The only justification is pragmatism Exploring beneath the ethnographic ideal in an international higher education study Adam Walton, PhD candidate

Planning for ethnography in IHE Ideal ethnography Original plan Thick description: ‘Hanging out’ Natural settings Flexible research questions Pertinent case selection Analytic attention to people’s own accounts Challenges expected North Afghanistan universities Uzbek – already spoken Masculinities Ethnographically informed: Long research period Observations, informal conversations, interviews Grounded theory Multi-site

Obstacles My institution would not allow me to go to Afghanistan (after 1.5 years of study) Second option – Tajikistan – PhD researcher kidnapped Complete ignorance about eventual location – Turkey Delays, haste and distance Language – reduced possible case studies and access to participants Loss of supervisor with regional expertise Ethics – limits on observations; insistence on anonymisation

Pragmatism hits Original plan Actual study North Afghanistan universities Uzbek – already spoken Masculinities Ethnographically informed: Long research period Observations, informal conversations, interviews Grounded theory Multi-site Cosmopolitan Turkish context Exploring academic engagement with gender Research in English Ethnographically informed: Short research period Observations and interviews Limited informal observation Fixed research design Single Westernised case Still ‘risky’

Pragmatically diminished? Actual study Ideal ethnography English language – loss of nuance and range of access Limited informal observations or conversations because of language, time, ethics, distance Case limitations: similarity to well documented contexts; no comparison; less pressing issue No real space for development of RQs Limited access to administrators, feminists, existing research Thick description: ‘Hanging out’ Natural settings Flexible research questions Pertinent case selection Analytic attention to people’s own accounts Challenges expected Actually happens!!

Challenges of ethnography in international higher education – general Access: no contacts; difficult to get information; even once inside Language: severe limitations of working in second language Ignorant: ability to understand contexts limited and time-consuming Encompasses the entirety of researcher’s life e.g. family, religion Greater expectations of specificity on research design as compared to e.g. anthropology

Challenges of ethnography in international higher education - Risks Overall At each level Do not know / understand settings: Cannot assess accurately More able to inadvertently cause harm More vulnerable Objectively more risky: Less stability Less rule of law More violence Research: Greater likelihood of researcher causing harm More likely to be significant Institutional: Risk aversion limits locations that can be researched Increased risks – approach with care Personal: Likelihood of significant change to research plans Security risks more unpredictable

Desirability of ethnography in international higher education Understand contexts in their particularity In some contexts other levels of education have engagement from humanitarian agencies and hence some type of opportunities for research – while HE does not Comparative value – understand own contexts better Value of looking at things with a cross-cultural lens, as an outsider

Maximising IHE ethnography’s pragmatic scope Research process Ethics Planning: realistic; language; B & C backups; early consideration of access / risk Appropriate geographic supervision. Systems for having supervision nationals Reflection on RQ flexibility Recognise need for significant preparation – strong caution against unplanned change of country! Informed consent: acceptance of lectures as public spaces? reconsideration of restrictions on informal observations / conversations Anonymisation: difficult with HE institutions – scarce or distinctive Is it appropriate not to anonymise, if acknowledged with participants?

Maximising IHE ethnography’s pragmatic scope - Risk Institutional risk Research Acknowledge risk aversion limits locations that can be researched Attention to regional experts and risk evaluation companies Risk inherent to research Learn from journalism and humanitarian agencies Increase: Negotiation Transparency, clarity of criteria Training Ethics process good at encouraging reflection on this Again acknowledge that risk is inherent to research PERSONAL Be realistic about limitations Make backup plans Get training Build strong local support network

Maximising IHE ethnography’s pragmatic scope – increased collaboration? Increase access to local organisational and cultural knowledge … ... while retaining outsider perspective IHE institutions have many potential collaborators Allows for focus on shared, felt research problems In some settings could helpfully increase local research capacity At PhD level possibly limited to local supervisory support / working with research assistants More extensive possibilities at other levels

Selected References Geertz, C. (1973) “Thick Description: Toward an Interpretive Theory of Culture.” Culture: Critical Concepts in Sociology 1: 173–96. Hammersley, Martyn, and Paul Atkinson (2007) Ethnography: Principles in Practice. 3rd ed. London: Routledge. Kovats-Bernat, J. Christopher (2002) “Negotiating Dangerous Fields: Pragmatic Strategies for Fieldwork amid Violence and Terror.” American Anthropologist 104, no. 1: 208–22. Mills, David, and Missy Morton. Ethnography in Education (2013) Research Methods in Education. Los Angeles ; London: Sage.