Participant observations combined with interviews

The multi-sited ethnography in this inquiry is conducted in the form of participant observations. For example, I was part of the national delegation to the UN and the ITU. For successful participant observations, Kathleen and Billie DeWalt emphasize the importance of competence, including training before the field study starts (2011:56ff &

212). For me, the observations were nevertheless an ongoing learning process and the skills successively developed. ¹²¹ Since most of my learning was made during my first field trips to the UN Office in Vienna, this section mainly focusses on this site even though I subsequently visited several other sites as well.

120 For an overview of the field trips and the elite interviews, see Appendix 3.

121 One valuable lesson was that, when I first encountered the field, I was so overwhelmed by the opportunities to gather data that I did not spend sufficient time to write down my headnotes, nor to write and read my field notes. This was due to that everything appeared so interesting. From an IR perspective, I considered that being in the UN was something extraordinary informative. Besides, at that time I did not know how many more times I would have the chance to come back to the UN COPUOS. Therefore, I observed intensely 24/7, something that experienced field researchers advice against (Emerson, et al., 2011:48ff). Subsequently, I increased time off from observations for the sake of reflection, which improved the theorizing.

First of all, to follow the actors’ annual time patterns of the UN COPUOS sessional meetings was beneficial for theorizing as these “time-outs”

from the field helped me to maintain an observational stance (Emerson, et al., 2011:42f). This gave me the chance of multiple observations of the same phenomenon and the possibility to cast a fresh look and renewed opportunities, for example for personal relations. Successively, I became comfortable with my roles as a participant, observer, as well as an interviewer. I deliberately reflected on how, when and in what sequence to best combine the approaches and when to underpin or complement my observations with other data (cf. Kapiszewski, et al., 2015:28ff, 94 &

151ff).

Combining participant observations, i.e., my attendance as a delegate, and then becoming a researcher to conduct interviews with participants in the same meeting created tensions between the roles. To participants that had been interviewed, or to whom I had introduced myself, I belonged to the back rows in the plenary where the International Organizations (IOs), Non-governmental organizations (NGOs), experts and a few other researchers were seated. To the actors in the front, or to the ones with whom I had not introduced myself, I was still a participant in the negotiations just like any other, especially when I was seated in one of the chairs devoted to the national delegation. Hence, my role, positionality or level of participation differed from the practitioners in the same room. Generally, I remained as much as possible in the active participant role. Thus, I closely followed the discussions and patterns of the other participants. This was also a reasonable approach in the more official sites like UN COPUOS and WRC-19, which were too large events for me to introduce my project.¹²²

122 In the UNOOSA lists of participants, my affiliation as a researcher was documented, which too contributes to transparency.

Figure 6: UN COPUOS. Credit: the author Figure 7: Vienna International Centre. Credit: the author

Informal conversations constitute a substantial part of my participant observation data. During these conversations, the approach was ad hoc, immediate and related to what was going on. For example, by asking the person next to me: What happened now? What was she referring to? Why is this so important? What are we supposed to do now, suggest a new UN working group? Why not? As I experienced what was going on, I could come one step further by asking why. Besides, being an active participant was crucial for the artlessness and effortlessness of the many and informative informal conversations.¹²³ Moreover, being invited to side events as well as evening events, I had the chance to speak with people when they felt more relaxed. This allowed me to ask where decisions were made, i.e., in more formal settings, ‘behind the scenes’ or outside the UN. Additional sites for outer space ordering were pointed out.

The interviews were semi-structured, open “phenomenological life-world interviews” (Brinkmann, 2015:195). Every interview was unique and adjusted to the specific situation. Generally, I tried to find ‘leftover time’, situations when elites had to be present, were outside their offices and

123 In front of the delegate’s seats were approximately 400 pages in different versions of UN working documents, as well as finalized UN reports and texts. Now, besides observing the other delegates throughout the long plenary meetings, I experienced my attention fading and the thoughts drifting away as well as my attention rising along with the discussions. I started to consider suitable national positions in different issue areas and working groups and formulate hypothetical statements that could help the discussion.

formal duties and did not really know what to do. It was interesting how much the interviews differed in pace and tune due to the person interviewed and to the situation.¹²⁴ In the interviews, as well as in most informal talks, I practiced active listening and sensitive silence (cf. Kvale, Brinkmann, & Torhell, 2009:154: cf. Rubin & Rubin, 2004).¹²⁵

Thanks to ‘being there’, I had the opportunity to talk with more people in authority than I could hope for. For example, within the large military community, I spoke to John Warden who was the strategist behind the Gulf War (1991), which is recognized as the first war in where outer space was used as a force multiplier. Similarly, I had for example the opportunity to talk with Peter Martinez, Chair of the LTS Working Group at the UN, and Veena Rawat, Chair of the WRC-03 at the ITU. Importantly, the interpretations and conclusions of the interviews in this inquiry are foremost theoretical and hence, do not necessarily nor fully represent the thoughts and conclusions of the people who dedicated their valuable time to the interviews. In addition, as I mainly build the analysis on the participant observations and numerous informal conversations this inquiry cannot fully do justice to all the expertise or opinions provided in the elite interviews.

124 Conducting interviews required close attention to smoothly follow up and navigate topics of greater interests. Therefore, during the interview, I was so focused that I could not evaluate the interview with more than a feeling. Later, when listening to the recordings, I was sometimes surprised by the ‘ease’ they appear to flow and how I came to produce data. On the other hand, when interviews did not flow easily, this was valuable data too. My approach to the recorder was first positive as it gave the sense of collecting ‘real’ data compared to observations and field notes in a notebook. However, experiencing the benefits of participant observations and informal conversations and hence, more natural, or less fabricated data, I tried not to record the interviews with the intention that the interview would be more relaxed and less formal. Then, when understanding that these key persons were used to interviews, I decided to use the recorder again. Undeniable, the recorded data was more complete, rich, and persistent than my notes.

125 After my first interview with a key person, I picked up a piece of useful advice. The person passingly remarked, “you know, I like to contribute to research, only that some researchers talk too much themselves” (military, 2016). I am grateful for this comment and after that, during the majority of the conversations and interviews; I did not speak much at all, only to the extent that I confirmed with the interviewee that the interview was revolving around the relevant topics. I could tell that many times this approach was appreciated. Hence, the interviewees found themselves in a (ostensibly uncommon) situation when they had the chance to speak full sentences and fully elaborate on their lines of thoughts.

While participant observations were essential for this inquiry, they also came with challenges. In all the sites visited, the most intellectually demanding situations included the continuous encounter with double hermeneutic observations, particularly when the topic discussed was complicated. On many occasions, I aimed to alter between being an active participant and a distanced observer (Bray in Della Porta &

Keating, 2008:307). Being there, paying attention to the topic, reflecting on my own thoughts and behaviour, at the same time observing the room from a position above/outside, and relating everything to order. At times, my brain turned into a more regular participant, just listening, being there in the chair. Fortunately, “just attending and experiencing” is also valuable for observations as it gives room for feeling and tacit insights when the observing role is set aside (DeWalt & DeWalt 2011:92). Yet, other times the more theoretically detached, writing mood observations were interrupted with active participation and interaction, rather than cognitive limitations (cf. Emerson, et al. 2011:22).

Nonetheless, in the case of outer space, ‘just listening’ could be rather demanding too, as seminars were about astrophysics, private law paragraphs or radio frequencies. It could be difficult to sufficiently understand, manage and navigate the specialized stocks of knowledge of the different professional orders. However, I judge my understanding of the different stocks of knowledge as increasingly adequate. In this regards, my military background was beneficial. The material lens, like most officers’, includes a basic understanding of technology and physics. I had not reflected on this lens before, but it probably facilitated the practice of translation and tracing between sites and communities, which according to Marcus is central when conducting a multi-sited ethnography of broad phenomena (1995:100f.). To remain an observer also within the military community, I aimed to see the familiar as unfamiliar (cf. DeWalt &

DeWalt 2011:88).