Much sociological research in education has focused on understanding the perspectives and experiences of ‘marginalised’ or subordinate groups, along with those 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. Troyna and Halpin 1994; Ball 1990; Walford 1994). The aim of this was to document the operation of elite power in shaping educational institutions and resisting ‘struggles for social transformation’ (Ozga and Gewirtz 1994: 123).  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’, being ‘simultaneously national and transnational’, and therefore more difficult to identify (Grek 2021:18; see also Yates 2004; Addey and Piattoeva 2021). 

The methodological challenges associated with interviewing ‘elite’ actors in qualitative research have been the focus of a growing body of literature in education, and in social research more widely.  Generally speaking, ‘elites’ have been viewed as capable of protecting themselves from scrutiny by researchers because of the power they exercise (Dodge and Geis 2006).   Given this, gaining access to them has often been portrayed as a matter of pursuing them as ‘quarry’ by any means possible (Dexter 2006). At the same time, it is often argued that elites should be accountable, and that research should play an important role in this process. Therefore, it has sometimes been argued that the usual ethical requirements, such as obtaining informed consent, must be suspended, on the grounds that members of ‘elites’ do not need protection, and indeed that their activities can legitimately be exposed to publicity (see Gaztambide-Fernández 2015). There is a particularly sharp contrast here with what is recommended in researching members of marginalised or oppressed groups, these often being treated as especially vulnerable to the risk of harm, and therefore in need of protection (see Hammersley and Traianou 2012). 

 However, recently some have argued that the very concept of vulnerability employed in discussions of research ethics is misconceived. Equally, questions have been raised about crude notions of power as an absolute possession that protects its holders from all harm. It would be a mistake to assume that elites are fully autonomous and entirely in control of what happens to them.  Neal and McLaughlin (2009: 699), for example, pointed out that when power is ‘entangled with emotionally difficult reflexive processes’, as during research in a highly politicised context, it becomes ‘much looser, messier and multidirectional’.  From this point of view, the designation of a group of participants as ‘elite’ (and the assumption of all-encompassing power upon which this category often seems to rely) obscures the fact that they may be vulnerable to a range of risks and harms (Lancaster 2015).   In this paper I will build on this argument to suggest that, in fact, vulnerability is a relevant ethical concept even when it comes to studying political elites. I will illustrate the issues from some recent research on members of political elites in Greece who were involved in crisis negotiation with external creditors during 2015-18 (Traianou 2021).

 This is a methodological paper which aims to address the following questions:

a)      How is the concept of ‘vulnerability’ treated in social/educational research ethics, and what form should it take?

b)      What are the researcher’s ethical responsibilities in studying the ‘powerful’ in education?

The paper will include a review of the literature which discusses the concepts of risk, harm, and vulnerability. One of the aims of this review will be to contrast the various meanings of these terms in different research contexts (in particular, when researching ‘elites’ and when researching the ‘marginalised’). My position is that research ethics must be treated as a form of professional ethics that is focused on the role of the researcher, who must try to pursue their occupational role as effectively as possible within acceptable ethical limits. Within this context, I will problematize notions of ‘power’ and ‘vulnerability’ and will stress the situated nature of ethical judgments (Traianou 2018; Traianou & Hammersley 2021). I will explore these issues by drawing on interviews that I conducted with members of Greek political elites. My study illustrates the complexities of the relationships between national and global policy actors, and highlights the fact that neither having power nor being vulnerable are simple possessions but rather are highly context-dependent, and by no means always visible. As a result, the researcher must tread carefully in building relationships with elite members, and in handling information about them and supplied by them. This is especially true where, as in the case I investigated, there is a high level of political contestation, both nationally and globally. The discussion will draw on a range of approaches to research ethics, rather than a single one, as well as on sociological conceptions of the operation of power and the role of political elites.

Given that this is a methodological paper, it will seek to contribute to methodological debates surrounding researching the ‘powerful’ in educational and social policy, and to discussions that problematise the category of ‘vulnerability’ in research ethics more generally. Drawing on my recent research in Greece, I will suggest that, in fact, vulnerability is a relevant ethical concept even when it comes to studying political elites. Thus, a researcher still has an obligation to minimise the risk of harm, and to respect the participants’ limited autonomy, whatever view is taken of the people concerned, the elite to which they belong, or their policies. Indeed, issues of confidentiality are especially important in this context.

Addey, C. & Piattoeva, N. (2021) Intimate Accounts of Education Policy Research, London: Routledge. Ball, S. (1990). Politics and Policy Making in Education: Explorations in Policy Sociology. London: Routledge Dexter, LA (2006) Elite and Specialised Interviewing ECPR press. Dodge. M. and Geis (2006) Filedwork with the ‘elite’ Interviewing: White collar criminals in D. Hobbs & R. White (Eds) The Sage Handbook of Fieldwork, London: Sage Gaztambide-Fernández A.R. (2015) Elite entanglements and the demand for a radically un/ethical position: the case of Wienie Night International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 28 (9): 1129-1147. Grek, S. (2021) Researching education elites twenty years on: Sex, lies and … video meetings in C. Addey,& N. Piattoeva, N. Intimate Accounts of Education Policy Research, London: Routledge. Hammersley, M. & Traianou, A. (2012) Ethics in Qualitative Research: Controversies and Contexts, London: SAGE. Lancaster, K. (2017) Confidentiality, anonymity and power relations in elite interviewing: conducting qualitative policy research in a politicised domain, International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 20:1, 93-103 Neal, S. and McLaughlin, E. (2009) Researching Up? Interviews, Emotionality and Policy-Making Elites Jnl Soc. Pol., 38 (4): 689–707 Ozga, J. & Gewirtz, S. (1994). Sex, lies & audiotape: interviewing the education policy elites. In Halpin and B. Troyna (Eds.), Researching education policy: Ethical and method (pp. 127–142). London: Falmer Press. Traianou, A. (2018) Ethical Regulation of Social Research versus the cultivation of phrónēsis, in N. Emmerich (Ed.) Virtue Ethics and Social Science Research: Integrity, Governance and Practice, London: Emerald. Traianou, A. & Hammersley, M. (2021) Is there a right not to be researched? Is there a right to do research? Some questions about informed consent and the principle of autonomy, International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 24:4, 443-452 Traianou, A. (2021) The intricacies of conditionality: education policy review in Greece 2015–2018, Journal of Education Policy, DOI: 10.1080/02680939.2021.1986641 Troyna, B., & Halpin, D. (1994) Researching education policy: Ethical and methodological issues London: Falmer Press. Walford, G. 1994. Ethics and power in a study of pressure group politics. In Researching the powerful in education, ed. G. Walford, 81–95. London: UCL Press. Walford, G. (2012) Researching the powerful in education: a reassessment of the problems, International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 35:2 111-118 Yates, L. (2004) What does good education research look like? Situating a field and its prac-tices. Open University Press: Maidenhead.