February 2011 involvement as an assistant in an SRF/PRDU project aimed at gearing the research of displaced Iraqi scholars towards rebuilding Iraqi HE enabled further in-‐‑depth knowledge of the topic based on contact with Iraqi academics, reading and editing of draft papers, and conduct of the initial stages of PhD research. Furthermore, this experience constitutes participant observation in a programme designed to build research capacity of Iraqi scholars on the rationale that upon their return they would have major impact on Iraqi HE through the relevance and quality of their research.
The above-‐‑mentioned project culminated in a conference in Amman, Jordan in January 2011 jointly organised by the Institute of International Education (IIE), SRF and PRDU. In attendance were many Iraqi university Presidents, representatives
from the US Department of State, IIE, and over 100 Iraqi academics. The conference was an important learning tool because papers on Iraqi HE stimulated heated debate and myriad perspectives and arguments were expressed. The SRF programme provided opportunities for observation, informal discussions, secondary document analysis, formal interviews, and gaining contacts for future interviews.
In December 2010 during a three-‐‑week field visit to Amman, Jordan interviews with Iraqi academics were conducted. Furthermore, a conference on rebuilding Basra was attended. This was followed by a four week field-‐‑visit in Amman in early 2011 with over twenty interviews conducted with Iraqi academics including former and incumbent university Presidents. After fieldwork a number of follow-‐‑up interviews were conducted from the UK either via email or in person with interviewees considered important to the study including former Ministers, university Presidents, and academics.
Problems of access were encountered during fieldwork. Due to security obstacles a planned fieldwork phase in Baghdad and Basra was cancelled at a late stage and was unable to take place. Therefore the research attempts to study Iraq while unable to travel there to conduct primary research; a problem reflected upon by contributors to Iraq at a Distance: What Anthropologists Can Teach Us About the War (Robben 2009) which documents innovative measures adopted to gain insight and understanding of Iraq without access.
This initial phase of primary research was used to generate findings about Iraqi HE’s history, deterioration, and reconstruction. With little research into post-‐‑conflict HE and no theoretical frameworks for understanding the subject at a global-‐‑level this fortuitous sequencing of research proved well suited. Conducting primary research in the early stage enabled a broad picture of Iraqi HE to emerge from data. This inductive approach led to generation of categories for analysing conflict impacts and reconstruction efforts. Although based on preliminary findings from
one pilot case-‐‑study, these categories and insights were useful in providing a heuristic tool for analysing disparate data sources on post-‐‑conflict HE’s global context.
For interviews with Iraqi academics sampling combined purposive and snowballing methods. Access was facilitated by involvement with the SRF project and initial interviews were arranged based on contacts made during this time. The purposive sample frame was based on perceived usefulness to the study, for example, more senior figures such as ex-‐‑Deans or those that made convincing points during workshops on Iraqi HE. This non-‐‑probabilistic sample method introduces bias unavoidably and is antithetical to random sampling.
While the SRF can be considered a gate-‐‑keeper in regulating access to the SRF participants, due to the fact that Iraqis in Jordan are a dispersed hidden population the issue of a single gatekeeper decisively influencing access to an entire population and introducing forms of bias was not a dynamic affecting fieldwork. However, beyond SRF scholars, Iraqi academics living in Jordan were not easy to identify during fieldwork. Interviewees were therefore asked to suggest potential participants.
An issue in the Iraq case is that participants were interviewed outside of Iraq and most were no longer permanent residents of Iraq. It may be held that the special category of displaced Iraqi academics is not representative of the views of most Iraqi academics that remain working and living in their country. One factor mitigating this problem is that the overwhelming majority of displaced Iraqi academics left during 2006-‐‑2008 and were present in Iraq in the most critical post-‐‑ conflict phase. Further, triangulation of reports and facts with other data sources has been employed where possible to mitigate this form of sample bias.
4.5.5. Libya Case Study
A pre-‐‑study of Libyan HE was conducted in the UK between February and June 2012, consisting of over 20 interviews and two focus groups with Libyan UK-‐‑based postgraduate students and academics plus desk-‐‑based research. It assessed pre-‐‑war Libyan HE’s historical trajectory, developmental role, and strengths and weaknesses. Furthermore, this phase enabled refinement of interview strategies and questions to be employed during fieldwork.
Participants were asked for advice on conducting research in Libya. Many postgraduate students interviewed were completing studies on Libya and therefore could provide unique insights. The most common advice offered was that introductions or contacts would be important to gaining access and trust of potential participants. Several interviewees stressed that Libya is a relatively closed society and suspicious of outsiders. However, five postgraduate students stated that there are no obstacles to conducting research and that people would be very willing to participate.
From the 12th October until the 7th December 2012 fieldwork was conducted in
Libya. One month was spent in Tripoli and visits were made to Baida, Benghazi, Zawiya, Misrata, and Gharyan. Interviews with academics and policy-‐‑makers were the primary data-‐‑collection method although observation, focus groups, and document analysis were also conducted.
Observation is a simple and unintrusive research method appropriate in post-‐‑ conflict settings (Barakat & Ellis 1996). An advantage of the method is that in conflict-‐‑affected environments which are highly politicised collecting basic facts and impressions from observation can assist the researcher in being seen as a non-‐‑ threatening presence and therefore eases access to research settings and participants. Taking field notes on campuses, observing behaviour in natural settings, taking photos, and conducting informal conversations were utilised. After