Researching the Overseas Territories - Online Workshop

Dr Kate Matheson

In 2018, I started working on a new (to me) project with colleagues at UWE, where I had done my PhD 10 years previously. Our project was to look at the viability of communities on (very) small islands, and involved fieldwork in spring 2019. A colleague and I set out in late February to a small island, not far from the English coast, to conduct a week’s fieldwork – living and working amongst residents, buffeted by the wind and subject to the vagaries of winter transport timetables. It very quickly became apparent that residents were keen to speak with us, but reluctant to do so ‘on the record’. Their island’s primary industry is tourism, and that tourism, for many reasons, centres on the premise of a harmonious island community, unsullied by modern concerns or local antagonisms. Although residents were aware of a number of problems brewing – some specific to their island, some more generalisable across island communities – they were concerned that speaking out about them might compromise either the island idyll, or, more tangibly, their employment and housing prospects. As a consequence, we decided that we would visit a second island location, so that we could offer not only anonymity for participants, but also for the island locale, as referring to a participant as ‘barman’ in a community with one bar doesn’t go far to conceal their identity. 

This perhaps runs counter to the general trajectory of social sciences research. Over the years, research ethics has become synonymous with the offer of anonymity to participants. There are numerous examples, however, of where this has failed or backfired – Nancy Scheper-Hughes’s ‘Ire in Ireland’ being a classic of the genre – whilst the tendency in Island Studies as a discipline has been to include the identity of the island (and perhaps therefore the participants) in order to advocate for their interests. The tension then for our research was how to advocate for the interests of the island / islanders whilst also protecting their more immediate and material interests by not disclosing the location. 

This policy was possible, in the first instance, because I was new to the field, and not known as an island or Overseas Territories researcher. Subsequently, I have conducted research in specific locations, where participants have been named and shared stories openly – for example as part of podcasts. This is more akin to the growing discipline of narrative research, which aims to give voice to (often unheard) people and to promote their stories in their own words. As a result of these projects I have come to be associated (admittedly in a small field) with OTs and particular island locations. There are some advantages to this admittedly – I am privileged to be invited to certain events, and included within a group of researchers with similar interests. But this does then potentially compromise the identity of future research locations – should anonymity be something we wish to continue to promote. 

There are no specific answers to this question, but we need to think carefully about what we are promising when we promise anonymity to our participants. This is to an extent the case in any small community, but the specificities of island and OT locations can make them particularly easy to identify. 

Dr Nichola Harmer

Researching the UK/UK OTs relationship through Hansard

In recent years, my research has centred on using Hansard official records of UK Parliamentary debate to gain insights into the relationships between the UK and the UK overseas territories. This is important because Parliament is a key space where these relationships, longstanding, colonial, and variously valued, strained, and contested, are shaped. And while citizens in the overseas territories do not have representation in the UK Parliament (there are locally based parliaments, assemblies and councils), the ongoing constitutional relationship means that decisions made within the UK Parliament can directly impact on the territories, often thousands of miles distant.  

Researching how Parliamentarians debate the overseas territories is important as significant power is held by Parliament and Members of Parliament. Analysing Hansard records can identify patterns and themes in the ways that the overseas territories and their relationship with the UK are imagined and constructed by Parliamentarians. Their attitudes, and perceptions influence decisions that can affect the lives of people from the overseas territories. 

However, the ethics of using this approach are not straightforward and raise various questions.   

Firstly, a focus on Hansard alone does not always allow for wider contextualisation of the policy process or for those Parliamentarians to expand on and explain their statements made in the House – statements which are often crafted for particular purposes, in a specific form, and for a particular audience. Different forms of engagement with Parliamentarians, which also puts them into conversation with other perspectives, are also needed. Emma Crewe’s ethnographic research in Parliament provides an excellent example of the depth of insights and understanding that can be gained by an extended immersion and participation within this space. As Crewe explains: “To get beneath the surface, and make sense of multiple views, a researcher has to continually ask, ‘why is she saying that’? Because like anyone else politicians’ statements are produced by their specific social context and mix of cultural values, pressures, ideologies, norms, emotions and aspirations” (2017, p. 164-165).   

Secondly, there is the question of whether focusing on UK elite perspectives and constructions of the overseas territories amplifies those already powerful voices and perspectives. There is therefore a need to include and highlight how these debates, decisions, and policies from the UK are received, accepted or contested and voiced by policy-makers and wider communities in the overseas territories.  

These two concerns suggest the potential of broadly adopting a tripartite approach outlined in work on literary geographies (Sharpe, 2000). This involves continuing to pay close attention to the text of the debates reproduced in Hansard and the discourses, language, imagery, associations and meanings they produce. Additionally, it is important to research the processes and socio-political contexts by and from which the statements come into being. And thirdly, the research, through partnership working with researchers and communities in the overseas territories, should seek to understand how these statements are read, understood and potentially contested or reproduced by audiences both in the overseas territories.   

Here methodology and ethics are inherently entangled, and this approach may be helpful as a framework for thinking further through the ethics and researcher positionality at each of these stages with the aim of creating research that is more inclusive and holistic.  

References: 

Crewe, E. (2016). "Ethnography of Parliament: Finding Culture and Politics Entangled in the Commons and the Lords." Parliamentary Affairs 70(1): 155-172. 

Sharp, J. P. (2000). "Towards a critical analysis of fictive geographies." Area 32(3): 327-334. 

Dr Nichola Harmer is a Lecturer in Human Geography in the School of Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences (Faculty of Science and Engineering) at the University of Plymouth.

Photo by Dr Nichola Harmer

James J. A. Blair

Avoiding Methodological Nationalism in a Disputed Overseas Territory

Four decades after a violent 1982 war between the United Kingdom and Argentina re-established British authority over the Falkland Islands (Las Malvinas in Spanish), a commercial fishing boom and offshore oil discoveries have intensified the sovereignty dispute over the South Atlantic archipelago. Scholarly literature on the South Atlantic focuses primarily on military history of the 1982 conflict and the geopolitics of respective claims for sovereignty through self-determination of the islanders and territorial integrity of Argentina. Taking an anthropological approach against methodological nationalism, I have sought to make strange these familiar geopolitical assertions in the South Atlantic (Wimmer and Glick Schiller 2002, 302). 

Unlike much of the British or Argentine scholarly research on the Falklands/Malvinas, I conducted fieldwork from the relatively unsentimental position of being an American researcher. In other research contexts, I have engaged reflectively with local social movements in the role of an advocate for marginalized communities and their environments. During the fieldwork for my book, I made friends with many individuals and sympathized with their devotion to the islands. I also grew a deep fondness for this unique place and its stunning landscape. However, I sought to offer ethnographic insights that might strengthen social equity and environmental governance without directly consulting or accepting benefits from industry or state actors.  

Despite careful consideration of these ethical issues, the sovereignty dispute and industry gatekeeping presented several dilemmas. I never felt unsafe, and my hosts were always hospitable, but I have had to avoid being entangled in the imbroglio. Functionaries of the Argentine Foreign Ministry tried to persuade me to send them private documents; I declined to do so. Royal Air Force military personnel hinted that I had been monitored. Ministers of the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office asked for advice on lobbying US Congress. Oil managers threatened to destroy my phone until I showed them that it was not recording. The Falkland Islands Government invited me to apply for a tender to conduct a social impact monitoring program on the proposed oil development—a tempting opportunity to apply my research concretely—but it would have risked potential fines and imprisonment in Argentina, so I did not submit. Newspaper or magazine editors drew on my research and reporting to publish stories about the Falklands that followed a line of neoliberal multiculturalism and imperialist nostalgia that I did not endorse. I even received a veiled threat of potential defamation action from a high-ranking official if I published anything about their involvement in certain scandalous topics. 

My book Salvaging Empire: Sovereignty, Natural Resources, and Environmental Science in the South Atlantic is not a defence or apology for any particular position in the sovereignty dispute. It is not an exhaustive account of armed conflict or an authorized war history. Nor is it a plea or proposal to advocate for a new diplomatic solution to resolve the ongoing imbroglio. Instead of arguing in favour of a national or international cause, I have sought to engage critically with contradictory aspects of these contending claims.  

References 

Wimmer, Andreas, and Nina Glick Schiller. 2002. “Methodological Nationalism and beyond: Nation–State Building, Migration and the Social Sciences.” Global Networks 2 (4): 301–34. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0374.00043. 

James J. A. Blair is Associate Professor in Geography and An­thropology at California State Polytechnic University, Pomona. He is the author of Salvaging Empire: Sovereignty, Natural Resources, and Environmental Science in the South Atlantic (Cornell University Press, 2023). Blair’s research on sovereignty, energy, water and environmental justice has been supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Fulbright-IIE, the Wenner-Gren Foundation, the Social Science Research Council (SSRC) and the Mellon Foundation / American Council of Learned Societies (ACLS). For more information, visit: www.jamesjablair.com.

Photo by James J. A. Blair

Dr Maria Mut Bosque

The Challenges of Public International Law Regarding the British Overseas Territories (BOTs)

One of the main challenges faced by legal researchers focusing on the study of BOTs is the rigidity of international law in classifying these territories and determining the applicable international legal regime. International law primarily applies to states, but these territories neither they are states nor Free Associate States and nor an integral part of another state. So, from a classic international legal perspective, they are considered pending decolonization and are listed as non-self-governing territories by the UN. However, there are concerning issues with the list. Surprisingly, not all of the 14 BOTs are included in the list, despite having the same internal and international status. This is the case of the British Indian Ocean Territory, which is not in the list - an archipelago of 58 islands, which Chagos islands are part of it-, even though the International Court of Justice (ICJ) stated that the UK must immediately terminate its unlawful occupation of the Chagos archipelago. Instead, territories like Gibraltar and the Falklands are in the list, even though the people have expressed satisfaction with their current status through referenda. In this sense, the classic justification of International Law specialists is based on the 2.4 CNU the principle of territorial integrity. Then, under this argument, territories such as Gibraltar or the Falklands should be returned to Spain and Argentina. However, we wonder why the SBAs territories are not included in the list and why the principle of territorial integrity regarding Cyprus is not relevant in this case.  

Another important issue is the international subjectivity of these territories. According to Public International Law (PIL), only states have full legal personality in the international arena. So, they have recognised rights and obligations such as treaty-making, diplomatic relations, and state representation. However, other subjects of law, such as peoples, are attributed partial legal personality with limited rights and obligations. Given the rigidity of PIL and the lack of answers to these questions, researchers need to turn to the discipline of international relations, which offers more flexible criteria and a wider variety of territorial categories. 

However, the discipline of international relations does not fully resolve the BOTs' issues because, although these territories may have a role on the international stage, they cannot direct their own foreign relations without authorization from the United Kingdom. As a challenge, while waiting for PIL to evolve and recognise the limited legal personality of these entities, researchers need to consider new approaches and instruments to strengthen the international role of BOTs. This includes simplifying authorisation processes and reconsidering their status in international law and international relations. 

Finally, it is important to recognise the diversity among BOTs, as they have varying aspirations for their future. Consequently, the status of each territory should be examined from a comprehensive perspective that takes into account their unique characteristics. While it may be more convenient for the UK to assign a uniform status to all 14 BOTs, this approach disregards the significant differences that exist among these territories on multiple levels.