La función pública docente se ordena en los siguientes

As the idea of this research developed in late 2011, the prospect of conducting extended empirical field research in Myanmar was still not certain. The country had long been restricted to foreign researchers (with the exception of a few individuals who had managed to gain access) due to its history of isolation from the outside world under military rule (Selth 2010). During military rule, access to first-hand information and reliable sources were difficult to obtain (Steinberg 2001) and research was more commonly conducted by observers outside the country. The possibility of conducting the type of field work necessary for an in-depth qualitative case study, where both state- and non-state actors would be willing to share their stories and experiences, therefore seemed difficult.

Also, in 2011, Myanmar was a young transitional setting with few rule of law assistance activities taking place. As I outline further in Chapter 5, only in late 2012 and early 2013 did foreign rule of law actors start to conduct assessments and fact-finding missions to identify Myanmar‘s rule of law deficits and possible solutions. Thereafter, an increasing number of foreign rule of law actors established a field presence in Myanmar and initiated activities intended to promote the rule of law. Because of the activities that were developing in Myanmar at that time, the location suited my interest in transnational settings where development projects proceed at a frantic pace -- an insight I gained through my previous work as a rule of law practitioner. The emergence of a rule of law development field in Myanmar thus meant that I was able to study a setting, unlike other more established places where rule of law assistance projects have

62

been on-going for several years, where relationships between development counterparts were just emerging.

My initial introduction to Myanmar started with a two week scoping trip to Yangon and Nay Pyi Taw in early 2014. During that trip I wanted to get familiar with my research setting, learn how to get around town, establish contacts in the field, buy books and newspapers, and learn as much about the research context as possible. After my initial conversations, primarily with foreign practitioners, I refined my research design and interview questions in preparation for later more focused data collection (Axinn and Pearce 2006).

Thereafter, I conducted eight months of field research during 2014 and 2015, primarily in Yangon, the former capital of Myanmar, and to some extent in Nay Pyi Taw and local areas. I selected Yangon as my main research site because the head offices of rule of law assistance actors were located there, which allowed easy access to conduct interviews. The reasons for their location to the main urban, but non-capital area, ranged from a need to remain out of official government gaze to the possibility to offer their international staff acceptable schooling and housing opportunities. The head offices of local counterparts were also mainly located in Yangon. My presence in Yangon also allowed scope for observation of research participants that lived there at the time.62

62 _{The location of my field-work to Yangon and my generalisations to rule of law assistance ‗in Myanmar‘} merits some explanation. Myanmar is well-known for its ethnic diversity (Gravers 2007) and scholars often study different geographical localities where minorities reside, for example, the ‗Karen‘ or ‗Kachin‘ (Thawnghmung 2012, Sadan 2016). Therefore, few scholars would make references to phenomena that apply to the whole of ‗Myanmar.‘ It is not my belief that by focusing on Yangon as a case study location I can make claims that apply to all peoples of Myanmar but to the tendencies of an industry that developed and was much focused on that locality.

63

2.2.1. My Role as a Foreign Researcher

I approached the research site as an ‗international‘ and foreigner. Deliberately, I did not seek my first contacts amongst Myanmar individuals, but among foreign rule of law practitioners because I wanted to understand their experience of working in a new setting that was culturally and linguistically inaccessible. Also, because of my own background as a rule of law practitioner, it seemed the most realistic point from which to navigate the setting. Such positioning in the field may result in an overemphasising of the ‗international‘ (Dezalay and Garth 2002). However, my entry point gave me an initial understanding of the challenges foreign rule of law promoters faced as they attempted to navigate a new setting and thus became reliant on intermediaries which in

turn acquired a powerful role.63

To enter a new research setting as a foreigner can be a challenging task.

However, it may also enable access that would not be possible for a citizen or someone with a previously known record of engagement in Myanmar. Soon after I initiated my field work, I gained access to a group of foreign rule of law practitioners that I, over time, managed to build up a significant level of rapport with. They were helpful in assisting me to locate and contact research participants. To manage this access, I constantly reinforced the anonymity and ethics requirements of my study. Still, I sometimes found myself in uneasy relationships, especially when I got close to

someone, worried that such a relationship could compromise my independence, which in turn could be obstructive to my research (Hammersley and Atkinson 2007). As a solution, I revealed as little information about my meetings with ‗friends‘ in the field as possible.

63 _{I explore this theme in detail in Chapter 6.}

64

Another issue that I had to reflect upon was the way I framed my own critical stance towards the development field when I spent time with development practitioners who held more optimistic views. I often felt as if I should reveal as little as possible about my research because its foundation was critical and I was worried that

development practitioners would feel uncomfortable knowing that. My issue was thus not one of keeping a distance from the research setting in order to think critically about the research (Fetterman 2010), but rather to try to enter the field with a less critical mind.

I had to constantly self-reflect on my positioning in the field and in relation to different kinds of interviewees. For example, I was mindful that a researcher‘s

appearance can be important in shaping relationships (Hammersley and Atkinson 2007). Therefore, when I met with government officials I dressed informally in order to make them feel comfortable that I was ‗just a student‘; so that they would feel relaxed and that our meetings would not raise suspicion if we had potential observers.

Also, being reflexive in my role as a researcher in a setting that is a former colonialized country was central for this research. As Denzin and Lincoln (2008) suggest, there may exist complexities of qualitative research with regards to colonial connotations of power, truth, and knowledge. In Myanmar such complexities are further enhanced by its decades of isolation during authoritarian rule and people‘s limited previous interactions with foreigners.

How to best approach local and national respondents and in what sequence was of importance for this research. As a new ‗hot spot‘ for development I had to carefully consider the possibility that potential respondents in Myanmar would already be constrained by meetings with foreigners. At the outset I had a strategy of ‗getting to know‘ people before I asked for a formal interview. However with foreign practitioners this proved a bad idea because people, except the ones that I built up friendly

65

relationships with, were reluctant to meet with me a second time. I did understand the hectic work schedule some people had but it appeared to me that their reluctance was less about being busy at work and more about feeling as if they had done their part in the exchange. Certainly that exchange is seldom on equal terms because the researcher has little means to offer something in return (Hammersley and Atkinson 2007; Madden 2010). I had the same experience with some local participants; however, many expressed their gratitude that somebody was studying their country, so I did feel to some extent that I was offering something in return for their time.

My experience of interaction with the rule of law intermediaries that became key participants was slightly different. As Fujii (2009, 34-35) describes from her field work in Rwanda, she sensed that there was a certain point at which she was accepted into the community and thus managed to collect data that would be difficult to obtain if the relationship had remained formal. Fujii (ibid) sensed her ‗entry‘ into a more informal space as she was invited for meals and gossiping with women she was studying. I experienced a similar notion as I was invited by research participants to join travels,

dinners, family lunches and pagoda visits.64 _{Next, I describe these research participants}

in more detail.