Field Research Methods in the Middle East

Abstract

I n recent years, a growing chorus of voices in the political science discipline has become concerned with the balance among alternative methodological approaches in empirical re search and publications. Accordingly, these scholars have issued a call to further develop and refine rigorous methods for qualitative studies, in contrast to studies that rely on quan titative methods and formal modeling (Bennett, Barth, and Rutherford 2003; Yanow 2003; George and Bennett 2005). My own interest and reason for conducting the following survey is rooted in the observation, even frustration, that the literature on qualitative research meth ods largely focuses on democratic and not on authoritarian regimes or the East in particular.' Research in the East is clearly essential and has received increased attention since the terrorist attacks of 9-11, but given how critical this work is and will con tinue to be in coming years, what are the chal lenges? Do qualitative methodological tools by need to be adapted for Janine A. Clark, research in the University of Guelh ,East? And, if so, how? Broadly speaking, this symposium seeks to address these questions by examining the top ics, techniques, and challenges of scholars con ducting field work in the East, and to elucidate the ways in which they can contribute to the study of qualitative research methods. The experiences of political scientists research ing in the East are especially germane for discussions on qualitative methods, as re searchers must contend with political authori tarianism and violence, anti-Americanism, and presumably deep cultural differences related to religion and, as a result, gender. Given these challenges, how scholars undertake field work in the region, the qualitative methods they use, and how they overcome the obstacles they en counter are of interest and value to political scientists in general. Indeed, a second goal of this symposium is to examine the extent to which Middle Eastern exceptionalism is valid and impacts upon the field research process. Toward these ends, during the 2004-2005 academic year I conducted an email survey of political scientists conducting field research in the East. The qualitative survey had 25 open-ended questions inquiring into: the re spondents' research topics; countries in which they conducted field work; reasons for the choice of countries; types of primary sources utilized in the field; interview techniques; the use of surveys; confidentiality and ethical is sues encountered in the field; anticipated and unanticipated difficulties and the extent to which these were country or region specific; and, the degree to which respondents were well trained for field work by their political science departments (see Appendix 1). The survey was sent out to three list-servers with an exclusive or high percentage of political scientists study ing the East. The first, MESAPOLISCI, is a list run by the East Studies Association (MESA), the North American learned society for schol ars, educators, and those interested in the study of the region. As a constituent society of the American Council of Learned Societies, the National Council of Area Studies Associations, and a member of the National Humanities Alli ance, MESA is the most widely recognized association for the study of the East, with a total membership of over 2,600. Al though, on the one hand, MESA's membership is not wholly inclusive of all academics who study the region and, on the other, it includes n n-academics, MESA's membership directory serves as the most accurate representation of academics studying the East available. A search in the membership base for all mem bers who cite their discipline as political sci ence yields a count of 418. As many political scientists are engaged in research that relies on secondary data available in North America and/or Europe, the number of political scien tists who do field work in the region is smaller. MESAPOLISCI is a list specifically for MESA members who are political scientists and has 140 subscribers. The other two lists to which I sent the survey were: H-MIDEAST-POLITICS@H-NET. MSU.EDU, a network on contemporary E stern affairs based at Michigan State Univer sity with 547 subscribers; and ICAMESNET, a list for East area studies specialists, including political scientists, based at McGill University in Montreal with 157 subscribers. In addition, based on the MESA membership directory, I directly targeted political scientists by sending them the survey to ensure a broad cross-section of responses reflecting seniority (and presumably experience) and countries of research. The degree to which the memberships