(Shared) ethnicity in ethnographic research on clandestine and informal practices in the migrant and ethnic minority economy

• DOI: https://doi.org/10.13169/workorgalaboglob.16.1.0088
• Published date: 14 May 2022
• Date: 14 May 2022
• Pages: 88-103
• Author: Jing Hiah
• Subject Matter: Clandestine labour,Netherlands,Romania,Chinese migrant workers,research on sensitive topics,participant observation,ethnography,insider research

88 Work organisation, labour & globalisation Volume 16, Number 1, 2022

(Shared) ethnicity in ethnographic

research on clandestine and informal

practices in the migrant and ethnic

minority economy

Methodological and ethical challenges

Jing Hiah

Dr Jing Hiah is an Assistant Professor in Criminology

in the Erasmus School of Law, at Erasmus University,

Rotterdam, the Netherlands and a Dutch Research Council

NWO Rubicon fellow at Migration Mobilities Bristol at the

University of Bristol, UK

ABSTRACT

This article addresses the methodological and ethical challenges of ethnographic

research on sensitive topics such as clandestine practices in the migrant and

ethnic minority economy. Drawing on related criminological and sociology of

deviance literature I draw on my experiences of insider-ethnographic research in

the Chinese migrant and ethnic minority economy in the Netherlands and Romania

to demonstrate how stigmas related to race/ethnicity and clandestine practices can

strongly shape access, rapport and researcher’s positionality in the eld. Research

participants’ concerns about these stigmas also revealed ethical questions on how

to report on clandestine and informal practices without contributing to further

stigmatisation and racialisation. At the same time, my experiences show that whether

clandestine practices and race/ethnicity are considered sensitive topics is an emergent

issue. In the Netherlands, due to active enforcement of clandestine practices in the

migrant and ethnic minority economy, these practices were a sensitive topic of

inquiry. In Romania, by contrast, clandestine practices were not treated as sensitive

subject matter as these were normalised by research participants and broader

Romanian society, due to a lack of active enforcement and criminalisation.

KEY WORDS

Clandestine labour, Netherlands, Romania, Chinese migrant workers, research on

sensitive topics, participant observation, ethnography, insider research

DOI:10.13169/workorgalaboglob.16.1.0088

Work organisation, labour & globalisation Volume 16, Number 1, 2022 89

Introduction

Clandestine labour, employment of undocumented workers, tax evasion and bribery fall

within the scope of what the methodological literature refers to as particularly ‘sensitive

topics’: research topics in which there are potential consequences and implications for

those participating in the research. Reporting about committing or being a victim of such

practices may have (perceived) grave consequences for research participants. For example,

it could lead them being investigated and/or stigmatised1 (Lee & Renzetti, 1990; see also

Hamm & Ferrell, 1998). The sensitivity of a topic is a central methodological issue for

criminologists and scholars in the sociology of deviance as it not only poses challenges in

the negotiation of access in the field but also raises questions of how to gain insight into

and understanding of often-hidden behaviours and practices (Anderson & Calhoun, 1992;

Becker, 1967; Ferrell & Hamm, 1998). Furthermore, researching clandestine conduct

among racialised minority groups such as ethnic minority entrepreneurs (the group that

this contribution focuses on) complicates the matter further because it touches upon

ethical issues such as the (further) stigmatisation of these groups on a broader societal level

(Siegel, 2016; Van der Leun etal., 2010). The risk of stigmatisation is recognised by various

ethical codes of research (e.g. European Commission, 2020). An evaluation of the risks of

stigmatisation is needed in the light of the sensitivity of a topic but its stigmatising effect

must be understood not as a static given, but an emergent issue (Lee & Renzetti, 1990). In

addition, a researcher’s positionality may play a further role in determining the extent to

which a topic, or certain information, is considered sensitive by research participants

(Bucerius, 2013). From a methodological perspective this means that whether clandestine

and informal practices are considered sensitive topics is a question that should be

addressed, which this contribution aims to do.

This contribution questions the sensitivity of research topics by reflecting on

methodological and ethical issues concerning research into clandestine and informal

practices in the migrant and ethnic economy.2 The ethnic economy refers to sectors in

the economy where businesses are either owned, supervised or staffed by ethnic or

migrant minority group members, regardless of size, type and locational clustering

(Waldinger, Aldrich & Ward, 1990; Zhou, 2004:1043). While ethnic economy

scholarship has paid specific attention to informal and clandestine practices (e.g.

Kloosterman, van der Leun & Rath, 1999; Ram, Edwards & Villares-Varela, 2017),

limited attention has been given to the methodological challenges and ethical issues

that arise in conducting qualitative or ethnographic research on these topics

(Vershinina & Rodionova, 2011). One explanation for this is that, whilst the field of

ethnic economy scholarship has advanced considerably, most of the methodological

approaches have a quantitative character, funnelling a specific set of perspectives and

approaches (Vershinina & Discua Cruz, 2021).

1 In this contribution ‘stigma’ is used in the way that Goffman conceptualised it: ‘an attribute that is deeply

discreting’ (Goffman in Tyler 2018: 750). and generally refers to devalued stereotypes. Stigmas disqualify

individuals from full social acceptance. Stigmatization accordingly refers to the process of how stigmas are

produced in social settings (Tyler 2018).

2 In this contribution the concepts of ‘ethnic minority’/‘(im)migrant minority’ and ethnic economy/(im)

migrant economy will be used interchangeably