As described in Chapter 4, the overall objective of the study on which this thesis is based was to examine the herders’ and government officials’ conflicting accounts of what reindeer husbandry is and what it ought to be. The research was designed as a case study of the governance of reindeer husbandry in West Finnmark as practised by the state and Sámi. My approach was to explore different types of governance-related conflicts. Apart from studying the conflicts themselves, I was interested in the actors’
presentations of the conflicts – why the conflicts occurred and how they could be solved. Further, I wanted to examine the power relations that influenced the conflicts, as well as the knowledge and values that informed the actors’ accounts of the conflicts and the contexts in which they appeared.
5.1.1 The case study approach
A case study includes four different, but related elements of investigation:
§ A methodology typically addressing ‘how’ and ‘why’ questions about contemporary events out of the researcher’s control (Yin, 2009).
§ A type of research design involving in-depth data collection from multiple sources of information (for example, interviews, observations and written material) to
understand the complex and particular nature of the event, phenomenon or instance in question (in this study the governance of Sámi reindeer husbandry).
§ An object of study, for example an event, a process, a programme or a group of people.
§ The product of the inquiry presented as a conceptualisation of the material gathered (Creswell, 2007).
Due to its in-depth approach, a case study is well suited to examining complex issues like power and knowledge and determining whether an event is really what it appears to be at first sight (Flyvbjerg, 2006, p. 126).
Methodology
While the case study inquiry focuses on the patterns and variations that can be
observed within a phenomenon, it also aims “to understand features of a larger class of similar phenomena” (Gerring, 2004, p. 341). As such, the researcher explores the particular as well as the general characteristics of an event (Gerring, 2004, p. 345). The purpose of my research was nevertheless not to make broad generalisations about governance or pastoralism, but rather to gain an in-depth and situated understanding of the actors’ perspectives on and rationale for the governance of Sámi reindeer husbandry. I sought to gain this understanding through the four subcases of the investigation.
5.1.2 Identifying cases
Following the advice of Maxwell (2013), I started with a flexible research design. I refined the research questions as my insights on Sámi reindeer husbandry and the governance regime increased. I identified the conflicts to be studied before I started to formulate the research question for each subcase.
When I was accepted as PhD candidate at Noragric in autumn 2012, my plan was to study grazing conflicts between pastoralists and sedentary farmers on the coast of West Finnmark. However, by the time I had my first visit to the field, another conflict had escalated and received considerable attention in the public debate; namely, the state-led process to reduce the number of reindeer in Finnmark. I decided that the destocking in West Finnmark initiated by the 2007 Reindeer Husbandry Act would be the topic of my first subcase (Paper 1). I was interested to understand the meaning, consequences and solutions to ‘too many reindeer’ according to the two main actors, being government officials and the herders who purportedly had too many reindeer.
Hence, the subcase provided a narrative analysis of the herders’ and authorities’
accounts of the decision-making related to the destocking. Further, the study looked at mechanisms that give authority to the state narrative and undermined the
counternarrative of the herders.
Methodology
Many of the herders interviewed about the destocking process mentioned encroachment on pastures as both a driver and a consequence of having too many reindeer. The second subcase (Paper 2) therefore addressed land-use conflicts. The subcase provided a comparison of two conflicts between pastoralism and mineral extraction in two different municipalities in West Finnmark. The study explored the actors’ conflicting rationalities and competing claims to the land and how the politics of belonging affected the actors’ ability to make claims.
During the data collection for the two first subcases, I often heard government officials refer to the long-standing irrational and unsustainable practices of herders in West Finnmark. I also heard herders refer to the reindeer policies as an attempt to
Norwegianise Sámi pastoralism. To investigate these statements further, I decided that the third subcase (Paper 3) would focus on the state’s vision and policy objectives for reindeer husbandry. This subcase presented the laws and regulations introduced to address the concern of excessive numbers of reindeer since the 1970s, as well as the authorities’ and herders’ accounts of the appropriateness of these policies. The study used the art of governing (Foucault, 1991; Li, 2007a; Foucault, 2008) and everyday resistance (JC Scott, 1985, 1990) as analytical concepts to assess how the policy regime affected herding practices, social structures and power relations between the herders and authorities, as well as within the herding community. The initial plan was also to examine the accounts of and power relations between the Sámi Reindeer Herders’
Association (NRL) and the Ministry of Agriculture and Food (LMD). However, my repeated requests to observe the annual negotiations were rejected, and I was not able to interview members of the NRL Board about their dialogue with LMD.
The three subcases addressed the differences in the pastoralists’ and authorities’
perceptions about governance and reindeer husbandry, and this is explored further in the fourth subcase (Paper 4). Through participatory research – and with the use of future narratives as a method to stimulate discussion – the study explores the political ontology of reindeer husbandry. The study assesses conflicting knowledge systems and competing worldviews that inform the actors’ presentations of what reindeer
Methodology
husbandry is and ought to be, and their presentations about the proper management of reindeer, herders and the land on which reindeer pastoralism depends.
5.1.3 Method and data collection
The research was qualitative. I used a combination of in-depth interviews and informal conversations with the actors of the cases studied and direct observations of meetings between the actors. Written material also informed the study. The main part of the data collection took place during 2012 and 2015 in Kautokeino, Kvalsund, Alta, Oslo, the Røros area and Troms. (See Appendix 2 for an overview of field visits.) Most of my time in the field was spent in Kautokeino, the hometown of most of the herders from the West Finnmark herding region.
The fact that I was studying ongoing conflicts had some challenges that prolonged the period of data collection: It was difficult to decide when to stop collecting data, as the cases continued to develop.
5.1.3.1 Interviews
Except for one, all the in-depth interviews were done face-to-face. Most of these interviews were conducted in a one-to-one setting – at the Sámi University College, at a conference, in the participants’ office, in their home, or outdoors. The interview language was always Norwegian – the second language of the majority of the
pastoralists and the first language of the government officials interviewed. Most of the participants were full-time pastoralists from the so-called problem districts in West Finnmark, namely herding districts that according to the official public statistics, had too many reindeer. (Figure 1 is a graphic presentation of the problem districts.) I also interviewed reindeer owners who were retired herders or derived their main income from jobs outside reindeer husbandry. To get alternative perspectives on the conflicts in West Finnmark, I interviewed some pastoralists from the southern part of the Sámi reindeer-herding region, the Røros area. I also conducted in-depth interviews with
Methodology
representatives of LMD, the Norwegian Reindeer Husbandry Administration4, the West Finnmark Reindeer Husbandry Administration (now organised as part of the County Governor), the NRL and the Sámi Parliament.
Figure 1: Facsimile from Reindriftsnytt
The facsimile shows the first page of an article titled “Here are the problem districts in West Finnmark” (see Reindriftsnytt, 2014, pp. 40-45). The map presents the so-called problem districts as red.
Most participants consented to audio-recorded interviews to retain a full, un-interpreted record of what was said. Altogether, I gathered more than 60 hours of audio-recorded interviews, from which close to 40 hours were transcribed for the analysis. Table 1 gives an overview of the actors I interviewed. Appendix 1 outlines the interviewed pastoralists from West Finnmark.
4 In 2014, this institution merged with the Norwegian Agriculture Authority and formed the Norwegian
Methodology
Table 1: Overview of actors interviewed and the number of interviews conducted
Participants Number of participants Number of interviews
Reindeer herders (West Finnmark) 20 32
Reindeer herders (Røros area) 6 7
Reindeer herders (other places) 2 2
Government officials (Oslo) 12 10
Government officials (Finnmark) 11 14
Other (scholars, NGOs, industry) 7 8
58 73
The key objective of the interviews was to collect the participants’ accounts of how they made sense of the governance-related conflicts, and how their perceptions informed their actions (Maxwell, 2013, p. 81). To explore the complexity of the conflicts in West Finnmark and their nuances, I sampled the participants through purposeful selection (Maxwell, 2013). The sampling method was not chosen to secure a representative selection of participants. My aim was rather to select participants that could provide a broad spectrum of perspectives describing, interpreting and
explaining the conflicts and processes studied, and to identify the trends and variations of the participants’ perceptions of the conflicts (Bryman, 2008; Maxwell, 2013). The interviews were semi-structured; I did not use an interview guide. Most of the time, I only presented some key issues that I wanted the discussions to cover.
However, when a specific theme emerged from previous interviews or I identified gaps in the collected data, I probed the participants about these issues in the subsequent interviews.
The study was further informed by informal conversations with people I met during my trips. These unplanned discussions often occurred in the coffee breaks of conferences, during public transportation, in the canteen of the Sámi University College, during social events in Kautokeino and in the field while visiting herding groups. Many people I met, asked questions about my research and commented on the cases I was studying. These comments helped me identify new potential participants
Methodology
and new aspects of the conflicts, and their accounts added variation to and helped triangulate the data collected.
Studying a profession and livelihood and working within a culture and knowledge system that I am not a part of, was challenging in many ways. To better understand the practices in Sámi pastoralism and the dynamics within the herding community, I had regular discussions with some key participants. These key participants were
themselves part of the pastoral community and they helped clarify the cultural context of the situations I experienced, translated words I did not understand, explained technical aspects of reindeer husbandry and were individual sounding boards on which I could test my own thoughts.
5.1.3.2 Participatory research
The methodology of the fourth subcase differed from the others, being based on participatory research. While the whole study focused on locally defined priorities and perspectives, this subcase also had a bottom-up approach, where the participants engaged in mutual learning, analysis and co-production of knowledge through story-telling (Cornwall & Jewkes, 1995; Bergold & Thomas, 2012; Paschen & Ison, 2014).
The research team included four Sámi pastoralists, myself and two other scientists – a biologist and a linguist. The participating herders were selected based on purposive sampling; we identified the participants strategically to ensure that they would be relevant to our research objective (Bryman, 2012). They were selected according to the following criteria: they had to be members of reindeer-herding families; should have practical experience in reindeer-herding and husbandry in West Finnmark in the late 1950s and 1960s, as well as after the political reform; should have participated in political bodies for reindeer husbandry; possess deep knowledge of and the ability to master and use reindeer-herding terminology; be interested in the research question;
and – of course – be willing to share views and reflections on changes to the governance of Sámi pastoralism.
Methodology
The research team was large enough to elicit a variety of experiences and opinions and to enable collective recollection and reflection on past events. At the same time, it was small enough to fit around a kitchen table and for all members to engage in the discussions. We emphasised creating an informal and dynamic atmosphere during team gatherings. We served coffee and food, and people could move around during the discussions.
The research team met twice for half-day gatherings. Both meetings were recorded, transcribed, and shared with the team. Before the gatherings, I defined topics for discussion together with the two other scientists. In reality, however, the discussions resembled a conversation among friends. We did not follow a strict step-by-step research approach, but took a more organic approach in dealing with research questions. The team members were free to raise any issue they found relevant to the question of concern, to tell anecdotes and jokes, and to question one another’s stories and arguments. This semi-structured approach enabled in-depth explorations of issues that the participants found relevant to the discussion topic. Another constellation of participants might have altered the focus of the discussions.
During the first gathering, the topic of discussion was the political reform of reindeer husbandry in the 1970s, and how the new policies and regulations corresponded with the participants’ and other pastoralists’ traditional herding practices and knowledge.
Before the second gathering, the two scientists and I developed two future narratives describing two very different governance structures for reindeer husbandry. The future narratives were used as a tool to stimulate engagement and reflections on the traditional Sámi reindeer-herding knowledge and worldview.
Future narratives are a form of scenario; they are qualitative descriptions of possible futures, used for discussing What will happen? (predictive scenarios), What can happen? (explorative scenarios), and How can a specific target be reached? (normative scenarios) (Börjeson et al., 2006, p. 725). The future narratives that we developed were explorative. However, rather than to determine probable future governance
Methodology
structures, the purpose of the narratives was to establish a shared platform for the conversations within the research team.
The first narrative described a governance regime with more state control, implying more detailed regulation of reindeer husbandry; the second narrative described a decentralised governance structure in which the pastoralists had more internal control, implying little state regulation and a strengthening of the traditional siida institution. The scenarios were informed by the accounts made by the research participants during the first gathering, conversations with other pastoralists, and statements by government officials on preferred herding practices. The narratives were exaggerated scenarios, which represented two opposing futures for Sámi pastoralism in which pastoralists’ knowledge and worldviews played different roles.
During the second meeting, we explored what these two future narratives would mean for Sámi reindeer husbandry. Paschen and Ison (2014, p. 1086) explain that people interpret scenarios based on their own knowledge, values, and worldviews and that when the participants communicate their interpretations, they use their own words and their own stories to “re-work and order experience, evaluate events and construct meaning and knowledge”. Hence, the empirical data presented in Paper 4 come mainly from the participating herders’ own life experiences. Through the facilitated
discussions, the whole research team engaged in data analysis; in the process, we took an innovative approach to researching reindeer husbandry in Norway. (More details on the methodology of the fourth subcase are provided in Paper 4.)
5.1.3.3 Observations and field notes
To collect more data on the actors’ narratives and power relations, I attended a number of public seminars targeting pastoralists to observe the actors’ interaction in natural social settings. (See Appendix 2 for an overview of events attended.)
In the autumn of 2012, at the start of my research, the local branch of the NRL organised an internal meeting for the so-called problem districts in West Finnmark to
Methodology
exchange views on the ongoing destocking process. The participants of the meeting had recently received letters from the Norwegian Reindeer Husbandry Administration with advance notice of a forced reduction of reindeer. I was invited and given an opportunity to present myself and my research, and although my attendance was brief, it gave me an overview of potential participants and some first inputs on their
perspectives on the destocking.
Attending seminars – or rather the coffee breaks of the seminars – was an effective way to meet new people and to get an overview of the actors and their narratives.
Facebook was a complementary arena for observing discussions on the governance of Sámi pastoralism. I followed two public and one closed discussion group for issues related to Sámi reindeer husbandry: Samisk Reindrift – veien videre, Reindrift – Boazosagat, and Reaksjon mot TVANGS SLAKTING av Private reinsdyr. All the groups were established and administrated by pastoralists.
Not all the attempts to access information were successful. I was interested in observing the annual negotiations for the Reindeer Agreement to get a better
understanding of the relation between the state and the NRL. In both 2013 and 2014, I sent several requests for observer status to the NRL, but the first year, my requests were turned down. In the second year, I never heard from the organisation. In December 2014, I went to Oslo to observe the meeting of the National Reindeer Husbandry Board. The Board meetings are generally open to the public, but observers are asked to leave the room when issues discussed are exempt from public disclosure.
Despite that I had been granted extended access to information (forskerinnsyn) from both the Norwegian Reindeer Husbandry Administration and LMD, I sat in the corridor during most of the meeting and could observe little of what was going on inside the meeting room.
I have observed the landscape and different seasonal pastures on several road trips across the interior of Finnmark and along the coast of West Finnmark and Northern Troms. I was also invited to visit two siidas in June 2013 during the earmarking of
Methodology
young calves. I stayed for five days with one of the siida and participated in the practical work.
The observations I made during meetings, field visits and via Facebook gave me more insights into reindeer husbandry, the governance regime and how people discussed regulations and decision-making. I was therefore better prepared for the interviews and could identify relevant participants and discern information gaps in my data. To track the observations together with my ideas, assumptions, reflections and ethical concerns throughout the research period, I followed the advice of Maxwell (2013) and took notes in field journals.
5.1.3.4 Document analysis
The interviews and observations were supplemented by an analysis of the written material. The study was informed by academic papers on the topic of reindeer
husbandry and governance, in addition to state policies and regulations, White Papers, publications by the Norwegian Reindeer Husbandry Administration, minutes from the meetings of the National Reindeer Husbandry Board, debates in Parliament, official statistics, commentary trends and press coverage. As the research project was studying ongoing conflicts, I followed the public debates to ensure that my questions were relevant and kept abreast with the latest developments.
As already mentioned, I was granted extended access (forskerinnsyn) to three archives – the Norwegian Reindeer Husbandry Administration, LMD and the Ministry of Local Government and Modernisation (responsible for land-use planning). This provided rich material on old and new cases about the governance of reindeer husbandry. LMD requested an opportunity to review my work before I published anything based on their archives. Before publishing Paper 1, the manuscript was therefore sent to the
As already mentioned, I was granted extended access (forskerinnsyn) to three archives – the Norwegian Reindeer Husbandry Administration, LMD and the Ministry of Local Government and Modernisation (responsible for land-use planning). This provided rich material on old and new cases about the governance of reindeer husbandry. LMD requested an opportunity to review my work before I published anything based on their archives. Before publishing Paper 1, the manuscript was therefore sent to the