Abstract
There is a striking contrast between the amount of time researchers spend thinking about and addressing questions of language in relation to fieldwork, and the little guidance provided on this matter in methods textbooks and research programmes. This chapter analyses the challenges of fieldwork in the former Yugoslavia in relation to and through the lens of language skills, with a focus on researchers working within politics and international relations. The chapter addresses questions such as: how do language skills change the researcher’s experience of the field, their relationship with interviewees and their own positionality? How do they affect the kind of methods used, research findings and their interpretation? What are the ethics of language learning during fieldwork? What motivates PhD students to undertake expensive and long periods of training on the side of the demands of their research degree? The findings presented here are based on interviews conducted with researchers with experience of doing fieldwork in the former Yugoslavia, who had to consider such questions and decide whether to learn a local language, work with interpreters and translators, and/or carry out interviews in English or other non-Yugoslav languages.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
Such reflections seem more common in other disciplines, such as geography. See Watson (2004).
- 2.
This is particularly important in cases where visual prompts are the main means of communication, such as for interviewee J.
- 3.
None of the interviewees did fieldwork in Slovenia or Macedonia, as mentioned in the introduction.
- 4.
Participants noted the importance of speaking and listening practice, and even interview practice, to prepare for fieldwork.
- 5.
One participant said they were asked whether they would learn the language while interviewing for a PhD position, but found it problematic that this was mostly left implicit throughout the application process.
- 6.
An emblematic quote on this: ‘Without him I couldn’t have done the research, because he translated and transcribed a lot of important interviews of my PhD’ (Interview F).
- 7.
In the former Yugoslav region, it was not uncommon for foreign researchers to be accused of being spies during socialist times. Anthropologists Berit Backer noted in her ethnography of Albanian Kosovar communities, carried out in in the 1970s, how many of her informants told her they originally thought her to be a foreign agent (2003: 30).
- 8.
I thank Denisa Kostovicova for mentioning this in her keynote at a BISA South East Europe Working Group event held at LSE in 2018.
- 9.
See also Interviews F, S, W. One interviewee also saw language learning was a way to ‘anchor them’ to the region at a time when they could not travel to the region (due to COVID-19).
References
Backer, B. (2003). Behind stone walls: Changing household organization among the Albanians of Kosova. Peja: Dukagini Balkan Books.
Baker, C. (2012). Prosperity without security: The precarity of interpreters in postsocialist, postconflict Bosnia-Herzegovina. Slavic Review, 71(4), 849–872.
Baker, C. (2014). The local workforce of international intervention in the Yugoslav successor states: ‘Precariat’or ‘projectariat’? Towards an agenda for future research. International Peacekeeping, 21(1), 91–106.
Baker, C. (2019). Interviewing for research on languages and war. In M. Kelly, H. Footitt, & M. Salama-Carr (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of languages and conflict (pp. 157–179). Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
Bøås, M., & Bliesemann de Guevara, B. (Eds.). (2020). Doing fieldwork in areas of international intervention: A guide to research in violent and closed contexts. Bristol: Bristol University Press.
Carabelli, G., & Deiana, M. A. (2019). Researching in proximity to war: A love story. Journal of Narrative Politics, 5(2), 91–101.
Chakravarty, A. (2012). ‘Partially trusting’ field relationships: Opportunities and constraints of fieldwork in Rwanda’s postconflict setting. Field Methods, 24(3), 251–271.
Cole, L. (2020). Tears and laughter: Affective failure and mis/recognition in feminist IR research. In K. Kusić & J. Záhora (Eds.), Fieldwork as failure: Living and knowing in the field of international relations (pp. 76–89). Bristol: E-International Relations Publishing.
Cronin-Furman, K., & Lake, M. (2018). Ethics abroad: Fieldwork in fragile and violent contexts. PS: Political Science & Politics, 51(3), 607–614.
Bujra, J. (2006). Lost in translation? The use of interpreters in fieldwork. In V. Desai & R. Potter (Eds.), Doing development research (pp. 172–188). London: Sage.
Driscoll, J., & Schuster, C. (2018). Spies like us. Ethnography, 19(3), 411–430.
Fuji, L. A. (2010). Shades of truth and lies: Interpreting testimonies of war and violence. Journal of Peace Research, 47(2), 231–241.
Gent, D. (2014). Finding fluency in the field: Ethical challenges of conducting research in another language. Experiences from fieldwork on the solar energy sector in Nicaragua. In J. Lunn (Ed.), Fieldwork in the Global South: Ethical challenges and dilemmas (pp. 49–58). Abingdon: Routledge.
Gerring, J. (2007). Case study research: Principles and practices. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Guillemin, M., & Gillam, L. (2004). Ethics, reflexivity, and ‘ethically important moments’ in research. Qualitative inquiry, 10(2), 261–280.
Halperin, S., & Heath, O. (2016). Political research: Methods and practical skills. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jennings, K. M., & Bøås, M. (2015). Transactions and interactions: Everyday life in the peacekeeping economy. Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding, 9(3), 281–295.
Knott, E. (2019). Beyond the field: Ethics after fieldwork in politically dynamic contexts. Perspectives on Politics, 17(1), 140–153.
Kusić, K. (2020). I don’t know what to do with myself: ‘I’ as a tool, a voice and an object in writing. In K. Kusić & J. Záhora (Eds.), Fieldwork as failure: Living and knowing in the field of international relations (pp. 149–161). Bristol: E-International Relations Publishing.
Kusić, K., & Záhora, J. (Eds.). (2020). Fieldwork as failure: Living and knowing in the field of international relations. Bristol: E-International Relations Publishing.
Lai, D. (2020). A different form of intervention? Revisiting the role of researchers in post-war contexts. In M. Bøås & B. Bliesemann De Guevara (Eds.), Doing fieldwork in areas of international intervention: A guide to research in violent and closed contexts (pp. 171–183). Bristol: Bristol University Press.
Lamont, C. (2015). Research methods in international relations. London: Sage.
Lamont, C., & Boduszyńki, M. (2020). Research methods in politics and international relations. London: Sage.
Leck, H. (2014). Whose voice? Ethics and dynamics of working with interpreters and research assistants. Experiences from fieldwork on climate change adaptation in South Africa. In J. Lunn (Ed.), Fieldwork in the Global South: Ethical challenges and dilemmas (pp. 59–68). Abingdon: Routledge.
Owens, G. R. (2003). What! Me a spy? Intrigue and reflexivity in Zanzibar. Ethnography, 4(1), 122–144.
Price, D. (2000, November 2). Anthropologists as spies. The Nation. https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/anthropologists-spies/. Accessed 29 June 2020.
Price, D. (2016). Cold War anthropology: The CIA, the Pentagon and the growth of dual use anthropology. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
REF. (2014). Overview report by Main Panel C and Sub-panels 16 to 26, January 2015. https://results.ref.ac.uk/Results/ByUoa/21. Accessed 29 June 2020.
Rivetti, P., & Saeidi, S. (2018). What is so special about field research in Iran? Doing fieldwork in religiously charged authoritarian settings. In J. A. Clark & F. Cavatorta (Eds.), Political science research in the Middle East and North Africa: Methodological and ethical challenges (pp. 35–45). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Russo, A., & Strazzari, F. (2020). The politics of safe research in violent and illiberal contexts. In M. Bøås & B. Bliesemann De Guevara (Eds.), Doing fieldwork in areas of international intervention: A guide to research in violent and closed contexts (pp. 75–92). Bristol: Bristol University Press.
Schwartz-Shea, P., & Yanow, D. (2012). Interpretive research design: Concepts and processes. New York and London: Routledge.
Summa, R. (2020). What might have been lost: Fieldwork and the challenges of translation. In K. Kusić & J. Záhora (Eds.), Fieldwork as failure: Living and knowing in the field of international relations (pp. 140–148). Bristol: E-International Relations Publishing.
Watson, E. E. (2004). ‘What a dolt one is:’ Language learning and fieldwork in geography. Area, 36(1), 59–68.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Lai, D. (2021). Stranci: Political Research and Language Learning in the Former Yugoslavia. In: Radeljić, B., González-Villa, C. (eds) Researching Yugoslavia and its Aftermath. Societies and Political Orders in Transition. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-70343-1_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-70343-1_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-70342-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-70343-1
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)