To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
How can we regulate private power in a globalized, digitized world where state-centered sovereignty, territorial boundaries, and traditional legal frameworks fall short? This introductory chapter provides an overview of the book, its arguments, methodology, and contributions, addressing the urgent need for accountability mechanisms to tame the increasingly unilateral global governance by a handful of corporations. Focusing on content moderation, it examines two key case studies: the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA) and Meta’s Oversight Board. Both exemplify “emulation,” where public law mechanisms, particularly constitutional and administrative, are adapted to private governance.
Analyzing these “Emulated Guardians”–institutions borrowing the legitimacy of courts while operating in private or hybrid contexts–this book highlights their reliance on performativity and public perception to assert authority. Through interdisciplinary analysis, empirical findings, and expert interviews, the book reveals the ambivalent outcomes of emulation: promising tools for accountability yet sometimes lacking practical efficacy. Ultimately, this work frames these mechanisms as harbingers of new accountability norms, arguing that governance in the digital age demands not only novel institutions but also robust public engagement. It situates these developments within broader debates about power, legitimacy, and the evolving role of public law ideals in globalized, networked environments.
This chapter introduces the broad conceptual framework of the processes of subjectivisation within global discourses and connects it to agency. It introduces the idea of situational agency and draws upon Mahmood’s work to suggest that agency can be found in the ‘inhabitation of norms’. the chapter provides a background context to post-genocide Rwandan policies, introducing the key agenda of unity and reconciliation, and presents Rwanda as a post-colonial state. Finally, this chapter problematises the collection and interpretation of field data in a post-colonial setting.
This chapter situates reflexivity and positionality as central to critical race social work praxis, centering the role of storytelling and counterstorytelling in dismantling dominant narratives. This chapter challenges social work’s historic alignment with neutrality, professionalism, and liberal reform while exposing its entanglement with racism, capitalism, and colonialism. By engaging first-person narratives and counternarratives, the section emphasizes how social workers can critically interrogate power, privilege, and positionality across micro, mezzo, and macro levels of practice. Ultimately, this section invites readers into an ongoing practice of reflexivity, self-disclosure, and communal care, positioning social work as a deeply political and justice-oriented profession.
This chapter provides a critical reflection on past and current research on ethnic and racial discrimination and youth development with recommendations for future research directions. First and foremost, I emphasize the need for positionality, reflexivity, and representational ethics to avoid advancing false or problematic narratives and to advance research that is more transparent and accountable. It also is necessary to distinguish and better contextualize ethnic discrimination (rooted in ethnocentrism) and racial discrimination (rooted in modern imperialism and White supremacy) rather than conflate these two constructs and measure them in ahistorical ways. These considerations require researchers to select or develop critically appropriate measurement tools, moving beyond commonly used measures that may not be relevant or appropriate to all racialized groups. Ethnic and racial discrimination during youth development requires special considerations, as discrimination coincides with identity formation and pubertal development. Yet there remains limited research on the ways in which these developmental tasks and experiences interplay. Given the complexities of how ethnic and racial discrimination manifest during youth development, researchers may want to consider novel methods like storytelling to embody discriminatory experiences and strengthen ecological validity.
A long-standing debate in oral history centres on the researcher’s positionality as either an ‘insider’ or ‘outsider’ to the research participants. This comment argues that insider status is not a stable but a relational category, one that must be critically interrogated to avoid privileging insider perspectives. Reflecting on thirteen life-history interviews with South Asian scientists who undertook postgraduate training at post-war British universities, I examine how the normative assumption of a shared ‘South Asianness’ shaped my negotiation of the insider/outsider positionality continuum. My positionality as a South Asian researcher in the UK studying previous generations of South Asian students certainly reduced intersubjective distance with interviewees. However, the presumption of insider status also exposes the instability of identity-based claims to authority. The immense heterogeneity of nationality, language, age, class, gender, occupation, educational and migration trajectories of the interviewees complicated any straightforward claim to insider status on my part. By examining how shared identity both enabled and complicated the research encounter, this comment destabilises the insider/outsider dialectic underpinning research positionality, arguing instead that positionality is a shifting intersubjective condition, constituted through an iterative process of reflexive praxis within historical research and analysis.
Engineering design applications that emphasize positive societal impacts are growing in popularity, yet often overlook the critical importance of engineering designers’ and stakeholders’ positionalities – their unique identities, experiences and resulting perspectives and social positions relative to others – in shaping design decisions. Insufficient attention to positionality can limit designers’ abilities to navigate complex problem contexts, engage diverse perspectives and address power dynamics, ultimately constraining the effectiveness and equity of design outcomes. However, little is known about how designers conceptualize and account for positionality in practice, particularly in the early stages of design when problem framing decisions are made. Therefore, this study explored how 10 engineering students and 10 practitioners conceptualized positionality in the initial stages of design for “social good,” where its impacts are especially pronounced. Each participant engaged in a written reflection and semistructured interview. Key findings include limitations in participants’ available language and strategies for accounting for positionality in design processes, particularly in the early stages, and that participants’ learning about positionality was largely driven by exposure to diverse identities and contexts. These insights highlight the limitations of engineering training and skillsets in design-for-social-good and emphasize the need for strategic, intentional consideration of positionality in design practice and education.
This article draws on Roger Cotterrell’s framework for the sociological interpretation of the concept of trust to expound on, via examples from an empirical project in South Africa, methods for the empirical study of an informal environmental economy. Three distinct challenges encountered during fieldwork on the informal waste economy in South Africa are used to make a case for more robust empirical research methods – positionality, observation and the production of a documentary film, a non-traditional output. Each challenge concerns the relationship of trust between researcher and research respondent. The article concludes that these challenges can be addressed and managed via the appropriate socio-legal methodological framework. The article’s findings will have relevance for those embarking on an empirical study of the informal environmental economy, and for those interested in socio-legal methodology more generally.
This chapter situates the study within a broader historical, political, and scholarly context, and presents the methodology upon which it draws. First, the chapter sketches the history of Gambella as a site of encounter between the Ethiopian state and Nuer society and examines the historical and anthropological scholarships on Ethiopia’s peripheries and on the eastern frontier of Nuerland. It then discusses my own encounter with Gambella, the context and political environment in which research took place, the local religious landscape and the place of Messianic Jews in it, and the ‘data collection’ methods and research approach deployed. The final sections of the chapter explore my positionality in Gambella, as a Jewish Israeli researcher among Messianic Jews, and the sort of intersubjective encounters that informed this study.
Although “law” is the primary common ground in law and society scholarship, many of us are trained in other, complementary academic disciplines, which give us unique perspectives into the interaction between law and society. How can we employ these perspectives in ways that help us effectively speak to our various disciplinary audiences? In this short essay, I draw from my own experiences navigating professional life in the academy to explore how my engagement with law and society scholarship has helped me navigate scholarly life between law and anthropology.
While the rest of the book takes the form of a constitutional law text largely based on discussion of theory and court precedent, the prologue provides the lived, empirical day-to-day context out of which the project arose by sharing the stories of the ordinary people on whom the topics discussed have primary bearing. Moreover, given the grounded, ethnographic method from which the prologue’s scene-setting stories draw and the ‘constitutional ethnography’ to be applied more broadly as a methodology throughout the book, the prologue draws inspiration from qualitative scholarship’s emphasis on the need for researchers to state their positionality vis-à-vis the research. The prologue therefore describes the global transdisciplinary approach adopted in and through the book project which primarily builds upon critical Black, Indigenous, postcolonial and decolonial scholarship developed in the Global South and by marginalised communities in the Global North.
This article reflects on the significance of Ukraine’s European choice—a series of pro-European political choices that both Ukraine’s citizens and its political elites gradually committed to, and which crystallized during and after the 2013 Euromaidan protest. Russia refused to accept Ukraine’s European choice, starting the first wave of aggression against Ukraine as soon as the Euromaidan won in early 2014, and ultimately launching the full-scale invasion in February 2022. As Ukrainians defend their European choice, important lessons can be drawn from their resistance to Russia’s aggression. We identify three lessons for Europe and three lessons for political science.
This article reflects on a pedagogic experiment of engaging with research methods in the teaching of an undergraduate course on “Contemporary Russian Politics” at Newcastle University (UK). We argue that the incorporation of an explicit and systematic discussion and practice of research methods in a Comparative Politics course is important for three interconnected reasons. First, by introducing students to different aspects of the political system and processes of a state or a region, Comparative Politics courses provide a perfect structure for discussing and practicing a variety of research methods. Second, Comparative Politics courses allow us to work with different kinds of data and support our students to become more critically aware data-users. Finally, they provide us with ample opportunity to reflect on identity construction and positionality: how do we interpret the Other—whether it is a state or a region, how do different data and research methods shape our understanding and knowledge of the Other, and how are our understandings of Self linked to our interpretations of the Other?
This paper explores how ethnographic approaches to third sector and nonprofit studies allow for context-based understandings of the links between volunteering and development. Drawing from our ethnographies of volunteering in Sierra Leone, Burundi and the Philippines, we argue that ethnographic methods could tease out local ideologies and practices of volunteer work that can challenge knowledge monopolies over how volunteering is understood and, later, transcribed into development policy and practice at various levels. The contribution of ethnography as a methodology to third sector research lies not only in the in-depth data it generates but also in the kind of ethos and disposition it requires of scholars—providing attention to issues of power and voice and leaning into the unpredictability of the research process.
This article examines ways of leveraging gender and outsider positionalities in a manner that benefits the research process in international third sector field research. International research is conducted by individuals collecting data outside their country of origin or long-term residence. In the article I reflect on the role of researcher outsider status as it intersects with gender, and how these positionalities can be used to positively influence data collection in the field. I argue that aspects of female outsider status often experienced as negative also can offer unexpected benefits to research fieldwork, such as access as an outsider to conflict-affected communities, additional assistance to the “vulnerable” female, extra explanation to the “naïve” female researcher, and access facilitated by third gender or honorary male status assigned to female outsiders.
In reflexive methodology in terrorism studies and international security broadly, there are arguments about the absence of African voices, the lack thereof contributing to standardizing the fieldwork experiences of Western terrorism scholars as ‘one-size-fits-all’. However, while the voices of African-based scholars, particularly those based in the West, are increasingly being reflected in reflexive methodology in international security, we know little about how shared national belongingness and its associated cultural norms between the researcher and the researched influence the process of elite interviewing. This article addresses these limitations by reflecting on my experiences as a Nigerian conducting elite interviews with fellow nationals who are counter-terrorism security elites (CTSE) in Nigeria. In doing so, I examine the concepts of seniority, hierarchy, and reciprocity – important social norms that, while present in many contexts, take on distinctive meanings within counter-terrorism institutions in Nigeria – on data access and knowledge production. I contend that the shared cultural understanding between the researcher and CTSE study participants leads them to deploy these norms to foster post-fieldwork relational positionalities, which are used to advance their personal or career interests. This situation results in specific methodological and ethical dilemmas, which are addressed by engaging with and integrating these norms to resolve them. This article contributes to reflexive methodology in terrorism by nuancing the debate on situational ethics management in fieldwork dilemmas and advocating for context-based positionality.
Recent attention to diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) has led to positionality wherein investigators and authors disclose their identity and social position, allowing readers to interpret findings through the lens of authors’ biases. This article describes positionality via meanings of identity and impact of positionality on readers and authors themselves.
This chapter begins by acknowledging the value of the classical model of scientific discovery with its commitment to isolating variables and cancelling out noise to give us a sense of significance in the numerical results produced. But the 20 chapters in this book amply demonstrate that in the real world of discovery things are messy, unpredictable, and highly differentiated within and across disciplines. Such enduring principles of discovery, emerging from the work of scientists and scholars, are identified not only for their intellectual value but also for their practical guidance for those engaged in advanced research.
The introduction explains the setting of the ethnography at the intersections of law, NGOs, the Indian state, and the global anti-trafficking regime. It explains the sequence of interventions the book will follow, from rescues to courts to shelters, prescribed by Indian law and implemented by legal actors and NGOs. It lays out the sites and processes the book will explore through encounters between those implementing these interventions, and those experiencing them. It outlines the book’s central aims: how it uses the intersections of anti-trafficking and anti-prostitution interventions as points of entry to foreground how sex workers navigate them, critique the prevalent assumptions and preferred solutions of the global anti-trafficking regime, and explore the complex relationship between law and NGOs in India. It discusses the broader concerns and approaches these interventions bring to the governance of prostitution – global humanitarianism, policing and criminal justice, the paternalism of the Indian state and NGOs, neoliberal women’s empowerment programs, and an anti-immigrant sociopolitical climate. The introduction also explains the author’s methods, research design, and positionality, and the organization of the book.
Researchers investigating minoritized languages have engaged in the promotion and defense of these languages in a variety of ways. While not all researchers consider themselves to be activists, their actions are nonetheless a part of language politics in the contexts where they work. All research is political and all researchers are political actors, as members of colonized groups know all too well. In this chapter, I discuss language activism as a social project where multiple actors have meaningful roles to play, scholars among them. I begin by positioning myself as a scholar activist and then discuss the broad aims of language activism, including the potentially conflicting nature of activism goals. Turning to consider activism strategies, I draw on a framework developed through ethnographic study of language activists in the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, Mexico, which represents a repertoire of strategies available to actors dependent on their positionality. Throughout, I reflect on the affordances and constraints of scholars as social actors within the wider project of language activism, drawing on my own experiences as a European-American scholar engaged in primarily Indigenous language initiatives. I highlight approaches that I have found helpful, including working across disciplines and a constructivist understanding of activism aims and strategies.
This chapter demonstrates that a researcher is attached to the analytic process in ways that make it difficult to be completely independent and objective when doing research. Issues of objectivity and subjectivity are discussed, which offer a frame to understand the ways in which a researcher’s cultural familiarity with an object of study, as well as their professional vision and institutional positionality, inform the analytic process. After reading this chapter, readers will understand that discourse analysis research is inherently subjective; know that a researcher’s cultural familiarity with an object of study is crucial to doing discourse analysis; be able to identify and adopt multiple analytic perspectives; be capable of applying reflexive practices to the analytic process; and understand, and know how to deal with, the power dynamics that exist in discourse analysis research.