The issue of ’vulnerability’ in researching political elites

Abstract

Much sociological research in education and elsewhere has focused on understanding the perspectives and experiences of ‘marginalised’ or subordinate groups, along with those of members of the occupations and organisations involved with them. However, since the 1980s and 90s a small tradition of work has emerged concerned with ‘studying up’: focusing on the role of elites (e.g. Ball 1990; Walford 1994; Troyna and Halpin 1994). Initially, studies of politicians, government officials, pressure groups, and their networks, tended to assume that they belonged to close-knit groups which could be easily identified (Walford 2012). However, the shift in the 2000s towards the notion of the governance of education reframed this research to include global policy actors who occupy ‘multiple spaces’ and policy networks, being ‘simultaneously national and transnational’, and therefore more difficult to identify (Grek 2021:18; see also Yates 2004). The aim of this focus on elites was to document the operation of elite power in shaping educational institutions and in resisting ‘struggles for social transformation’ (Ozga and Gewirtz 1994: 123). The term ‘elite’ is not always defined within this literature, but is generally used to describe individuals or groups who ostensibly have closer proximity to power or who are able to claim distinctive professional expertise (Ball 1994; see also Morris, 2009; Khan 2012; Maxwell 2015). Despite this growing body of work, there have been few reflexive accounts analysing the ways in which this research is conducted and the challenges encountered by policy researchers (but see Addey and Piattoeva 2021; Lancaster 2017; Duke 2002). More specifically, the ethical aspects of research associated with interviewing ‘elites’ involved in educational policymaking remain underexplored (Addey and Piattoeva 2021).