Brief relation about meaning, methods and examples of militant investigation and co-research as political action

by Gigi Roggero

I’ll separate my relation in three parts. In the first part, I’ll try to explain what I mean when I speak of militant investigation and co-research as political action, and the radical differences as regards both sociological and academic research, and traditional worker investigation. In the second and in the third part, I’ll speak about common methods of co-research. The need to build up common methods doesn’t mean the construction of academic method, or a standard method: this is a not sense to ourselves! I speak of a need to build up a common work, common languages, common notions, common field of militant research, common political activity and action, to build up a European common space of movement and radical transformation, in which multiplicity of political experiences, militant groups and subjects live and cooperate.

I say clearly, to avoid dangerous misunderstandings: we aren’t researchers interesting in political processes, but we are militants that use research for our political activity in the movement and in the precariousness struggles!

1) Theory introduction

Which is the difference between traditional worker investigation and co-research? In my opinion, the difference is first of all a political difference

In fact, the traditional idea of worker investigation inside the workers movement, also in innovative sectors, uses paradigms, scientific organization and capitalistic tools, of which the militant researchers criticized not the contents and the form of production, but only the aim. In other words, the worker inquiry addressed the sociological research toward political organization, and not toward market and goods system

On one side, there was an idea of neutrality of the science, which was thought as the most appropriate for revolutionary activity; on the other hand, the knowledge produced in the research is used by an external subject, the party or the union. So, there was a division of work between politics and research

The hypothesis and the aim of the co-research is the overcoming, the knocking down of this separation between politics and research. So, the production of knowledge is in the same moment the production of subjectivity and the agency, of common practices and languages, and the construction of a political self-organization. We are speaking about another form of research, where knowledge and science live inside the politics process of the co-research, not in a far future. It’s too little the critic of the science only for its uses; the critic of the science means a radical experience of an immediate alternative of cooperation

Brief, co-research is an hypothesis to experiment another form of political, productive and human cooperation, inside the process activated by militants and social subjects. In other words: worker investigation is inside representation space, co-research tends to be beyond and against representation space

2) Research methods

As I said in the introductive part of my relation, my speech about methods isn’t a speech about academic or university project, but about politics projects of militant action and production of knowledge for precariousness struggles

The co-research is not identified in the qualitative interviews, although the qualitative interviews can be the best and more relational tool. In addition, even quantitative elements can be important – for example, with questionnaires. I repeat: co-research is constructed in the relational space, it’s important how the social subjects cooperate, struggle and organize themselves

On this discourse, speaking on multiplicity of subjectivity, resistances, struggles, workers, cooperation, political aims and so on, there isn’t of course a universal and standard method. Anyway, it’s important discuss on common methods and research practices, to think common projects, common techniques, a common expertise to use, common ways and aims

So, the tools can be: qualitative interviews (vis-à-vis); focus group; video-interviews (an interesting tool, but different than audio-interviews, more direct, less deep); in a first step, also questionnaires. I repeat: it’s important to prefer relational tools, because the interview is simply a moment of a process – a cooperative and politics process

Brief: co-research is a politics process, in which the method of knowledge production is radically different from academic method, but it’s important. In other words: research without co is an academic project, not interesting to ourselves; but co without research is an “introspective” inquiry, separate from social subjects, struggle and real subjectivity

3) Examples of research method

In our webring, we imagine a research project that goes on for concentric circles (we will try to translate this in maps and cartography). In the first circle we have the militant groups; in the second circle we have the struggles; in the third circle, we find out the “social subjects”. For each circle, we are going to build its map, and then we can overlap different levels and identify links

For militant group, we have prepared a “knot cards”

For “social subjects”, we must think general outlines of research, that we can discuss and use to produce common experiences and translate all we did told in theory

To simplify, the “struggle circle” is the possible link between militant groups and “social subjects”

An hypothetic research project can be in three steps: a) composition of research group, identification of field of research, selection of analytic and politics problems and topics, knots and variables-key, elaboration of first hypothesis to begin, finding out of times and calendar, tools (for example audio-interview and questionnaires, and respective interview outline) and cases of intervention, initial aims; b) selection of the subject to interview, achievement of the interviews, new subjects to interviews, and so improvement of the relational and cooperative net; c) analysis of materials and interviews, discussion and check on initial hypothesis, new elaboration, construction of a new net of research and cooperation, discussion and check of initial aims, new aims and new projects of research

Particularly important is the identification of the subject of research (for example workers of spectacle, workers migrants, university researchers, chainworkers and so on), and the field of research (theatres, media, university, call center, metropolis and so on). The settlement and delimitation of subjects and field (not the sectoralization, because all the subject are in the category of living labour and precariousness of course) is important to give effectiveness to the politics projects and to give flesh, bodies and reality to the “social subjects” of our languages

Also important it’s the elaboration of the outline of interview. The outline is not standard, of course, but depend on fields and subjects. Anyway, we can say that there are some common elements in all outlines, for example: biographic elements (age, family background, place of birth and current address, present and past works), political elements (membership of politics groups, parties or unions, participation on struggles, and so on), subjectivity, agency and forms of life

At the same time, we can build common methods of interviews and tools

All my speech is not about the immediate construction of a common project of co-research: before to do it, we have to develop a common work to build up common notions and languages, politics activity and practices. But, on the other hand, to build up this, we could imagine some hypothesis of European co-researches for the future, from the fields of political action of militant groups involved in the project and in Euromayday process. For example, there are collectives that makes politics intervention and militant investigation on workers migrants, care labour, students and university, workers of spectacle, and so on. On this regards, could we build up, step by step and inside the webring process, networks of co-research – in perspective at European level – for each of these fields of political activity?

Finally, I have a proposal of “brief-middle term”: we can build up a small project of brief videointerviews in the towns of Euromayday 06, with few questions – common for all – to the subjects of the precarity, and not “rhetorical” or “propagandistic” (if we already know replies, it’s unnecessary to do questions!). This can be useful on one hand to experiment a first common investigation; on the other hand, to get used to a common work.