Estrategias y modos de cooperación

Olaf Heidelbach notes in his field work experience (2005, p. 46) on surveying Kazakh agriculture:

“Field research is always a complex process involving many contextual factors, discontinuities, negotiations, and compromises. Comprehending cultural and historical peculiarities of the research area, learning how local institutions function, and being willing to adapt personally to new circumstances that affect planning and negotiation strategies are key qualifications for conducting successful data surveys, especially in transition and developing countries.”

Stefan Malthaner (2014, p. 173) distinguishes two elements when conducting field work: 1) Field work takes place in a social environment that spans beyond the researcher’s control or upon which the researcher depends and which can “hamper, restrict, and shape the research process in various ways” 2) field research involves personal relationships, the process of interacting with people or being part of social situations are one the main sources of the data collection process.

These contextual factors (domestic and PhD research funding constraints) impacted on my research design and the methods applied. The conduct of my field work in ‘close’ contexts further shaped the strategies of research design and methods used to collect data on my cases. In addition, due to time constraints of my PhD funding as well as challenges related to organisational and transport logistics, I only met major stakeholders that were city-bound or ready to commute to cities. As such, I was not able to do further interviews or rural observations with EITI MSG implemented a regional levels15.

Nathalie Koch (2013) argues in the special issue on ‘Field Methods in Closed Contexts’ (in Area, 45: 390-395) that conducting research in ‘spaces of closure’ or ‘closed context’ can be a challenging task for Western academic researchers or practitioners. ‘Closed context’ involves coercive and more productive forms and relations of power (Koch, 2013). Such an interpretation is broadly inspired by the work of Michel Foucault. Foucault (2007, p. 16) defines power as “the set of mechanisms through which the basic biological features of the human species became the object of a political strategy, of a general strategy of power”. Such a perspective implies that subjects are shaped by the practices of actors and institutions in power. Such productive forms of power are particularly prevalent within closed and controlled contexts as in the case of autocratic regimes, where there is an absence of liberal freedom, or where freedom is used as a government tool “a key invention and most significant resource tool” of governing the others and the self (Rose, 1999; Foucault, 1997).

However, within such settings, it is important to distinguish variations in practices of freedom. In this sense, the degree of freedom varies according to regime type, the more open a regime is the more spacious and dimensional is the degree of freedom practiced. Consequently, existing variations in political regime types, local institutional structures and underlying power impedes or facilitates the conduct of fieldwork (Malthaner, 2014,

15 _{The principle of EITI MSG has been also extended to regional levels through ‘Public reception Desks’}

p. 175). Variations in the levels of autocratic regime types are: Kyrgyzstan as being defined as illiberal or hybrid democracy and Kazakhstan as being a ‘hard core’ authoritarian regime impacted on research design and data collection processes of the research project. It was more difficult for me to collect data in Kazakhstan than in Kyrgyzstan. The stronger and more entrenched hierarchy in Kazakh domestic institutions posed obstacles for conducting interviews or doing participant observations, as many of the institutional structures demanded additional bureaucratic paperwork as, for example, security clearings and further administrative checks. Janine Clark’s survey (2006 p. 418) on conducting field research in the authoritarian context16concludes that challenges of conducting field work under an authoritarian context and cultural differences represent greatest impact upon filed work.

The degree of ‘hard core’ authoritarianism practiced in Kazakhstan and the political sensitive nature of the topic had an impact on my field research. In this context, many of my interviewed participants in Kazakhstan feared to speak openly about the topic of my PhD research. Therefore, the conduct of my field work conducted in Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan shows some variations: For example, the number of interviews conducted in Kazakhstan is smaller than in Kyrgyzstan. In Kyrgyzstan, I could conduct a participant observation while in Kazakhstan I could not.

In this dissertation, although I am using survey data, research is predominantly qualitative with the principal research method of the semi-structured, open-ended interview. I have further used document analysis and observed meetings related to the EITI to corroborate my interview data.

Access to my informants was established through formal and informal channels. Initial formal inquiries were made through the EITI International Secretariat based in Norway. Informal personal networks emerged through internships in Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan. Therefore, the institutions where I was based during the period of my field work were used as intermediaries to get access to respondents. As Malthaner, (2014, p. 179) writes about the conduct of field work in conflict zones: “Informal personal networks are particularly important in conflict settings as they can create trust through common acquaintances and introduction by a familiar person who, in some way, ‘vouches’ for the researcher”. In my case, colleagues both in Kyrgyzstan (organisation SIAR/Bishkek) and

16_{Although her study focus primarily in the Middle East, the results of her analysis are transferrable to}

Kazakhstan (Public Opinion Institute/Astana) greatly assisted me to liaise with key stakeholders of my research project. Through them I got numerous opportunities to be invited to conferences and events related to my research. In some cases, formal and informal access was combined upon recommendations of my interviewees.

Pre-existing informal ties were crucial in my research for opening doors but also for estanlishing trust in situations where people were reluctant to talk.

One of the main ethical requirements of field research is to obtain consent of subjects participating in the research project and the potential risks related to it (Wood, 2006; Malthaner, 2014). In my research, I have used ‘do not harm’ principles to ensure that subjects made their own decision to participate and that participants to the research project did not run into any risks as a result of my research project. Prior to my field work, I prepared research protocols and consent forms that were approved by my Research Centre for East European Studies in Bremen and by BIGSSS at the University of Bremen, Germany.

However, once in the field I realised that adherence to protocol proved to be inadequate to the context of my field work. I therefore used my own ethical judgement to solve ethical dilemmas. As authors (see Wood, 2006; Koch, 2014; Malthaner, 2014) note there is a necessity for the researcher to adapt to the contextual conditions of field work when conducting field work in ‘risk prone zones’.

One of the main ethical challenges that I encountered was the consent form. During my first round of interviews, I presented written consent forms and protocols related to my research project; all my interviewees were very reluctant to take part in the research project and suspected me to be a spy or other form of intelligence service member (in two of my interviews conducted with EITI members in Kyrgyzstan, I was asked whether I was a ‘foreign agent spy’17_).

Moreover, as Mitchell argues (1990), local views can be structured by the culture of hegemonic fear. The population of post-Soviet Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan is subject to state surveillance (Gentile, 2013; Privacy International, 2014). While state surveillance is more entrenched in Kazakhstan than in Kyrgyzstan, there was fear of written consent, as any record could link them directly to my project and would expose them to public or government officials and turned out to be a real security issue. Paradoxically however, all

my interviewees were happy to be mentioned in my research and gave me interviews without a written consent form. Therefore, in the course of my field work I used oral consent procedures. All my participants were contacted prior to the interview via email or phone explaining my research purpose, institutional affiliations and examples of questions to be asked (this was mainly upon the participants’ request). In all my email communication with participants, I had attached a brief overview of my research project, my institutional affiliation and the ethical consent form18_{. The majority of my interviews}

conducted in Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan were tape recorded. Participants also gave me their consent to be named in my research project. Anonymity was guaranteed when requested. In some instances, particularly in Kazakhstan (with government officials of the EITI Board and KazEnergy Association) I was not allowed to record the interview. In such cases I took written notes. Moreover, as observed during my field work and echoing the work of James C. Scott (1990), the discourse of my interviewees was very much conditioned according to social power relations and the concepts between “hidden and public transcripts”. According to Scott, public transcripts are the “open interaction between the dominant and the subordinate groups” (Scott, 1990, p. 2) on the other hand, hidden transcripts represent “the critique of power” (Scott, 1990 p, xii) and specific behaviours that are practiced behind the scenes, far from the view of the dominant groups. The degree of authoritarianism in a regime appears to influence the practice of hidden transcript outside the earshot of power holders (Scott, 1990, p. 20). In this regard, the number of informal interviews conducted in Kazakhstan was significantly higher than Kyrgyzstan. Moreover, the act of responding to my interview questions also varied between the two countries. In Kazakhstan many of my respondents, particularly those working for the government, responded to a rehearsed and nearly unified script, while in Kyrgyzstan the answers to my questions were more nuanced. Such dynamic further displays features of power dynamics: the more severe is the domination of power the more unified is the act of performance. As Elisabeth Wood (2006, p. 385) notes, “even with research practices and protocols tailored to specific field conditions, inevitably field researchers rely on their judgment in interpreting those norms”. In this sense during the data collection process, I tried to articulate the findings of my field work in the most objective manner, however the data collected and knowledge produced in this thesis is also the product of my own interpretation, situations and collaborations encountered during the research.