HOW TO
As the conflict deepened in Syria post-2011, Kheder Khaddour turned to reporting and research.
His meticulous work quickly surfaced as offering some of the most valuable and
durable insights, standing out in a flood of instant commentary. A scholar at
the Carnegie Middle East Center, he focuses on civil-military relations and
social boundaries.
Kheder, what are the different phases of your research process?
First, I usually
start a research project independently from any specific publication format—whether
a think tank briefing, an academic paper or an essay. I let the research
question take shape, develop my hypothesis and arguments, before the
constraints of a particular format come in to curb my thoughts. Format should
be a means, not an end.
The research
question emerges in the course of data collection. This process, in my case,
takes approximately four months, during which I investigate different aspects
of the research topic. I put together a questionnaire organized around “units
of analysis” (wahidat al-tahlil) in order to map out the field of study and
chart a number of landmarks. For example, a unit of analysis may unpack a
political institution, in which case I will look into membership, from senior
to lower ranks; the social environment of members (family ties, living
conditions, habits, etc.); and whatever data sets describe the institution
itself, such as its geographic realities and organizational makeup, or the
areas of overlap with other institutions. Later on, to formulate the research question
itself, I look at the intersection of these variables.
If the initial focus is geographic rather than institutional—a neighborhood or city, say—the process is similar but draws on somewhat different variables. On one side, I will explore the population’s social and political fabric—local institutions, local elites, channels for political representation, etc. On the other, I will survey the context in which such social and political life takes place—locations, historical legacies, population size, economic activities, and so on. All the information I gather goes into an Excel spreadsheet, which distributes it into relevant categories while bringing it all together in one place. Whenever possible, I collect data through my own fieldwork; alternatively, I use a network of trusted contacts to do so.
The format should be a means, not an end
The mapping phase
leads to the research question, which typically comes into light in ways that
are unpredictable and hard to systematize. The process is chaotic but vibrant,
involving a back-and-forth movement between a range of conversations with
colleagues, people living in the field and other sources of inspiration, and
reading-up on relevant literature. These conversations and readings allow me to
test the validity of hypotheses as I form them. Basically I stage a dialogue
between these various voices, the end-result of which is a solid conceptual
framework that contains several hypotheses supported by empirical data.
In what way does
the region’s political culture, in connection to information collecting and
research, affect your fieldwork?
Research is often interpreted as a violation of privacy
In the Arab world,
the process of acquiring information is broadly understood as a security breach
rather than as knowledge generation. People, by and large, ascribe information
a security-value (amn) rather than a knowledge-value (alim). “Research” and
“search” are conflated in one word (bahth) that literally means looking for
something that is hidden. Research, also, is often interpreted as a violation
of privacy, placing the researcher in front of a wall he can only overcome
through the delicate process of trust-building. This is one, essential thing
that cannot be learned at school; it depends on our individual personality and
sensitivity, and will only improve with experience.
Does the fact that
you are from the region in question play a role, positive or negative, in your
research?
Being Syrian does
not, in and of itself, grant any particular legitimacy to my research on Syria
specifically or the Arab world generally. Not all Syrians can be researchers,
and not all researchers on Syria must be Syrian. Simply, the process through
which a native researcher conducts research on his own society is different
from that of a foreigner. To keep my work as objective as possible, I strive to
reach beyond my immediate social networks (relatives, friends from same
locality, etc.), and make a point of looking even at familiar phenomena through
new lenses.
Paradoxically, the
greatest challenge in breaking out of your own bubble is, precisely, the rest
of the world. Syrians and outside observers expect you to speak and write from
a narrow perspective, as if you had to represent a specific constituency, and
could only be interested in, and qualified to discuss, things closest to home.
Therefore, the challenge is twofold: on one side, you must make the decision to
step over your social boundaries; on the other, you must also surmount external
forms of stigma that constantly push you back within those very same confines.
17 May 2017
Illustration credit: Enigma plugboard by Bob Lord on Wikipedia / public domain.