Conducting Research in Authoritarian Bureaucracies: Researcher Positionality, Access, Negotiation, Cooperation, Trepidation, and Avoiding the Influence of the Gatekeepers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During Islam Karimov’s presidency in Uzbekistan, between 1991 and 2016, the government had a complex, repressive, and paradoxical relationship with Islam. Widespread persecution, fabricated crimes, and unfair treatment of Muslims were common. Therefore, investigating the relationship between the state and Islam involves significant political risk, which has an intimidating effect on both gatekeepers and participants. Based on the field research I conducted, this paper offers insights about what to expect when conducting research in strictly controlled states like Uzbekistan. Identifying the right gatekeepers who can grant or deny access to research sites, obtaining qualifying permissions, and negotiating and collaborating with gatekeepers are important to gain access to and remain in the relevant research sites for the study. This paper contributes to the literature on conducting qualitative research in authoritarian states. The researcher positionality and their role as an insider or outsider are important parts of such research; however, they also present challenges for researchers. The discussions of reflexivity and the reflexivity of discomfort can guide researchers who face similar challenges in the field. This paper also contributes to the understanding of the importance of considering gatekeeping structures in an effort to advance qualitative research methods and research ethics.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.179 | 0.131 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".