Participants

Nikolay Sarkisyan³; Alina Kontareva⁴; Grigory Grigoryev¹; Nina Kruglikova²;  ¹ University of Helsinki, Finland;  ² Independent Scholar, UK;  ³ University of Oxford, UK;  ⁴ Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society, Germany

Discussion

An intense discourse has emerged concerning the prospective trajectories of Slavic Studies, with a particular focus on Russian Studies—encompassing both contemporary and historical dimensions. For scholars affiliated with predominantly Western academic institutions, executing Russia-centric research within Russian territory has become either challenging or unfeasible. This predicament not only strains the contours of science diplomacy but also undermines the continued generation of robust scholarly knowledge. The conundrum further extends to the procurement of empirical data, where restricted access to the field has led to significant interruptions or in some cases the cancellation of numerous research initiatives. Researchers find themselves hindered by the absence of formal avenues for engaging in primary data collection such as interviews, participant observations, archival research, and so forth. In response to these constraints, the academic community is devising strategies aimed at circumventing such impediments. These include both the decentralization and decolonization of scholarly canons as well as the identification of alternative forms of empirical evidence, novel data reservoirs, and innovative questions that can be applied to existing datasets. To illustrate, academic libraries are bringing out their Slavic collections, while researchers are exploring avenues for generating scholarly outputs that obviate the need for physical presence into sensitive zones. Such workarounds encompass the utilization of digitized archival materials and the scrutiny of public cultural artifacts. While limitations often act as catalysts for inventive methodologies and engender the intriguing research questions, the focus of this roundtable extends beyond just these immediate concerns. This discussion stems from personal experiences and exchanges with colleagues in the field endeavoring to conduct research requiring fieldwork access. Specifically, we aim to delve into the subtleties of sensitivity as they manifest in economics, history, anthropology, and other disciplines typically reliant on qualitative data, access to which is curtailed by recent geopolitical shifts. We pose the question: Is it indeed feasible to forgo traditionally extensive fieldwork in the studied region? What has shifted for qualitative researchers? We challenge the implicit optimism surrounding the potential to generate meaningful knowledge by relying solely on digitization processes, and evaluate the propositions advocating for the complete relinquishment of traditional fieldwork across disciplines—be it economics, sociology, anthropology, history, or literary studies. In grappling with these questions, we intend to engage in a critical reflection on the essence of what Slavic Studies should represent, the parameters defining its multidisciplinary scope, and the necessity—or lack thereof—for articulating strategic objectives within the research community.