Introduction and interviews by Hassan Bousetta
The context for the first debate of this series are attempts to apply discussions of reflexivity in sociology to the debate on European migrants and ethnic minorities. In many ways this debate echoes the epistemological issues raised by Abdelmalek Sayad in the French literature. On the one hand Sayad shares with Pierre Bourdieu many observations about the production and the status of sociological knowledge. At the same time, he has looked at the relevance of these observations for improving conventional ways of approaching immigrants and immigration, both theoretically and methodologically. According to Sayad, bias that results from researchers personal experience cannot be ignored in their attempts to capture and explain the full meaning of the social life of immigrants. Resulting from the many dimensions of the social encounter between a researcher and immigrants, scientific sociological discourse can run the risk of unwittingly diffusing a distorted knowledge. One of the implications of this observation has often been assumed to be that only ethnic researchers are qualified to understand issues of immigration and ethnic relations; and the same argument can be found in gender studies and generally in the Anglo-American context. But Bourdieu and his many adherents claim that in fact this hurdle can be overcome by providing a `sociology of the sociological eye', in other words a reflexive account. It is this emphasis -some might say obsession- which some French-speaking social scientists place on the philosophy of social research which is the starting point for this debate.
I have chosen as contributors to the debate three social
scientists with long-standing experience in the field. They are
Nouria Ouali (Researcher at the Centre de Sociologie et
d'Economie Régionales, Free University of Brussels), Marco
Martiniello (Centre d'Etude des Migrations de l'Ethnicité et du
Développement and Lecturer at the University of Liège) and
Chann Choenni (Senior Researcher, Research Manager and Policy
Advisor at the B&A Groep, The Hague). What makes the
contributions of these researchers particularly interesting is
that they have conducted research with respondents from their
country of origin. However, as the debate clearly reveals, their
opinions are far from reaching a common consensus.
Generally, how do you view discussions about the stance
of the researcher vis-à-vis his/her subject? How do you
personally handle the relationship between personal experience
and research experience?
Marco Martiniello: In an article published
a few years ago, I asked the question "Faut-il être
un immigré pour étudier l'immigration? Faut-il être un
ethnique pour intervenir dans les relations ethniques?".
I argued that the position of the ethnic researcher studying his
or her group of origin has inherent advantages, but also
disadvantages. Before discussing these in detail, it is important
to place the issues in context. Today in Belgium, there are many
researchers and social workers who are either migrants or
descended from migrants. In a way, there is an increasingly
common socially constructed attitude according to which it is
both normal and logical that an ethnic researcher or an ethnic
social worker should be engaged in the field of migration and
ethnicity. Who else other than a migrant is qualified to analyse
and solve the problems of migrants? The simplicity of this logic
is tempting. However, we need to acknowledge that the problems
attributed to migrants are actually the problems of society as a
whole. Urban violence, racism, discrimination, prostitution,
cultural maladjustment and so on are problems which affect the
whole of society, although they do impacts differently on
different parts of society. The truth is that the ethnic
researcher is not necessarily any closer to these realities than
other researcher.
Nouria Ouali: In my view, the real
problem addressed by this debate is one of the epistemological
`break' (rupture épistémologique). Any social scientist is
always confronted with the necessity of thinking through his/her
own relation to the researched subjects. For a researcher of
migrant origin, there is always a risk of developing affective
and emotional ties. The best way to overcome this is to place
immigrant minorities in a global context and thereby to
acknowledge their subordinate positions. A constructive approach
can only be achieved if this subordination has been analysed and
objectified. I would also call for consideration of the gender
dimension of this subordination. Nevertheless, personal
experience can have substantial implications for research
experience. In my own case, as for many researchers with ties to
a minority group, this issue arose naturally in the course of my
research. In addition, I have been involved in voluntary
Maghrebian organisations. I had to manage this involvement very
carefully, because people often expect you to use your academic
position to relay their claims and defend their positions. There
is a risk of becoming unwillingly involved in an emotional
exchange. Personally, I choose to maintain some distance, so as
to maintain a critical faculty. But once these precautions are
taken, the ethnic researcher often has the opportunity to address
aspects overlooked by a mainstream approach. His/her acquaintance
with the realities of the minority group can sometimes help
him/her raise more relevant opinions.
Chann Choenni: I think that personal
experience is very important for the research experience of
social scientists with an ethnic minority background. This is
particularly so for participant observation for example. The
personal experience of the ethnic researcher gives him/her an
understanding of racism and discrimination. The most difficult
thing for him/her is to portray this experience to the dominant
community through his/her work. In this respect, universalising a
personal experience helps the dominant society understand and
recognise problematic issues. In my experience, however, the
dominant group has difficulty in acknowledging certain problems.
I think that you even risk being marginalized in academic circles
by raising these sensitive issues. Moreover, this kind of
research on discrimination and racism is often unpopular. For
example in the Dutch context demonstrating racism and
discrimination through research runs counter to the myth of Dutch
tolerance.
How far do you think the position of the ethnic minority researcher affects the process of social research and what are in your opinion the main advantages and disadvantages associated with this position?
Marco Martiniello: The main advantages for
ethnic researchers are methodological. During data collection,
for example, an ethnic background can be very helpful. Ethnic
researchers can have privileged relations with immigrant groups,
which can facilitate access to the field. Similar advantages
arise from familiarity with the languages and the physical space
of the researched group. In highly charged situations, for
instance during open ethnic conflicts, the ethnic researcher will
probably be more easily accepted. One can imagine the
difficulties which white researchers would have faced during the
riots of 1991 in downtown Los Angeles, for example. Similarly, a
black researcher would probably not have been welcome in Beverly
Hills at that time. On the other hand, such closeness between a
researcher and his/her subject can also harm the research
process. Firstly, an ethnic researcher can be so familiar with
his/her research area that he/she starts to feel that he/she
knows everything, and may thus become less receptive to
problematic (in the academic sense) aspects of the situation.
Secondly, he /she also risks projecting personal experience into
the study and thus making hasty generalisations. Thirdly, there
is a risk of sentimentalising the research due to affective links
with the researched people. Finally, a disadvantage which is
largely independent of methodology is that the ethnic researcher
can easily be disqualified when his/her research results prove to
be politically unacceptable - a lack of objectivity can be
alleged and attributed to the researcher's origins. In a
nutshell, I do not think that an ethnic background is a necessary
or a priori guarantee of good research in ethnic
relations.
Nouria Ouali: The main disadvantage is
sentimentalism, which is widespread within the Maghrebian
minority, and not only among researchers. But there are of course
also advantages. In my work with youngsters in Brussels, some of
whom were delinquent, I found that my origins helped to create
the necessary climate of trust, and once this trust was
established they showed a surprisingly strong commitment to
participating and to contributing to my research. At another
level, sharing the same language can also be a big advantage in
studying one's own group of origin. Language carries many
meanings beyond the obvious ones, reflecting the whole logic of a
culture. Capturing these meanings gives additional explanatory
value to one's work. However, it is often quite difficult to
catch these meanings. Having ties with a minority group does not
detract from the need for the theoretical process of building
hypotheses and testing them.
Chann Choenni: At a concrete level, minorities often expect you to solve their problems. They do not accept that research should only serve the purpose of academia. Minorities usually expect the results of research to result in benefits and better conditions for them. They also want to shift from an anthropological perspective which tends to exoticize them to a perspective focusing on institutional discrimination, racism and so on. However, switching attention to these aspects can become problematic for ethnic researchers. If you want to do research on ethnic relations in an institution or a company, then your objectivity is disqualified a priori because most employers assume that you will accuse them of discriminating. There is also a problem when you make recommendations which are not implemented, because respondents feel let down.
The ethnic minority researcher is often subject to influence by institutions and communities. How do you handle this problem?
Marco Martiniello: The position of the
ethnic researcher working in the field of migration or ethnic
relations is not easy. He/she is often caught between the devil
of public authorities' expectations and their tendency to appoint
them for the symbolic value of their visibility (les
immigrés de service), and the deep blue sea of ethnic
groups and their claims. For public authorities, there are
advantages in attributing research and social work to ethnic
researchers and social workers. However, insofar as their work
depends on the authority of the State, these people are subject
to control from politicians and bureaucrats. As a consequence,
the appointment of ethnic experts on ethnic matters can be seen
as a means of impeding the development of potentially more
radical approaches among ethnic minorities' representatives. And
in contemporary Belgian society, it is increasingly considered
politically correct to select ethnic researchers and social
workers. As a matter of fact, many ethnic intellectuals and
social workers implicitly strengthen the force of this
politically correct argument. Many of them claim to have a
monopoly on legitimate discourse. Their position is not only that
they have academic rights to these fields but also that they are
the only ones to have these rights. There is a real danger of
creating an ethnic segregation within research and social work
activities, when the richness of social science research and of
social work lies precisely in the pluralism of approach,
perspectives, and sensitivity.
Nouria Ouali: I remember after the
urban unrest of May 1991 in Brussels, being bluntly asked by the
leader of a human rights organisation: "What are you waiting
for? Why don't you solve the problem?" I found this reaction
extremely frustrating. It illustrates that there are indeed
expectations and influences from the dominant society. However, I
continue to assert that, in a democratic setting, the `migrant
problem' should be the responsibility of every citizen. The
`problem of the minority is in fact a problem of the majority
just as the `problem of women' is equally a problem of men. We
should therefore resist commonplace statements which assume that
the problem of migrants should be solved by migrants. While it is
important to recognise the differentiations which are created and
sustained in social life, addressing and solving these issues
does not need to reproduce the differences between people. My
assessment of what has been produced by both immigrant and non
immigrant researchers during the last ten years is extremely
positive. There is a slow but increasing recognition of all of
our work. The issues covered are becoming increasingly central in
contemporary societies, and there is a real need to provide tools
which may help solve people's problems.
Chann Choenni: Ethnic minorities expect ethnic researchers to trigger a process which can eventually provide concrete solutions. Many minority researchers also strongly believe that they enter into an engagement with their community to better their own positions. As a matter of fact, it is often very frustrating when basic recommendations are not implemented. In answer to the question of expectations, I think that in The Netherlands, as in Belgium, this poses a real problem. It might be more acute in The Netherlands, where we have a large amount of unemployment, underachievment in education and involvement in criminal activity among ethnic minorities. Research on these topics is quite difficult to undertake, because as I said it is not always seen as valuable. In The Netherlands, there is a strong notion of tolerance and an assumption that Dutch people do not discriminate. This is partly true, but most people draw the wrong conclusion that discrimination and racism are only minor problems. Within Dutch Universities, for example, there are not enough researchers of ethnic minority background, especially with permanent jobs, who are capable of setting the agenda and undertaking this research. At certain levels in academia, they are blocked from progressing further. Many ethnic researchers are now doing research on criminal activity whereas the need is for more research on obstacles to labour market participation, on employers, on institutional discrimination, on racism and so on. Furthermore, a large reduction in education budgets is expected soon. In the future it will become even more difficult for ethnic researchers to take initiatives in this field. It will become harder to sustain competition with the best researchers of the dominant community. My view is that universities and higher education institutes need to think more seriously about ethnic minority policies, ethnic monitoring and positive action programmes.
Although this debate has focused on the specific question of ethnic minority researchers, it clearly has implications for any researcher in the field of migration and ethnic relations. I believe that questioning one's backgrounds (national, ethnic or other) is a way of avoiding unconscious ethnocentrism. Your comments on and responses to this and forthcoming debates would be welcome.
Hassan Bousetta,
the editor of the Debate section, can be contacted at ERCOMER.
His e-mail is bousetta@fss.uu.nl
[ INDEX || NEXT ARTICLE || PREVIOUS ARTICLE || MERGER HOMEPAGE ]
Last updated: May 31, 1997
Copyright © 1995-97 by ERCOMER (ERCOMERsecr@fss.uu.nl).
All Rights Reserved.