Content area
Full text
Despite Lebanon’s relatively wide use as an example in studies of ethnic politics, clientelism, sectarianism, and—most recently—refugees, comparatively few articles in top political science journals are published about Lebanese politics or based on extended fieldwork in Lebanon.1 Yet, in political science research, Lebanon is broadly represented as an area that consistently exhibits specific dynamics. Field-based scholarship on Lebanon often works to nuance this framing (see, e.g., Cammett 2014; Salloukh et al. 2015), but these works are few and far between.
Lack of contextual knowledge among both qualitatively and quantitatively oriented scholars substantiates overused categories of analyses, undermines data validity, and inhibits ethical production of knowledge. This article addresses three distinct, interrelated predicaments in the Lebanese context: (1) a generally uncritical focus on sect/sectarianism as the primary explanatory factor in Levantine politics; (2) research tourism/voyeurism; and (3) effects of these two factors on the survey-firm industry in Lebanon.
We first focus on the trap of seeing Lebanon exclusively through the prism of sect, partly because most previous work has centered on this form of identification. Second, we identify how this trend interacts with the growing valorization of “dangerous” research, which has played out in Lebanon in both the aftermath of the 2006 July War and the context of the Syrian refugee crisis. We identify problems associated with “academic tourism,” including ignorance of local histories and its effects on research design and analysis. Third, we note how Lebanese actors have responded by offering survey services tailored to the foreign-researcher market and shaped by its expectations. We conclude by arguing for more careful historical contextualization, creative casing of research, responsible research practices, and critical engagement with the production of academic knowledge.
Because core political science texts often cite Lebanon as an example of sectarian fragmentation (Lijphart 1977, 147–48, 155–56) and ethnic conflict (Horowitz 1985, 3, 31, 39), it also is a telling case study in the ethics of knowledge production (Schwedler 2014). Often described using terms such as “fragmented” or simply “highly complex,” Lebanon is used repeatedly to illustrate the same political phenomena. To be clear, this pattern is not limited to ethnic and sectarian politics, although it is perhaps most visible there. It also is evident in the repeated use of Hizb Allah (but not other...