Special Issue Editors’ Introduction: Observing Autocracies from the Ground Floor*

Goode, J. Paul; Ahram, Ariel I.

doi:10.1111/ssqu.12339

Cited by 22 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Conducting social research in the authoritarian context involves many challenges (Goode and Ahram, ). Although there are some reflections on being a foreign social researcher in authoritarian countries, there is a lack of discussion about what it means to be a homegrown social researcher in that context (see, e.g., Glasius et al., ).…”

Section: Minority Studies Under Authoritarianism and Specifics Of Beimentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As a consequence, workers at this particular mosque are aware of their responsibility to construct a positive image of Tatar Islam and have become used to giving interviews to media and social scholars, thus becoming “professional informants,” whereas workers at other mosques are always under control of security services, which is why their willingness to participate in any social research is reduced to almost zero. Of course, state control leads to preference falsification by research participants, which is a common characteristic of any authoritarian context (Goode and Ahram, :825–26). This problem is not specific to the insider researcher.…”

Section: Minority Studies Under Authoritarianism and Specifics Of Beimentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Exploring Sensitive Topics in an Authoritarian Context: An Insider Perspective*

Yusupova

2019

Social Science Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Object. This article examines the methodological challenges of ethnographic research on ethnic and religious minorities, in an authoritarian context in the Russian Federation, conducted by an insider researcher. Method. The article focuses on the peculiarities of the insider position in the field of research on understudied topics concerning ethnic and religious minorities. These cover issues of influence of national and local academic agendas on the process of the research, credibility management in a highly dynamic political environment, research safety, and the researcher's influence on the field. Results. The article identifies three main challenges in doing ethnography in illiberal settings. First, the imposition of oblique political limitations on the research agenda of local researchers creates a form of methodological nationalism, leading to a paucity of research on some critical topics. Second, the continuous introduction of new restrictive legislation not only results in difficulties of accessing the field, but also demands constant reevaluation of the sensitivity of the questionnaire. Respondents often express anxiety while discussing even quotidian practices because it becomes difficult for them to anticipate whether, when, or how new restrictive legislation will be enforced. Thus, they expect insider researchers to be aware of the legal ramifications of their research. Not only does this nullify the author's ability to adopt a stance of naivety, it also means that researchers bear a greater burden in convincing respondents that the information provided will be handled responsibly. Finally, the ethnographer is constantly faced with difficult decisions regarding both scholarly and ethical reliability and, hence, is required to continuously review research ethics in such a dynamic political context. This article offers suggestions for overcoming these difficulties by means of social networking services and constant critical reflexivity. Conclusion. Authoritarian settings pose many challenges to insider researchers. The study of minority groups can be particularly sensitive since illiberal regimes often seek to homogenize their populations and portray minority groups as a threat to justify the state's increasing control over the population. Exploring even mundane, everyday manifestations of ethnicity in such situations can become highly sensitive and raise methodological problems such as limitation of available academic literature and funding, greater responsibility for research and participants' safety, and forced partisanship.Scholars of authoritarianism often argue that apart from the lack of fair elections, authoritarian regimes are also characterized by violations of the rights to freedom of expression and access to information, which make fieldwork in areas under such regimes especially difficult. However, authoritarianism does not necessarily undermine the generation of meaningful data (Reny, 2016). In spite of academic reflections on risks, challenges, and ethics in doing fieldwork in authoritari...

show abstract

Section: Minority Studies Under Authoritarianism and Specifics Of Beimentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Minority Studies Under Authoritarianism and Specifics Of Beimentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring Sensitive Topics in an Authoritarian Context: An Insider Perspective*

Yusupova

2019

Social Science Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While recognising the complexity of the term at hand, I think it deserves fuller clarification and incorporation into nationalism studies beyond this article. As Goode and Ahram : 828) have noticed, ‘authoritarianism, like democracy, is already a conceptual and taxonomical morass’ and cannot be summarised succinctly. Other researchers provide a wide classification of contemporary hybrid regimes by depicting the tensions and blurred boundaries between democracy and authoritarianism, classifying the Russian Federation as an illiberal hybrid regime characterised by competitive multiparty elections but low civil liberties (Gilbert and Mohseni : 294).…”

Section: Theoretical Framework: Cultural Drivers For Everyday Nationamentioning

confidence: 99%

Cultural nationalism and everyday resistance in an illiberal nationalising state: ethnic minority nationalism in Russia

Yusupova

2017

Nations and Nationalism

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ethnic minority nationalism has always been one of the most important subfields of nationalism studies, yet it lacks the consideration in illiberal settings. Limitations of civil liberties and restrictive legislation have undoubtedly affected the existence and the ways to express minority nationalism when it is considered a threat to authoritarian government, which is the case of the contemporary Russian Federation. The paper provides a methodological framework that helps to investigate ethnic minority nationalism when its direct articulation is restricted. It argues that the combination of a cultural nationalism approach and complexity theory can be a fruitful way to explore minority nationalism in an illiberal nationalising state using the case of Russian ethnic minorities. It also argues that the complex context of authoritarianism and market economy creates tipping points towards the growing importance of ethnic minority identification as a basis for social solidarity.

show abstract

“…Fortunately, more explicit reflection on research in authoritarian contexts per se is just beginning to emerge. In recent years, two special issues have appeared on 'closed' and 'authoritarian' contexts, respectively (Koch 2013;Goode and Ahram 2016), as well as some shorter pieces focusing on fieldwork challenges in China (Shih 2015), the Middle East (Lynch 2016), and Central Asia (Driscoll 2015), explicitly approached as authoritarian contexts. We have learned from, and draw on, this recent literature.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%