The qualitative interviews I conducted as part of my data collection were predominantly carried out face-to-face. In two cases I conducted interviews via Skype. Although there are advantages to conducting Skype interviews in qualitative research, for example, because it enables a researcher to reach geographically diverse interviewees (Lo Iacono, Symonds, and Brown 2016) I preferred personal meetings.
Interviews were conducted on a one on-one basis, and in English. My language of research merits some comment. As mentioned, I entered the research setting as a foreigner and non-fluent in Myanmar language (Burmese). The opportunities to study Myanmar language that I undertook were limited, but provided me with an
understanding of how the language is structured, common expressions and phrases, and day to day basic conversational skills. From the outset, however, my research was designed to be conducted in English. One of the fundamental definitions of an ‗intermediary‘ is an individual that is bilingual and I thus expected these people to be able to speak to me in English. If I would have been fluent in Myanmar language, I could have chosen another approach, for example, by entering the field from the ‗bottom‘ to interview ‗locals‘ about intermediaries. Such an approach would also have been possible if I had hired local interpreters (Fujii 2013). However, professional interpreters were, and remain, scarce in Myanmar (Dolinska 2017), costly, and the role
69
of interpreter was more often taken up by individuals like the intermediaries of my study.
Fujii (2013) argues that a researcher should not refrain from a research site because she lacks the right language proficiency. It could be asked whether an ‗international‘ without Myanmar language proficiency had the cultural skills to undertake research in Myanmar that involved local participants. My stance as a
researcher was that of behaving ethically, to learn about the field setting, and to convey the perspective of my research participants. I am convinced that my lack of Myanmar language proficiency provided me with a better understanding of the complex situation foreign rule of law practitioners face when they enter a new setting, especially in relation to the tricky situations I constantly faced when the intermediaries I had gotten to know, who also functioned as translators and interpreters, offered me help in getting to others who could assist me. I thus had to be mindful about becoming too reliant on the intermediaries, whose role I had set out to study, as they also potentially acted as ‗gatekeepers‘ for me as a researcher (Edwards 2013).
Interviews were semi-structured or unstructured (Edwards and Holland 2013). Most semi-structured interviews took place at offices, cafes, hotels or restaurants. In interviews I did not seek to measure the ‗truthfulness‘ of interviewee‘s accounts, but rather, I was interested in the meanings of interview material and the stories that they tell rather than ‗objective reality‘ (Elliot 2005, 22-27).
During semi-structured interviews, I sat down with pen and paper and took careful notes which were reviewed and entered into a computer at the end of each day. The length of each interview was between one and two hours. Semi-structured
interviews were based on an interview protocol that listed the questions or topics to be asked (DiCicco-Bloom and Crabtree 2006). I had two different protocols, one for rule of law practitioners and local counterparts and one for rule of law intermediaries. When
70
interviewing intermediaries, I asked open ended questions on themes that included aspects of their background and work, influence, issues of contestation or controversy, and translations and understandings of rule of law. With other development actors (who I did not identify as intermediaries) I asked questions about their overall work, the role the intermediary actor played and about their experiences of what influence the
intermediary had on themselves and the organization.
Unstructured interviews resemble a conversation rather than the more semi- structured interview situation. Unstructured interviews allow respondents to express themselves more freely (Corbin and Morse 2003), however the conversation is always ‗controlled‘ because the interviewer steers it towards her interests (Gray 2009). I categorise unstructured interviews to include controlled conversations where I had steered the conversation towards topics I wanted to discuss but in a more informal setting. Often I carried out such conversations with individuals who I had already interviewed in a more structured manner. This meant that they were aware of my research and why we were talking. Unstructured interviews resulted in note taking to recall the conversation quickly after it had ended.
In total I conducted 74 semi-structured interviews and approximately 28
unstructured (low estimate) interviews. Out of the 74 semi-structured interviews, all but 11 were conducted in Yangon. Other interview locations included Mandalay, Nay Pyi
Taw, Europe, Australia, and two via Skype with the U.S.68
I also had the opportunity to engage in informed conversations about the broader development field as well as on issues related to local understandings of ‗rule of law.‘ Gray (2009) suggests that unstructured interviews can also be of an even more
68 I have decided to leave out the interview location from the interview citations in Appendix A because some respondents would otherwise be easily identifiable. Some unstructured interviews were held during regional travels that I participated in. However, the location of the interview should be less important in such cases as the respondents were not connected to those regional areas in a significant way.
71
informal, conversational character and based on unplanned set of questions that are generated during the interview. I had many opportunities to participate in such informal discussions, some that generated quick notes and some that were useful for informing me about the research setting. For example, I attended a two week Myanmar language course in Yangon in May 2014 where several participants worked on development issues for international organisations (some rule of law related). I also attended some infamous boat parties for ‗expats‘ on Yangon River and evening events hosted by the French Institute in Yangon. These types of occasions provided fruitful opportunities to establish contacts, get a deeper insight into expat life and the development community, and get updated on the latest gossip in the rule of law field. During rule of law events in regional areas I had the opportunity to talk to local lawyers and activists about their understandings of ‗rule of law‘ and the current transition.
Because I conducted interviews with different categories of participants my interview approaches and questions (as outlined previously) differed to some extents. For example, obtaining personal accounts of rule of law intermediaries was to some extent a methodological challenge. Generally, they were willing to talk about rule of law project activities and outputs, or even the lack of rule of law in Myanmar under ‗a brutal military regime.‘ They were also happy to share stories about their childhoods, early political activities, and motivations for working on social causes (their interpretation of their work). However as my questions turned to the theme of their current motivations and activities in relation to the donors they work with, interviewees were more reluctant to talk. For example, some would not reveal that they worked on several contracts or that they had aspirations to be elected for political office. Corbin and Morse (2003, 336) suggest that interviewees might consider topics ‗sensitive in nature‘ because when they are asked to ‗tell their stories about some topic, they are sharing personal, often intimate aspects of their lives‘. Obtaining trust and adhering to the ethics protocol of the
72
Australian National University was thus important in order to build a relationship where participants felt confident talking to me about these topics.
In some cases interviewees revealed that ―It felt good to talk‖ and I understood that they felt as if the interview had enabled them to relieve emotions and
considerations, for example, their annoyance with foreign donors, the constrained life in Nay Pyi Taw, or their frustrations about wanting to change careers, that they would otherwise have difficult talking about. Such ‗therapeutic interviewing‘ requires an ethical and sensitive listener (Dempsey et al. 2016). As Dempsey et al. (2016) found, I also experienced the emotions shared with me by the interviewees as enriching my understanding of the complexities of the research setting and their experiences from living and working there. My reporting and attempt to understand emotions expressed during interviews contributed to more meaningful interpretations of my interview data (Hoffman 2007).
Among my interviewees who were from Myanmar it proved difficult to encourage interviewees to talk about other people, which was a central aspect of my research. Lee and Renzetti (1990, 512) have noted that any topic has the potential of being ‗sensitive.‘ I soon understood that it was problematic for me as an ‗outsider‘ to ask questions about ‗insiders.‘ The sensitivities of an approach that included the asking about others can find its explanations in Myanmar‘s history of intelligence surveillance and culture of informers (see e.g., Selth 1998). Again, when I had built up a personal relationship I managed to obtain some accounts about ‗other people‘; more often such stories were shared during informal and unstructured conversations rather than at initial semi-formal interview situation.
73