The Copenhagen School\u27s notion of securitization is widely recognised as an important theoretical innovation in the conceptualisation of security, not least for its potential for including a range of actors and spatial scales beyond the state. However, its empirical utility remains more open to question due to a lack of reflexivity regarding local socio-cultural contexts, narrow focus on speech and inherently retrospective nature. Drawing on fieldwork conducted by the author in Kyrgyzstan between September 2005 and June 2006, this paper will examine the implications of these limitations for conducting empirical research on "security" logistically and methodologically. Centrally, the question of how “security” can be researched in the field will be discussed. Consideration will be given to the researcher’s role in talking “security” and how “security” can effectively be located and explicated through the creation of ethnomethodological “thick description”. Issues of contingency, multiple voices and power loci, and inter-cultural translation will be addressed. The paper will conclude with a consideration of how local knowledge can be used to inform our research and help find ways to bridge the divide between the field and theory.
展开▼
