Above, I have shown that while current scholarship is rather skeptical regarding the general potential of NSA access to increase institutional legitimacy, it has been assumed that APO access has more positive effects on the legitimacy of global policy-making.
However, empirical research to scrutinize on this assumption is still scarce. Conducting such research with regard to UN institutions dealing with Indigenous issues is the goal of my dissertation project. In this context, I will take an empirical perspective on legitimacy, i.e. I look at whether participants of UN Indigenous-specific mechanisms perceive them to be legitimate. In the following chapters, I will therefore first develop an analytical framework which deals with the task of measuring participants’ perceptions of legitimacy regarding concrete institutions. For this, I rely on an analysis of discursive legitimation, building on a methodology developed by Schneider and colleagues for the analysis of the legitimacy of states (Schneider et al. 2007; Schneider et al. 2010;
Schmidtke & Schneider 2012), and which I adapt to make it applicable to transnational governance. Additionally, I also look at participation patterns of constituencies to complement the findings and get more solid results regarding institutional legitimacy.
Subsequently, I develop a typology for distinguishing between two different modes of APO access, namely open access as observers, and inclusive access as members of an institution, and operationalize them to distinguish between different degrees of access.
Based on a literature review, I then deduce hypotheses regarding the connection
between APO access and perceptions of legitimacy, and outline several mechanisms that explore the possible connection between APO participation and legitimacy perceptions.
In the empirical parts of the dissertation, I use the data generated from research to scrutinize on these assumptions and refine them inductively.
At this point, however, some general remarks on the basic choices with regard to the research design of my dissertation are needed.38 To be able to answer the research question outlined above, a number of methodological choices have been made. They concern the basic approach to the topic and the case selection; the collection of data on the two variables; and the establishment of causality between both variables.
As regards the basic approach, I have opted for a single case study, namely participation by Indigenous peoples in UN Indigenous-specific institutions, as the most appropriate way to probe the plausibility of the hypotheses (as described in Chapter three). Given that the data collection and analysis of a big number of actors on their perceptions of legitimacy required intensive study, it was necessary to constrict the number of researched cases. In-depth case studies outplay their specific strength when the researcher aims to uncover causal mechanisms linking dependent and independent variable (Blatter et al. 2007: 133–135), i.e. how the participation by affected actors impacts on legitimacy. Moreover, conducting research on Indigenous peoples as an outsider required building some basic trust, as a growing number of Indigenous activists reject being objects of study, claiming more active roles for themselves. All this required focusing on one case instead of on a number of cases. Given that some large-n studies already exist which might serve to put results on legitimacy into a broader perspective, the advantage of greater explanatory richness within one case under these circumstances outweighs the disadvantages connected to limited generalizability when focusing on one case only.
What is more, access for Indigenous peoples in UN Indigenous-specific mechanisms is specifically suitable to answer the questions posed in this dissertation. As argued in the second section of this Chapter, the participation of affected actors is strong with regard to Indigenous issues at the UN. Both the Permanent Forum and the Expert Mechanism offer far-reaching access rights to Indigenous organizations, and IPOs broadly make use
38 A more detailed description of the methodological choices made throughout the research process of the dissertation is provided in the Appendix.
of these opportunities. Moreover, IPs claim to have even stronger moral grounds for participation than other affected actors (see Chapter five). Additionally, Indigenous participation within the UN started over three decades ago, suggesting that it is firmly institutionalized and eventual difficulties we will be able to observe are not just teething troubles, but reflect more structural issues. Choosing Indigenous access to the UN as my case to study has the additional advantage that it allows for in-case comparison. There are two institutions dealing with Indigenous issues, namely the PFII and EMRIP, which slightly differ with regard to the Indigenous actors which participate in them, and with regard to the access they offer to IPs.39 Moreover, both institutions offer two modes of IP access, namely participation as observers and participation as expert members, and my research will track the distinct effects of both these access modes by employing process-tracing to establish causality.
The main methods for data collection in qualitative research are interviews, observation and content analysis. To allow for a higher validity of results, I have opted for a triangulation of methods and have applied all three methods in this dissertation. Data had to be collected to (a) measure perceptions of legitimacy, to (b) analyze Indigenous presence through access opportunities offered, and to (c) establish causal connections between IPO participation and perceptions of legitimacy.
To analyze perceptions of legitimacy, public statements from all relevant participant groups made during sessions have been selected for content analysis, including Indigenous organizations, UN specialized agencies, governments of states with Indigenous populations, and relevant donors. Additionally, to allow for greater validity of results, I analyzed indicators regarding the behavior of participants, namely their attendance at and engagement in and between sessions. The respective information has mostly been gathered from official UN documents. To analyze Indigenous presence at the PFII and EMRIP, I also mainly relied on data available in UN documents. Additional information regarding the participating IPOs was gathered from the websites of IPOs.
Moreover, interviews were a valuable tool for gaining additional insights into both Indigenous self-representation at the UN and into how causal connections are working.
39 In fact, with the Special Rapporteur a third Indigenous-specific mechanism exists within the UN. In the context of this dissertation, the SRIP was not taken analysed because it is a mandate hold by one person and formally there is no need to be Indigenous to be nominated to it.
Since I was primarily interested in the perceptions of relevant constituencies regarding legitimacy, the most appropriate method to gather data in this regard was directly asking them for their explanatory account of institutional legitimacy. Moreover, as I was specifically interested in how causal connections are working, interviews seemed the more adequate methodological tool as compared to questionnaires. For interviews, I relied on those actors directly involved in the respective institution. I have conducted 37 in-depth interviews with members and observers of the respective institutions, including Indigenous representatives, staff from UN agencies, state officials, NGOs, and staff of the UN secretariat. These interviews have mainly been conducted between March 2008 and April 2009. A number of interviews, especially those focusing on the Expert Mechanism, have been conducted in a second round of interviews in 2017. Most interviews were conducted during a stay in New York while a Permanent Forum session was ongoing, and in Geneva during a session of the Expert Mechanism.40 However, possible interview partners used to be very busy during the sessions. Therefore, I also used sessions to establish contacts and conducted a number of telephone interviews afterwards as a practical alternative.
A third method for data collection is observation. I have attended both sessions of PFII and EMRIP. Attendance of these events proved highly important to get a feeling of the atmosphere reigning in them and learn about the many important side-processes taking place parallel to and around the official meetings. Observations made during the sessions have been noted down in a field research diary, and these notes have enriched and put into a broader perspective the information obtained in interviews. However, the high costs for travel and accommodation in New York and Geneva limited the number of sessions I have been able to attend (one session of the PFII, two sessions of the EMRIP).
Sessions of the PFII, and since recently also of EMRIP are publicly screened by UN Web-TV. To some degree, I have therefore also relied on these screenings, and although they are limited to the official proceedings of the sessions, they proved to be a valuable additional source of information.
40 Some interviews were also conducted during a training event for Latin American Indigenous activists with regard to the CBD in Panama City.