The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/2046-6749.htm

Between suspicion, nicknames, Ethnographic

access with
and trust—renegotiating Swedish
border police
ethnographic access with Swedish
border police 143
Lisa Marie Borrelli Received 31 January 2019
Revised 4 July 2019
Institute of Social Work, HES-SO Valais-Wallis, Sierre, Switzerland 27 October 2019
Accepted 29 December 2019

Abstract
Purpose – This article contributes the following: First, it argues along previous works that rites of passage
include continuous testing, which needs to be passed in order to gain a certain level of acceptance within the
research field. Here besides the emotional effort, researchers have to position themselves and are confronted
with questions of trust. Second, it is argued that the collected and analysed data on the rites of passage enable
us to make sense of street-level bureaucrats’ work and functioning of state institutions, especially in a police
context. Reflections on research negotiations drew the author’s attention to how mistrust towards the “other”,
here defined as migrant other, prevails the migration regime. This mistrust is later transferred onto the
researcher, whose stay is deemed questionable and eventually intrusive.
Design/methodology/approach – The collected data include semi-structured interviews, as well as several
months of participant observation with street-level officers and superordinate staff, deepening previous
discussions on research access and entrance. It further allows understanding street-level narratives, especially
when it comes to the culture of suspicion embedded in police work, connecting the experienced tests with the
everyday knowledge of police officers and case workers.
Findings – The analysis of rites of passage enable us to make sense of street-level bureaucrats’ work,
especially in a police context, since we find a specific way of suspicion directed towards the researcher. It is
based on a general mistrust towards the “other”, here defined as migrant other, whose stay is deemed illegal
and thus intruding. In this context, the positionality of the researcher becomes crucial and needs strategical
planning.
Research limitations/implications – Accessing and being able to enter the “field” is of crucial relevance to
researchers, interested in studying, e.g. sense-making and decision-making of the respective interlocutors. Yet,
ethnographic accounts often disclose only partially, which hurdles, limiting or contesting their aspirations to
conduct fieldwork, were encountered.
Originality/value – The personal role of researchers, their background and emotions are often neglected
when describing ethnographic research. Struggles and what these can say about the studied field are thus left
behind, although they contribute to a richer understanding of the functioning of the chosen fields. This work
will examine how passing the test and going through rituals of “becoming a member” can tell us more about the
functioning of a government agency, here a Swedish border police unit.
Keywords Ethnography, Access, State, Migration, Street-level bureaucracy, Border police
Paper type Research paper

“And there comes Lisa with her glowing pen”—conducting fieldwork

The Swedish border police officers, with whom I conducted my research, jokingly remarked
on my “glowing pen”, as if it was on fire due to the speed with which I took notes. A “glowing
pen” is at first glance not uncommon, if we think about our ethnographic fieldwork and the
excessive amount of notes we take during an hour, a day, a week or several months in which
we follow and try to understand our participants. During our fieldwork, scribbling down all
we can observe as ethnographers later becomes the crucial material on which our analysis is
based. Looking at me noting down as much as possible and commenting on it, drew my Journal of Organizational
Ethnography
Vol. 9 No. 2, 2020
pp. 143-157
The research was supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation (under project 153225) and the © Emerald Publishing Limited
2046-6749
National Center of Competence in Research nccr – on the move (51NF40-182897). DOI 10.1108/JOE-01-2019-0010
JOE attention to the officers’ observing gazes and pushed me to rethink my presence in their
9,2 organization. Noticing this “glowing pen”, further opened critical reflection on what it said
about the officers and thus the organisation itself.
Studies on the rites of passage address what researchers need to go through in order to
“make people talk” and may include specific, and at times emotional, moments that are shared
with interlocutors or during which loyalty is affirmed (see Geertz, 1973 and how his
participation in a cockfight, disturbed by the police, opened up a dialogue with inhabitants of
144 a Balinese village). These rites or tests are not necessarily placed only in the beginning of our
research endeavours (Bosworth and Kellezi, 2016; Laurila, 1997). Indeed, once in the field, we
often end up being critically re-examined, put through our paces and, thus, have to
continuously renegotiate access. Following Neyland (2007), (re)negotiating access tells us a
great deal about the organisation, the individuals working within it and what we seek to
understand. At the same time, it allows us, as researchers, to take a step back and reconsider
our own positioning, reactions and assumptions about the studied field (Bergman Blix and
Wettergren, 2015; Flam and Kleres, 2015; Wettergren, 2015; Hage, 2009).
Critical reflection on these matters also contributes to a transparent communication
towards the readers of ethnographies, yet there are few reflexive accounts on the dynamics
of access renegotiation and, as such, on the power imbalances between the researcher and
the researched. While we acknowledge differences when studying individuals or
organisations, “studying up” (Nader, 1972) state organisations through a street-level
approach may further reveal specificities of the research sites. Compared to researching
organisations down, where we find yet again different power asymmetries, both ways of
studying up or down may cause various forms of suspicion, directed towards the
researchers. The culture of suspicion found in organizations is not necessarily specific for
the context of police work, which is investigated here (O’Brien-Olinger, 2016; Rowe, 2007;
Bohmer and Shuman, 2018). Yet, the presented analysis of rites of passage becomes more
fine-grained to the street-level perspective in which the experiences in a bureaucratic
setting and (state) organisation display an institutionalised and engrained suspicion and
power asymmetry that is especially noticeable within government institutions that deal
with decisions on eligibility (e.g. for benefits or legal stays). Thus, studying up allows us to
register who questions the researcher’s stay and to understand the internal frictions of
studied places (Becker, 1967).
Indeed, an analysis of different rites of passage, which affect, change and develop our
roles in the field, may advance our understanding of organisational ethnography.
Starting with a theoretical framework that clarifies the analytical usefulness of studying
access negotiations, a brief discussion on methodology and the choice to conduct
participant observations follows. The analytical section examines the particularities of
researching a suspicious organisation and political and spatial power relations in the
context of migration control (see Asad, 2004). More specifically, it analyses how
emotional labour functions as a strategic tool to disperse officers’ suspicions. Further, a
reflection on positionality expands the discussion on how to adapt and create a suitable
role in the field. Finally, the concluding section summarises the presented work and
elaborates on the meaning of “studying up” suspicious organisations and its ethical
implications.

(Re)negotiating access and trust—theoretical inquiry

Much as (Jones 2014; Brewer, 1990) explains in his methodological contribution on how to
research organisations, it is often not enough to gain access by following given procedures,
rules and forms (Mathur, 2016). Instead, the “getting in” is followed by “getting on”
(Goffman, 1989; Jones, 2014), implying that several levels of (access) negotiations are to
follow. Hence, access becomes more of an administrative concern (Chughtai and Myers, Ethnographic
2017; Neyland, 2007), which can be seen as formal testing, followed by a complex access with
navigation of (more informal) entrance rites “to get in” and the potential danger of not
being accepted “on the ground”. Indeed, once the researcher has passed the often crucial, as
Swedish
well as stressful, initial negotiations (see Rosset and Achermann, 2019), there are more tests border police
to come. In the context of organisational ethnography, it is often the street-level
bureaucrats who become the gatekeepers (Reeves, 2010) on different levels of our
negotiating processes. 145
In my own research on state organisations involved in migration control, and much like
in a computer game, I encountered several hurdles which I had to pass in order to advance,
sometimes rewarded with knowledge and new information. Throughout these rites of
passage or tests which I could pass, I needed to position myself and was also positioned by
my interlocutors, which forced me to continuously assess my role and how my role
eventually changed, not only in the interlocutors’ eyes but also in my own. These moments
of being tested and eventually being granted passage push researchers to balance between
the roles they are allocated to play and their personal identities (cf. Hage, 2009). According to
Turner (1974; 1977), these moments are crucial for making sense of the observed and also
bring forward the, at times, awkward positions of researchers in the field. Indeed,
researchers are confronted with questions of trust, as well as insights into the interlocutors’
processes of sense-making, in their everyday work (Borrelli, 2018; Lindberg and Borrelli,
2019). It is a constant balancing act to find out what and how much to disguise from whom
(Nielsen and Malene, 2010; Bergman Blix and Wettergren, 2015). I needed to think about
how to position myself as a potentially critical researcher about migration enforcement; I
was ascribed a specific political affinity (being rather left-wing, green) by officers and, as
such, was at times ogled with suspicion. It further included a struggle about where and
when to disclose elements of my own personality. Previous research has discussed the
emotional labour done by researchers and the different depths of acting and disclosing
different layers of oneself (Bergman Blix and Wettergren, 2015; Farias, this issue). Most
importantly, it has brought up how “spontaneous adaptive actions” allow for a
strengthening of relations (e.g. through sharing personal views, in line with the opposite;
Wettergren, 2015). One tries to win over each informant (Laurila, 1997, p. 410) not only once
but, eventually, several times, something which will be shown below. This becomes
increasingly difficult when interacting with different individuals at the same time, when
each and every one might have a different opinion about us as people. For example, voicing
an opinion, which is only partly shared, may create emotive dissonance, endangering the
ideal role one has developed (Bergman Blix and Wettergren, 2015). In order to gain trust in
such “complex sets of social relations” (Merton, 1972, p. 10), we need to adapt in each
situation.
As argued here, the actual value of being tested and rethinking these moments has often
been neglected (Feldman, 2003). Instead, they could contribute significantly to a deeper
understanding of the studied institutions. Hence, this contribution shares knowledge (Flam,
2015) in order to advance our understanding of how to make sense of tensions and
eventually suspicion, which we encounter during fieldwork. In my work with the border
police, I have been tested regarding my professional abilities and asked how much I
remembered from cases and what I found out in the other places where I conducted research.
I was further questioned regarding which side I was on (Becker, 1967) and about my
political position. It is argued in the following that these moments become crucial in order to
find our positions within the agency and which would be accepted by most interlocutors.
While their questions might not have been a conscious and strategic test, the need to
carefully navigate the questions still existed. Finding the “correct” answers to maintain a
certain role and access becomes a cautiously organised performance in which we navigate
JOE expectations and suspicions from research participants, while reflecting on the ethics of
9,2 doing so (Turner, 1974; Goffman, 1972; Farias, this issue).

On methodology and the specificities about the research field

The study of the Swedish border police was an attempt to “study up” the state (Nader, 1972)
and to follow the individual stories and the meaning-making strategies of bureaucrats. The
146 presented material derives from four months of full-time fieldwork conducted in 2017 at one
of the seven Swedish border police offices. It includes participant observation and semi-
structured interviews, as well as numerous informal talks with border police officials,
street-level officers and civil staff, who were tasked with the detection, detention and
deportation of migrants with precarious legal statuses. The office had several sections
tasked with either mobile patrol, deportation preparations, criminal investigations of cases
involving migrant individuals or searches for absconded individuals. Each of these
sections had several groups of roughly six to nine people in which a gender balance often
prevailed.
While interlocutors are always somewhat suspicious about the goals we might have, we
find differences in how power-relations and emotions play out between “studying
institutional settings” or “the social suffering” (Bergman Blix and Wettergren, 2015, p.
690). In comparison to the study of migrant individuals, or “clients” of the state, studying up
the state also twists positions of vulnerability. The researcher often depends on the goodwill
of one actor deciding on the access to an entire institution, due to the structures and
hierarchies of state organisations (Lindberg and Borrelli, 2019); whereas, client-based studies
may allow access negotiations on a more individual level. This contribution argues that
institutions tasked with “truth finding” retain a particular interest to scrutinise the
researcher. More specifically, it has been argued elsewhere (Borrelli, 2019) that agencies and,
in this example, the border police who assess client eligibility often share a particular interest
in “who one is” (O’Brien-Olinger, 2016). “Suspicion (like doubt) occupies the space between the
law and its application” (Asad, 2004, p. 285), and suspicion arises where there is uncertainty.
“In that sense, all judicial and policing systems of the modern state presuppose organized
suspicion” (Asad, 2004., p. 285). At the same time, government institutions are interested in
not only controlling what information about the institutions gets out but also making sure to
maintain data security for their “clients”. As such, (police) institutions retain a general
suspicion towards the outside world (Fassin, 2013). Suspicion is “one elemental police
disposition, [. . .] described as a product of the need to watch for signs of trouble, danger and
clues” (O’Brien-Olinger, 2016, p. 99). The interest to fight crime and the idea to uphold the law
are a common framing of their work; while at the same time, their work is also characterised
by shuffling paperwork and rather boring administrative tasks (Borrelli, 2019).
When studying migration policies—as done in this research—crime and human mobility
become increasingly intertwined and the border between both fields blurred. Political
discourse and a recent restrictive turn in migration policies—in Sweden in particular—has
further contributed to the framing of migrants, refugees and asylum seekers as being
associated with fraud, crime and terrorism (Barker, 2017). Migrant individuals are perceived
with suspicion due to their assumingly incredible and untrustworthy claims and stories
(Kelly, 2012), as well as due to physical markers (D’Aoust, 2018). Suspicion, thus, goes deep
and is fuelled by negative stereotyping of migrants as threatening or undeserving. Due to this
entrenched nature of suspicion in police work, there is a high probability that researchers are
also met with a particular scepticism when approaching institutions, which are basically
tasked with being suspicious (O’Brien-Olinger, 2016). Officers “learn, develop, and apply a
well-defined cognitive map of the world in order to determine those things that do not fit
easily into the map” (O’Brien-Olinger, 2016, p. 100) directing attention to those disturbances.
 Maintaining trust is a key requirement to actively participate in the field site; therefore, it Ethnographic
is necessary to study how suspicion affects us as researchers and shapes our own positions. access with
Further, it is necessary to link these experiences back to the organisational setting we study
to understand its workings. As will be argued below, this not only enables a deeper
Swedish
knowledge of the organisational culture but also advances discussions on how to deal with border police
rites of passage in which the researcher’s own integrity is questioned. The following analysis
depicts my attempts to become part of the organisation in order to gain “an intimate
familiarity with the dilemmas, frustrations, routines, relationships and risks that are part of 147
everyday life” (Myers, 1999, p. 5) of the observed officers. Instead of presenting material
concerning their practices, however, this article critically analyses and reflects on the rites of
passage I encountered during my visit and how I attempted and eventually managed to pass
them. It makes use of field notes, including detailed notes on informal talks, in which I felt my
position was tested, questioned or ogled with suspicion.

Entering the field with suspicious glances—rites of passage as a relevant frame

“Researchers are bound to their own research objects and professional rules. Managers therefore
have good reason to be suspicious of researchers over whom they have little control.” (Laurila, 1997,
p. 409)
As Chughtai and Myers (2017) argue, access and entrance are not the same. Indeed, access
negotiations often happen on a formalised level, with superiors via mail, telephone talks and
formalised requests (Lindberg and Borrelli, 2019). Despite being relevant to the analysis of
how to conduct ethnographic research and how to negotiate initial access, this has been
discussed in prior work (Lindberg and Borrelli, 2019). While the start of my fieldwork was
preceded by difficulties to actually be allowed to enter, in the following, I focus on rites of
passages during my stay in the field.
As most researchers have experienced, research participants get acquainted with us but
often voice their irritation toward what we do. While Chughtai and Myers (2017) explain that
we try to reduce the gap between us and research participants by living like them, doing the
activities of the field and doing ethnographical fieldwork with organisations, especially police
work, may not entirely allow us to do so. Being a young, female PhD student, who spoke
Swedish and had lived in Sweden for some years before, allowed for a certain level of
“insiderness” (Merton, 1972; Ergun and Erdemir, 2010). Merton (1972) describes the
theoretical and historical understanding of insiders and outsiders, in which one extreme
doctrine of insiderness is defined by birth and early socialisation. Yet, he also highlights a less
stringent version of this dichotomy in which insiders and outsiders merely have different foci
of interest during their research. Taking this a step further, I argue being an insider and an
outsider are not mutually exclusive. Instead, the role of a researcher is not linear and does not
constitute one piece but includes several role factions and identities, of which certain parts
may be questioned, while others are accepted (Deschner and Dorion, this issue; Ilkjaer and
Madsen, this issue). Knowing Swedish and also being a citizen of the European Union
positioned me, somewhat, on “their side” in the fight against irregular migration. At the same
time, not being Swedish and, thus, also being an outsider caused a feeling of being flattered
and intrigued by most officers. Yet, due to not being a full-fledged police officer but simply
someone tagging along, without a gun or any ability to support them, placed me in an
outsider position and, for the most part, gave me the role of a mere spectator. However, this
could at times help because it allowed me to balance a seemingly naı€ve interest in their work
and to show compassion towards their experiences with often illegible policies. Thus, I
created a certain ideal self (Bergman Blix and Wettergren, 2015), which was genuinely
friendly but knowledgeable about overall EU migration policies and had a great interest in
JOE the officers’ daily work, rather than looking for the next “scandal” (see below). Hence, I pick up
9,2 on van Maanen’s (2011) proposal that fieldwork encompasses some “state of innocence if not
near ignorance” (Maanen’s (2011), p .220), allowing me to learn as much as possible through
participant observation. Hence, the researcher’s participation is a very specific one when
studying (migration) control agencies (Kalir, Achermann, and Rosset, 2019).
My lack of belonging to the field caused various rites of passage and pushed me to rethink
how to ease this non-belonging and to make up for it to become more familiar and more
148 immersed in the field.

Getting acquainted with the field: taking notes and spending time
Initially, my writing caused irritation, especially in the beginning, because I took notes
wherever and whenever I could, while trying to look up, follow conversations in meetings and
task planning. Some officers straightforwardly asked what exactly I wrote down, some of
them talked with each other about me writing and some started making jokes, such as the
“glowing pen”. Much as Brewer (1990) does, I interpret the reaction of joking as a sign of
discomfort and insecurity. “Writing down” is a crucial task for the collection of data, and I
could not entirely reduce it and needed to find a way to create some ease. During mobile
patrols, I used breaks to write everything down and, if asked, entirely stopped taking notes.
Through this, I was able, at times, to listen to discriminating comments or angry discussions
during which the officers neglected professionalism for a while. As such, I adapted to the
officers’ underlying insecurities and tried to reduce my awkward position (Bergman Blix and
Wettergren, 2015). During the months of my research, I even found a way to transform their
suspicions towards my “writing down” into a certain degree of appreciation. I openly showed
my notes to reduce suspicion—partly sure they would not be able to make much sense of
them (due to my writing style and a mixture of languages). When they were unsure about
what was discussed the day before, my “glowing pen” turned out to be helpful for officers
because they could refer back to me. I would share a quick summary of the legal discussions
they had or organisational items. I repeated what decision was taken earlier or the order of
procedures. While this was not a specific test, I argue that it was a rite of passage which
established trust, but it happened subconsciously.
These experiences demanded I analyse what exactly made them weary of me taking notes.
I argue the officers’ reactions underline how suspicion is closely connected to an on-going
legitimation process (see Breuls this issue) in which police officers have to legitimise their
roles and work for the public (Ugelvik, 2016). Their remarks presented their suspicion
towards me and the uncertainty where the information would go (O’Brien-Olinger, 2016;
Asad, 2004). This was highlighted by semi-joking comments, such as “she will use it all
against us” (field notes 2017). The fear of leaking information was partially created by the
strong media presence around their work and subsequent criticisms, which brought them
into the light of attention. Due to the (re)politicisation of migration enforcement (Barker, 2017),
more newspapers and TV shows were interested in conducting interviews with the officers
(during my stay, they had at least two film teams that followed the mobile patrol unit and
which aired the footage on TV), talked about police raids against migrant individuals and at
times people started filming them when they stopped someone on the streets. While some
officers mentioned they did not care much about it, they also made sure to maintain a highly
professional role when visible.
My developing understanding of their organisational culture (Chughtai and Myers, 2017)
allowed me to make sense of the presupposed and nearly natural suspicion embedded in the
officers’ work. Supporting Asad’s (2004) argument, I understood suspicion was very much
connected to the paperwork and documents, as they are the documentation that brings
certain action to life. As much as police officers need to legitimise their work through reports
that become evidence, my writing brought their actions into a paper reality over which they Ethnographic
did not have control. This awareness is not only linked to the fear that unprofessional access with
behaviour may come out but also to a concern for their “clients”. The information that
materialised through my writing included sensitive data on migrants with precarious legal
Swedish
statuses. The caring for migrants’ concerns and the security of their data were as much a border police
reason to ask me to stop writing, check what I wrote down and be interested in my notes, as
was their self-consciousness, arising after having discriminating discussions. Lastly, making
sure what I wrote down was also to assure that I understood their practices in context, as 149
much as they liked to make sure I grasped their views and criticisms towards superiors or
policies to “see how messy this work is” (field notes 2017).
Another easing factor was the time I spent in the office. It played a crucial role, as officers
seemed to become increasingly used to me being around. Initially, each time I was interested
in a file or sheet of paper, eventually asking if I could receive a copy, an officer thought twice
about it. At times, they followed me to the copy machine and copied the sheet for me; at times,
they decided to find a “clean version”, without any information on people, instead of going
through the trouble of anonymising it. Later on, I was able to take entire files into my office,
and was even part of e-mail conversations in which strategies for raids were planned. The
next section will thus illuminate my change of positions and some rites of passage, which
strengthened my presence in the office.

Power relations, emotional labour, positionality and the perception of the

researcher
During research, we shift between trying to be an insider, but also an outsider, when
performing observations. The extent to which one can fulfil both roles varies. In my position, I
could have never been a complete insider, first, due to my different educational background
and competences. Second, I was interested in studying the detection, detention and
deportation of irregularised migrant individuals, and trying to do this work would have most
likely been more ethically questionable than doing the work of a software engineer in an IT
enterprise (see Chughtai and Myers, 2017). Yet, I needed to be included in conversations and
discussions. Hence, the presented material shows that first, we encounter multiple rites rather
than a single rite of passage (to expand Chughtai and Myers, 2017). Second, these rites have
different meaning and magnitude and should be analysed via a perspective of research
strategies, which Bergman Blix and Wettergren (2015) call emotional labour. These strategies
allow us to grasp complex social relations and to adapt to individual prejudices and
expectations and also to those of entire groups, which often are not homogeneous (Merton,
1972; Bergman Blix and Wettergren, 2015).
Using strategic emotion work, being attentive to signals of the field and coping with
possible emotive dissonance (Bergman Blix and Wettergren, 2015) are relevant strategies in
research. Being generally unfamiliar with the dynamics of the researched institution, I
continuously felt like I had to be on guard. Our own position might be questioned at any time
and through various means. This, however, helps us to find our positionality, though often
being a fine balancing act, as shown below:
During the first days of fieldwork, I follow a mobile unit, who searches irregular migrants, through
work control, identity checks at the train station or in commonly known hubs for “foreigners”, such
as shopping centres and industrial areas where “according to officers” a lot of illicit labour can be
found. After a first shift outside, the team comes back to the office and has lunch. In the middle of a
seemingly friendly conversation a younger officer suddenly asks me which party I would vote for.
This question is the result of a general discussion on migration in which I have not really
participated.
JOE This sudden interest in my political position leads to suspicion on my side and the feeling that I need
to be careful with my answer. Being questioned, which party would I vote for, seems to be a way to
9,2 examine my stand towards them. I thus decide to keep my answer as vague and open as possible,
explaining I would not have enough knowledge on the party programs in Sweden and could thus not
take a decision. The officer quickly suspects me of avoiding to answer, also openly mentioning it, and
asks me once again (“You must have an opinion, broadly speaking”). I realise that there is no further
possibility to opt out of the conversation or find another topic to lead over to and reply that my
150 interest lies in ecological and sustainable goals, “so maybe I would vote for the Green Party?” With
this explanation I purposely avoid any connection to migration policies and party programs (as well
as disclosing position towards this issue). Here, the officer gives up, and the group continues
discussing other topics. (field notes 2017)
The assumption of my political position was a moment of testing (cf. Ergun and Erdemir,
2010) in which potentially conflicting preferences with (some of) the officers might have
created a perceived dissonance in the role I played. As Bergman Blix and Wettergren (2015)
argue, it is difficult to spontaneously adapt when interacting with several individuals at the
same time because they might have different views of us as a person. Staff–researcher
relations are complex, and moments, as described above, underline the constant struggle to
find out what stance to take and when one needs to disguise his or her own views or positions
(Nielsen and Malene, 2010). The fact I was not a national might have complicated the initial
(formal) access but helped to place me as not accustomed to but interested in their practices
and also offered me excuses to not take a position (Bergman Blix and Wettergren, 2015). In
moments where I would strongly disagree, I would become more silent, eventually causing
the conversation to go into another direction.
Yet, the researcher’s personal biography and identity, as well as social standing and
experiences, impact research processes (Bergman Blix and Wettergren, 2015; see also
McBride, 2017; Anteby, 2013). Surprisingly, this was the only time when I was openly asked
by an officer on my political opinion. Instead, most officers were more interested on my “ideal
scenario” of how to deal with the alleged “migration crisis”. Thus, when questions on crisis
arose, I followed a two-fold strategy. First, I tried to take a naive role as the researcher and
argued I needed to learn more about migration enforcement. Second, I fell back on a strategy
of emotional labour in which I showed understanding for their daily struggle to implement
migration policies. This was also supported by an endeavour to remain open towards what I
observed and to their work embedded in historical, temporal and spatial everyday
phenomena (Chughtai and Myers, 2017; Deschner and Dorion, this issue; Farias, this issue).

Being positioned instead of active positioning

In order to immerse into the field with the purpose of learning the officers’ “ways of doing
things and view reality” (Agar, 1980, p. 6), I did the same shifts as the officers, working day or
night and on public holidays and following any aspects of their work—despite potentially
facing boredom. I made use of the office’s gym and tried to join any (informal) meetings
(morning coffee, afternoon tea) in order to show presence, strictly following their schedules
and never leaving the office before the shift of the group I followed had ended. Nevertheless,
negotiation remained a progressive series of moments of gaining trust, especially as many
“tests” were not clearly marked moments. Most often, the police officers unconsciously
showed their doubts, and I needed some time to disperse it (see above). Yet, I also encountered
more direct questioning, sudden suspicion and curiosity, not only within the agency but also
between officers and other agencies or migrant subjects:
After a long day of mobile patrol, ending in the apprehension of several male Russian migrants
working without permission, we (me, the detainees and three male officers) drive to the detention
centre. These centres are operated by a branch of the Swedish Migration Agency. After ringing a
 bell, the gate opens, we drive into a courtyard and wait until the gate closes behind us before getting Ethnographic
out of the car. One detention staff member comes out of a building and lets us know about the
procedure and where to bring which detainee. We are let in by a second employee to a door on the left access with
of the court. A quick welcome is exchanged. Since I am not wearing any police uniform and after Swedish
having a quick look at the documents (information on the amount of people apprehended, gender of border police
the detainees), the staff member looks at me again. He wonders who I am. Instead of answering
myself, one of the police officers steps forward and introduces me to the employee, by saying, “She is
our personal police researcher”. Quickly, the employee shakes hands with me and introduces himself 151
with his name, further adding “I am criminologist.” A certain moment of bewilderment on side of the
border police officer, followed by an amused face suggests that the work title seemed unnecessary.
When back in the car the officer shares this with his colleagues, mocking the detention employee,
laughing at his arrogance and that he tried to show off. (field note 2017)
Since I do not know many people around the city, where I conduct fieldwork, I have been persuaded
to go out and take a drink with one of the female officers, working in the border police unit. The
evening ends with another, older colleague joining, plus two of her colleagues working in the patrol
unit of the Swedish Police—these two officers do not know my role and do not know me. In the
moment when it is explained who I am, they quickly joke about “needing to be careful what they talk
about”. However, the older border police officer intervenes and appeases their indirect concern by
saying “No worries, she is one of us.” (field note 2017)
Encounters with other agencies, and also with the migrants questioned by the police, helped
me to become closer to the agency, as the officers had to explain my presence. Throughout my
stay, I received different attributions. They shifted with each context (cf. Ergun and Erdemir,
2010), but all legitimised my stay. When sitting in investigative interviews, I was at times not
presented at all—here, legitimising me through silence—in some occasions to “not make it
more difficult” (field note 2017). Similarly, when roaming the streets and conducting work
controls and identity checks of employees and with the youth on the street or the people
waiting at the central station, my status was increasingly normalised with the time I spent in
the unit, as well as legitimised due to having knowledge of cases and having it written down.
Some teenagers, already known to the officers, asked if I was a police officer too, due to my
lack of uniform. The officers jokingly answered that I was in plain clothes and, after the
youngsters doubted my role, mentioned that I was probably the best “incognito” officer.
Hence, while I could not “do their work”, I could have introduced myself, which I actively
refrained from doing so as not to interfere with their work but also to analyse if the officers’
sense-making of me changed over time. This is in line with prior research, arguing that, as
researchers, we do not always define our position ourselves but depend on several
gatekeepers and how they present us (Reeves, 2010). While this has ethical implications when
encountering more vulnerable groups (here migrants), my passivity also gave me some
security during more “disruptive” or aggressive encounters, as I was not addressed by any
actor. Remaining passive allowed me not only to refrain from openly taking sides (Becker,
1967) but also pushed officers to choose sides for me vis-a-vis other colleagues and also non-
police actors and, as such, disclosed their own positions towards me.
At the same time, it also showed how the officers managed information and how it was
shared with “outsiders”. They were most often the ones in charge and the ones with the
knowledge that migrant individuals needed (see below). The presented fieldnotes showed
how the police generally tried to establish their work as “legitimate” (to me and other actors)
and how this legitimisation work was successfully used to try on different self-
representations of me as a researcher in order to gain “legitimacy”. It was then the officers
who actually helped me to overcome their scepticism and to be considered an insider in
the field.
Hence, in the beginning of access negotiations, we present ourselves having received
“proper” training, motivation and research interests. Thus, presenting qualifications
JOE functions to increase legibility and professionality to the respective contacts when trying to
9,2 access the field, something which remains relevant in later encounters during the research as
well. Yet, we retain surprisingly little control over how this presentation is later used by
interlocutors in action.

Establishing myself in the field—the “Moomins” as an unexpected facilitator

152 Compared to the more mundane and often unconscious rites of passage which indirectly
tested me, I now draw attention to a more explicit encounter, which can be demarcated as a
specifically relevant rite of passage and relevant factor to strengthen my presence.
I cannot remember how I ended up watching all episodes of the Moomins during the time I
conducted fieldwork, but it happened when I had already frequented the office for some
weeks. The Moomins are a popular children’s story well known in Nordic countries and
invented by Tove Jansson in 1945. Swedes are very familiar with the story, as the books were
later made into comics, a TV show and all sorts of souvenirs. After having spent one weekend
watching the Moomins, I ended up doing an online test to find out which Moomins character I
was and shared this with one female officer after a shift, who also took up the test. After the
next Monday morning meeting in the office, when the mobile unit started chitchatting, I
thought the Moomins test would be an innocuous conversation starter. The sharing of my
“extravagant and exciting life” (watching the Moomins episodes) while sitting in the open
space where coffee was drunk by some, breakfast was eaten and the first conversations of the
days arose, allowed me to step outside my role as a researcher. It showed that, besides the odd
interest in studying their work, I had more regular interests, and me sharing the test results
and the other officer also remembering hers had a surprising effect. I told them I was “Little
My”, a character known for being short and energetic but also known for being curious,
cheeky, critical and, at the same time, cute[1]. This information spread around the office
quickly, and by the end of the day not only was I known by a new nickname but some officers
also started to take the test. There are two crucial parts this story revealed. First, I kept the
nickname which was used by several officers in a very warm manner even after my field
research ended. To me, this affirmed some kind of insider status. Second, all officers who took
the test, ended up with the same result[2]. They all were Moominpappa, the male head of the
family, who is characterised as follows:
You possess an adventurous spirit and you enjoy looking back on your life and sharing your wild
memories and experiences with others. You believe that things were better in the past and your
restlessness always pushes you towards new adventures. [. . .] (Source: https://www.moomin.com/
en/which-moomin-are-you/).
What started out as a simple small talk topic turned out to have a greater impact in
establishing me as regular part of the office, exactly in an in/outsider binary. While all officers
were Moominpappa, I had a particular and differentiated role in the office but still belonged—
as part of the story. Little My is an essential character that drives the Moomins story forward,
and as such, it seemed that, despite my “non-belonging”, I got accepted as an odd but positive
part of their institution. As such, officers openly laughed at me, calling me more “left-wing”,
without being bothered. As Little My is a character who openly criticises, I felt that my
position got me at times more leeway.
The officers’ character suited them well, too. They liked to exchange stories and looked
back, at times with a nostalgic touch, remembering their work at previous units and old
structures of the organisation. They had an eye on the past—the alleged “migration crisis”
showed too well how work routines and practices can be turned upside down without much
premonition. And, while there were different characters and officers who were more critical,
more talkative, more sarcastic or more friendly towards me (cf. Dean et al., 1967), the office
remains characterised by certain routines, procedures and traditions, which each of the
officers experience. At the same time, the mobile unit was especially interested in “being Ethnographic
outside” and on duty, actively looking for potentially irregular subjects. As indicated, access with
younger officers especially enjoyed mobile patrols (and most of the mobile patrol officers
were younger) and active duty, instead of the office work. As such, being Moominpappa
Swedish
suited them well. border police
The Moomins “test” was not the only testing which functioned as a rite of passage that
came with a status change (Chughtai and Myers, 2017) but it was one not created by the
officers and instead naively introduced through me by letting them take the personality test, 153
and somehow, it eventually facilitated a difficult process of sense-making in a lucky way
(Kalir, 2019). Further, because the officers readily accepted my nickname, it highlighted that
Little My’s characteristics, to some extent, already fit my personality (Jones, 2014, p. 120;
Goffman, 1989). It also allowed me to feel as if I “got away with” my role as a researcher
through being attached to this character.

Conclusion—power relations between border police, researcher and migrants

This article has set out to contribute to an analysis of passing the test in ethnographic
research, in order to shine light on moments where researchers are scrutinised. Discussing
how the researcher’s role is perceived by interlocutors and highlighting the various tests one
has to undergo further allows a demystification of research techniques. It argued for an
understanding of field access as a constant process of negotiation. The presented material
has supported prior research in similar fields and contributed to knowledge creation on the
types of rites of passage that such ongoing access negotiations might entail.
First, the contribution expands Chughtai and Myer’s (2017) examination of entering the
field as a rite of passage. It has shown there is not one single rite and, as such, status passage,
but several. We find a process of negotiation between us and our interlocutors, which allows
us to assess the level of belongingness we achieve.
Second, the analysis has provided data on how emotional labour to gain access and entry
is strongly linked to a critical examination of one’s own role as a researcher. Researching
access and positionality discloses and allows us to verbalise our own emotions (Wettergren,
2015;2010; Bergman Blix and Wettergren, 2015; Hage, 2009). It allows us to reveal our own
discomfort, as well as the tension, researchers face in their everyday fieldwork when trying to
find a fitting role within an often unfamiliar structure (Bergman Blix and Wettergren, 2015).
Research participants and interlocutors may have different ideas about us, but our role
emerges from interaction (Ergun and Erdemir, 2010), which—as discussed—is a tricky
business. It was highlighted that we do not necessarily become like our interlocutors, rather
our divided role of (partial) insider and outsider could still be compatible to the researched
organisation (Ilkjaer and Madsen this issue). Concretely, it was argued that our positionality
fluctuates during the research process, and we both move and are moved between being an
insider and outsider.
Finally, this work highlights that we need to be aware of the history, structure and
particular characteristics of the institutions we research. While suspicion towards us as
researchers is not something unexpected, the reasons for its existence are shaped by the
structure and experiences of interlocutors. We need to study up the state in order to be able to
grasp both positive and negative encounters, which disclose the underlying suspicion
embedded in police work. Clearly, the officer’s role is to find evidence or clues for or against
migrant individuals’ stories, investigate their claims and somewhat search for what they feel
is the “truth”. In their work, they retain the upper-hand when it comes to procedures and, while
their “clients” may maintain some agency by being silent, trying to abscond or also openly
asking for help, police officers are in a clearly more powerful situation once they apprehend
someone. Their questions towards me were always straight forward, and their suspicion was
JOE not necessarily personally directed against me. Instead, it “is an integral part of an
9,2 investigation, and the investigation ends when suspicion is put to rest—when a ‘reasonable’
person comes to a conclusion, one way or the other, on probable evidence” (Asad, 2004, p. 285).
As border officers’ work is characterised by being opposed to the people they talk to and
apprehend, to me, becoming part of their units and being seen as “being one of them” meant
that I, to some extent, was successful in entering their practical world (Chughtai and Myers,
2017). While in one scenario, an older police officer, well established and knowledgeable, gave
154 me credit and thus verified my status; another scenario showed how quickly an
“investigation” can be reopened. Most importantly, it also reflected on my partial insider–
outsiderness, between which I, at times, purposefully switched but also was pushed to do.
This work has given an account of an organisation in which suspicion is particularly
maintained and even encouraged. It causes a specific climate in which the researcher has to be
able to deal with being investigated. Thus, the analytical approach allows for a critical view
on the specific reasons for the studied institution to expose us to these tests. This “epistemic
reflexivity” (McBride, 2017) aims to dissect social conditions and locates the researcher within
the broader framework of the studied context. It aims towards a deconstruction of the
otherwise “little known social worlds” (van Maanen 2011, p. 74)—here, the everyday work of
a Swedish border police unit.
As a similarity is drawn between the suspicion directed towards migrant individuals and
researchers, this article has provided some insight into general police culture. Yet, what
remains undiscussed is the question to what extent grounds of suspicion used to assess
migrant individuals are specifically translated onto those of us doing ethnography. Are we
also scrutinised regarding our stories’ logic and the potential inconsistencies and
discrepancies in our talk (Bohmer and Shuman, 2018)? Are we assessed as credible, or do
we also face general disbelief (Jubany, 2011), based on the fear “that people [here, migrants or
researchers] are not who they are” (Bohmer and Shuman, 2018, p. 164)? While this work has
given a rather positive account, prior research also brought up continuous struggles (Rosset
and Achermann, 2019). What unites this research is the attempt to study up, in contrast to
studying down, suspicious interlocutors and to show the inverted power position we, as
researchers, retain, when negotiating with state actors instead of migrant individuals or other
potentially vulnerable groups.
One could argue the border police could function as an extreme case of a suspicious
organisation, as they deal with individuals who have been deemed illegal in the territory.
Compared to regular police work, which includes an engagement with the victims of crime,
border police units simply fulfil the recurring task of detaining and deporting migrant
individuals. Suspicion, as such, is depicted towards all of their “clients”. This finding could
gain some relevancy regarding research on other state institutions and should be compared
to how access and entrance might differ when talking to non-governmental actors, who are
also tasked with migration control. Yet, the findings are not limited to the study of actors
within the migration regime. Suspicion, as much as secrecy, might prevail in other
governmental institutions, but the reasons for them may be different and, as such, allow for a
fruitful comparison and discussion.

Notes
1. The test describes Little My as follows: “Your curiosity together with your fearless and cheeky
attitude makes you an interesting person in the eyes of others! You cheerfully state all the unpleasant
truths that others do not want to say out loud—or hear. You never suffer from a guilty conscience and
small practical jokes greatly excite you!” (https://www.moomin.com/en/which-moomin-are-you/).
2. An interesting fact aside, one officer, being also a lawyer, and thus decision taker regarding
questions of detention, et cetera, was less satisfied with the result of the test and tried to change her
 results by redoing the test several times, changing her answers. However, somewhat magically the Ethnographic
result remained the same no matter what and how she answered. This led me to joke that maybe they
should start using the Moomin test in their recruitment and as a pre-test before being allowed to access with
become a police officer because seemingly there was a general coherence among officers. Swedish
3. Using van Maanen’s (2011, p. 221) definition of culture being “meanings and practices produced, border police
sustained, and altered through interaction”.

155
References
Agar, M.H. (1980), The Professional Stranger: An Informal Introduction to Ethnography, Academic
Press, San Diego.
Anteby, M. (2013), “Relaxing the taboo on telling our own stories: upholding professional
distance and personal involvement”, Organizational Science, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 1277-1290.
Asad, T. (2004), “Where are the margins of the state?”, Anthropology in the Margins of the State,
Veena, D. and Deborah, P. (Eds), School for Advanced Research Advanced Seminar Series,
School of American Research Press, Santa Fe, N.M, pp. 279-288.
Barker, V. (2017), “Penal power at the border: realigning state and nation”, Theoretical Criminology,
Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 441-457, doi: 10.1177/1362480617724827.
Becker, H.S. (1967), “Whose side are we on?”, Social Problems, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 239-247.
Bergman Blix, S. and Wettergren,  A. (2015), “The emotional labour of gaining and maintaining access
to the field”, Qualitative Research, Vol. 15 No. 6, pp. 688-704, doi: 10.1177/1468794114561348.
Bohmer, C. and Amy, S. (2018), Political Asylum Deceptions - The Culture of Suspicion, Palgrave
Macmillan, available at: //www.palgrave.com/de/book/9783319674032.
Borrelli, L.M. (2018), “Using ignorance as (Un-)Conscious bureaucratic strategy: street-level practices
and structural influences in the field of migration enforcement”, Qualitative Studies, Vol. 5 No. 2,
pp. 23-37.
Borrelli, L.M. (2019), “The border inside – organizational socialization of street-level bureaucrats in the
European migration regime”, Journal of Borderlands Studies, pp. 1-20, doi: 10.1080/08865655.
2019.1676815.
Bosworth, M. and Kellezi, B. (2016), “Getting in, getting out and getting back: access, ethics and
emotions in immigration detention research”, Reflexivity and Criminal Justice: Intersections of
Policy, Practice and Research, in Sarah, A., Jarrett, B. and Alistair, H. (Eds), Palgrave Macmillan,
London, pp. 237-262.
Brewer, J.D. (1990), “Sensitivity as a problem in field research: a study of routine policing in northern
Ireland”, American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 33 No. 5, pp. 578-593, doi: 10.1177/0002764290033005006.
Chughtai, H. and Myers, M.D. (2017), “Entering the field in qualitative field research: a rite of passage
into a complex practice world: entering the field in qualitative field research”, Information
Systems Journal, Vol. 27 No. 6, pp. 795-817, doi: 10.1111/isj.12124.
Dean, J.P., Eichorn, L.R. and Dean, L.R. (1967), “Fruitful informants in intensive interviewing”, in An
Introduction to Social Research, Doby, J.T. (Ed.), 2nd ed., Appleton-Century- Crofts, New York,
NY, pp. 284-286.
Anne-Marie, D.A. (2018), “A moral economy of suspicion: love and marriage migration management
practices in the United Kingdom”, Environment and Planning D: Society and Space Vol. 36
No. 1, pp. 40-59, doi: 10.1177/0263775817716674.
Ergun, A. and Erdemir, A. (2010), “Negotiating insider and outsider identities in the field: ‘insider’ in a
foreign land; ‘outsider’ in one’s own land”, Field Methods, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 16-38, doi: 10.1177/
1525822X09349919.
Fassin, D. (2013), Enforcing Order: An Ethnography of Urban Policing, Polity Press, Cambridge.
JOE Feldman (2003), “It is probably too complicated for them”, Anthropologists, the state and national
security, Dialogue, Anthropology News, Vol. 11.
9,2
Flam, H. (2015), “Introduction: methods of exploring emotions”, Methods of Exploring Emotions, in
Flam, H. and Kleres, J. (Eds), Routledge, London, NY, pp. 1-22.
Flam, H. and Kleres, J. (Eds) (2015), Methods of Exploring Emotions, Routledge, London, NY.
Geertz, C. (1973), Person, Time, and Conduct in Bali in His ‘The Interpretation of Cultures, Basic
156 Books, New York, NY.
Goffman, E. (1972), Encoutners. Two Studies in the Sociology of Interaction, Penguin University Books,
Middlesex, UK.
Goffman, E. (1989), “On fieldwork”, Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 123-132,
doi: 10.1177/089124189018002001.
Hage, G. (2009), “Hating Israel in the field: on ethnography and political emotions”, available at: http://
minerva-access.unimelb.edu.au/handle/11343/26712.
Jones, M. (2014), Researching Organizations: The Pratices of Organizational Fieldwork, 1st ed., Sage
Publications, Los Angeles.
Jubany, O. (2011), “Constructing truths in a culture of disbelief: understanding asylum screening from
within”, International Sociology, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 74-94, doi: 10.1177/0268580910380978.
Kalir, B. (2019), “The uncomfortable truth about luck: reflections on getting access to the Spanish state
deportation field”, Social Anthropology, Vol. 27 No. S1, pp. 84-99, doi: 10.1111/1469-8676.12626.
Kalir, B., Achermann, C. and Rosset, D. (2019), “Re-searching access: what do attempts at studying
migration control tell us about the state?”, Social Anthropology, Vol. 27 No. S1, pp. 5-16, doi: 10.
1111/1469-8676.12675.
Kelly, T. (2012), “Sympathy and suspicion: torture, asylum, and humanity”, Journal of the Royal
Anthropological Institute, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 753-768, doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9655.2012.01790.x.
Laurila, J. (1997), “Promoting research access and informant rapport in corporate settings: notes from
research on a crisis company”, Scandinavian Journal of Management, Reflections on Conducting
Processual Research on Management and Organizations, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 407-418, doi: 10.1016/
S0956-5221(97)00026-2.
Lindberg, A. and Borrelli, L.M. (2019), “Let the right one in? On European migration authorities’ resistance
to research”, Social Anthropology, Vol. 27 No. S1, pp. 17-32, doi: 10.1111/1469-8676.12659.
Maanen, J.V. (2011), “Ethnography as work: some rules of engagement”, Journal of Management
Studies, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 218-234, doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2010.00980.x.
Mathur, N. (2016), Paper Tiger: Law, Bureaucracy and the Developmental State in Himalayan India,
Cambridge University Press, Delhi.
McBride, R.S. (2017), “Towards hope, solidarity and re-humanisation”, Reflexivity and Criminal Justice:
Intersections of Policy, Practice and Research, in Armstrong, S., Blaustein, J. and Henry, A. (Eds),
Palgrave Macmillan, London, pp. 81-100.
Merton, R.K. (1972), “Insiders and outsiders: a chapter in the sociology of knowledge”, American
Journal of Sociology, Vol. 78 No. 1, pp. 9-47, doi: 10.1086/225294.
Myers, M. (1999), “Investigating information systems with ethnographic research”, Communications
of the AIS, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 2-19, available at: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id5374486.374487.
Nader, L. (1972), “Up the anthropologist: perspectives gained from studying up”, Reinventing
Anthropology, in Hymes, D (Ed.), Random House, New York, NY, available at: https://eric.ed.
gov/?id5ED065375.
Neyland, D. (2007), Organizational Ethnography, 1 ed., SAGE Publications, Los Angeles.
Nielsen, M. and Malene (2010), “Pains and possibilities in PrisonOn the use of emotions and
positioning in ethnographic research”, Acta Sociologica - ACTA SOCIOL, Vol. 53 December,
pp. 307-321, doi: 10.1177/0001699310379143.
O’Brien-Olinger, S. (2016), Police, Race and Culture in the “New Ireland”: An Ethnography, Palgrave Ethnographic
Macmillan, Basingstoke.
access with
Reeves, C. (2010), “A difficult negotiation: fieldwork relations with gatekeepers”, Qualitative Research,
Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 315-331.
Swedish
Rosset, D. and Achermann, C. (2019), “Negotiating research in the shadow of migration control: access,
border police
knowledge and cognitive authority”, Social Anthropology, Vol. 27 No. S1, pp. 49-67, doi: 10.1111/
1469-8676.12644.
157
Rowe, M. (2007), “Tripping over molehills: ethics and the ethnography of police work”, International
Journal of Social Research Methodology, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 37-48, doi: 10.1080/
13645570600652792.
Turner, V.W. (1974), “Liminal to liminoid”, Play, Flow, and Ritual: An Essay in Comparative
Symbology, Rice Institute Pamphlet - Rice University Studies, Vol. 60 No. 3, available at: https://
scholarship.rice.edu/handle/1911/63159.
Turner, V.W. (1977), The Ritual Process Structure and Anti-structure, Cornell University Press, Ithaca,
NY, available at: https://trove.nla.gov.au/work/10686497.
Ugelvik, T. (2016), “Techniques of legitimation: the narrative construction of legitimacy among
immigration detention officers”, Crime, Media, Culture: An International Journal, Vol. 12 No. 2,
pp. 215-232, doi: 10.1177/1741659016648180.
Wettergren, 
A. (2010), “Managing unlawful feelings: the emotional regime of the Swedish migration
board”, International Journal of Work Organisation and Emotion, Vol. 3 No. 4, p. 400, doi: 10.
1504/IJWOE.2010.035327.
Wettergren, 
A. (2015), “How do we know what they feel?”, in Methods of Exploring Emotions, Flam, H.
and Kleres, J. (Eds), Routledge, London, NY, pp. 115-124.

Corresponding author
Lisa Marie Borrelli can be contacted at: lisa.borrelli@hevs.ch

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com