Shadowing and gendered fieldwork roles in the Brussels Bubble

Abstract

This article contributes to wider methodological discussions about gender and undertaking fieldwork in and around European Union institutions, by focusing on shadowing as a particular ethnographic practice and the performance of gendered roles in fieldwork. The article is based on two ethnographic research projects and 16 shadowing placements, which were conducted in and around European Union institutions (2018–2020). As co-authors, we reflect on what our respective shadowing experiences reveal about gendered roles in fieldwork and how these are performed in the ‘Brussels Bubble’. We show how the fieldwork roles emerged at different stages of shadowing, how we performed them dynamically and what they reveal about gendered micropolitics in the ‘Brussels Bubble’. We call on researchers to be intentionally reflexive when doing shadowing as part of their fieldwork, to avoid uncritically performing the types of gendered roles that typically emerge within institutional settings and interpersonal relations.

Introduction

This article contributes to methodological discussions about gender and ethnographic research, with a focus on European Union (EU) institutions. More specifically, we centre the performance of gendered roles in fieldwork and in shadowing as a particular ethnographic practice. This connects to a broader trend in social science (Bussell, 2020; Nair, 2021) that has sought to elucidate the distinct ethnographic practice of shadowing. Shadowing ¹ can be defined as a method, whereby the researcher closely follows specific people or objects in their everyday worlds and is able to move around with them ² (Czarniawska, 2007: 13, 18; McDonald, 2005: 456). Shadowing has been conducted around EU institutions (Busby, 2013; Wodak, 2009), though gender does not feature centrally. We extend this field of study by highlighting how ‘the shadow’ may perform gendered roles in fieldwork as she moves alongside her shadowee at different phases of shadowing (Gill et al., 2014).

In an article titled: ‘A Feminist in Brussels’, Sarikakis (2003) detailed the gendered micropolitics of research in EU contexts. Differently from Sarikakis, who centred the interaction of gender, age and indigeneity in research practices associated with elite interviews and archival research, we focus on gendering in shadowing in the Brussels Bubble through the performance of gendered roles in fieldwork. The ‘Brussels Bubble’, following Busby (2013: 204), refers to the multi-national, multi-lingual and intense working environment in Brussels where people come and go continuously, yet it retains a ‘village-like’ feeling, where everyone knows each other, and gossip travels fast. Both EU lobbying as a practice (Dionigi, 2017) and the European Parliament (EP) as a representative institution are the core elements of the Brussels Bubble that we focused on in this research. ³

Our approach to shadowing is unique insofar as we both conducted our fieldwork simultaneously in the Brussels Bubble (2018–2020). Through our dataset of 16 shadowing placements, as two ‘women’ who are ‘young’ and ‘foreigners’ (Sarikakis, 2003: 427) albeit North European researchers, we interrogated our performance of gendered roles in fieldwork and our positionalities together and dialogically with our shadowees (Folkes, 2022). One researcher did not initially frame her research nor her shadowing field work to include a gender lens, and one researcher was a feminist scholar whose research and shadowing were explicitly framed to centre gender. In jointly analysing our research findings, we ask: what does shadowing reveal about gendered roles in fieldwork and gendered micropolitics in the Brussels Bubble?

The article is structured as follows: first, we address the question of which gendered roles have been identified and performed by women fieldworkers and how they relate to shadowing. Second, we outline both sets of shadowing fieldwork and the dataset generated in the Brussels Bubble. Third, we analyse how/whether we performed/failed to perform pre-identified gendered roles when shadowing in the Brussels Bubble, which roles took on an importance for us and how they were performed differently by each of us.

Shadowing through a gender lens: Performing gendered roles in fieldwork

Shadowing has been used as part of an ethnography, or as a standalone approach that distinguishes itself from ethnography (Bussell, 2020). When shadowing is combined with ethnography, the ability to study people and practices on the move is emphasised (Czarniawska, 2007). Shadowing can be conducted over time, as ’yo-yo’ fieldwork where repeated trips to the research site are made (Wulff, 2002) or as one part of a ‘rapid ethnography’ (Galea et al., 2020). Shadowing fieldwork is immersive, embodied and intense, since the researcher follows one person rather than a community and interpersonal relations impact significantly on gaining access (Czarniawska, 2007; Gill, 2011: 117). Shadowing may produce rich, comprehensive and detailed research data of affective states and embodiment (McDonald, 2005: 456–57).

As researchers, we take an interpretive stance: that the shadow/shadowee relationship is dynamic and intersubjective (see also Gill, 2011). Far from being a fly on the wall, like Peter Pan’s shadow, (Vasquez et al., 2012), or rather Petra Pan’s shadow, the shadow performs a choreography – she dances around, tries to keep up and negotiate with her shadowee. As the shadow (researcher) moves along, hardly being invisible, she asks questions and openly takes notes (McDonald, 2005: 456). The shadowee–shadow is a ‘peculiar duo’ (Czarniawska, 2007: 56) of mutual observation and different standpoints. Furthermore, because ‘it is not unusual for politicians to have multiple individuals with them throughout the course of their daily professional activities’ (Bussell, 2020: 472) – including lobbyists (Nothhaft, 2017), the shadow/shadowee duo sometimes amounts to a multiple-person ‘peculiar ensemble’ of assorted bodies.

Feminists have identified the value of shadowing and ethnography in exploring gender relations (Bruni, 2006; Galea et al., 2020; Gill, 2011). Interpretive approaches to shadowing do not define gender de facto deterministically, but explore dynamically, how gender emerges in context in institutional settings. This can be valuable for researching transnational institutions. Institutional feminist ethnographers shadow professionals ‘into their workplaces, homes and hearts’ to explore ruling relations (Quinlan, 2008: 1481). Shadowing helps feminist institutionalists with ‘identifying which rules are at work when, and how they coincide and collide to produce gendered outcomes’ (Chappell, 2021: 129; Miller, 2021a). Meanwhile, post-structuralists stress how shadowing can explore gender over time within the capillaries of institutions – meaning, in a Foucauldian sense, how gendered power operates subtly through ‘everyday’ encounters that take place ‘beneath’ institutional rules (Miller, 2021a; Miller, 2021b).

Feminists (e.g. Butler, 2007; West and Zimmerman, 1987) have long established gender as the stylised repetition of acts – a routine accomplishment, involving descriptive marks and gestures and often coterminous with idealised norms of heterosexuality. Gendered ‘scripts’ can be both improvised by the shadow and assigned to the shadow by participants and institutional setting. Moreover, feminist ethnographers (e.g. Coffey, 1999) have also highlighted the importance of positionality when interpreting gender performances in ethnographic fieldwork. In the Brussels Bubble specifically, Sarikakis (2003) noted how her own gender, age and indigeneity were salient, affecting both access to information, contacts and further assistance and her interpretation of everyday encounters during the research process. In an appraisal of a canonical shadowing study of 18 congressmen over 18 years (Fenno, 2003), Brown (2012) notes that the absence of ‘significant emphasis on the role of his race and gender identity, or that of his interviewees’ (p. 19) reduced the researcher’s internal conceptions of the validity of the study. Following key developments in positionality literature – such as not merely stating positionalities but to reflect on them dialogically with participants and fellow researchers (Folkes, 2022) and in terms of what positionalities bring to the research process (Brown, 2012; Reyes, 2020) – we explored our positionalities critically not only with each other, but also with our shadowees. Elite (political) actors themselves ‘shape-shift’ between roles (Crewe, 2021) and this shapeshifting itself may inculcate a degree of reflexivity regarding their shifting positionalities.

We reflect on the gender performances required in shadowing and what these performances tell us about the Brussels Bubble, by taking four pre-identified gendered roles in fieldwork (‘scripts’) as a starting point. Warren and Hackney (2000: 13–19) discuss three gendered fieldwork roles in ethnography. These are: first, ‘especially [assigned to] young married [sic] women . . . the “fictive kin”: adoptive daughter or child, brother, sister or mother’ (Warren and Hackney, 2000: 14). Second, the honorary male: when fieldworkers are androgenised and enjoy similar privileges that are typically accorded to men (Warren and Hackney, 2000: 15). Third, the fieldworker as a spy. This has a complicated relationship with gender since

in most cultures, males are perceived as more political, more linked to the sources of power and more dangerous than females. Yet the sexualization of spying [and connotations of voyeurism] is associated with women . . . luring hapless male[s] into betrayal and doom (Warren and Hackney, 2000: 19).

Adams (1999) introduces a further (fourth) gendered role in fieldwork as a ‘mascot’ ‘a symbol of group identity, usually a somewhat frivolous one, but one that bears the responsibility of lifting the spirits of the group’ (p. 334). Fieldwork roles yield research information (Snow et al., 1986), provide insight into the research experience and the reproduction of gendered micropolitics in research sites. However, the performance of these roles, like gender itself (Butler, 2007), are not always successful; many fail. Fieldwork roles can be extended into unexpected iterations and with different intersectionalities that may solidify and subvert established gendered roles in fieldwork.

We draw on these four scripts of fieldwork roles and a confessional writing style (Van Maanen, 2011) to analyse our research findings, focusing on: (1) which gendered fieldwork roles were easily available to us and when (on arrival at the research site, during shadowing and when exiting), (2) which gendered fieldwork roles we failed to perform and why and (3) what performing these roles while shadowing tells us about gendered micropolitics in the Brussels Bubble.

Two pieces of shadowing fieldwork in the Brussels Bubble

The following outlines of the two pieces of shadowing fieldwork that are analysed in this article provide an understanding of EU lobbying practices from lobbyists’ perspectives and interpretations of the Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) of, and social relations within, the political groups of shadowee MEPs. ⁴

Mikkonen’s shadowing fieldwork (2019–2020) was part of her doctoral research, which aimed to understand practices and power in EU lobbying. She used shadowing as a data generation strategy with regard to lobbying practices (Czarniawska, 2007: 7). She recruited shadowees through 42 interviews with lobbyists. ⁵ In this article, the focus is on seven shadowing placements that took place completely or partially in Brussels – 32 days of shadowing (between 3 and 11 days per shadowee), a total of approximately 180 hours of shadowing, resulting in 321 pages of fieldnotes. ⁶ Five of these shadowees were men and the majority were Finnish. During the shadowing, mainly English and Finnish languages were spoken, on some occasions Spanish was also spoken as was – minimally – French. The shadowees were either experts or directors with between 5 and 25 years of relevant work experience at the time of participating in the research. The shadowed activities included formal and informal (Dionigi, 2017: 22), public and private interactions with decision-makers (Naurin, 2007) and other lobbyists, such as meetings, public appearances, internal and external events.

Miller’s shadowing fieldwork (2018–2020) was part of her post-doctoral research, contributing to a broader European Research Council funded project. She explored the gendered policies and practices of the EP’s political groups; she recruited shadowees (MEPs) through email requests, first through regional and party ties and then extending to other parties and countries, using invitation emails written in the native languages of her multi-national team. ⁷ Nine shadowing placements were conducted (with four women and five men, with an average and median age of 55). The time spent formally shadowing ranged from half a day to 2 days, with most MEPs agreeing to 1 day. This resulted in 100 hours of shadowing observations and a total of 104 pages of shadowing fieldnotes. Five political groups and four nationalities were represented. This sample was limited to Northern and Central Europe and those MEPs confident in speaking the English language. In terms of seniority, participants included a committee chair, a national party delegation leader and a chair of a ‘cluster’ working group. Shadowing activities included formal and informal interactions: observing meetings (internally between MEPs and externally with the media), pre-cluster meetings, committee work, visitors’ groups and events with civil society.

The two pieces of shadowing fieldwork outlined above include a total of 16 shadowing placements (7 with lobbyists, 9 with MEPs – two with participants of colour), over 41 days and 280 hours of shadowing in Brussels, resulting in 425 pages of fieldnotes from shadowing. Regarding the context of the shadowing fieldwork, existing literature shows how the practices of lobbying and within the EP are both gendered. A study of five parliaments in European contexts found that women were better represented among parliamentarians than among lobbyists, with only 23% of surveyed lobbyists being women (Junk et al., 2021). The EP is seen as a comparatively gender-equal setting. It is a ‘newer’ parliament, compared with most national parliaments; 40% of MEPs are women and it has adopted gender mainstreaming in its policies and practices. Gendered practices and policies within the EU institutions have become politicised and visible in mainstream media and EU politics since Sarikakis’ (2003) fieldwork: the #MetooEP parliamentary movement (Berthet, 2022) and the Von Der Leyen Commission’s ‘Union of Equality’ agenda presuppose knowledge of gender as a basis of discrimination and consequently, also some degree of reflexivity among those working in EU institutions and at the EP. However, the EP political groups’ approaches to advancing gender equality have not been unanimous but have demonstrated different levels of commitment and implementation (Kantola, 2022).

Furthermore, the Brussels Bubble has been criticised by the #BrusselsSoWhite ⁸ movement as a space that reflects and perpetuates racial hierarchies, inequalities and biases. This is also reflected in academic literature – for example, by demonstrating the normative whiteness in EP institutional practices (Kantola et al., 2023); by critiquing pervasive stratifications by nationalities into ‘Old’ and ‘New’ Member States (Lewicki, 2019 [2017]) and by highlighting some ethnic minority voters’ ambivalent identifications with the EU (Begum, 2023). Indeed, for researchers too, nationality, migration status and race affect how the Brussels Bubble is experienced (Firat, 2019; Lewicki, 2019 [2017); Sarikakis, 2003) – and this would undoubtedly have affected our experiences as white, cis-gendered researchers in the Brussels Bubble.

In terms of a research site, in one sense, the Brussels Bubble is a sui generis context, due to it being a transnational and multi-lingual setting with both symbolic and material power. The European political institutions are different from international corporations. The EU proclaims itself to be ‘United in Diversity’ in terms of both representation and its normative agenda. However, the shadowing practices that we adopted in the Brussels Bubble were similar to those adopted in other international shadowing settings (e.g. Aguilar Delgado and Barin Cruz, 2014; Ho, 2009). Thus, we consider our discussion below to be relevant beyond the Brussels Bubble as a research site.

Cast as spies, performing ‘the innocent student’

The fieldworker as a spy role captures feelings of mistrust towards the shadow as they are perceived as someone with hidden, confrontational agendas and a willingness to betray trust. The spy is de facto an ‘outsider’ role. However, spying is situational and can also be performed by ‘insiders’ in political settings, since it pertains to discretion, confidentiality, exchanges of political information and vested interests.

Further context to this role being assigned to us as researchers, included concerns being raised about the presence of actual spies and malign ‘foreign’ influences around EU institutions. Consequently, arranging a shadowing placement required a formal ‘clearance’ procedure conducted by the shadowees. Despite our efforts to be transparent by sending a research outline, a consent form and a recommendation letter from our university – as well as further documents on request, we were intuitively assigned the spy role at the arrival stage of our fieldwork. Both EU lobbyists and Accredited Parliamentary Assistants (APAs) checked our background to verify our research motives: by searching our LinkedIn profiles, by asking around, or requesting a CV, before giving consent to shadowing. The spy role was regularly encountered when (re)negotiating access into and around the EU institutions. The shadowees recognised this suspicion and tried to facilitate our access – a female APA gave one of us a political lanyard to blend in at the back of a political group meeting in the EP (following internal accusations by attendees from the group meeting of ‘leaks’ about 2019 European election strategies to either the media or to rival groups). The spy role in shadowing, more than in other ethnographic practice, might carry ethical, professional and unevenly distributed risks for shadowees, not only on the researcher’s arrival onto the research site, but continuously throughout a whole shadowing placement.

Inter-institutional relationships and hierarchies in the Brussels Bubble further stymied the mobility afforded by shadowing and cemented the perception of the researcher playing a spy role. During our shadowing it became apparent that the negotiated access with the shadowees had limits because of institutional rules for entry permits or because of our inferior hierarchical position. To overcome these difficulties, we both conducted a 2-month study visit at the European Parliamentary Research Service (EPRS), which granted us the necessary status to enter the EP. The process for obtaining the status, however, differed according to our nationality. As a UK national and, therefore, not included in the Schengen security agreement, Miller was requested to provide a criminal record check before the status was granted. As a Finnish citizen, Mikkonen was granted the status without such a check, just a few months earlier (see also Firat, 2019: 49). For the European Council and the Commission, access was gained on very limited occasions despite Mikkonen’s multiple attempts to secure access. She was considered suspicious. A Commission worker stated: ‘You never know who is a spy in Brussels’, when access was discussed (Fieldnotes 1, Spring 2020). Or her presence was not considered suitable without recognisable status in the Brussels Bubble. Paradoxically, despite the spy role implying agency, we both felt like a ‘nobody’ when encountering these difficulties of accessing the Brussels Bubble.

To the extent that the spy role was gendered, it was upheld by gendered institutional conditions, such as the perceptible overrepresentation of men in gatekeeping and security roles: as doormen in group meetings and at the entrance of every EU institution and as armed police officers in and around the EU institutions. The role may have been sexualised once during the ‘exit’ stage when a male shadowee asked if one of us, sitting on a blue leather bench outside of the Astrid Lulling ⁹ (Members’) lounge, was waiting to ‘catch’ MEPs walking into the lounge. Away from our shadowees, as solo women in Brussels sitting in bars going over our field notes, we also felt somewhat conspicuous, as there did not seem to be many other women sitting by themselves in the bars.

A delicate choreography was performed to minimise suspicion directed towards us and of our perceived research techniques as ‘spying’, while also undertaking typical research practices designed to produce ethnographic ‘findings’ (constant note taking and asking quite direct questions). However, as two early-career (untenured) women academics, our strategies differed. Without having an explicit gender focus in her research, Mikkonen intuitively adapted a gendered role of a young and inexperienced female researcher, an innocent student. Consequently, despite being inquisitive, she was considered relatively harmless and shadowees dropped their defences. After experiencing annoyance directed towards her because of her perceived ‘ignorance’, and as actors in Brussels came to recognise her and her research, Mikkonen dropped the ‘innocent student’ role and emphasised her research competence. Towards the end of her shadowing, she questioned how ethical it was to play this unthreatening gendered role, which she had adopted intuitively and without reflection. She interrogated this role with a shadowee:

Business lunches are important in the Brussels Bubble, especially for informal exchanges. Chatting in one of the quality restaurants makes me relaxed and the private conversation with the shadowee shifts towards gender. I joke that I sometimes play this role of an innocent student since no-one treats me seriously here anyway. She is unimpressed. With a serious face, she advises how women should be critical when adopting such stereotypical roles in Brussels. ‘Imagine if you were treated like that when working in a Commissioner’s cabinet as an expert – not taken seriously as a young woman even though competent to do the job’ (Fieldnotes 1, Autumn 2019).

The shadowee reminded us that while shadows may exit this gendered role at the end of their period of fieldwork, employees in ‘expert’ policy settings in the Brussels Bubble cannot. Ultimately, our shadowees have to continue operating within gendered micropolitics after shadows ‘play fast and loose’ with the ‘innocent student’ fieldwork role, then exit the research setting.

In contrast, Miller only occasionally downplayed her knowledge, to observe how the research participants would frame generalised information – such as political groups’ organisational structures, or to establish herself as open-minded to actors who suspected they might be badly represented in a feminist analysis. Feeling the need to present herself as a credible academic, Miller felt pressured to volunteer her emerging reflections with shadowees of all genders. She also saw this as a generative practice to work through ideas but found that she was mistrusted if her interpretations did not match those of the participants. Furthermore, down-playing knowledge felt counter-intuitive since it contradicted the ‘authenticity’ expected from feminist research.

Overall, we were frequently assigned the spy role in the Brussels Bubble, not only at the arrival stage when our motives as researchers were (understandably) questioned, but also during shadowing, despite our shadowees’ efforts to facilitate our access to buildings, meetings and contacts. The inter-institutional relationships and hierarchies in the Brussels Bubble exacerbated this role, stymieing the mobility afforded by shadowing. Far from subverting gendered fieldwork roles, there is a risk of reproducing them and reinforcing gendered micropolitics (e.g. dismissing women’s expertise).

Shifting from the ‘fictive kin’ role to a ‘reality TV show watcher’ role

The researcher as fictive kin in the Brussels Bubble involved (national/political) families, sisterhood and attendant kinship obligations. When compared with the spy role, the fictive kin role was instantly gendered in our shadowing fieldwork and was assigned in more ‘backstage’ interactions with shadowees.

Different fictive kin roles emerged for us in terms of both national and geographical positionalities (Folkes, 2022). These were not only relevant at the arrival stage but got even stronger as the fieldwork proceeded. In such a transient city, we felt a ‘welcome to the family’ attitude among Finnish and British nationals resident in Brussels. This was demonstrated through both mutual joy when identifying products from ‘back home’ and the help we received whether with recruiting participants for research, helping us to access events or managing logistical issues. ¹⁰ Thus, even when lacking official status and being assigned the spy role when shadowing, having a national/notional family can prove to be supportive in the Brussels Bubble (cf. Firat, 2019; Lewicki, 2019 [2017); Sarikakis, 2003).

Political families are also, unsurprisingly, highly important within the Brussels Bubble. At the arrival stage, we were sometimes assumed to belong to the same political family (decision-makers) or likeminded (with lobbyists), which facilitated our access. The fictive kin role also generated knowledge about the backstage interactions of the political groups at the EP (e.g. Busby, 2013; Wodak, 2015) and lobbying organisations (e.g. Hopgood, 2013), such as long-standing group staff, who were regarded with affection by the elected members and APAs. However, when the participants became more familiar with our research and witnessed us with other shadowees, it became apparent that we were not a family-member but outsiders observing different political families.

Rapport built through shadowing can allow shadowees to reveal much about their personal lives, for example, the difficulties of balancing long hours with raising children (Galea et al., 2020: 1221). One advantage of shadowing is the opportunity for debriefing with shadowees in quiet moments between events (Quinlan, 2008: 1486). In the Brussels Bubble, debriefing often occurred in private spaces, off-limits to ‘outsiders’, such as in MEPs’ offices or during lunches with lobbyists (as in the private lunch vignette discussed above). These were moments when we sometimes felt a sisterly bond with our female shadowees and sensitive knowledge was shared about sexist remarks, racism, bullying and harassment. These debriefing sessions provided insights for what might be relevant for observation during shadowing. For example, despite criticising stereotypes, some feminist MEP shadowees used national stereotypes to communicate gendered practices: ‘German men take up the speaking time, you’ll see this for yourself in the group meeting’ (Fieldnotes 2, Spring 2019).

In these backstage situations, we sometimes transitioned from performing the ‘fictive kin’ role to a ‘reality TV show watcher’ role. Our performance of a ‘reality TV show watcher’ was informed by participants’ perceptions of gender and ethnography as being ‘soft’ research lenses that required being nosy and empathetic in semi-private (backstage) settings. For example, shadowees who were somewhat familiar with ethnographic practices sometimes actively facilitated more immersion and intimacy. In the chic setting of the Astrid Lulling Lounge in the EP, Miller felt that shadowees indulged her research interests and ‘performed’ for her – akin to a reality TV show genre. Intimacies, semi-contrived situations and consideration for the shadow’s observation were performed:

In a preparatory meeting, ahead of a meeting with permanent representatives, there is soft jazz music playing and the MEP and APA sit on a cream leather sofa with their bodies turned toward each other. The APA is supposed to be briefing the MEP, but she is providing a full commentary on their actions to me, to facilitate my research. The APA was instructed by the MEP to brief him instead of me, so that the interaction looked ‘authentic’. During the debriefing, they paused and asked enthusiastically: ‘are you getting enough “ethno-feel?”’ (Fieldnotes 2, Autumn 2018).

Crucially, this ‘reality TV show watcher’ role also shaped insights into gendered micropolitics in the Brussels Bubble. For example, in the same interaction described above, the shadowees criticised the ego of another (male) MEP, who was the political group’s rapporteur. This type of ‘creating drama’ and sharing gossip to entertain us with the superficiality of interpersonal relations in the Brussels Bubble made it possible to define the ‘reality TV show watcher’ shadowing role. This script demonstrates how gendered roles in shadowing fieldwork can be performed with pleasure (Butler, 2007), as these situations provided opportunities for bemusement/amusement while observing private interactions.

Furthermore, the reality TV show watcher role depended on enjoying a shared ‘cultural competence’ (Brown, 2012: 22) with APAs of a similar age to us; APAs who worked with shadowees. For example, each political group in the EP is allocated offices by the Parliament’s central administration, which are often located within discrete corridors. When admiring a display of photos of MEPs from the Socialists and Democrats group in their group corridor, an Assistant of a shadowee described them as ‘candid shots’ (referring to a social media genre of contrived but ‘natural’ looking situations) and she confessed to being a ‘fangirl’ of feminist women MEPs. In this instance, the ‘reality TV show watcher’ role was made meaningful through shared Anglo-American youth and media culture.

Overall, the national/notional families encountered in the Brussels Bubble enabled logistics management and socialisation, whereas political families enabled access. As two white, North European shadows, the fictive kin role was somewhat accessible and supportive to us in the Brussels Bubble research space which, as noted above, is structured by race and gender (Begum, 2023). The role enabled us to experience sisterly bonds and debriefing in ‘backstage’ settings where experiences related to gender were shared, and positionalities negotiated. We acquired knowledge of gendered micropolitics (interpersonal relations and ‘little p’ politics) in the Brussels Bubble, especially through ‘sisterly’ bonds and as ‘reality TV show watchers’, which are perhaps less accessible through other fieldwork roles.

Uneasy ‘honorary males’, performing wallflowers

Warren and Hackney (2000: 15) describe the ‘honorary male’ fieldwork role when researchers emulate someone with formal prestige and titles in the field, who are often men – though not exclusively. Performing the ‘honorary male’ is important to access these actors’ worlds, practices and values such as inner networks, humour and trustworthiness.

Access to formal and informal (Norton, 2019) spaces in and around EU institutions is often granted based on official status. Regarding formal spaces, the task of meeting us at the Parliament’s entrance was often designated to junior members of staff. Being the same age as many Assistants, we often encountered similar restrictions as them around formal parliamentary spaces, such as waiting outside meeting rooms, if Committee coordinators or political group Bureaus were meeting. We both experienced how someone with a formal title and prestige could ‘vouch’ for us – by indicating that we were with them. We, therefore, gained (contingent) access to formal spaces. Within informal spaces such as the staff canteen or restaurants around the EU institutions, ‘honorary’ established-academic status was only fleetingly, and sometimes humorously, granted to us – one example was an APA jokingly interpreting V.E on our Visitors’ pass as ‘Very Eminent’ (Fieldnotes 2, Spring 2020). We engaged in insider, ironic humour related to EU politics, domestic party politics and stereotypes in the Brussels Bubble, such as evaluations of high-flying Commissioner-designates; contradictions related to Brexit and insights about interest groups and national visitors (Fieldnotes 1, Autumn 2019; Fieldnotes 2, Spring 2020).

Returning to Butler (2007), where gendered acts create the abiding substance of sex, it should be noted that a range of masculinities are ascribed to men within the Brussels Bubble according to the different political families, lobbyist groups and settings – and masculinities are not without hierarchies themselves (Connell, 1987). Different types of ‘malesness’ have to be performed, according to real or perceived status. For example, a younger, green (politics), male MEP shadowee wearing a T-shirt, blazer and sneakers was mistaken for a member of staff. Meanwhile, an older European People’s Party MEP male shadowee who wore suits and strong aftershave, which lingered on the shadow’s clothing, arguably ‘looked the part’ of a political leader (Fieldnotes 2, Spring 2019). However, both expert and director level EU lobbyists commented on the hierarchies and titles rather than gender in relation to prestige in the Brussels Bubble, for example, by stating that it is a ‘title game in Brussels’ and how ‘everyone has to be at least a Director to get invitations’ to relevant formal and informal occasions (Fieldnotes 1, Spring 2020). Therefore, early career male shadows may also find it difficult to (convincingly) perform the ‘honorary male’ role in the Brussels Bubble.

At the arrival stage and towards the middle stage of fieldwork, Warren and Hackney (2000: 15) suggest that older women might enjoy men’s privileges when arranging permits and access to male networks, since age possibly connotes experience, knowledge, seniority and possibly also affluence. In the context of academia, age might pertain to having a more secure employment contract, recognition and an institutional machinery supporting the researcher. As less credentialled early career researchers entering the Brussels Bubble, we displayed a permanent disposition of gratitude for shadowing placements, instead of readily occupying the honorary male role as someone with a formal title and prestige. However, being taken seriously depends on materiality. For example, Miller used expensive university equipment – such as Macbooks, which was remarked upon by similarly aged staff, and she was also brought into discussions about Brussels hotels, as she was treated by MEPs and similarly aged staff as a fellow international traveller. These institutional resources from an EU-funded research project arguably improved her perceived status as a researcher and ameliorated some biases – but also powerfully reproduced systemic class and resource-based hierarchies.

When she came closer to exiting the research setting, Mikkonen reflected on the work roles she was assumed to occupy within the Brussels Bubble while shadowing. It seemed that when her role was unclear during the occasions where she was shadowing, she was assigned more gendered work roles and a lower ranking in the hierarchy. She was often mistaken for an intern or an interpreter, sometimes an assistant, but interestingly, never as a lobbyist, even though she was shadowing lobbyists and was, therefore, frequently among them. This is curious since she often shared a similar cultural, educational, and professional background with the shadowees. As a (young) woman and a doctoral student, perhaps Mikkonen was not recognised as a researcher in the same way as Miller – who was as a post-doctoral researcher – sometimes was (Czarniawska, 2007: 57; Sarikakis, 2003). Shadowing practices (active observing and note-taking) may also have given the impression that Mikkonen needed to report to someone higher in the hierarchy within the Brussels Bubble.

While shadowing, Mikkonen eventually learned to take a back row seat or positioned herself somewhere where her notetaking could be done more discreetly. She, thus, performed the role of a ‘wallflower’ – being as passive as possible, and dressing quite conservatively to avoid calling the ‘wrong’ kind of (hetero)sexualised attention to herself. After exiting the field, she reflected on how performing this gendered role had partly facilitated the shadowing as she blended in smoothly – but when considering how outspoken and active she normally was, the role had also been individually limiting (see Sarikakis, 2003). She also wondered whether some male ethnographers would have performed such a role so easily in fieldwork, if the role of ‘honorary male’ had not been available to them.

Overall, across the formal and informal spaces, the ‘honorary male’ role was not easily available to us, even though in the Brussels Bubble honour and prestige can be performed in various ways. This speaks to the gendered micropolitics (hierarchy and status) within the Brussels Bubble. Also, as being recognised as someone with prestige and status matters within the Brussels Bubble, not being considered thus may have impacted on our observational range, especially regarding high-level private interactions. Being considered as someone low in the Brussels Bubble hierarchy partly pushed us into a gendered ‘wallflower’ role, which may have facilitated the shadowing but should be critically reflected on since the role is individually limiting for (women) researchers.

Cast as ‘affective mascots’, performing ‘affective mascots’

The fieldwork role of mascot conjures up notions of pleasure, novelty, being visible and readily identifiable (in contrast to the wallflower) and affection, though not necessarily respect, or legitimacy (in contrast to the honorary male). In the Brussels Bubble it is also important to behave well, to not be too aggressive, and to ask kindly rather than demand – at least for lobbyists (Gardner, 1991; Naurin, 2007; Woll, 2006) and those lower in the political hierarchy. Notably, during our fieldwork, we performed the role of ‘affective mascot’ similarly to how it was first theorised over 20 years ago (Adams, 1999) and despite gender issues being addressed more frequently now than in earlier decades within the Brussels Bubble.

Social media is an important tool for staff and researchers in the Brussels Bubble, used to report publicly about real-time activities, such as meetings and events. Through the role of mascot, it became obvious that we were hardly unseen while shadowing – for example, we were invited to participate in offices’ impression management activities, during which we appeared in public-facing team communications, designed to influence constituents’ and stakeholders’ impressions of MEPs’ activities. This caused tensions at the arrival stage of the fieldwork, because shadowees wanted us to pose (perform the mascot role) for their social media accounts, although we wanted to maintain shadowees’ anonymity. In the end, we took quite a pragmatic approach and appeared on their social media accounts if the shadowees wanted to show our presence.

Furthermore, the mascot role came with reciprocal gendered obligations since shadowing involved a team ‘hosting’ us as researchers. For example, Miller’s shadowing placements required active participation at events with civil society hosted by the shadowees, such as dancing on the dancefloor with APAs and members of civil society, who on this occasion were all women. The men who were present did not dance, but they took pictures of the women who were dancing, including Miller. This is significant since it shows how gendered bonding (the shadows included) can be both held with affection and deployed as a sign of friendliness.

Like the spy and fictive kin roles – and interestingly for a supra-national setting (cf. Lewicki, 2019 [2017]) the role of affective mascot was accentuated by an emphasis on nationalities – and national stereotypes. Miller was known in advance (mistakenly) to one office as ‘The Finnish Lady’ denoting – with the use of ‘lady’ and its implied respectability – a gendered and classed-laden positionality (Skeggs, 1997). As a UK national still in the EP after Brexit – a time when much reflection about national stereotypes was happening (Charlemagne, 2020) – the affective mascot role contained inscriptions of novelty. Interestingly, Miller also had meanings projected onto her as a disaffected mascot when she was mistaken for an Erasmus student who would be regretting the loss of EU–UK cultural exchange and scientific cooperation in the post-Brexit era.

More than for any other fieldwork role, the mascot role was tied to appropriate gender performances in the Brussels Bubble. Discourses around dress codes in the Brussels Bubble can be classed and intersect with member state origin (Lewicki, 2019 [2017]) and male shadows may struggle less in blending in than female shadows (Czarniawska, 2007: 57). Rather than being a disembodied ‘fly on the wall’, our way of behaving and dressing as an (in/sufficiently) refined, (heterosexual) woman was commented on:

During a coffee break in a formal meeting where national member lobbying organisations discuss and agree their common EU lobbying strategy in Brussels, the shadowee is not within hearing distance. An older female lobbyist comments that I am looking good today, as I am wearing a skirt and nice shoes – how yesterday I looked somehow tired and I was not dressed properly. I smile a bit, I do not respond, curious to know how the conversation will evolve. She continues by commenting further about the trousers I was wearing yesterday, how they did not fit me or the occasion (Fieldnotes 1, Autumn 2019).

Mikkonen had not planned whether to take an active or a passive stance when experiencing this type of gendering. While Mikkonen ostensibly remained calm and passive, the comments evoked negative feelings. In retrospect, she might have prepared herself better for these encounters (Townsend-Bell, 2009) and allowed herself to step out from the passive researcher role to defend herself. However, this puts the onus to manage sexism onto (women) researchers. Similarly, Brown (2012) made use of her positionality and her body as a tool for research: ‘I did not challenge their [elites] (mis)conceptions of me. Instead, I willingly allowed them to map their stereotypes onto me in order to gain access to their world’ (p. 29).

Overall, the mascot role was linked to public appearances with shadowees. Nationalities affected the meanings projected onto the affective mascot role. More than any other fieldwork role, the mascot role was linked to gendered micropolitics of appropriate (heterosexual) gender performance. Performing the role of a mascot was constraining, even though it enabled us to gain insights into how women could be trivialised and held with affection rather than respected as professionals within the Brussels Bubble.

Conclusion

In this article, we framed the analysis of our research findings using four previously theorised gendered fieldwork scripts or roles – spy, fictive kin, honorary male (Warren and Hackney, 2000) and mascot (Adams, 1999). We identified these roles in our own ‘performances’ as researchers during our fieldwork at different stages of our shadowing placements (upon arrival, during shadowing, when exiting the research setting). These gendered roles did not appear uniformly: some were readily assigned to us (spy, mascot, fictive kin); one was not available to us (honorary male). We also identified other possible gendered roles in fieldwork during the course of our shadowing placements: an innocent student, a wallflower and a reality TV show watcher.

Our analysis also allows us to discuss which fieldwork role is the best for (feminist) shadows to perform. This is an important question because the role performed can affect the findings and the interpersonal experiences within the shadowing placements. By performing several fieldwork roles, we gained insights into gendered micropolitics in the Brussels Bubble – dynamics that are important for both feminist and non-feminist research. More specifically, the spy role appeared to be the best role to produce knowledge on the lack of legitimacy afforded to women’s expertise; the fictive kin role for yielding knowledge on interpersonal relations and ‘little p’ politics; the honorary male role for highlighting hierarchy and status, and the affective mascot role for exploring appropriate gender performance in the Brussels Bubble.

Our analysis updates and provides insights that can be useful for reflecting on gendered fieldwork in shadowing beyond the Brussels Bubble. On one hand, we show the ‘stickiness’, meaning the persistence, of the gendered fieldwork roles written in 1999/2000 and how they emerge in shadowing. On the other hand, we highlight the need to extend the roles in specific research contexts. Regarding institutional settings, far from subverting gendered micropolitics, there is a risk of reproducing them (such as downplaying critical research and knowledge) when responding to readily assigned gendered fieldwork roles such as the spy. Regarding interpersonal relations, our analysis demonstrates that the wallflower, mascot and innocent student roles came from a place of conflict avoidance and downplayed our agency, which is problematic for feminist research. Yet, the fieldwork roles were not always limiting but could also enable research, such as the fictive kin and reality TV show watcher roles.

One important limitation of the research on which this article is based is that we were both conducting the shadowing individually and alone (although we were in constant dialogue with each other and with our shadowees about our gendered roles during the fieldwork). To overcome this limitation, team ethnography combining experiences of shadows from different backgrounds could provide further insights on gendered fieldwork roles. As a temporal limitation, our fieldwork was conducted in the pre-Covid context and there have been many changes to the geopolitical landscape in Europe since the outbreak of the pandemic. Thus, this article may yield more limited understandings of the performance of the fieldwork roles in the current Brussels Bubble.