THE
FUNDAMENTALS
OF SKATE OR DIE
Skateboarding as a site for subcultural resistance in
Palestine
Thomas Brambell
Universiteit van Amsterdam | Nieuwe Achtergracht 166, 1018 WX, Amsterdam, Netherlands
ABSTRACT:
As sport has centralised itself within the formal institutions of the international development sector, ‘alternative’ sports - including skateboarding - have emerged as central instruments of development. There are now several organisations - including SkatePal in Palestine - dedicated to involving skateboarding within development, all of which emphasise the developmental significance of skateboarding in its capacity to empower. Focussing specifically on skateboarding in the West Bank, a context where young people are forced to navigate and endure intersecting dimensions of oppression, the working assertion of this research is that if skateboarding as an instrument of development can empower it must have a social and/or political significance and explicitly or implicitly challenge existing power structures. Drawing on neo-Gramscian theories of hegemony and reconceptualised notions of citizenship, this research considers how skateboarding challenges existing power structures, specifically asking: ‘How can skateboarding function as a site for subcultural
resistance in Palestine?’. By bringing skateboarding - an area that remains particularly
unexplored within development studies - into an area of academic enquiry, this research acquires an academic and social importance within development studies, presenting skateboarding to its participants in an academic perspective within which it has not previously been considered. Drawing on ethnographic data from semi-structured interviews, focus groups, participatory observations, and participatory feedback sessions, this research works to methodologically and theoretically establish the contextual significance of skateboarding as an instrument of development. The observational data and thematically coded interviews show that skateboarding in Palestine has a uniquely inclusive and empowering subcultural identity, one of particular significance for women in its capacity to challenge systems of gendered oppression. While skateboarding lacks the instrumental capacity to deconstruct or reimagine imperialistic, authoritarian, or exploitative social, political, and economic structures, it provides Palestinians with the opportunity to escape from the Israeli occupation as well as liberate themselves psychologically. To function as a site for subcultural resistance in Palestine - as that which socially and politically empowers - is to, therefore, challenge systems of gendered oppression and provide physical and psychological freedom in a context defined by intersecting dimensions of oppression. Palestinian skateboarding establishes a small but vibrant social group with an interesting past and exciting future, the broader implication of which is that the international skateboarding community can learn from Palestinian skateboarding. Skateboarding, therefore, provides a new opportunity to understand Palestine beyond its relationship with Israel in the transformative pursuit of Palestine’s and Palestinian’s collective liberation.
Keywords:
Skateboarding, Palestine, empowerment, gender, subcultural resistance, citizenship, SkatePal
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS:
I would like to thank Dr. Martijn Dekker for his help with this research. Martijn has been extremely invested in and supportive of this research project since the beginning. In October of this year I went alone to a bar in Amsterdam. There I ran into a friend of mine. He invited me to join him for a beer and I accepted. I then proceeded to tell him about my new idea for research - which at the time seemed so ambitious. My friend insisted I speak to Martijn, as ‘the guy’ for Palestinian studies at the University of Amsterdam. He wrote down his email on a piece of paper and slid it across the table. I then finished my beer and left the bar. A few days later I found the piece of paper in my pocket, reminding me of my encounter earlier in the week. I then decided to email Martijn.
I did not know that going into that bar on a raining Amsterdam afternoon would be the start of such a fruitful and interesting working relationship with someone I was yet to meet, but I look back at that moment as a real turning point in my recent academic career. I sincerely appreciate your advice and guidance, Martijn. Without your invaluable expertise and continued support this project would have been much more difficult.
I would also like to thank all of those whom participated in this study. Your brave contributions have made this research what it is and, I hope, a fair reflection of your reality that does justice to your lived experiences. Those that participated in this study taught me so much, not just about Palestine and the Middle East but also myself. You all showed maturity, passion and understanding, to which I am extremely grateful.
I would like to dedicate this work to SkatePal, and any other institution dedicated to involving skateboarding in development. SkatePal is a unique institution with a unique vision for Palestine and a great hope for its future. I implore all of those who read this to volunteer, donate or support SkatePal and their operations in the West Bank in any way they can.
TABLE OF CONTENTS: Abstract ... 1 Acknowledgements ... 2 List of abbreviations ... 5 List of figures ... 5 1) Introduction ... 6 1.1: Literature review ... 6 1.2: Research focus ... 8 1.3: Thesis outline ... 10 2) Research question ... 11
2.1: Main research question ... 11
2.2: Sub-questions ... 11
3) Theoretical framework ... 13
3.1: Neo-Gramscian theories of hegemony ... 13
3.2: Citizenship and the logic of subcultural identity ... 14
3.3: Conceptualisation ... 16
3.3.1: Subcultural identity ... 16
3.3.2: Resistance ... 17
3.4: Operationalisation ... 17
3.5: Conceptual Scheme ... 18
4) Research locations, methodology, methods and Ethics ... 19
4.1: Research location ... 19 4.2: Methodology ... 19 4.3: Methods ... 19 4.4: Methodological reflection ... 21 4.4.1: Specific limitations ... 21 4.4.2: Quality assessment ... 22 [1] Trustworthiness ... 22 [2] Authenticity ... 23 4.5: Ethics ... 24 4.5.1: Before fieldwork ... 24 4.5.2: During fieldwork ... 25
[1] Participation ... 25
[2] Reflexivity ... 25
4.5.3: After Fieldwork ... 26
5) Palestinian context ... 27
5.1: Contemporary Palestine and the Israel-Palestine conflict ... 27
5.2: The Israeli occupation of the West Bank ... 28
[1] Acquisition ... 29
[2] Legitimisation ... 30
[3] Sustainment ... 31
5.3: The dictatorial tendencies of the Palestinian state ... 32
5.4: Social conservatism and gendered oppression ... 34
6) Skateboarding in Palestine ... 38
6.1: The history of Palestinian skateboarding ... 39
6.2: An introduction to the subcultural identity ... 39
6.3: Subcultural identity, subcultural structure and gender ... 41
[1] Structural inclusivity ... 42
[2] Empowerment ... 43
6.4: Skateboarding, psychological liberation and freedom ... 46
6.5: The future of Palestinian skateboarding and SkatePal ... 50
[1] Instrumental capacity ... 50
[2] Practical and organisational ... 51
7) Conclusion ... 53
7.1: Summary of findings ... 54
7.2: Theoretical reflections ... 56
7.2: Recommendations for future research ... 57
Bibliography ... 59
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS:
- in order of use -
SDP - Sport, Development and Peace UN - United Nations
EU - European Union
NGO - non-governmental organisations US - United States of America, United States PNA - Palestinian National Authority
UvA - University of Amsterdam, Universiteit van Amsterdam IDF - Israeli Defence Force
PLO - Palestinian Liberation Organisation BDS - Boycott, Disinvestment and Sanctions IOF - Israeli Occupation Force
LIST OF FIGURES:
Figure (1): Conceptual scheme ... 18 Figure (2): Operationalisation table ... 63
1: INTRODUCTION
In April 2020, the latest issue of Thrasher Magazine hit the shelves of skateshops and arrived on the doorsteps of their monthly subscribers. This issue contained a ten-page article about skateboarding in Palestine written by Welcome Skateboards professional Ryan Lay. Ryan visited the West Bank for the second time in 2019, during which he released a video part titled: ‘Wellspring’. Ryan’s article gave the skateboarding scene in Palestine a whole new exposure, encouraging readers to visit, volunteer or support the scene in any way they can. One central component of the skateboarding scene in Palestine that Ryan’s article drew particular attention to was SkatePal, a non-profit development organisation dedicated to supporting the Palestinian youth through skateboarding.
Sport has centralised itself within the formal institutions of the international development sector, creating an increasingly welcoming context for sport to demonstrate its developmental significance. As sport has acquired this prominent position, ‘alternative’ sports - including skateboarding - have emerged as central instruments of development. There are now several organisations operating within distinct geographical and, therefore, social and political contexts dedicated to involving skateboarding within development - including Skateistan in Afghanistan, Cambodia and South Africa, and SkatePal in Palestine - all of which emphasise the developmental significance of skateboarding in its capacity to empower young people.
1.1: Literature review
Since the institutional emergence of the development sector, sport as an instrument of development - or the ‘Sport, Development and Peace sector’ (SDP) - has received significant financial, political and organisational support from the United Nations (UN), the European Union (EU), and national governments within four central policy domains - private and commercial institutions, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), national and intergovernmental agencies, and social movements (Giulianotti, 2011a; 2011b). These institutions - and the projects they fund, inform and direct - emphasise the potential of sport to facilitate meaningful social change. Several scholars have considered the relationship between sport and development, asserting its compatibility with the interests of the global developmental project - notably the Sustainable Development Goals - and the capacity of sport to transcend cultural differences (Darnell, 2010). Joseph Maguire (1999; 2011a; 2011b), for example, draws attention to the association between sport and identity politics, specifically the ideological capacity of sport to reflect and reinforce a national identity within an increasingly globalised context. Richard Giulianotti (2004) similarly emphasises the significant role of sport in promoting peace in developing societies but is also critical of naïve and evangelical assertions regarding sport’s unquestionable and inherent 'goodness’ within international development.
Several scholars are particularly critical of the role of sport in development. Simon Darnell (2010) asserts that we cannot considered sport to be a politically transcendent instrument but rather one that operates within the same problematic power relations as development itself. He argues that ‘development’ is fundamentally a modern paradigm that reinforces three central perspectives, specifically an essentialist view of the developing world and its members as a homogenous group, informing assumptions about the necessity of development and a singular, linear notion of modernity; the unquestionable confidence in modernisation; and the centralisation of the nation-state as the central recipient of, and participant in the developmental process (Darnell, 2010). Development can, therefore, only be understood within certain hegemonic political relations which create and maintain a specific position of privilege (Darnell, 2010). A similar criticism is proposed by Giulianotti and his co-authors (2016). Applying a Bourdieusian sociological approach - which informs the understanding of the SDP sector as socially and politically constructed out of the interactions and political interests of different participants and stakeholders and, therefore, varies significantly in accordance with the aims and interests of different stakeholders - to sport within international development, the article asserts that sport is often used by donors who hold unquestionable and infallible beliefs about the developmental potential of sport (Giulianotti et al., 2016). According to Giulianotti and his co-authors (2016), given the wide global consensus concerning the benefits of sport among development organisations, practitioners and policymakers, such understandings of sport as an inherently effective instrument of development are not necessarily surprising. However, the consequence of such an understanding is that advocates for the SDP sector have had very little critical engagement with the power relations that surround sport - specifically the sociological hegemony systematically sustained and promoted by sport in development. Such criticisms seem to reflect Richard Gruneau’s (1983) critical analysis of sport. Informed by the work of Marx, Gramsci, and Giddens, Gruneau (1983) asserts that sport is fundamentally a cultural practice that fails to transcend the society that produces it (Andrews & Giardina, 2008). What Gruneau (1983) is arguing is that - like Alan Ingham and Stephen Hardy (1984) - the formal practice of sport cannot be conceived independently of the social structures that define and organise that society, but that popular cultural activities have become means of producing and reproducing dominant cultural norms and values (Beal, 1995). However, while I acknowledge the capacity of sport to perhaps reflect - rather than (re)produce - dominant cultural values and norms, I do not agree that sport necessarily maintains or entrenches existing power structures. While several scholars have considered the productive potential of sport in development, research has failed to consider the developmental capacity of sport beyond itself. I believed that skateboarding and the unique cultural practices that surround it - discussed by Wheaton and Beal (2003) and Kara-Jane Lombard (2017) in her book ‘Skateboarding: Subcultures, Sites and Shifts’ which features work from Atencio and Beal (2016), O’Connor (2016), Orpana (2016) and Willing and Shearer (2016) - represent a capacity to challenge existing power structures through subcultural resistance. This is not necessarily a new topic. Beal (1995), for example, considered the capacity of skateboarding culture to
challenge capitalist social relations. It is, however, a topic that remains undiscussed within development studies.
When it comes to skateboarding specifically, however, it would be illogical to assume that the same problematic relations are not reflected within development practice. Thorpe and Rinehart (2012: 120) - discussing the operations of Skateistan - argue that sport within development comes from a “hegemonically privileged position” which systematically advances certain social principles that westerners would consider both morally virtuous and fundamentally progressive within a society that may not necessarily share such convictions. Citing the work of Klees (1998) and Chouliaraki (2010), Thorpe and Reinhart (2012) also assert that the operations of NGOs within a neoliberal context are seriously compromised. NGOs are forced to obey a market logic, one that is independent of a political vision of justice but not of economic interests (Thorpe & Reinhart, 2012). This is not to assume that all NGO’s systematically advance the principles and provisions of neoliberalism, nor that their efforts are incapable of effectively facilitating development. In fact, NGOs and social movements are often critical of the global imposition of neoliberal policies and, therefore, represent a significant political challenge to corporate and institutional interests (Giulianotti et al., 2016). The main implication, however, is that operating in a neoliberal context, NGOs like Skateistan are forced to advance the interests of their donors - the majority of which are foreign governmental agencies and transnational corporations (Chouliaraki, 2010; Thorpe & Reinhart, 2012). The operations of most NGOs are, therefore, inseparably associated with the operations and interests of neoliberalism (Kaldor, 2003).
1.2: Research focus
With corporations, governing institutions, development agencies, and civil society organisations using sport as a central instrument of development, each with their own unique agenda, constituencies, interests and mandates, sport is obviously a central aspect of development (Burnett, 2014). While several scholars have problematised the role of sport - including skateboarding - in development, the concept of empowerment has largely escaped critical examination. The developmental significance of skateboarding - in its capacity to empower - is, therefore, fundamentally assumed rather than explicitly interrogated. According to Grace Spencer’s (2012; 2013a; 2013b; 2015) critical understanding of empowerment, the concept is conventionally understood as an inherently positive and proactive approach to development. Such normative assumptions about the concept of empowerment that inform conventional and characteristically western understandings of empowerment are systematically privileged within development policy. The purpose of this study, however, is to consider how skateboarding functions as an instrument of development by explicitly interrogating what it is to empower young people within a specific context. It is through the explicit interrogation of empowerment and by bringing skateboarding - an area that remains particularly unexplored within development studies - into an area of academic enquiry, that this research acquires an academic and social importance within development
studies, presenting skateboarding to its participants in an academic perspective within which it has not previously been considered.
Despite the highly contested nature of empowerment across scholarly and practical disciplines, it is fundamentally a social process through which groups and individuals come to define their own reality. Empowerment is, therefore, a recognition of freedom of choice and action that acknowledges the fundamental relations of power. However, informed by constructivist ontological assumptions that emphasise the significance of the social realm - and all formal institutions that constitute and define it - as necessarily constructed through and shaped by a variety of linguistic, formal, and discursive instruments, this research asserts that empowerment can only be understood when contextualised and, therefore, intends to consider the contextual significance of skateboarding as an instrument of development.
I focus here on skateboarding in the Palestinian context and its capacity to empower young people with specific attention to intersecting dimensions of oppression and reconceptualised notions of citizenship - attributed most specifically to cultural institutions that exist independently of and in explicit opposition to the state and society, specifically subcultures and individual identification with those subcultures. While skateboarding is undeniably a sport, it is also a subculture. Phrases like ‘Skate and Destroy’ and ‘Skate or Die’ that have become popular within skateboarding culture are reflective of this subcultural structure, specifically the blind patriotism of skateboarders to a distinctive history and unique identity.
As a society, Palestine has an overwhelmingly young population, the future of which is defined by an occupying Israeli authority, a professionalised authoritarian ‘state’ lacking popular legitimacy (Tartir 2016; 2020), and structures of gendered oppression. These existing power structures are thought to marginalise and oppress Palestinians - particularly the Palestinian youth - and are the site of significant contestation. Informed by constructivist ontological assumptions, this research asserts that: if skateboarding as an instrument of development can empower young people in societies like Palestine, empowerment must have a social and/or political significance. Drawing on neo-Gramscian theories of hegemony and reconceptualised notions of citizenship, this research will consider how skateboarders construct a subcultural identity through involvement with the sport that implicitly or explicitly and formally or informally challenges existing power structures (see chapter 3.3. for conceptualisation).
Skateboarding is not inherently counter-hegemonic, transformative or revolutionary, nor does it afford the discursive potential to deconstruct or reimagine imperialistic, authoritarian, or exploitative social, political and economic structures, but does represent a productive potential for subcultural resistance (Beal, 1995; Vivoni, 2009). As emphasised by Ian Black (2017), however, citing the words of Mohammad Assaf - the 2013 winner of the popular television competition Arab Idol - in his book ‘Enemies and Neighbours: Arabs and
Jews in Palestine and Israel, 1917-2017’, revolution is not just about the rifle. The social and
political empowerment of Palestinians is not necessarily a violent process which refers exclusively to the oppression of Israel, but it is also related to gendered oppression and its
own society.1 Too often Palestine and Palestinians are represented within academic literature
and their own political narratives as an object that can only be understood in relation to Israel. The cynical appropriation of this narrative reinforces the representation of Palestine as the victim, and while this may certainly be the case, it is possible to understand Palestine beyond its relationship with Israel. One thing that will become clear in this research, is that skateboarding provides a new opportunity to understand Palestine beyond its relationship with Israel.
1.3: Thesis outline
Chapter 2 outlines the research question and sub-questions, as well as the logic surrounding them. Chapter 3 presents the theoretical framework, the conceptual and operational logic, and the conceptual scheme. Chapter 4 outlines the research location, the methodological approach, the specific research methods, and includes a methodological and ethical reflection. The final chapters focus on the empirical context and data analysis.
This research will quickly prove insufficient in reference to regional history and will not provide a historical analysis of either Israel or Palestine or the conflict between them. However, to understand contemporary Palestine - and, therefore, the context within which this research was conducted - one must understand the country’s history and the region within which it exists. Chapter 5 introduces the Palestinian context, briefly outlining the dimensions of the Israel-Palestine conflict in its contemporary guise, as well as the political narratives that surround it, and the three central dimensions of oppression Palestinians are forced to endure. The purpose of this section is to introduce the state of Palestine and outline its popularly defining characteristics. Chapter 6 describes and analyses skateboarding in Palestine, including its historical origins, the logic of subcultural identity, and its contemporary significance - focussing also on gender, psychological liberation, freedom and the future of Palestinian skateboarding. A clear distinction will be drawn between the assumed theoretical findings and reality as the basis of methodological and theoretical analysis. The main findings and theoretical contributions will then be summarised in the concluding chapter.
1 It is important to acknowledge that the purpose of this research is not to question the existence of the state
of Israel - a state that has asserted valid legal and historical claims to territory which is thought to constitute part of the ancestral homeland of the Jewish people. Nor is it to necessarily question or object to the right of people - irrespective of their social and political history - to identify or define themselves along national and ethnic lines. Therefore, this research does not question the Zionistic assertion that the Jewish people are entitled to a state irrespective of whether that state is to be informed by Judaism or secularism. However, this research does acknowledge the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories to be a reality and considers Israel to be a central oppressive force for Palestine and Palestinians.
2: RESEARCH QUESTION
2.1: Main research question
‘How can skateboarding function as a site for subcultural resistance in Palestine?’ 2.2: Sub-questions
• ‘How do skateboarders establish a subcultural identity through involvement with the
sport?’
o ‘How does that identity both inform and define the subcultural structure of
skateboarding?’
o ‘Is that identity shared by all skateboarders in Palestine? Or is there a diversity
of identities?’
• ‘How does this identity relate to formal political institutions and societal norms and
values?’
Diverging from the methodological and theoretical foundations of the seminal subcultural research at the Birmingham Centre for Contemporary Subcultural Studies and North American deviance studies - also known as the Chicago school - this study defines subcultures as that which deviates from conventional culture ultimately defined by their diffuse networks and shared meanings - informed by Ross Haenfler’s (2014) and Patrick Williams’s (2011) understandings of subcultural theory (Wheaton & Beal, 2003). Subcultures are not defined by formal leadership or formal membership, lacking an explicit organisational structure (Haenfler, 2014). Instead, membership is defined by participation as the boundaries of who and what embodies the subculture. While exclusionary in the sense that they have distinct boundaries, subcultural membership is rarely exclusive or definitive (Williams, 2011). Members of one subculture can logically identify as part of the subculture while simultaneously interacting with other cultural and social networks. It is possible, therefore, that the boundaries of one subculture are indistinguishable from another. However, subcultures have clearly defined identities, some of which are more politicised than others. These identities define what the subculture holds to be important, often distinguishing the subculture from conventional culture. Members cannot, therefore, interact with another cultural group if the identities of each respective culture are necessarily opposed.
As a subculture, skateboarding has certain associated identities that are not necessarily fixed but reflect the context of their construction. Consider, for example, the intimate association between skateboarding and punk music throughout the 1980’s and 1990’s. The overtly political nature of hardcore punk music assigned an anarchist social identity to skateboarding, one that explicitly viewed dominant culture as necessarily undesirable (Lorr, 2005). This is not to assume, however, that all participants - while all skateboarders - share common values and identities, nor is it to assume that participation
necessarily determines political identity - specifically the opposition to existing power structures (Beal, 1995). For example, although the demographics of participation are changing, skateboarding has been historically privileged by white males (Beal et al., 2017). Skateboard media is often criticised as a male dominated and potentially misogynistic environment, considered a repressive space for women. Using Foucault’s concepts of power, knowledge and discourse, Thorpe (2008) proposes a purposeful investigation into the portrayal of female skateboarders and snowboarders in the media, asserting that the media, as a social institution, is not just a judicial mechanism that limits, obstructs, and censors, but regulates the production and circulation of statements and perceptions of female skateboarders, systematically constructing and reinforcing an identity to which they have little control (Thorpe, 2006; 2008). While Matthew Atencio and his co-authors (2009) in their article ‘The Distinction of Risk’ acknowledge the increased involvement of women in skateboarding, they too observe a social space typically structured around male power that produces and reproduces gendered relations and social dynamics. It is, therefore, perfectly plausible to assume that certain female skateboarders will not necessarily identify with a collective subcultural identity.
However, while it is necessary to consider the heterogeneity of skateboarders and their political identities, it is plausible to assume that a certain identity does exist. Despite the social heterogeneity of Palestinian skateboarders in relation to class, gender and religious identity, skateboarders share an identity that has emerged through participation with the sport which ascribes a certain degree of uniformity in relation to citizenship. Focusing specifically on urban politics, Francisco Vivoni (2009) argues that skateboarding is characterised by an uneasy contestation between its participants and formal governing institutions. Through creative spatial tactics that illicitly appropriate urban spaces for the purpose of skateboarding and administrative efforts of control through urban design - the latter referring specifically to skateparks and the purposeful crafting of urban spaces - Vivoni’s (2009) research theorises how skateboarding represents a significant challenge to normative assumptions about urban land use. The contestation between formal institutional structures and skateboarding that appears to structure and characterise the subculture within urban politics is representative of a broader negotiation that, I believe, defines the fundamentals of skateboarding in its developmental capacity.
Focussing on how skateboarding as a subculture can socially and politically - rather than economically - empower young people within a specific context, this research asks:
‘How can skateboarding function as a site for subcultural resistance in Palestine?’
This research, therefore, explores how skateboarders have constructed an identity through involvement with the sport that both informs and defines the subculture, and how this identity represents - as argued by Michael Lorr (2005) - a threatening critique of or opposition to existing power structures.
3: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Drawing on neo-Gramscian theories of hegemony - specifically Peter Thomas’s (2013) alternative typology of hegemony and Gavin Smith’s (2011) notion of selective hegemony - and Andrew Gordon and Trevor Stack’s (2007) reconceptualised notion of citizenship, this research will theories how skateboarding as a subculture interacts with hegemonic socio-political structures.
3.1: Neo-Gramscian theories of hegemony
Gramsci’s theory of hegemony is interpreted in a variety of ways and applied across a diversity of practical and theoretical disciplines (Thomas, 2013). Hegemony - as theorised by Thomas (2013) - is fundamentally a cultural and theoretical principle of power and domination to theorise the challenge, contestation, or delegitimisation of existing power structures. While conventionally understood as a more subtle, yet continual struggle for domination, this struggle includes but is not necessarily limited to the outright declaration of full military hostilities or the explicit contestation between formal institutional structures and revolutionary forces.
What is unique about the concept of hegemony, however, is that as a theory of power and domination, hegemony refers to a particular kind of structural relationship between the dominant social group(s) and society. The theory of hegemony - in relation to the political organisation of dominant and subordinate groups - refers to a specific group(s) securing the ‘consent’ of broader society as the dominant or leading social group(s), rather than imposing its authority upon reluctant subjects. Hegemony, therefore, refers to the mechanisms of ideological integration that imply the active consent of the subordinate group in creating and maintaining their own subordinate status as an alternative to dominant coercion (Beal, 1995; Thomas, 2013).
Thomas (2013: 24) proposes an alternative ‘typology of hegemony’, what he refers to as a “dialectic presentation of its constitutive elements”. Drawing specific attention to four integrally and dialectically associated ‘moments’ of hegemonic development - specifically (1) hegemony as social and political leadership; (2) hegemony as a political project; (3) the realisation of the hegemonic project; and (4) the social and political hegemony of the workers’ movement - his typology provides both an analysis of the emergence of modern state power, and a theory of alternative political application (Thomas, 2013). As a political project, Thomas (2013) asserts that hegemony involves the articulation of difference, specifically the active political, social and cultural organisation of subjects - in this context Palestinians - within what Stefan Bollinger and Juha Koivisto (2009) refer to as a ‘hegemonic apparatus’. Thus, creating new means through which the dominant group(s) are able to secure the consent of the subordinate groups (Thomas, 2011). The consequence of which is the construction of structured social and political institutions and organisations of oppression. This research, therefore, employs neo-Gramscian theory to understand oppression as an essential
instrument and fundamental consequence of the hegemonic apparatus - rather than to understand the development or entrenchment of hegemonic structures themselves. In other words, oppression is manifested through structural control and normalised through hegemony.
Citing the work of Aiwa Ong (2006), Smith (2011) asserts that the notion of hegemony embraces a wider arena than conventional understandings of power and governmentality: specifically, an understanding of the social world in terms of force and counterforce. Smith (2011) refers specifically to a politics of negotiation to which force, conflict and resistance are the essential consequence of the hegemonic apparatus. Neither hegemony nor oppression can, therefore, be understood independently of conflict. Even in its most primitive form, the development of hegemony refers to a form of coercion that is the inevitably barbarous consequence of modernity (Smith, 2011).
It is not just at the primary moment, however, that hegemony requires coercion. According to Smith (2011), within political society - where the threat of forceful coercion and conflict is never entirely absent - there are specific institutions of collective membership that continually negotiate the structures of hegemony - including the state and society - through counter-hegemonic resistance. In this sense, counter-hegemonic resistance is an inherent and unavoidable dynamic of hegemony, as is the persistent role of forceful political intervention for the stable (re)production of socio-political hegemony. Given that the territorial boundaries of the state itself restrict the field of negotiable politics to a territorially and spatially bound concept of hegemony, counter-hegemonic resistance is a politics of negotiation within the broader structure of socio-political hegemony (Smith, 2011). Neo-Gramscian theories of hegemony, therefore, both theorise the existence of hegemonic socio-political structures and struggles against these structures.
3.2: Citizenship and the logic of subcultural identity
The state is conventionally defined by several central characteristics. According to Max Weber (1994), the state must be a territorially bound and, therefore, demarcated sovereign community, within which a population resides as politically distinct (Weber, 1994). Central to this understanding of the state is the notion of rule of law, systematically enforced by the state to which the entire population is subject (Weber, 1994). The state must, therefore, claim a monopoly over the legitimate use of force within the territory it administers, necessarily establishing the state as the supreme political authority (Weber, 1994). This authority grants the state the right to define and appropriate membership to the sovereign community and the associated responsibility of the state to its citizens. What this responsibility refers to is the notion of citizenship, the consequence of which has been the (re)formulation of social relations around structures of selectivity and difference which restricts the field of negotiable politics to selected participants, specifically a sphere of action beyond which such negotiations are not possible (Smith, 2011). Hegemony, therefore, provides the state with the capacity to exclude people and places. One’s own lived
experiences with hegemony are, therefore, the consequences of the dominant group(s)’s understanding of social membership - specifically citizenship.
Within development studies the notion of citizenship has emerged as an area of significant debate but is fundamentally defined by its constitutive elements - specifically that of freedom, rights, duties, entitlements to common and public goods, collective and individual identities, and a commitment to a community or polity (Gaventa, 2002; Gordon & Stack, 2007). Citizenship is, therefore, often appropriated and defined by the state within academic literature and contemporary political debates. This assumption implies that conventional citizenship - as that which is defined and appropriated by the state - has an emancipatory significance in relation to its constitutive elements for those recognised as citizens by the state (Gordon & Stack, 2007). This raises questions about the meaning and nature of citizenship: who is entitled to these rights and on what basis are they obtained?
As emphasised by Ong (1999; 2006), different elements of citizenship once assumed to be the responsibility of the state are being reconceptualised within an increasingly globalised context and, therefore, rearticulated by universalising forces and standards that challenge our understandings of contemporary citizenship. Ong (2006: 24) asserts that understandings of citizenship that do not extend beyond the state - what she refer to as legal citizenship - is “merely one of multiple schemes for (re)ordering and (re)evaluating humanity” and, therefore, fail to acknowledge the complexity of the concept.
Contemporary Palestine cannot be considered a coherent state in the Weberian sense. Palestine is an incredibly contested territory defined by distinct components totalling around eleven million people divided between what remains of historic Palestine - including the West Bank of the River Jordan and Gaza on the Mediterranean coast - and a diaspora residing mostly in the neighbouring states of Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Egypt. Palestine does not exist as a demarcated sovereign community, nor does it exercise a monopoly over the legitimate use of force and is not able to legally define who its citizens are. Palestine, therefore, lacks the literal capacity to assume authority over the notion of citizenship. However, Ong (1999; 2006) observes that in the contemporary world it is no longer the state that exclusively defines citizenship, but that people can make claims on a range of agencies, including organisations and institutions that are not formally recognised as or by the state. Palestinian citizenship is not, therefore, a literal contradiction of conventional citizenship but a logical possibility within an increasingly globalised context.
What Ong (1999; 2006) fails to consider, however, is that conventional understandings of citizenship not only fail to acknowledge the complexity of the concept but seem to imply that citizenship is imposed by the state on the population. While this is true to a certain extent, considering that the assumed authority of the state over citizenship is (re)produced through law and education, citizenship cannot be imposed by a civil authority in its entirety - especially when the civil authority lacks the capability to define citizenship (Gordon & Stack, 2007). Citizenship is not, therefore, simply the constitutional or legal recognition of one’s membership to a state. While states emerge as social spaces constructed by and for their citizens, states cannot wholly appropriate the notion of citizenship. Citizenship can in fact
exist independently of and in explicit opposition to the state and society - a form of citizenship that is inherently counter-hegemonic.
Subcultures and individual identification with those subcultures, therefore, represents a reconceptualised dimension of citizenship, defined not just by the state but also by individuals within society. Members of specific subcultures actively constitute and inform their identity, becoming the agents and regulators of their own civility - rather than passive consumers of conventional citizenship (Gordon & Stack, 2007). Citing the work of James Holston (1999), Gordon and Stack (2007) argue that this understanding of civility as subcultural identity not only becomes a deliberative, direct and democratic mechanism, but may also acquire an explicitly oppositional dimension known as ‘insurgent citizenship’ - referring to local, regional or transnational attempts to resist the nationally defined and territorially restricted vision of the state. It is the notion of belonging - not just to the state - that individuals acquire the constitutive elements of civility that may in fact be oppositional to the state itself, what Smith (2011) referred to as specific institutions of collective membership that continually negotiate the structures of hegemony.
3.3: Conceptualisation
This sub-section conceptualises the key and operationalised concepts included in the research question. This section and the following section will, therefore, establish how key concepts are defined and measured.
3.3.1: Subcultures
Informed by Haefner’s (2014) and Williams’s (2011) understanding of subcultural theory, there are two fundamental dimensions of subcultures that both constitute and define the concept: (1) membership; and (2) subcultural identity.
(1) Membership defined by participation, establishing the boundaries of who and what embodies the subculture.
(2) And, secondly, subcultural identity. Specifically, that which the subculture holds to be important and often, though not necessarily always, distinguishes the subculture from conventional culture and other cultural networks. Informed by Thorpe’s (2006; 2008) understanding of femininity in skateboarding culture, subcultural identify can be: (a) individual; or (b) collective.
(a) Individual to skateboarding as a subculture, and/or individual to the respondent, specifically the construction of, engagement with, and (re)production of the subculture and what significance that subcultural identity has in relation to resistance. Therefore, implying that an individual subcultural identity does not ideologically align with other subcultural identities, nor with others of the same subculture.
(b) And conversely, a collectively constructed, engaged, and participated identity specific to skateboarding, and/or ideologically aligned with other subcultural identities in collective resistance against hegemonic structures - therefore, a shared identity amongst subcultures in Palestine as necessarily resistant to existing political structures.
3.3.2: Resistance
Informed by Holston’s (1999) notion of ‘insurgent citizenship’ and Smith’s (2011) framework of selective hegemony, resistance is conceptualised as oppositional and/or critical behaviour and attitudes to hegemonic structures within a specific context - specifically the Palestinian skateboarding community - defined by two central dimensions: (1) practices; and (2) perceptions.
(1) Practices as behaviours - what members of a subculture do - and how those behaviours may be formally (organised) or informally (disorganised) resistant to hegemonic structures.
(2) Perceptions as attitudes - how members of a subculture think - and how those attitudes may be explicitly (clearly and directly expressed) or implicitly (suggested or inferred) resistant to hegemonic structures.
3.4: Operationalisation
Operationalisation refers to the process of devising measures for the concepts included in the research question. While the dimensions included in the conceptualisation section suggest a distinction between subjects of extreme categories, operationalisation provides an instrument for determining greater differences and nuances in relation to the characteristics in question - in this context subcultures and resistance (Bryman, 2012). Specific Indicators - consistent with the research methods (see figure 2, Appendix 1) - will be employed as a measure for each concept, allowing for the evaluation of concepts that are perhaps less quantifiable (Bryman, 2012). Each indicator is informed by literature across the theoretical framework, but primarily by Haefner’s (2014) and Williams’s (2011) understanding of subcultural theory and Holston’s (1999) notion of ‘insurgent citizenship’ - specifically with regard to what constitutes resistance within a specific context.
It is important to emphasise that some of the indicators, specifically regarding structural inclusivity, psychological liberation, physical freedom and gendered considerations, were adopted during the course of data collection. The empirical context within which this research was conducted significantly influenced what indicators functioned as appropriate measurement devices.
3.5: Conceptual scheme
Figure (1): Conceptual scheme
INT
ER
NA
TIO
NA
L C
O
NT
EX
T
Sk ate bo ard in g s ce ne In te rn atio nal vo lu nt ee rs Sk ate Pa lPA
LE
ST
IN
IA
N
C
O
N
TE
XT
Fo un din g c oh ort In div id ual sk ate rs Sk ate bo ard in g s ce ne in P ale stin e Si te fo r c ult ura l ex ch an geCI
TIZ
EN
SHI
P
In clu siv ity Em po w er m en t Fr ee do m Ps yc ho lo gic al lib era tio n Co nte xtu al si gn ific an ce4: RESEARCH LOCATION, METHODS, METHODOLOGY AND ETHICS:
This section outlines the research location, the methodological approach, the specific research methods, and includes a methodological and ethical reflection. This section also discusses the implications the COVID-19 pandemic has had for this research.
4.1: Research location
This research was conducted in Palestine, a small territory divided into two administrative units; Gaza on the Mediterranean, and the West Bank of the River Jordan. While Gaza establishes an equally significant component of Palestine, and while there is an equally vibrant skateboarding community in Gaza as there is in the West Bank, this research focusses on the skateboarding community in the West Bank and the specific context within which it operates.
4.2: Methodology
The methodology of this research is entirely qualitative. While both qualitative and quantitative methodological approaches have a similar symbiotic relationship with data collection and analysis, qualitative research is fundamentally defined by its unique relationship with theory and can only be understood in relation to quantitative research. The distinction between qualitative and quantitative research is not defined by the former’s characteristic absence of numbers, nor the latter’s relationship with numbers but their relationship with theory. Such understandings of qualitative and quantitative research are inherently problematic in their capacity to reduce qualitative research to that which quantitative research is not and, therefore, quantitative research to that which qualitative is not. While quantitative research is characteristically deductive, qualitative research has an inductive relationship with theory, whereby theory is that which emerges from the collection and analysis of data (Bryman, 2012). Given that my research question - ‘How has
skateboarding emerged as a site for subcultural resistance in Palestine?’ - suggests an
inductive relationship between theory and data, it is necessary that a qualitative methodology be used.
4.3: Methods
There are several research methods within qualitative methodology, all of which have their unique applicatory significance. Given the constructivist ontological and interpretivist epistemological orientation of my research where - in contrast to inherently scientific, phenomenological, or positivist epistemological orientations associated with quantitative research - the social world is understood through direct examination and interpretation, it is necessary to adopt an appropriate research methodology that encourages direct observation
(Bryman, 2012). This internal consistency of my research instruments - particularly in their ontological and epistemological association - is a necessary condition of the reliability of the research. This research is, therefore, inherently anthropological and characteristically ethnographic. Ethnography is defined as an empirical investigation and theoretical interpretation of a social organisation or culture within their social context, the fundamental purpose of which is to produce a descriptive, yet analytically significant account of that social organisation or culture that is faithful to the perspectives and experiences of its participants (Green & Thorogood, 2004; Hammersley & Atkinson, 2007).
Each respondent was sampled systematically and, therefore, purposefully. All participants were skateboarders between the ages of 12 and 27 - and so considered youths, defined as individuals below the age of 35. Considering that my research relates to the resistance of contextualised social, political and economic structures, it was necessary that my participants were of an age where they were capable of exercising a certain degree of agency, and a degree of involvement with skateboarding - although not necessarily a degree of ability - that granted them the autonomous capacity to identify with the subcultural identity. I was extremely impressed and positively surprised by the maturity and understanding the respondents showed, despite some of them being so young.
Considering the difficulty establishing the exact number of skateboarders in Palestine and, therefore, calculating what would constitute a representative sample, as many skateboarders as possible were sampled. Sampling was informed by two criteria: (1) if they were Palestinians below the age of 35; and (2) if they were skateboarders willing to participate. The logic of sampling was not, therefore, informed by gender. The reason for this was that by sampling as many skateboarders as possible without considering gender, the participatory demographics of my eventual data set would reflect the broader participatory demographics of the skateboarding scene and, therefore, as close to a representative sample as could be calculated.
Data was collected through a series of intense participatory observations and 21 semi-structured interviews of varying durations - the shortest lasting 5 minutes and the longest lasting 45 minutes - as well as two focus groups of two and three participants respectively and group reflection sessions. Data relating to participation in and perceived importance of skateboarding, as well as society, gender and politics was collected. The data from these interviews and observations was collated and later analysed. Using qualitative thematic coding techniques, central themes grounded in the data were identified. These themes have informed the conclusions.
11 of my interview respondents were women between the ages of 12 and 20 with a mean age of 15.27 years and 10 of my interview respondents were men aged 15 to 27 with a mean age of 20.6 years. Each interview followed an informal conversational structure guided by certain questions and topics informed by the operationalisation of key concepts. The interview questions focussed specifically on how identification with skateboarding informs and relates to the practices and perceptions of skateboarders. The focus groups followed a
similar structure but only included female participants and focussed specifically on the topic of women’s empowerment.
4.4: Methodological reflection
Despite the ontological and epistemological association between my research methodology and methods, there are certain methodological reflections to be made that relate to (1) specific limitations; and (2) quality assessment - primarily informed by the criteria for assessing qualitative data proposed by Lincoln and Guba (1985) and Guba and Lincoln (1994) as cited in Bryman (2012). I consider this to be the most appropriate quality assessment criteria for qualitative research given its explicit qualitative focus - and, therefore, an alternative criterion for the assessment of quantitative research - and normative dimension. I believe it is important to make a normative assessment when considering the quality of qualitative research in relation to reliability and validity.
4.4.1: Specific limitations
After the first few cases of COVID-19 were discovered in the West Bank, a state of national emergency was declared by the Palestinian National Authority (PNA). Following the introduction of COVID-related restrictions the local skate spots were closed and conducting research became increasingly difficult. After one week of the emergency all foreigners were instructed to leave the West Bank, forcing me to conclude my research two weeks early. I had to cancel prospective interviews, participatory observations, and the remaining focus groups had to be conducted over Skype. During these Skype interviews I experienced regular connection issues and maintaining the engaged interest of the participants became increasingly difficult.
Israel quickly recorded over 200 cases of COVID-19 and informed me that I was no longer permitted to stay in Israel. I was instructed to return to Ramallah, get my affairs in order and then leave immediately. Given the circumstances of my departure, I did not have an opportunity to type up my observational notes. Travelling with the actual diaries would most probably have raised suspicion at immigration. I unfortunately had to discard my observational diaries - which included the notes taken during observations, as well as the dates and duration of each observation - as there was an increased risk that they would be confiscated at Ben Gurion Airport, Tel Aviv. Fortunately, I had already transcribed all the interviews and made sure to photograph the pages of my observational diaries that I considered to be especially important.
4.4.2: The quality of the research
Assessing the quality of the research involves considering two central criteria, specifically (1) trustworthiness; and (2) authenticity.
(1) Trustworthiness:
Trustworthiness is defined by four central sub-criteria, specifically (i) credibility, as a whether findings represent a fair account of reality; (ii) transferability, as whether findings can be generalised and, therefore, applied to other contexts or the same context at a different time; (iii) dependability, as whether findings are likely to apply at other times; and (iv) confirmability, as whether the investigator has allowed their values to significantly influence the research (Bryman, 2012).
(i) Credibility
Triangulating my data collection process was the primary source of credibility. Emphasising the importance of the participatory contributions of my respondents and the significance of local knowledge within research for the collection, analysis and contextualisation of data, I held regular participatory feedback sessions with numerous participants. During these sessions I explicitly stated what I had observed to be subcultural resistance and if my respondents shared the same convictions. The purpose of these sessions was to ultimately triangulate my data, so that my research participants could both validate and interpret my findings, as well as scrutinise and reinforce my research throughout the data collection and analysis process, granting my participants a certain degree of authority over my research in the interests of ensuring the transparency and validity of my data.
(ii) Transferability
Considering the contextual nature of this study - both ontologically and epistemologically - transferability and generalisability is minimal. However, the meticulousness of the research process - particularly in relation to methods and methodology - and the explicit contextualisation of data allows others to make the appropriate judgements about the possible transferability of the findings. Given the consistency of measurements with regard to the subjects, the research itself is certainly reproduceable in other socio-political contexts, although it may yield different results. This is, however, fundamentally an issue of empiricism. While it is difficult to ensure a degree of scientific empiricism in qualitative research, the thick descriptive nature of this research provides a detailed account of the Palestinian skateboarding community and its developmental significance, providing others with the capacity to make judgements about the possible generalisability of findings.
(iii) Dependability
Despite the fact that my observational diaries had to be discarded, each phase of the research process - including the initial problem formulation, the selection of research
participants, and the interview transcripts - was made available to all participants and the supervisor of this research in the interest of ensuring dependability - establishing an informal ‘auditing’ approach, where information is collected, recorded and shared in an accessible and understandable way. In the interest of ensuring transparency, specifically regarding the data collection process, a Transparency Document - which provides all the information of each interview and focus group, including the age and sex of each participant but excluding identifying information, specifically the participants name - was prepared and shared with the responsible individuals, specifically the thesis supervisor and the University of Amsterdam (UvA) course director.
(iv) Confirmability
Confirmability is concerned with ensuring objectivity, while recognising the inescapability of one’s biases and the impossibility of neutrality in social research (Bryman, 2012). In the interest of ensuring objectivity where possible, I relied on the participatory feedback of my participants. This feedback not only validated my findings, but also granted the participants a certain theoretical and methodological authority over the research, so as not to allow my own personal or theoretical inclinations manifestly to influence or direct the data collection or analysis process.
(2) Authenticity:
Authenticity is defined by several criteria - including fairness and ontological, educative, catalytical and tactical authenticity - but is fundamentally a normative principle associated with the social and political significance of the research, including the capacity of the research to help participants better understand their socio-political context.
It is important to emphasise that I did not ask any of my respondents if they considered skateboarding to be a subculture. This is a misleading and particularly loaded question. When it comes to the study of organisational culture, I believe behaviour is the most appropriate area of inquiry. In other words, what ‘they’ do is better evidence than what ‘they’ say. In this sense, this research will represent skateboarding to its participants in an academic perspective within which it has not previously been considered - what is known as ontological authenticity - as well as increase the exposure and awareness of SkatePal and the Palestinian skateboarding community - what is known as educative authenticity - and expose participants to different viewpoints shared by others in their community.
In the interest of fairness, at no point was any one contribution prioritised or held to be more significant than another. Nor were any contributions censored, fabricated, falsified or ignored. I ensured that as many opinions as possible were included in the data collection process, both in the interest of avoiding scientific and data related misconduct and ensuring the credibilityof the findings. However, the theoretical and methodological understanding of the empirical context within which the research was conducted is fundamentally reflective of
my own interpretation. There is, therefore, a risk that I, as the researcher, assume an epistemological authority over the research itself, highlighting the importance of the participatory feedback sessions as that which not only ensures the credibility and confirmability of the research, but also the authenticity. I think this is an important ethical consideration also.
4.5: Ethics
Given that this research focusses on subcultural resistance in Palestine, there are important ethical and practical considerations to be made. For example, while focus groups provide a productive and unique opportunity to establish a group consensus, as well as observing social dynamics and how different perspectives and opinions interact with one another, they can also be practically problematic. Considering that focus groups are interviews with two or more participants, they are subject to social dynamics and, therefore, often reflect power hierarchies. Some participants may come to dominate the discussion, while others are marginalised. Similarly, some participants may be reluctant to share their opinions amongst fears of ridicule. There is even a potential for participants to assume an ideological position within the discussion, perhaps as the most radical or passionate. During both focus groups, I found that a few of my respondents were eager to agree with others in the group, rather than making any actual contributions themselves. While agreement is a contribution in itself, particularly in its capacity to reinforce findings and opinions, perhaps those participants who were inclined to agree may have actually been inclined to disagree.
When it comes to ethics specifically, however, I must consider the significance of my research and my responsibility as the researcher to my findings and my participants. I have identified three distinct stages of my research, specifically before fieldwork, during fieldwork and after fieldwork. At each stage ethical considerations have been made, all informed by the five core principles of academic integrity - specifically those of honesty, scrupulousness, transparency, impartiality, and responsibility. I have, therefore, identified two central areas of ethical consideration that relate to: (2) participation - specifically informed consent and anonymity - and (2) reflexivity - specifically my own positionality.
4.5.1: Before fieldwork
Prior to beginning my research an ethical proposal was made as part of a research proposal. A personal declaration of responsibility accompanying the final research proposal was also signed prior to beginning fieldwork as required by UvA that explicitly guarantees voluntary participation - including the freedom to withdraw - and informed consent, safety in participation, privacy and trust of all participants. Only once deemed ethically acceptable by my thesis supervisor, Martijn Dekker, as well as members of the Graduate School of Social Sciences of UvA, could the research begin. This research was, therefore, conducted with the
consent of both Martijn and UvA. The Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs was also consulted before fieldwork began.
4.5.2 During fieldwork (1) Participation:
Given the nature of my research and considering the highly politicised and volatile context within which it was conducted, it is necessary to be conscious of both my own safety and the safety of my participants. There is a risk that my research may generate findings that conflict with the interests of my participants. For example, there is a conceivable risk that my findings may expose resistant or oppositional social structures to civil authorities. I, therefore, maintained an evaluative position throughout, consistently considering the potential consequences of the research and regularly seeking the consultation of my supervisor. Similarly, it is unlikely that my research has an emancipatory significance and may not necessarily benefit those who participate. It was, therefore, essential that I clearly established who I am and the purpose of my study, ensuring that all participation was both informed and consensual, and that the expectations of the research were reasonable. Before all interviews and observations, it was made clear to all respondents that their participation was voluntary, that they were at liberty to refuse any questions asked, that they had the right to stop the interview at any moment if they wish to do so and, most importantly, that their time and insights were valued and respected. It is also necessary that I ensure the anonymity of my participants. All identifying information from interviews or observations has, therefore, been anonymised to ensure my research is not being used to advance certain political agendas or conflict with the interests of others - specifically the participants. The names of respondents will not, therefore, be used in the final study unless they have granted explicit consent to do so. Instead, each interview has been given a specific code that corresponds to each participant, all of which will be referred to with unique pseudonyms.
Given the sensitivity of the topics being discussed, I made sure to maintain a passive and approachable demeanour. I spent as much time with my respondents as possible and waited from them to open up to me. I considered this essential for establishing trust and an increasingly personal relationship between the participants and myself as the basis of both informed and consensual participation, as well as meaningful and truthful contributions.
(2) Reflexivity:
To ensure the integrity of my research, it is important to consider the reflexivity of my role as a researcher. The principle of reflexivity acknowledges that researchers and, therefore, research are ultimately shaped and informed by their socio-historical locality, specifically the implication that subjective values and interests have for the researcher and the research. It was, therefore, important to acknowledge how I was perceived within my research context,
both by my participants and broader society, and how I perceived those I was researching. As a skateboarder and someone who is particularly passionate about the sport and its significance within broader society, there is a potential risk that I presume a political significance. I may, therefore, be reluctant to criticise the sport and its associated subculture - what some may refer to as a conflict of interest. Furthermore, it is equally important that I consider my potential hegemonic bias as a researcher. I believe there is a risk of assuming an epistemological authority over my research given my engagement with and understanding of academic theory - I may, for example, consider something as subcultural resistance, while my participants may not have agreed, further emphasising the importance of respondent validation and participatory feedback. As recognised by both Kuhn and Weidemann (2010) and Thompson (2015), international development studies is institutionally, theoretically, and methodologically European. Scholars and intellectuals of the developing world are, therefore, inevitably dependant on theories and methodologies developed in the west (Thompson, 2015). Kay (2012); Nicholls, Giles, and Sethna (2010); and Jeanes and Lindsey (2014) - focussing specifically on monitoring and evaluation mechanism - identify similar methodological hierarchies within sport and development research. The implication being that my research could become more than a framework of academic enquiry, but also a reflective and fundamentally hierarchical mechanism that systematically sustains problematic power relations. It is, therefore, necessary to acknowledge my own positionality and - while understanding the inescapability of my biases - try to ensure I behave as impartially and objectively as possible.
Positionality became an important ethical consideration once I arrived in the West Bank. I realised that I was literally incapable of fully understanding the empirical context within which the research was conducted based on my own lived experiences. Once when I was travelling from Hebron to Bethlehem, we were pulled over at an Israeli checkpoint. All the men were asked to hand their identification over to the Israeli Defence Force (IDF) for inspection. When I handed my British passport out of the window, it was immediately handed back to me. At no point was it opened nor was I asked any further questions, while every Palestinian ID was opened and inspected. It was, therefore, very obvious to me where my positionality came in when conducting the research.
4.5.3: After fieldwork
In the interest of ensuring reliability, only the information collected during observations and interviews has been introduced to the study; no information has been fabricated or falsified, nor consciously or negligently plagiarised, cheated or misrepresented. Furthermore, in the interests of ensuring the ethical management of the data, all information has been made accessible to my thesis supervisors and the second reader where possible - with the exception of identifying information.
