Möchten Sie über diese Zeitschrift informiert bleiben? Klicken Sie bitte auf die Buttons, um unsere Alerts zu abonnieren.
Möchten Sie über diese Zeitschrift informiert bleiben? Klicken Sie bitte auf die Buttons, um unsere Alerts zu abonnieren.
Expanding boundaries: Unmaking and remaking secrecy in field research
in Political Anthropological Research on International Social Sciences (PARISS)Search for other papers by Nina Klimburg-Witjes in
Current site
Google Scholar
Search for other papers by Matthias Leese in
Current site
Google Scholar
Search for other papers by Paul Trauttmansdorff in
Current site
Google Scholar
Abstract
This paper empirically retraces and conceptualizes secrecy in the study of security. Building on 27 qualitative, semi-structured interviews with social scientists about their field research experiences, we use Gieryn’s concept of “boundary work” to rethink secrecy not as a self-evident separator between clearly demarcated spheres but as something that is negotiated, suspended, or circumvented in social situations. A boundary perspective allows us to highlight how contextualized social interactions draw and redraw lines between what can be known and what remains classified. Our analysis identifies three ways in which boundaries around secrecy can be expanded: fallibility, co-optation, and ambiguity. Explicating and empirically substantiating these forms of boundary work portrays secrecy as continuously performed and reconfigured. The paper contributes to current debates about field research by providing a different conceptual angle: one that favours performativity rather than individual capacity to reflect how access to security sites and actors comes into being.
Kauf
Sofortzugang erwerben (PDF-Download und unbegrenzter Online-Zugang):
Institutszugang
Melden Sie sich mit Open Athens, Shibboleth oder Ihren institutionellen Anmeldedaten an.
Persönliche Anmeldung
Melden Sie sich mit Ihrem brill.com-Konto an
-
Aradau, Claudia, Jef Huysmans, Andrew W. Neal, and Nadine Voelkner, eds. Critical Security Methods: New Frameworks for Analysis. London/New York: Routledge, 2015.
-
Baez, Benjamin. “Confidentiality in Qualitative Research: Reflections on Secrets, Power and Agency.” Qualitative Research 2, no. 1 (2002): 35–58.
-
Baldwin, David A. “The Concept of Security.” Review of International Studies 23, no. 1 (1997): 5–26.
-
Balmer, Brian. Secrecy and Science: A Historical Sociology of Biological and Chemical Warfare. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing, 2012.
-
Battilana, Julie. “The Enabling Role of Social Position in Diverging from the Institutional Status Quo: Evidence from the UK National Health Service.” Organization Science 22, no. 4 (2011): 817–34.
-
Bauman, Zygmunt, Didier Bigo, Paulo Esteves, Elspeth Guild, Vivienne Jabri, David Lyon, and R. B. J. Walker. “After Snowden: Rethinking the Impact of Surveillance.” International Political Sociology 8, no. 2 (2014): 121–44.
-
Best, Jacqueline. “Bureaucratic Ambiguity.” Economy and Society 41, no. 1 (2012): 84–106.
-
Bigo, Didier. “Security and Immigration: Toward a Critique of the Governmentality of Unease.” Alternatives: Global, Local, Political 27, no. 1 (2002): 63–92.
-
Bosma, Esmé, Marieke de Goede, and Polly Pallister-Wilkins. “Introduction: Navigating Secrecy in Security Research.” In Secrecy and Methods in Security Research: A Guide to Qualitative Fieldwork, edited by Marieke de Goede, Esmé Bosma and Polly Pallister-Wilkins, 1–27. London: Routledge, 2019.
-
Bryman, Alan. Social Research Methods. 4th Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.
-
Bucher, Silke V., Samia Chreim, Ann Langley, and Trish Reay. “Contestation about Collaboration: Discursive Boundary Work among Professions.” Organization Studies 37, no. 4 (2016): 497–522.
-
Butler, Judith. “Performative Agency.” Journal of Cultural Economy 3, no. 2 (2010): 147–61.
-
Butler, Judith. Precarious Life: The Powers of Mourning and Violence. London/New York: Verso, 2004.
-
Buzan, Barry. People, States and Fear: An Agenda for International Security Studies in the Post-Cold War Era. Boulder: Rienner, 1991.
-
Buzan, Barry, Ole Wæver, and Jaap de Wilde. Security: A New Framework for Analysis. Boulder: Rienner, 1998.
-
Carlson, Matt. “Metajournalistic Discourse and the Meanings of Journalism: Definitional Control, Boundary Work, and Legitimation.” Communication Theory 26, no. 4 (2016): 349–68.
-
de Goede, Marieke, Esmé Bosma, and Polly Pallister-Wilkins, eds. Secrecy and Methods in Security Research: A Guide to Qualitative Fieldwork. London: Routledge, 2019.
-
de Lint, Willem, and Sirpa Virta. “Security in Ambiguity: Towards a Radical Security Politics.” Theoretical Criminology 8, no. 4 (2004): 465–89.
-
Dijstelbloem, Huub, and Annalisa Pelizza. “The State is The Secret: For a Relational Approach to The Study of Border and Mobility Control in Europe.” In Secrecy and Methods in Security Research: A Guide to Qualitative Fieldwork, edited by Marieke de Goede, Esmé Bosma and Polly Pallister-Wilkins, 48–62. London: Routledge, 2019.
-
Florini, Ann, ed. The Right to Know: Transparency for an Open World. New York/Chichester: Columbia University Press, 2007.
-
Gauchat, Gordon. “The Cultural Authority of Science: Public Trust and Acceptance of Organized Science.” Public Understanding of Science 20, no. 6 (2010): 751–70.
-
Gieryn, Thomas F. “Boundaries of Science.” In Handbook of Science and Technology Studies (Revised Edition), edited by Sheila Jasanoff, Gerald E. Markle, James Petersen and Trevor J. Pinch, 393–443. Thousand Oaks/London/New Delhi: Sage, 2001.
-
Gieryn, Thomas F. “Boundary-Work and the Demarcation of Science from Non-Science: Strains and Interests in Professional Ideologies of Scientists.” American Sociological Review 48, no. 6 (1983): 781–95.
-
Gieryn, Thomas F. Cultural Boundaries of Science: Credibility on the Line. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999.
-
Gieryn, Thomas F., and Anne E. Figert. “Scientists Protect their Cognitive Authority: The Status Degradation Ceremony of Sir Cyril Burt.” In The Knowledge Society: The Growing Impact of Scientific Knowledge on Social Relations, edited by Gernot Böhme and Nico Stehr, 67–86. Dordrecht/Boston/Lancaster/Tokyo: Reidel, 1986.
-
Gusterson, Hugh. “Ethnographic Research.” In Qualitative Methods in International Relations. A Pluralist Guide, edited by Audie Klotz and Deepa Prakash. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008.
-
Herzfeld, Michael. “The Performance of Secrecy: Domesticity and Privacy in Public Spaces.” 2009, no. 175 (2009): 135–62.
-
Hilgartner, Stephen. Science on Stage: Expert Advice as Public Drama. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2000.
-
Horn, Eva. “Logics of Political Secrecy.” Theory, Culture & Society 28, no. 8 (2011): 103–22.
-
Hynek, Nik, and David Chandler. “No Emancipatory Alternative, No Critical Security Studies.” Critical Studies on Security 1, no. 1 (2013): 46–63.
-
Jones, Graham M. “Secrecy.” Annual Review of Anthropology 43, no. 1 (2014): 53–69.
-
Kaiser, Robert J. “Performativity and the Eventfulness of Bordering Practices.” In A Companion to Border Studies, edited by Thomas M. Wilson and Donnan Hastings, 522–37. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2012.
-
Kearns, Oliver. “State Secrecy, Public Assent, and Representational Practices of U.S. Covert Action.” Critical Studies on Security 4, no. 3 (2016): 276–90.
-
Klimburg-Witjes, Nina. “Shifting Articulations of Space and Security: Boundary Work in European Space Policy Making.” European Security 30, no. 4 (2021): 526–46.
-
Kurowska, Xymena. “When One Door Closes, Another One Opens? The Ways And Byways Of Denied Access, Or A Central European Liberal In Fieldwork Failure.” Journal of Narrative Politics 5, no. 2 (2019): 71–85.
-
Kušić, Katarina, and Jakub Záhora, eds. Fieldwork as Failure: Living and Knowing in the Field of International Relations. Bristol: E-International Relations Publishing, 2020.
-
Leese, Matthias. “Die Sache mit der Technologie: Zur Neuordnung eines analytischen Bereichs in den International Beziehungen.” Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen 28, no. 1 (2021): 151–74.
-
Leese, Matthias, Kristoffer Lidén, and Blagovesta Nikolova. “Putting Critique to Work: Ethics in EU Security Research.” Security Dialogue 50, no. 1 (2019): 59–76.
-
Masco, Joseph P. “The Secrecy/Threat Matrix.” In Bodies as Evidence: Security, Knowledge, and Power, edited by Mark Maguire, Ursula Rao and Nils Zurawski, 175–200. Durham/London: Duke University Press, 2018.
-
Monahan, Torin, and Jill A. Fisher. “Strategies for Obtaining Access to Secretive or Guarded Organizations.” Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 44, no. 6 (2015): 709–36.
-
Murakami Wood, David, and Steve Wright. “Editorial: Before and After Snowden.” Surveillance & Society 13, no. 2 (2015): 132–38.
-
Olesen, Thomas. “The Politics of Whistleblowing in Digitalized Societies.” Politics & Society 47, no. 2 (2019): 277–97.
-
Rappert, Brian, and Chandré Gould. Dis-eases of Secrecy: Tracing History, Memory and Justice. Johannesburg: Jacana, 2017.
-
Roberts, Alasdair. Blacked Out: Government Secrecy in the Information Age. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.
-
Salter, Mark B., and Can E. Mutlu, eds. Research Methods in Critical Security Studies: An Introduction. Milton Park/New York: Routledge, 2013.
-
Schatz, Edward, ed. Political Ethnography: What Immersion Contributes to the Study of Power. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press, 2009.
-
Scott, Joan W. “The Evidence of Experience.” Critical Inquiry 17, no. 4 (1991): 773–97.
-
Strauss, Anselm L., and Juliet Corbin. Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. Newbury Park/London/New Delhi: Sage, 1990.
-
Tilley, Liz, and Kate Woodthorpe. “Is it the End for Anonymity as we Know it? A Critical Examination of the Ethical Principle of Anonymity in the Context of 21st Century Demands on the Qualitative Researcher.” Qualitative Research 11, no. 2 (2011): 197–212.
-
Turner, Mandy, Neil Cooper, and Michael Pugh. “Institutionalised and Co-opted: Why Human Security Has Lost Its Way.” In Critical Perspectives on Human Security: Rethinking Emancipation and Power in International Relations, edited by David Chandler and Nik Hynek, 83–96. London/New York: Routledge, 2010.
-
Vogel, Kathleen M., Brian Balmer, Sam Weiss Evans, Inga Kroener, Miwao Matsumoto, and Brian Rappert. “Knowledge and Security.” In The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, edited by Ulrike Felt, Rayvon Fouché, Clark A. Miller and Laurel Smith-Doerr, 973–1002. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2017.
-
Walters, William. “Secrecy, Publicity and the Milieu of Security.” Dialogues in Human Geography 5, no. 3 (2015): 287–90.
-
Walters, William, and Alex Luscombe. “Postsecrecy and Place: Secrecy Research Amidst the Ruins of an Atomic Weapons Research Facility.” In Secrecy and Methods in Security Research: A Guide to Qualitative Fieldwork, edited by Marieke de Goede, Esmé Bosma and Polly Pallister-Wilkins, 63–78. London: Routledge, 2019.
-
Wildavsky, Aaron. Speaking Truth to Power: The Art and Craft of Policy Analysis. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1979.
-
Zietsma, Charlene, and Thomas B. Lawrence. “Institutional Work in the Transformation of an Organizational Field: The Interplay of Boundary Work and Practice Work.” Administrative Science Quarterly 55, no. 2 (2010): 189–221.
| Insgesamt | Letzte 365 Tage | In den letzten 30 Tagen | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Aufrufe von Kurzbeschreibungen | 1288 | 234 | 28 |
| Gesamttextansichten | 68 | 8 | 0 |
| PDF-Downloads | 126 | 20 | 0 |
Expanding boundaries: Unmaking and remaking secrecy in field research
in Political Anthropological Research on International Social Sciences (PARISS)Search for other papers by Nina Klimburg-Witjes in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Matthias Leese in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Paul Trauttmansdorff in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Abstract
This paper empirically retraces and conceptualizes secrecy in the study of security. Building on 27 qualitative, semi-structured interviews with social scientists about their field research experiences, we use Gieryn’s concept of “boundary work” to rethink secrecy not as a self-evident separator between clearly demarcated spheres but as something that is negotiated, suspended, or circumvented in social situations. A boundary perspective allows us to highlight how contextualized social interactions draw and redraw lines between what can be known and what remains classified. Our analysis identifies three ways in which boundaries around secrecy can be expanded: fallibility, co-optation, and ambiguity. Explicating and empirically substantiating these forms of boundary work portrays secrecy as continuously performed and reconfigured. The paper contributes to current debates about field research by providing a different conceptual angle: one that favours performativity rather than individual capacity to reflect how access to security sites and actors comes into being.
| Insgesamt | Letzte 365 Tage | In den letzten 30 Tagen | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Aufrufe von Kurzbeschreibungen | 1288 | 234 | 28 |
| Gesamttextansichten | 68 | 8 | 0 |
| PDF-Downloads | 126 | 20 | 0 |
