CAMBIOS INTRODUCIDOS POR LA LEY 30056 AL RÉGIMEN LABORAL ESPECIAL DE LAS MYPES

Gaining access to Tracer offices was far more challenging than the DCA. It was challenging mainly for two reasons. The first relates to a logistical aspect because these offices were situated in different locations and because access had to be granted by office owners many of whom came to their offices sporadically. The second reason is due to the lack of trust and the feeling among Tracer office owners and managers that I might be spying on them. This sentiment might have been exacerbated by the

ethnographic approach adopted in this project as most participants did not seem to consider observations and interviews as legitimate research practices. Indeed, many did not seem to recognise observations as a proper form of research and exclaimed as to why I am not using questionnaires. In this regard, many of the office owners I interacted with were quite suspicious of the prospect of a stranger observing their everyday work. Following local cultural norms that discourage disappointing others, not a single Tracer office owner explicitly rejected my proposal to conduct fieldwork at their offices. I, nevertheless, recognised their continuing avoidance of my calls and hesitation to grant access as a sign that they are not interested in participating.

Access negotiations with all the 15 Tracer offices took place through different stages and at different times. The first stage was during the first year of this PhD project; at this stage, I approached six offices personally without employing wasta. Most offices were receptive and welcoming; however, when it came to the fieldwork stage only two offices granted access; the rest either ignored my calls or gave excuses, from which I surmised rejection, such as that they are too busy for instance.

These cases of implicit rejection were vital learning experiences. For example, in the first year, I approached one office called RS [pseudonym], which employed about eight employees and was one of the most reputable offices in D-central city; the office manager was quite cooperative and promised to participate in the study. When I visited the office in the second year to begin the fieldwork, the office manager indicated that he must get the office owner’s approval before I can proceed and that I should visit him

later when he has a decision and he gave me his business card. I tried calling the office manager a few days later without success. I revisited the office manager, and I felt after a brief discussion that he seemed no longer interested in participating in the research.

Meanwhile, he asked me whether it was easy to gain access to other offices. I replied indicating that it was not easy. At this moment, he replied that this might be because they think that I am a ‘spy’ working for the government (for similar experience see Owens, 2003). Reflecting on this experience, I realised the significance of wasta relations in this context. The fact that I was visiting these offices without a personal introduction by someone they trusted who can employ wasta was indeed a cause of suspicion for them. This suspicion is warranted since it is typical that some of these Tracer offices might be engaged in some forms of unsanctioned activities. This situation provides a clear contrast with how methodology books stress formal procedures and bureaucratic processes in explaining access strategies. This also provides insights into the relevance of pre-bureaucratic practices; especially during access negotiations.

At this stage, I began to use wasta by actively searching for personal contacts who could, in turn, also employ wasta and vouch for me and introduce me to Tracer office owners they knew to gain access. I found two connections that can introduce me to three Tracer offices. One contact, who knew the owners of two Tracer offices and had wasta with them, asked me to accompany him to visit these offices so that he could introduce me personally to the office owners. In the typical enactment of wasta, it is expected that the person interceding, and the person being interceded for, formally visit the third party. This is done to demonstrate respect as well as instigate relations of reciprocity (Cunningham & Sarayrah, 1993). In the Middle Eastern cultural context, a visit by an acquaintance to a person’s home or office is considered a gesture of

honouring that person who then reciprocates this gesture by accepting the interceding person’s request (Al-Ramahi, 2008; Lackner, 2016).

Together with my contact we visited two offices, in one office we met the owner who granted me immediate access and introduced me to all office staff. For the second office, we met the office manager who also promised access, and at a later stage I revisited this office and met the office owner who also affirmed the access permission. The second contact also introduced me personally to the owner of one office who also granted access unhesitatingly. These intercessions greatly helped in establishing trust and facilitated the process of fieldwork by adding credibility to my promise of anonymity and research ethics.

In addition to these occasions, there was also another occasion where I was engaged in wasta unintentionally. This incident took place during the second year at one office which I approached personally without employing wasta to request access. I met the office manager who initially seemed suspicious of my identity as a researcher. However, shortly into our discussion a male Saudi client aged between 50-60 years old entered the office and was invited by the office manager to sit opposite me at one end of the office manager’s desk. As I tried to conclude my discussion with the office

manager, the client jumped in the discussion and asked me whether I am a student. I replied, and then he explained that he too had completed a qualitative PhD at a UK university in the 1990s and seemed to sympathise with my struggles in gaining access. This client recognised the institution I was associated with in the UK and hence readily accepted my identity as a PhD student. After a short discussion about the topic of my research, this client, drawing on his favourable position in relation to the office manager, vouched for me in front of the office manager and explained to him more about his struggles for access when he was completing his PhD.

The intercession of this client greatly helped establish trust between the office manager and I; especially since the office manager was not familiar with UK universities and what comprises a qualitative research project. Following this discussion an appointment a week later was set up for me to revisit the office to begin the fieldwork. This incident shows an unintentional situated exercise of wasta where trust was established through an intercession from a third party trusted by the office manager.

Given my limited capacity to employ more wasta, access to the remaining three offices was gained during the fieldwork through personal visits to these offices where I sought to clearly express to office managers and owners the confidentiality terms and my identity as a PhD student. Nonetheless, the lack of wasta negatively affected the quality of access I was granted; this was the case in all the offices where I was not able to employ wasta with them. In these offices I was mostly able to conduct interviews and the numbers of hours I was able to spend observing and shadowing employees was considerably less at these offices than the offices where I employed wasta. I was able to gain in-depth, high quality, and prolonged access only to the offices where I employed wasta. This shows how wasta greatly enhanced the quality of access I was able to gain.

These illustrations of the enactment of wasta during the fieldwork help to reveal how informal relations highlighted in methodology books should be understood as enacted through situated and nuanced cultural relations and practices. Additionally, this discussion of the enactment of wasta shows the significance of pre-bureaucratic practices even during the access negotiations and the conduct of the fieldwork. Such cultural relations and pre-bureaucratic practices also bring with them situated ethical

concerns that require greater reflexivity during the fieldwork, a topic to which the discussion now turns.