Methodological Challenges in Researching Elites

The study of political, economic, administrative and social elites is widespread in political science. Common data collection methods for the study of elites include qualitative interviewing, ethnographic research, expert, candidate and public service motivation surveys, biographic data, speeches and written data, etc. Methodologies applied to these data vary from various statistical methods to sequence analysis, network analysis content analysis and various types of interpretive analysis. While there is extensive literature on each of these methodologies, the literature on tackling the methodological specificities of studying elites remains surprisingly limited. There is some methodological literature available on interviewing political elites (for example Dexter 2016, Lilleker 2003, Bailer 2013), and more generally on qualitative approaches to studying various types of elites (for example Cohen 1999, Hertz and Imber 2005). We also have some literature that deals specifically with the challenges of studying elites in particular political contexts (for example Werning Rivera et al. 2002 and Mikecz 2012 on post-communist contexts; Ostrander 1993 on organisational research). Finally, we can find some literature dealing with validity issues in elite studies (Berry 2002) and literature that takes a reflexive stance towards research on elites, for example from a feminist perspective (Conti/O’Neil 2007). As this literature shows, the study of elites confronts the researcher with specific challenges. For instance, members of the elite can be difficult to access, having busy agendas and being shielded by gatekeepers. Some types of elites are even difficult to detect, locate and empirically delineate (social elites for instance, or elites who are no longer part of public life). In qualitative research, elites are challenging to deal with because of their tendency to take control over the interaction and to put the researcher through a test phase before agreeing to fully cooperate. Elites may also be reluctant to go on record, or to let the recorded information be used (“don’t quote me on that”). More generally, elites are often in a position to impose strong restrictions on what the researcher can and cannot do (by accepting or refusing to pass on further contacts to them, allowing or refusing access to documents or internal meetings, or imposing severe confidentiality agreements). They may also not always willingly reveal the kinds of information researchers need, especially also when it comes to the less visible aspects of power (such as non-decisions). Although these challenges are known, they are not extensively discussed in the literature, or if they are, then generally with respect to a particular method (such as elite interviewing) or with regards to a specific type of elites (such as political elites). This section aims to offer a space for researchers engaged in some form of elite research to discuss methodological challenges and issues across methodological approaches and types of elite research. We are interested in papers dealing with various types of elites (political, administrative, economic, corporate, academic, social), at various levels (from the local to the global), and from various methodological perspectives (qualitative, quantitative, mixed). We also welcome papers that deal with methodological issues in the wider sense, including research ethics and reflexivity. Questions we would like to raise include for instance the following: how are emerging and new tools, data sets, methods and methodologies (such as “big data”, new software tools etc.) changing the ways we study elites? What are the challenges researchers encounter when using established as well as newer methodological tools in specific contexts, or with specific types of elites (for example political elites in transitional democracies)? How have these challenges been overcome, and what can researchers working on other elite groups learn from them? How have recent political developments (such as the rise of populist parties, European integration, or trends towards de-democratisation) affected our capacity to engage with elites? How can we deal with problems of comparability in space and time in comparative and/or longitudinal elite research? How can we deal with triangulation across the wide range of different methodologies and paradigms of research? How have researchers overcome the typical obstacles of elite research such as access and within-group confidentiality? How do the gender and ethnicity of both the researcher and the researched possibly influence the research process in elite research? Possible Panels in this section could include: • Innovations in quantitative methodologies for the study of elites (panel co-sponsored by the ECPR Standing Group on Elites and Political Leadership). • Comparing elites in space and time: challenges to comparative elite research • Practical and ethical issues in elite research • Qualitative approaches to studying elites: issues and challenges • Validity and triangulation in elite research • Studying elites in transitional and non-democratic contexts This Section is organised with the support of the ECPR Standing Group on Elites and Political Leadership (that co-sponsors a Panel and will encourage its members to contribute further Papers). The Section is organised by the members of the Steering Committee of the ECPR Standing Group on Political Methodology: Philippe Blanchard is an associate professor at the University of Warwick (UK), member of the Q-step centre, and chair of the academic advisory board of the ECPR Methods School. He has recently done research on trade union careers, transnational economic elites, and on mapping political methodologies. Jos Elkink is a lecturer in research methods at University College Dublin. He is a specialist in econometric methods, including statistical analysis applied to political elites in Russia. Theofanis Exadaktylos is a lecturer in European Politics at the University of Surrey. He has expertise in research methods and research design issues with regard to Europeanization research, content and discourse analysis. Lea Sgier is an assistant professor in political methodology at Central European University (CEU) in Budapest and an instructor at various methods schools (including on interviewing at the ECPR WS). She is an expert in discourse analysis and qualitative-interpretive methods and has done research on parliamentary debates and gender issues. Kathrin Thomas is a research associate at the Centre of Comparative Social Research at City University London and a research associate with the Austrian National Election Study. She has extensive expertise in survey research methods.