Research strategy: Ethnography

Ethnography has been employed as the research strategy (aka methodology). This choice signals the direction and a system of how to employ research methods as a

290 _{‘Predominant’, here, implies a dialectical understanding of the “subjectivism versus objectivism” dichotomised} ontology (i.e. either completely subjectivist or objectivist) must subside for the view that ‘social reality’ is constituted by dynamicity, fluidity, and ever-transforming dialectical processes which never permanently “land” on either side of the continuum (see P.L. Berger & T. Luckman, The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge (Garden City: Anchor, 1966); P. Bourdieu 1984, Distinction, op.cit.; P. Bourdieu 1977, Outline of a Theory of Practice, op.cit.).

291 _{P.H. Andersen and M.A. Skaates, “Ensuring Validity in Qualitative International Business Research” in}

Handbook of Qualitative Research in International Business, eds. R. Marschan-Piekkari and C. Welch (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2004).

292 _{M. Hammersley & P. Atkinson 2007, Ethnography, op.cit.}

293 _{I. Marcoulatos, “John Searle and Pierre Bourdieu: Divergent Perspectives on Intentionality and Social} Ontology,” Human Studies 26(1) (2003): 67-96.

294 _{L. Wacquant, “Pierre Bourdieu,” in Key Sociological Thinkers, 2nd edn, ed. R. Stones (Basingstoke: Palgrave} Macmillan, 2008): 266-267; see Marcoulatos 2003, op.cit. 67-96.

295 _{See P.L. Berger & T. Luckman 1966, The Social Construction of Reality, op.cit.; M. Crotty 2003, The}

84

means to obtain plausible answers to the overarching research question of this study.296 The empiricist Bourdieu himself very much championed the ethnographic

research approach.297 In his view, theory and data are inseparable without the

capability to separately reflect social reality.298 The employment of ethnography in

this study resonates with the social anthropological influenced ethnographic literature. This reflects what was pinpointed earlier, that Bourdieu’s operationalised conceptual “thinking tools” (as part of his Theory of Practice) is what composes the methodological effort in this study a Bourdieusian-inspired ethnography. Thus, this particular organisation of the methodological approach also signals Bourdieu’s social theory as method as the prevailing application of ethnography in this thesis.

Brewer defines ethnography as:299

(…) the study of people in naturally occurring settings or ‘fields’ by methods of data

collection which capture their social meanings and ordinary activities, involving the

researcher participating directly in the setting, if not also the activities, in order to collect data in a systematic manner but without meaning being imposed on them externally.

This involves describing the cultures of the Other.300 A focal point in my study is the

aim to describe (in parts) the culture of the policy-research experts in U.S. think tanks as the Other (from my own point of view as the researcher), which in this study revolves around the phenomenon of ‘American-ness’ and ‘China’.

296 _{T. Zalan & G. Lewis 2004, “Writing About Methods in Qualitative Research,” op.cit. See research question in} Chapter One.

297 _{R. Brubaker 2002, “Ethnicity without groups,” op.cit.; H. Joas & W. Knöbl 2009, Social Theory, op.cit.; L.} Wacquant 2004, Body and Soul, op.cit.; P. Bourdieu & L.J.D. Wacquant 1992, An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology, op.cit.

298 _{P. Bourdieu, Pascalian Meditations (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2000). He framed this as a ‘scholastic fallacy’} 299 _{J.D. Brewer 2000, Ethnography, op.cit. 10.}

300 _{M.B. Miles & A.M. Huberman, Qualitative Data Analysis: an Expanded Sourcebook, 2nd edn (London: SAGE} Publication, 1994).

85

Ethnography can take many forms. In this study, it is chiefly applied as a research process – closely linked with Bourdieu’s Theory of Practice and a social constructionist epistemology as the main vehicle of interrogation. Nevertheless, this study seeks to provide ‘thick description’,301 i.e. to achieve triangulated rich

knowledge of a social phenomenon by incorporating various elements of ‘the total universe of data’302

(for example, the interviewees’ oral accounts, additional sources such as academic research, policies, reports, statements, observations, other in-depth interviews, conversations, as well as American culture(s) as research subjects’ ingrained contextuality). And because the comparative element is superficial and because of the focus on contrasting narratives, I emphasise the argument that a polyphony of “China-narratives” uttered by think tank policy-researchers are played out as an integral part of the enmeshed contextuality.

I predominantly employ in-depth interviews as the principal data-collection method.303 In addition, I make use of participant observation at think tank events,

incorporating physicality and relevant political developments in the U.S. as influential contextuality,304 as well as collecting written material as a means to

301 _{I am not implying that I pursue the ethnographic methodological base of naïve realism (i.e. the notion,} originating with Malinowski and upheld by Geertz) of the ability of the researcher to impart that there is one truth which can be told in one way, and to be a mere conduit of uncontaminated and non-biased data, non-theoretical, non-reflexive, and detached from the text and research process (Brewer 2000, op.cit. 37-55; see D. Marsh & G. Stoker, Theory and Methods in Political Science, 2nd edn (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002)). ‘Thick’ in the thesis, rather, denotes ‘in-depth’ through the ability to also observe research subjects and relevant work activities with the potential to unveil unlocked information, triangulate data, and making sense of complexity. 302 _{Miles & Huberman 1994, op.cit.}

303 _{P.J. Buckley & M.K. Chapman, “The Use of Native Categories in Management Research,” British Journal of}

Management 8(4) (1997): 283-299; R.G. Burgess, In the Field: An Introduction to Field Research (London: Routledge, 1984); D.S.A. Guttormsen, “Unlocking Complexity with Simplicity: A Social Constructionist take on the 'Ethnographic Interview' in Multilingual and Intercultural 'Multi-site' field research” (paper presented at Proceedings of the 9th European Conference on Research Methodology for Business and Management Studies, 2010a): 157-165. Available from: ISBN: 978-1-906638-65-8 (CD), ed. J Esteves, IE Business School, Madrid, Spain; M. Mehmetoglu 2004, op.cit.; Spradley, JP 1979, The Ethnographic Interview, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, London; Thomas 2004, op.cit.

86

conduct an interpretive/ethnographic contents analysis.305 Additional data-methods

encompass personal field-notes,306 descriptive statistics, triangulation,307 self-

reflexivity, and incorporating my understanding of contextual structures taking advantage of seminars, symposia and other relevant events within the wider think- tank, academic and political community in DC.308

2.4.3.1 Field-research

Field research is the main feature of ethnographic research – an aspect which has made social anthropology unique amongst other social science disciplines.309 As part

of my doctoral research endeavour, I spent three months researching the China policy-research environment in U.S. think tanks anchored in Washington, DC. The output in terms of collected data will be relayed in the below sub-sections corresponding to the research method in question.

This study does not claim any methodological contribution to knowledge as far as the ethnographic approach is concerned. Nonetheless, it moves beyond a modus operandi as a mere ‘empiricist data-collection machine’,310 and rather illuminate the

relevance for ethnographic research in IR including the important role of self-

305 _{See A. Ahuvia, “Traditional, Interpretive, and Reception based Content Analyses: Improving the Ability of} Content Analysis to Address Issues of Pragmatic and Theoretical Concern,” Social Indicators Research 54(2): 139-172; D.L. Altheide, “Reflections: Ethnographic Content Analysis,” Qualitative Sociology 10(1) (1987): 35-71; Bryman 2008, Social Research Methods, op.cit.; H-F. Hsieh & S. Shannon, “Three approaches to qualitative content analysis,” Qualitative Health Research 15 (2005): 1277-1288; D. Silverman, Doing qualitative Research

(London: Sage Publications, 2004).

306 _{R.G. Burgess, Field Research: A sourcebook and Field Manual (London: Routledge, 1991), 191-194; R.} Emerson, R. Fretz & L. Shaw, Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995). 307 _{Brewer 2000, ibid.; J. Wolfram Cox, “Triangulation,” in The Sage dictionary of qualitative management}

research, eds. R. Thorpe & R. Holt (London: Sage Publications, 2008), 222-224; R.K. Yin, Case Study Research: Design and Methods (London: Sage, 2003).

308 _{P.L. Berger & T. Luckman 1966, The Social Construction of Reality, op.cit.; A. Giddens 1984, The}

Constitution of Society, op.cit. 309 _{Keesing & Strathern, op.cit.}

87

reflexivity and theorising in a “bottom-up” fashion, in addition to ‘theory as method’ (i.e. Bourdieu’s Theory of Practice, in particular). Moreover, the methodological effort in this study, as with Bourdieu’s early ethnographic ventures, is closer aligned with the social anthropological tradition when it comes to theoretical construction. This ethnography does not simply “report on the inner workings of social words based on close-up observation (…)”311 but allows for building theories “bottom-up”

as well as engaging with a body of theoretical work (i.e. Bourdieu’s Theory of Practice and social constructionism). This diverges with the Geertzian strand of cultural anthropology often relied upon by the sociological intellectual sphere (as opposed to, for example, British traditions and social anthropology) and the sociological Chicago School.312 In essence, it provides a case for IR research to

traverse divides between sustained theoretical work and fieldwork.313