Questionnaire Analysis

Luckily, from the 62 questionnaires I have there were no missing data, which made the analysis of quantitative data easier, and simpler. I used a simple form of bivariate analysis based on contingency tables, and univariate analysis based on frequency tables and diagrams. SPSS was very helpful in producing the tables, and the diagrams for the analysis. However, the quantitative analysis was checked against and supported by the qualitative data. The overall sample of the questionnaire constituted 62 participants, the preliminary stage of quantitative analysis was based on univariate analysis, which consisted of frequency tables, and diagrams. In order to explore the answers more fully, I then did a bivariate analysis, exploring two variables at the same time. In other words, this type of analysis is based on dividing the sample into subgroups, and exploring the frequency of the answers for each subgroup, to examine if there is a relationship between the answer and the variable chosen to create the subgroup. The following tables show the differences between univariate (Table 3.11), and bivariate analysis (Table 3.12) of quantitative data.

Table 3.11 Being Circassian Constitutes a Great Part of My Identity

Answer N Percent

Strongly Agree 40 64%

Agree 20 32%

Neither Agree or Disagree 1 2%

Disagree 0 0

Strongly Disagree 1 2%

Total 62 100

In the previous table the sample n=62, and the variable I am exploring here is only the frequency of answers to the question to what extent do you agree or disagree

with the statement being Circassian constitute a great part of my identity? This form of quantitative data analysis is useful at the first stage of the analysis because it examines ‘the distribution of cases of only one variable’ (Babbie and Benaquisto, 2009: 415).

Table 3.12 Contingency Table showing the relationship between gender and importance of being Circassian Answer Gender Male Female No. % No % Strongly Agree 23 64% 17 65% Agree 12 33% 8 31% Neither Agree or Disagree 1 3% 0 0 Disagree 0 0 0 0 Strongly Disagree 0 0 1 4% Total 36 100 26 100

For a more complex form of analysis, bivariate analysis gives more insight into the relationships between two variables. It means ‘searching for evidence that the variation in one variable coincides with variation in another variable’ (Bryman, 2004: 230). However, I would argue that, on its own, this form of analysis might show a relationship between variables, but an explanation for this relationship cannot be provided from quantitative data alone. In that way, triangulation of analysis methods has been an integral part of the analysis of the interviews and questionnaires.

Conclusion

Since this research is an exploration of the narratives of ethnicity used by research participants in defining themselves as Circassians, narratives of nationalism promoted by the state, and their (re)construction by research participants, the concept of narrative is central to it, and the link between the concept of narrative and feminism has been important to clarify. The concept of narrative recognises social actors’ contribution to the (re)construction and (re)configuration of ethnicity, nationalism and gender, and also provides room for the realisation that such narratives can intersect to shape our social world, and depend on context, time and space. Using the concept of narrative allows us ‘to transcend the fixity of the identity concept as it is often used in current approaches to social agency’ (Somers, 1994: 621), and this is very useful in understanding gender.

Furthermore, because understanding the meanings people give to ethnicity and nationalism is important for this research, interviews were used to do this by giving voice to participants. The questionnaires were used to support the interviews, and vice versa. Although the questionnaire provided me with access to larger age ranges, it is still one of the limitations of this study that I only interviewed one member of the older generations of the Circassian community. I also used unplanned ethnographic data that were collected through the prolonged stay in the field. This data provided more insight into and understanding of life in Jordan, and the narratives the state of Jordan attempts to promote. This form of ethnography did not in any way view Circassians as others, and they were not observed as such. On the contrary, the use of dialogic ethnographic techniques helped to explore what they said, rather than observing what they did. Participant observation, in this form of ethnography, was employed in relation to the narratives Jordan promotes. Such data were collected as unplanned events in fieldwork occurred, and were relevant to the research process and to complement data from other sources.

During the research process I also had to be reflexive, and part of that reflexivity involved an attempt to provide an account of my position in the field, and the difficulties I faced in Jordan. This reflexive part of the chapter is meant to provide a better idea about the context of the research. As an ‘Arab’ Palestinian, I was perceived in certain ways by government employees, and my standing in Jordan was precarious. This form of reflexivity fits well within the feminist paradigm, as I believe that acknowledging subjectivity may in some cases strengthen the objectivity of the research (Harding, 1993). Moreover, these experiences are themselves part of my construction of ‘reality’, and the reality of the field. Moreover, in an attempt to overcome my own biases, I also employ the terms ‘Arab’, ‘native Jordanian’ and ‘Circassian’ from the perspective of research participants and not my own.

However, as sociologists we contribute to constructing and (re)constructing knowledge and part of our subjectivity is often our interest in specific areas of research. My approach to this research has been to start from the research participants’ view points, understanding, (re)construction and (re)configuration of ethnic narratives, and state nationalist narratives. This research was designed to give voice to research participants, and to give them a chance to contribute to those (re)constructions. The next chapter starts with reviewing the ethnic narratives of the Circassian research participants from their own view point and understanding. It provides an account of what interviewees believe make them Circassian. It shows that those ethnic narratives are contextualised and are often highlighted in reference to the ‘other’, which was most of the time the ‘Arab’. It also explores how those narratives are often tailored to fit within the context of Jordan. It is an account of research participants’ (re)construction of their own ethnic narratives.

Chapter Four

Narratives of Ethnicity

‘So fluid and shifting is the process of ethnic identity… that attention should be directed to people’s own definitions of ethnicity, in contrast to attempts by sociologists to fit people into predefined ethnic groups’ (Marsh and Keating, 2006: 325).

As I argue that elements of ethnicity are based on the narratives that people use to define their ethnic group, this chapter examines the ways in which research participants conceptualise their ethnicities. It is an attempt to answer the questions ‘what are the ethnic narratives of the Circassians in Jordan?’ and ‘do those narratives differ depending on age and gender?’ The concern of this chapter is not how we can classify people into ethnic groups; rather it is how people define themselves in terms of ethnic affiliation. In the second and the third chapters, I have established a critique of primordial views of ethnicities, as fixed and non-changing, and as a means of categorisation. This chapter builds on my argument by showing that people have different conceptualisations of the ‘ethnic group’ and those conceptualisations represent their categorisations of themselves and the ‘other’. As narratives are contextualised and influenced by time and space, this chapter explores the extent to which the ethnic narratives of the interviewees are influenced by the context of Jordan. The narratives have been identified from the interview data, and some of the questionnaire data will be used for elaboration. This chapter reviews narratives of ethnicity, the narratives interviewees used in reference to their ethnic identity, what constructs it, and the components of categorisations they use to identify themselves as ‘different’. Sarup (1996) identified two components of narratives—a story and a discourse. He states,

’Each narrative has two parts: a story (histoire) and a discourse (discourse). The story is the content, or chain of events. The

story is the ‘what’ in a narrative, the discourse is the ‘how’’ (Sarup, 1996: 17).

However, the use of narrative in this research will build on identifying ethnic narratives, rather than discourses, within the stories. This is because I believe that individuals make choices, while they draw from stories and myths of ethnic origin, they at the same time choose the narratives they want to derive from these stories. It is important to note that,

’A people’s conception of itself and its relationship to coterritorial, contiguous, and geographically distant peoples influences the interpretation and transmission of ethnic myths, as well as the shape of society and its aspirations for the future’ (Wexler, 1996: 1).

Ethnic narratives depend to a great extent on drawing on past events, stories, or histories which are also, as we have seen in chapter two, influenced by the context in which people find themselves. The narratives of Circassians living in Jordan are greatly influenced by their context, and that means that they have narratives that might be different from non-diasporic Circassian communities in the Caucasus region. Indeed it became clear during the interviews that the ethnic narratives interviewees used were influenced by their living in Jordan. So although some have argued that what brings the Circassian peoples together as an ethnic group is the Nart Sagas (Gay, 2005), the narratives that emerged in interviews and questionnaires include no mention of the Nart Sagas. The main narratives that emerged were highly contextual, and at the same time were based on two types of narratives; narratives that are viewed as changing, and narratives that are viewed as non-changing. This chapter explores the narratives of respondents, who define themselves as Circassians, in Jordan. Some of those narratives draw on views of ethnicity as primordial, or non-changing, from the view of research participants, as explored in section one. There are other narratives, however, that view ethnicity as changing, as explained in section two.