Ethnographic Contributions to Method Development: “Strong Objectivity” in Security Studies

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

97 Downloads (Pure)

Resumé

Contrary to common assumptions, there is much to be learned about methods from constructivist/post-structuralist approaches to International Relations (IR) broadly speaking. This article develops this point by unpacking the contributions of one specific method—ethnography—as used in one subfield of IR—Critical Security Studies. Ethnographic research works with what has been termed a “strong” understanding of objectivity. When this understanding is taken seriously, it must lead to a refashioning of the processes of gathering, analyzing, and presenting data in ways that reverse many standard assumptions and instructions pertaining to “sound methods.” Both in the context of observation and in that of justification, working with “strong objectivity” requires a flexibility and willingness to shift research strategies that is at odds with the usual emphasis on stringency, consistency, and carefully planned research. It also requires accepting that the engagement of the researcher with the researched is no regrettable inevitability but a potential to be used and mobilized. If these arguments were more widely acknowledged, it would be easier to justify/recognize the methodological foundations of research in the ethnographic tradition. However, it would also require rethinking standard methods instructions and the judgments they inform.
OriginalsprogEngelsk
TidsskriftInternational Studies Perspectives
Vol/bind17
Udgave nummer4
Sider (fra-til)462-475
Antal sider14
ISSN1528-3577
DOI
StatusUdgivet - nov. 2016

Emneord

  • Methodology
  • Critical security
  • Ethnography
  • Objectivity
  • Reflexivity

Citer dette

@article{db4cd589e3754e8aa0779cc58e05eada,
title = "Ethnographic Contributions to Method Development: “Strong Objectivity” in Security Studies",
abstract = "Contrary to common assumptions, there is much to be learned about methods from constructivist/post-structuralist approaches to International Relations (IR) broadly speaking. This article develops this point by unpacking the contributions of one specific method—ethnography—as used in one subfield of IR—Critical Security Studies. Ethnographic research works with what has been termed a “strong” understanding of objectivity. When this understanding is taken seriously, it must lead to a refashioning of the processes of gathering, analyzing, and presenting data in ways that reverse many standard assumptions and instructions pertaining to “sound methods.” Both in the context of observation and in that of justification, working with “strong objectivity” requires a flexibility and willingness to shift research strategies that is at odds with the usual emphasis on stringency, consistency, and carefully planned research. It also requires accepting that the engagement of the researcher with the researched is no regrettable inevitability but a potential to be used and mobilized. If these arguments were more widely acknowledged, it would be easier to justify/recognize the methodological foundations of research in the ethnographic tradition. However, it would also require rethinking standard methods instructions and the judgments they inform.",
keywords = "Methodology, Critical security, Ethnography, Objectivity, Reflexivity, Methodology, Critical security, Ethnography, Objectivity, Reflexivity",
author = "Anna Leander",
year = "2016",
month = "11",
doi = "10.1093/isp/ekv021",
language = "English",
volume = "17",
pages = "462--475",
journal = "International Studies Perspectives",
issn = "1528-3577",
publisher = "Oxford University Press",
number = "4",

}

Ethnographic Contributions to Method Development : “Strong Objectivity” in Security Studies. / Leander, Anna.

I: International Studies Perspectives, Bind 17, Nr. 4, 11.2016, s. 462-475.

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Ethnographic Contributions to Method Development

T2 - “Strong Objectivity” in Security Studies

AU - Leander, Anna

PY - 2016/11

Y1 - 2016/11

N2 - Contrary to common assumptions, there is much to be learned about methods from constructivist/post-structuralist approaches to International Relations (IR) broadly speaking. This article develops this point by unpacking the contributions of one specific method—ethnography—as used in one subfield of IR—Critical Security Studies. Ethnographic research works with what has been termed a “strong” understanding of objectivity. When this understanding is taken seriously, it must lead to a refashioning of the processes of gathering, analyzing, and presenting data in ways that reverse many standard assumptions and instructions pertaining to “sound methods.” Both in the context of observation and in that of justification, working with “strong objectivity” requires a flexibility and willingness to shift research strategies that is at odds with the usual emphasis on stringency, consistency, and carefully planned research. It also requires accepting that the engagement of the researcher with the researched is no regrettable inevitability but a potential to be used and mobilized. If these arguments were more widely acknowledged, it would be easier to justify/recognize the methodological foundations of research in the ethnographic tradition. However, it would also require rethinking standard methods instructions and the judgments they inform.

AB - Contrary to common assumptions, there is much to be learned about methods from constructivist/post-structuralist approaches to International Relations (IR) broadly speaking. This article develops this point by unpacking the contributions of one specific method—ethnography—as used in one subfield of IR—Critical Security Studies. Ethnographic research works with what has been termed a “strong” understanding of objectivity. When this understanding is taken seriously, it must lead to a refashioning of the processes of gathering, analyzing, and presenting data in ways that reverse many standard assumptions and instructions pertaining to “sound methods.” Both in the context of observation and in that of justification, working with “strong objectivity” requires a flexibility and willingness to shift research strategies that is at odds with the usual emphasis on stringency, consistency, and carefully planned research. It also requires accepting that the engagement of the researcher with the researched is no regrettable inevitability but a potential to be used and mobilized. If these arguments were more widely acknowledged, it would be easier to justify/recognize the methodological foundations of research in the ethnographic tradition. However, it would also require rethinking standard methods instructions and the judgments they inform.

KW - Methodology

KW - Critical security

KW - Ethnography

KW - Objectivity

KW - Reflexivity

KW - Methodology

KW - Critical security

KW - Ethnography

KW - Objectivity

KW - Reflexivity

UR - http://sfx-45cbs.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/45cbs?url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rfr_id=info:sid/sfxit.com:azlist&sfx.ignore_date_threshold=1&rft.object_id=963017856334

U2 - 10.1093/isp/ekv021

DO - 10.1093/isp/ekv021

M3 - Journal article

VL - 17

SP - 462

EP - 475

JO - International Studies Perspectives

JF - International Studies Perspectives

SN - 1528-3577

IS - 4

ER -