THEORETCAL FRAMEWORK: THE INVESTIGATORY SCOPE
2.8 A self-reflexive account: Thinking with the ‘Thinker’ against the ‘thinker’
As a starting point, Bourdieu emphasised a reflexive epistemological pluralism but without privileging a form of knowledge as representations of reality.344 Self-
reflexivity is an essential element in Bourdieu’s sociology of sociology – and arguably ought to be included in any qualitative research endeavour. His obsession with this feature (‘objectification of objectification’)345
has placed Bourdieu at the forefront of the social sciences in this regard. It serves as a self-analysis of the researcher (me, the ‘thinker’ in lower case) as a cultural producer through the conducted research within sociohistorical contextuality.346 Reflexivity concerns the
opposing idea of objectivity and neutrality of knowledge.347 In the spirit of Bourdieu,
I find it sensible to turn the “thinking tools” which I employ in this study (those of Bourdieu, the ‘Thinker’ in higher case) against myself (‘thinker’ in lower case).348
Importantly, albeit presented as a separate sub-section in this thesis, the self- reflexive dialogue is not intended to be a one-off exercise aiming to produce one, fixed account. The dialogue juxtapositioning Bourdieu’s sociology of sociology and my own critical reflections have ensued throughout the entire research endeavour – as it is the actual thinking on my part which is the essential activity.349 I purport that
344 See R. Jenkins 2002, Pierre Bourdieu, op.cit. 59-60. Prominent examples in Bourdieu’s work include his early studies on marriage patterns in Algeria (which also was paramount in the emerging critique of structuralism) (P. Bourdieu 1990a, In Other Words, op.cit. 8), cultural tastes (Bourdieu 1984, Distinction, op.cit. 503-518), and French academia (Pierre Bourdieu, Homo academicus (Paris: Les éditions de Minuit, 1984b), 69-72).
345 R. Jenkins 2002, ibid. 61.
346 L.J.D. Wacquant, “Sociology as Socio-Analysis: Tales of ‘Homo Academicus,” Sociological Forum 5(4) (1990): 677-89.
347 Hammersley & Atkinson 2007, Ethnography, op.cit.
348 See A. King, “Thinking with Bourdieu against Bourdieu: A 'Practical' Critique of the Habitus,” Sociological
Theory 18(3) (2000): 417-433.
349A.L. Cunliffe, “Social poetics as management inquiry: A dialogical approach,” Journal of Management Inquiry 11(2) (2002): 128-146.
105
this exercise has an interlinked two-fold advantageous output: it enhances transparency allowing the reader to assess my judgements and decision-making as far as research design and analysis are concerned. Furthermore, it assists in decreasing distortion of internal validity of the research.350 Turning the ‘Thinker’
(i.e. Bourdieu) against the ‘thinker’ (me – the researcher) moves beyond a mere “interpretation of interpretation”,351
or solely dealing with the relationship between the researcher and subject of the research.352 With this effort, I move beyond mere
“epistemological prudence” and towards ‘epistemic reflexivity’ as propagated by Leander.353
Wacquant highlights that Bourdieu’s perspective on reflexivity encompasses a focus on the social and intellectual unconscious embedded in the analysis process rather than the researcher as individual – the burden lies on the collective enterprise, and maintaining epistemological security of sociology.354 Bourdieu’s focus on potential
bias of the researcher due to the intellectual position in the academic field is particular original within the social sciences.355 It involves the danger to fail
investigating “the differentia specifica of the logic of practice” and subsequently failing to offer systematic critique of “presuppositions inscribed in the fact of thinking of the world”.356
In practice, my reflexive dialogue entails contesting my intellectual positions in subject-areas such as American politics and think tanks, U.S.
350 A. Bryman & E. Bell, Business research methods, 2nd edn (Oxford: University Press, 2007); A.L. Cunliffe 2002, op.cit. 128-146.
351 M. Alvesson & K. Sköldberg 2009, Reflexive Methodology, op.cit.
352 M. Easterby-Smith, R. Thorpe & P. Jackson, Management Research, 3rd edn (London: Sage, 2008). 353 A. Leander 2008, “Thinking Tools,” op.cit.
354 L.J.D. Wacquant & P. Bourdieu 1992, op.cit. 36.
355 Wacquant & Bourdieu 1992, ibid. 39. Examples on theoreticians of intellectual practice include Garfinkel, Clifford, Marcus, Tylor, David Bloor, Steve Woolgar, Platt, Ashmore, Gouldner, Bennett Berger, Giddens, and John O’Neill (see Wacquant & Bourdieu 1992, ibid. 36).
106
Foreign Policy, U.S.-Sino relations, policy, and sociology of knowledge – but also personal opinions about American culture and the intersubjective nature with encountered policy-researcher and think tanks in the U.S.
As far as disciplines are concerned, I embarked on this doctoral research project searching for a disciplinary identity as a researcher. My educational trajectory reflects my profound motivation to establish an international and intercultural profile, and in effect, traversing the International Business and International Relations disciplines. In my formal education, however, I have not obtained degrees which offer a “professional” or “vocal” identity connected with a discipline (e.g. historian): I am not a sociologist or anthropologist, and not a political scientist. Having studied two IR degrees, the positioning of the present study as looking “outside” from IR was a choice of both convenience – but also being conscious about establishing a research profile in alignment with a discipline. Furthermore, drawing upon experience with ethnographic and, to some extent, transdisciplinary research as an evident facet of my MPhil International Business degree, I also would like to label myself as an ‘international transdisciplinarian’. In essence, falling between multiple chairs – so to speak – also reflect lacking a “full” body of social theoretical knowledge in disciplines interfacing with my study. This slight sensation of “inferiority” in this regard, might be a result of my national background: a Norwegian system where professionalised titles are strongly upheld and legally protected in addition to a more firm trajectory where PhD students in principal can only conduct doctoral research within the discipline where they obtained their MPhil (and often reflecting the undergraduate major).
107
Before commencing the present research, intellectually, I was profoundly influenced by my experiences as a postgraduate research student in International Business. A “corporatised” milieu heavily entrenched in positivist embedded quantitative research agendas where the ‘qualitative’ and ‘interpretive’ occur at the peripheral of the business academe and often considered inferior. If not explicitly uttered – it was often felt working as a “disciplinary doxa” embodied as the modus operandi in mainstream research. It is here, where I developed an adverse “epistemological allergy” towards positivism. Not necessarily within its own paradigm, but rather in the way it was practiced in cultural research, the neglect of tapping into decades of social theoretical advancements, in addition to the symbolic power it held and symbolic violence it exercised when monopolising what warranted “common-sense”, “research proper”, and what ought to matter (defining the “stake at stakes” and what capital which had any value in the field of business-academia).
This is perhaps evident in my overly interest in methodology and research philosophy as far as research design is concerned. To remain only accountable for the firmly delimited research scope became a way of “sensing the game” – and to survive through gaining some capital by questioning their underlying assumptions – an exposure many of them (i.e. positivists) had little familiarity with. Ultimately, this has likely made me particularly sympathetic of Bourdieu’s epistemological critique underlying his Theory of Practice. Coupled with my drive for researching the international and intercultural, a dialectical approach to understand Self/Other constellations, identity and culture seem destined. Fair to say, my “allergy” has also made me wary of the Political Science degrees which flourish in the think tank environment.
108
For my MPhil, however, where I conducted an ethnographic investigation of Scandinavian expatriates in Hong Kong drawing upon social anthropology and sociology, I was supervised by a rarity in business-schools: a trained social anthropologist. The applied focus on theory, fortunately, gave me a relaxed viewpoint on labels and taxonomic categorisation. Thus, Barth appeals to me as I am more interested in why and how we consider “us” and “them” differently, not the
différence alone. My thinking has increasingly becoming rooted in giving primacy to
the epistemological drivers for research as well as the social conditionings. My entry point into constructivism research programme debates in IR research is therefore not if “ideas matters” but instead the unavoidable reality of intersectionality between physicality and construction – an Achilles heel for the social sciences. It follows – it is not an ultimate objective to be either a structuralist or post-structuralist. Consequently, I consider ethnographic research (“bottom-up”) a line of intriguing inquiry rather than a potential minefield or mystery of inconvenience.
My international outlook and embrace of grappling with Self/Other constellations caused a challenge and possibly bias when a sheer volume of my American interviewees exhibited (in my view) little interest (perhaps even capabilities) to reflect upon and contest their perceptions (i.e. ‘American-ness’) – which Cunliffe refers to as an unquestioning culture.357 Coming from a small country (Norway), I
am used to looking inside-out with little experience in being immersed in a national contextuality where a “whole world” is contained within the country borders. Furthermore, being from a country where “everyone are social democrats”358 and
357 Ann Cunliffe, “Assessing Reflexivity in Professional Doctorate Practice and Research” (paper presented at a The Higher Education Academy event, University of Bedfordshire, Luton, 14 March, 2014).
109
where the political continuum is eschewed far towards the political left in an American context – I certainly easily read oral accounts and utterances through social democratic lenses. It dawned upon me, whilst located in Washington, DC, as opposed to Norway (a middle-power state at the best – regionally), the U.S. need to respond to an array of challenges only due to its sheer size. Due to being very interested in world affairs, and thus U.S. foreign policies, I do have biases relating to how I perceive Americans (as a generalisation) are perceiving and understanding “the world”. I only see one ‘social reality’ out of the myriads which exist – and I need to remind myself about that none are superior. For example, my discontent with Fox News could easily influence my thinking about policy-researchers in The Heritage Foundation as this channel was projected on a large TV-screen in the lobby. This serves also as a good reminder that my research objective is not to “speak for” an interviewee or justify their utterances. The aim, rather, is to understand them on their own terms (‘native categories’) and impart this to readers – albeit not with the belief that I can preserve “uncontaminated data” but my interpretation of such oral accounts and other obtained data.
Thus, in sum, I was in a way a “Frenchman in America”, as with Bourdieu, doing “European” research (read: qualitative). A constant self-reflexive dialogue with myself during all aspects of the research endeavour demands, as well as creates, a healthy, creative inquisitive mind which are required when the researcher is to such a high degree intertwined in the research process. Again, this written output is not major significance, but the advantages from immersing myself with these thinking processes, are. This type of gaze is something all researchers, particularly those
110
wedded to the qualitative, interpretivist domain, should vigorously engage with, as well as across the aisle with the positivists.
111