Research Relationships and Ethics

Dual identity is a fundamental part of ethnography, a tension inherent in the (oxymoronic) term ‘participant observation’. Rather than the juxtaposition of contradictory terms there is a participant-observation continuum and your place moves depending on practical and ethical issues. Hermeneutic research emphasises participation to enable experience of what

‘actually’ happens because understanding requires participation in the co-construction of reality. Meaningful interpretation comes from thorough immersion (O’Reilly:2009:158-161) but ethnographers simultaneously observe as outsiders with a ‘heightened sense of awareness’ (Spradley:1980:56). Understanding the local perspective required working and therefore bonding with participants and gaining insight into their lives, whilst simultaneously analysing their behaviour, which raises ethical issues.

Maintaining role duality is problematic if role performance affects research relationships. I established expectations early and kept the sponsor updated, maintaining this relationship and establishing others through time and expectation management. Ethnographers are the research instrument so onus is put on the individual to work, collect data, reflect, and maintain relationships; inevitably fieldwork is an emotional experience. Balancing

involvement and detachment can become so overwhelming it leads to detachment in both (Coghlan&Brannick:2005:68); particularly when navigating relationships with informants who become friends. In Brussels, work and private lives blur as expats socialise frequently in work clothes at networking events, Place Lux(embourg), and during weekends, so using this data required reflection. Navigation was occasionally jolted when participants signalled a boundary by saying, you’re not going to write about that are you? This would spark discussion about my research. Usually it followed irrelevant gossip, as I assured them. However occasionally when it followed a view on an interesting process, I tried to arrange an interview. However usually, it expressed disbelief at my interest in banality and was not used about constitutive parts of the argument. This phrase exemplifies how access and ethics are on-going processes (Maxwell:2005, Piper&Simons:2005).

I engaged with Robson’s three ethical concerns: voluntary informed consent, confidentiality, and anonymity (2000:28). The survey email informed respondents about the research; they replied voluntarily to my EP or Sussex email; the returns were kept securely and not discussed; were numbered to ensure anonymity and respondents could choose how much personal information to provide (Appendix-C). The interviews were conducted voluntarily, and some assistants and officials actively volunteered (Interviews-4,6,16,22,36,46). Interviewees were emailed a research summary or this was provided in the email. No assistant refused, one official refused (believing he could not add to his colleague’s knowledge), and three did not reply. Six MEPs refused (all but one citing time constraints) and times could not be found with six others. All recordings and transcripts were kept securely and confidential. Only one interviewee asked to edit his transcript which again raises the issue of elite control and political nature of research (Ball:1994, Barbour&Schostak:2005:41). Interview content was not discussed with other participants.

One interviewee was uncomfortable about being seen interviewed by other colleagues in an EP bar, so I arranged more private locations afterwards. All citations were agreed individually. Most MEPs were happy to be quoted whereas staff preferred anonymity and we agreed varying levels of discretion. This was occasionally frustrating with some officials when more specific job titles could add credibility.

Ethical issues were continuously navigated during the participant observation. The MEP took part voluntarily. When I initially requested the internship, I explained the purpose and sent a proposal summary which we discussed in the interview (September 2009). The

placement was confirmed in October and in May he confirmed he saw no difficulties if it was “handled with sensitivity”. We discussed my aims at the initial role briefing in June. We conducted a formal interview and intermittently discussed my research. In December we reviewed the materials I wanted to take away; e.g. the diary and email counts. In Spring 2011 I sent him methodological reflections and in Spring 2012 early drafts of Chapters 5 and 7 which rely heavily on participant observation data.

My field-notes were kept securely and confidentially. By conducting the research openly other participants are aware of the sponsor’s identity. This is why, despite issues of elite censorship, it was important to carefully navigate which excerpts were included because ethnographers have a duty not to harm participants (e.g. by disrupting relationships or careers). If moments were not constitutive and may have harmed the sponsor, they were not selected. Anonymity was the most problematic criteria. The sponsor participated anonymously. The research was presented as a case-study of his group. However during the writing process, I felt naming the group and NPD would have meant the pool of candidates was too narrow. As the group, beyond being a mainstream centre group rather than a eurosceptic one, was not constitutive of the narrative, I decided to refer to the group thus to balance anonymity and my duty to academia to present a full and accurate account.

Initial access is the first step and once inside relationship negotiation is continuous (Barbour&Schostak:2005, Maxwell:2005). This raises ethical issues because you cannot wear an “Anthropologist” t-shirt. Although access was granted by the sponsor, once inside I wanted to conduct the research as openly as possible and felt further informed consent was required. I learned from preliminary research (Interview-2) that I would work closely with other assistants, so informed the MEP’s assistants about the aims immediately and the NPD assistants at our first assistants’ meeting (Chapter 6). I informed EP and group officials the office worked with regularly about my dual role, and subsequently interviewed some of them, and the MEP sometimes introduced me thus in private meetings. As it emerged the role of the NPD would be important, I sent their offices an email about the research in September and interviewed some of them in wave three. Finally I discussed the group processes I was interested in with the MEP. As I was interested in individual MEPs’

interactions with the group structure he did not think this would be a problem and his experience was triangulated with interview data.

During the writing process I wanted to include (constitutive) details of group meeting processes. Therefore I took a draft of this section to an interview with the Secretary-General which he confirmed he was happy with, although corrected some procedural errors. During fieldwork I considered sending an email to all the group’s MEPs. However academic research must balance duties to participants with a duty to academia to present a full and accurate account. I decided this might lead to further censorship and, as stated, we also have a duty to study up with elites whose decisions affect citizens. Therefore I sought consent and validation from the sponsor and group officials. This process contributed to my decision to refer to the group as a centre mainstream group. These discussions show ethical principles are abstract and can conflict and ‘the balancing of such principles in concrete situations is the ultimate ethical act’ (Piper&Simons:2005:56). Proximity raises ethical issues but it is embeddedness which enables ethnography to gain its distinctive depth (see Fine et al:2009, Cerwonka&Malkki:2007).

2.5 Conclusion

This chapter has shown that ethnography is the most appropriate methodological approach to the research question. A more holistic understanding of MEP behaviour requires a more holistic methodological approach. Ethnography’s core tenants (an actor-centred and context-sensitive approach) and the in-depth qualitative methods associated with it and employed in this project, have enabled me to gain a deeper understanding of MEP behaviour in this social context, enabling me to explore how individual MEPs practice politics inside the EP. Quality has been addressed by ensuring the design is consistent and coherent and therefore the instruments observe what they intend to. Immersion and triangulation have been employed to ensure credibility. The research process has been reflected upon to examine how well the instruments addressed the research question, and methodological issues have been discussed which position this partial account. Reflexivity acknowledges what a methodology can claim to know, a key part of assessing validity being knowing the nature, potential, and limitations of methods. All designs make trade-offs and whilst ethnography cannot, and does not aim to, offer generalisations and statistical inferences, it does offer rich insight into actors’ behaviour in their context; access to their perspective and dynamic interactions between structures and agents; and a nuanced understanding of processes.

I now clarify how each of the research issues has been addressed. The thesis firstly builds on Ringe’s work and further explores how individual MEPs decide how to vote.

Ethnography gave me access to the backstage and I was able to observe how the exchange of information he identifies occurs through the process of voting list construction and the meetings which constitute this process. I observed MEPs’ dynamic interactions with the group and NPD structures and discussed the meaning(s) generated around these structures in interviews. As Von Rosenstiel says, ‘organisations are systems created by people which gain significance for their members by virtue of their perception and interpretation’

(2004:136, Chapters 5-7). It, secondly, explores how individual MEPs perform multiple roles. Ethnographic fieldwork gave me direct and sustained contact with the field-site observing and participating in the organisation of an MEP’s time and activities from his office. I observed frontstage performances and backstage preparations and how different roles are performed in different spaces, but also how performances are strategically planned across the EP calendar. During the interviews, I also explored the institutional role MEPs perform (Chapters 5 & 8). Thirdly, the thesis explores the constraints and opportunities MEPs face and are presented with as they practice politics here. Ethnography again enabled me to go backstage and observe how an MEP pursues his aims and interests in this context, and the tools and strategies he employs. I experienced the EP habitus and discussed this with interviewees. The case-study enabled me to investigate this field’s system of positions and I discussed with participants their experience of this and how they accumulate capital and play the game successfully (Chapters 4 & 8).

Ethnography got me closer to the actors doing European politics and their perspective, enabling me to address the research question. The detailed everyday and individual-level data collected provides a more holistic understanding of MEP behaviour than is currently available. The rich data is one element of this project’s original contribution. However ethnography does not exist in isolation from theory (Wedeen:2010:263). Chapter 3 next outlines the theoretical framework employed in this thesis because ‘without theoretical considerations and without attempting to explain the processes, generative mechanisms and dynamics which make the observed events possible, we would be left with pure selective descriptions’ and this would not meet the criteria for critical and reflective social science (Wodak:2009:118).

Chapter 3:

Theoretical Chapter: Performing politics in the backstage communities