My position as a researcher

Traditionally, and in particular in the natural sciences, the preferred role of the researcher has been that of an outside observer. It has been seen as the most credible way of guaranteeing the ‘objectivity’ of the analysis – something that is considered not only possible but also necessary for scientific research (e.g. Crotty 998; Palviainen 00).

Although the concept of objectivity of knowledge and research has long been challenged in the social sciences and replaced by a more constructionist understanding, the norm for the role of the researcher in relation to the research object is still often expected to be that of an outside observer. Alternative research strategies are often considered the ‘other’

compared to the norm of objective observer.

The most developed and well known ‘other’ are the various research strategies developed under the umbrella concept of action research (e.g. Kuula 999; Babbie 99). Common to these approaches is a practical orientation, promotion of change and the inclusion of the people/organisations under study in the research process (Kuula 999, 0). The researcher becomes part of the object of the study and the activities of the researcher are as much at the focus of the analysis and critical scrutiny as the rest of the study object.

In action research literature, it seems to be common to assume that the order of events is such that a researcher becomes an actor, a member of the community under study. The researcher makes conscious ‘interventions’ in the processes or organisation under study and analyses the consequences of these interventions. (Kuula 999; Palviainen 00.)

Less literature exists on a third type of role of the researcher, which falls in between these two main approaches. The researcher can be an actor in, for instance, another organisation interacting with the one under study. In addition to the effect this role as an actor has on the issue under study, it is also likely to affect the way the researcher is perceived, as well as the type of analysis the researcher makes of the research object. My background and role could be described as being of this third kind.

I have not at any point worked for the administration that I study in this thesis (Metsähallitus, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Ministry of the Environment). I am an outsider to the administration on state forests, but not to the issue of forest conflicts.

Instead, my entry point to the forest issues in Finland could be described as a representative of one of those groups that have challenged the state forest administration.

Soon after I started my graduate studies in environmental science and policy at the University of Helsinki in 99, I also became active in the Finnish environmental movement by engaging in the forest conservation issues. Between 99 and 998, I was an active member of Nature League Forest Group, a group of forest activists that campaigned for the protection of old-growth forests in Finland. Since most, if not all, of

these forests are situated in state forests, the campaigns primarily targeted forests managed by Metsähallitus. As part of the campaigns, direct action on Metsähallitus logging sites also took place. In 996, I was involved in such actions in East Finland on one occasion.

In 998 I was condemned, together with 5 others, to fines and compensations for stopping logging machines by entering within their safety zone, and for spraying timber with an ‘old-growth’ logo. We paid the fines and compensations. However, most of my time as a forest activist I spent on markets campaigns, meeting with the representatives of the major European publishing houses, such as Springer and BBC Magazines, and networking with ENGOs internationally.

Despite my withdrawal from active campaign work in ENGOs in 998, my contacts within them remained. In 998–999, I was a member of the board in Nature League.

In 998-00, I was a board member in Finnish Association for Nature Conservation (FANC), and in 999–005 also a member of its Forest Committee, which is responsible for developing the forest-related strategies of the organisation. From 000 onwards, I have participated in the International Reference Group of Taiga Rescue Network (TRN), an international network of environmental NGOs and indigenous peoples’ organisations (IPOs). Throughout my time as a post-graduate student I have also subscribed to internal e-mail lists of forest activists in different NGOs nationally and internationally, where I have been able to follow and to participate in the discussions.

My background as an activist was the biggest motivating factor, but also the biggest challenge, when I began my Master’s thesis on Metsähallitus’ participatory planning (Raitio 000; 00). In order to gain some distance to my role as an activist, I withdrew from all active forest campaign work in 998, and have not returned since. Furthermore, in my Master’s thesis I was transparent about my background, in order to allow the reader to assess the extent of bias in my analysis. I chose North Lapland as the focus on my Master’s thesis partly because it was one of the areas with state-owned land where I had no prior history of forest activism.

At the beginning of my research career, in 00–00, I was also involved in an EU-funded research project on sustainable reindeer herding coordinated by the University of Lapland (RENMAN). The purpose of the project was to promote participatory institutions for reindeer herding, in other words, to improve the herders’ position vis-à-vis important policy decision-makers, including MAF, MOE, and Metsähallitus (Hukkinen et al. 00; 00a; 00b; Heikkinen et al. 00). Due to both my Master’s thesis and the RENMAN project, I became acquainted and made friends with several reindeer herders, some of whom also became my colleagues in RENMAN.

At the time, several of the reindeer herding co-operatives in Inari were mobilising in jointly formulating their position regarding state forestry in the area. They had also begun working more closely with the ENGOs by, for instance, jointly inviting international media to witness the logging of disputed forests. I provided the interested RHCs with knowledge and summary papers on the legal status of reindeer herding in Finland, as well as of the existing research on the impacts of forestry on reindeer herding. I also met some of the journalists to inform them of the results of my research. On some occasions I participated in negotiations between Metsähallitus and reindeer herding co-operatives as an observer, on the invitation of the co-operatives.

Due to the prior experience with the Master’s thesis, I defined the following major challenges in my PhD:

• The effect of my background on the quality of the research: Will I be able to undertake good quality research on this topic? Will there be a loyalty issue with the ENGOs and reindeer herding co-operatives that will prevent me from saying certain things?

• Research ethics: How to ensure that the commitment to confidentiality regarding the research data is not breached? Also, how not to act so as to escalate the conflicts?

• Credibility as a researcher in the eyes of the administration on state forests:

How would my background affect the collection of the data (interviews)?

My strategies have been multiple in dealing with these challenges. I have not been directly involved in the ENGOs campaign work in forest-related issues in an activist capacity. In my contacts with ENGO or with reindeer herding co-operatives regarding forest issues I have been careful to define my role as a researcher. In the discussions with ENGOs and/or co-operatives, my contribution has included structuring them, i.e. pointing out what kind of issues ENGOs/RHCs need to have a position on when they aim to enter negotiations with Metsähallitus or other representatives of the State. I have also discussed my role with activists and herders. During the years, both ENGOs and herders have themselves started to exclude me from strategic discussions and contacted me only to consult me in my capacity as a researcher.

I also maintain that my choice to focus the study on the administration and to conduct interviews only in Metsähallitus and ministries has in fact contributed to balancing the bias. Researchers tend to develop sympathies toward their object of study. Indeed, it has sometimes been pointed out that researchers need to watch out in order not to be

“co-opted” by the interviewees in developing their interpretation of the phenomenon.

While it is important to seek to understand the phenomenon from the perspective of the informants, the analysis needs to be made independently by the researcher. Particularly during the intense phases of reading and processing the data, I have clearly noticed that I have become very understanding of the people in the organisation(s) I study. In fact, I think there are grounds to say that without my background and contacts in the ENGOs and herding communities, the chosen focus and data for the study would have caused a considerable risk for bias in my analysis.

Confidentiality of the research data is particularly important in the case of interviews, because interviews are based on the trust that the identity of the interviewees as well as some of the information they share in the interviews are kept confidential. Confidentiality is also related to the contribution of the researcher in escalating or alternatively settling a dispute. Surely, if I as a researcher was to reveal sensitive confidential information to other parties in the conflict, it would be more likely to escalate the conflicts than to contribute to the settlement. Therefore I have found it very important that I throughout the research process have only given out information that either already has been or will be made public in oral or written presentations. Throughout the research process, I have never revealed the names of my interviewees to anyone, although I was asked to do so on several occasions. Not even my supervisors were provided with the list of the interviewees. At times, however, the interviewees chose to reveal themselves to their colleagues by introducing me to them in a coffee table, or by telling each other I was coming and coordinating the interview times.

The impact of my role as an activist on the interviews is probably the most difficult effect to assess. It feels fair to expect that those people aware of my background would be affected by that information. I have been open about my background as an activist,

throughout the process, whenever the issue has been raised. However, I did not actively tell about my background to the interviewees as a part of introducing myself. I know that most of them are aware of it, but some possibly are not. My impression during the interviews was that the interviewees were being very direct, honest and self-critical and did not withhold information from me. Nonetheless, the influence of my background on the data remains an unanswered question.

Together with my supervisors I also initiated, at the beginning of the study, the establishment of an Advisory Group for this research process with Metsähallitus representatives. Metsähallitus chose three representatives to the group (all of whom were from the Forestry Division), which was complemented by a representative from the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. The role of the Group has been to act as an additional reference point within the administration. The Group has commented on the research plan, proposed people to be interviewed (the final choices were confidential), commented on the interview themes and commented on drafts of articles. In addition, the Group has received updates on the progress of the research. After the first gathering of the group in a meeting, communication has occurred primarily via email.

Having said all this, it should be noted that the issue of subjectivity is always present in qualitative research in particular, whether or not the researcher has such an obviously challenging background as I. As Kvale (997) points out, in qualitative research the researcher is him/herself one of the most important tools for the research. Transparency requires the description of this tool. The process of describing and analysing one’s own role as a researcher also functions as a mechanism that forces the researcher to critically assess the choices made during the research process. It makes sure that the researcher does not forget the role (s)he plays throughout the research process. My research strategy has been based on this perception that “objectivity” is achieved by acknowledging, exposing and addressing subjectivity. The description and analysis of my roles as a researcher and an activist is an important part of that strategy and of my thesis. It has not only forced me to look systematically at the issue and to address it throughout the research process, but also provides the audience with the opportunity to assess the affect of my bias and the success of my efforts to take it into account.

PART IV: