Power, Positionality, and Positions of Power: Reflexivity in Elite Interviewing

• In Event: Fieldwork in Political Science 2. Reflections on Ethnographic Methods.

Abstract

There is a growing commonsense within qualitative research in political science of the need to interrogate our positionality as researchers. Our contextually-dependent perceptions of self, other, and the relationship between self and other shape our ability to access and interact with participants, inform the information we gleam from interactions, and make possible the ethical relationships we aspire towards. Reflexivity is a process of interrogation; of reflection on one’s power and positionality, on how it is read by others, and on how this informs our research. Much has been written on the myriad effects of positionality and a growing literature attempts address how we might do reflexivity in practice. However, these accounts often focus on ethnographic research and research within ‘non-elite’ contexts. In political science there has been less attention paid to accounting for the operation and effects of power and positionality in the context of interviewing ‘elites.’ This is surprising not only because of the growing attention to positionality in political science scholarship, but because the field continually – if implicitly – upholds categorical distinctions between conducting elite and non-elite research.

In this paper I respond to this gap and examine the utility and challenges of doing reflexivity in the context of ‘elite’ interviews within organizational settings. I make two central and interrelated arguments. First, I argue that the category of ‘elite’ participant and context is not as discrete and monolithic as is often asserted in political science literature. Rather, and intuitively, I show that speaking with educated and authoritative individuals is fraught with challenges related to power and positionality – the relational dynamics of human interaction, regardless of presumed social status. Second, I argue that in order to navigate the ever-present complexities of power and positionality within sites of power and authority, researchers must be actively reflexive. By active reflexivity, I mean ongoing interrogations of our positionality, how our positionality is read by others, given their own social location and the contexts in which we interact, and the assumptions e make about our conclusions in the first two stages of reflection. To illustrate the importance of active reflexivity in elite settings, I examine three common challenges often asserted within elite interview literature regarding access to participants, the conduct of interviews, and the role of insider and outsider status. In doing so, I also attempt to demystify the often repeated claims that elites interviewing is a one-sided or even frightening endeavor for students and scholars and underscore the social and human qualities of these interactions.

In advancing these related arguments I draw on my own experiences conducting more than 100 interviews with state and diplomatic officials within a host of organizational settings, including the United Nations (UN), Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) African Union (AU), and Organization of American States (OAS).

Author

• Aarie Glas, Northern Illinois University