When Research Meets Politics: Lessons from Boston College’s Belfast Oral History Project


Birgit_June 2014

By Dr Birgit Schippers

Senior Lecturer in Politics

St Mary’s University College Belfast




Much of the recent attention given to Boston College’s Belfast Oral History project has focussed on the question of confidentiality and its legal implications. The researchers on the project, the academic Dr Anthony McIntyre and the journalist Ed Moloney, claim to have put their faith in Boston College’s assurances of confidentiality agreements given to the research participants, specifically that recordings would not be released until after the death of the participants. The subpoena actions initiated by the PSNI and subsequent decisions by US courts have put to rest once and for all the naive belief that confidentiality assurances are iron-clad.


Less attention has been given to another aspect of this long and still ongoing saga: this is the relationship between research and politics. Hardly anyone hankers after the idea, always contested, that ideas move in a value-free vacuum produced by detached scholars who, sitting in their ivory-towers, are immune from the political values and ideas that influence them as knowledge-producers. Does the acknowledgement that academics carry political baggage allow them, though, to undertake their work with little or no consideration to their research participants, to the political contexts in which they work, or to implications their work has on other scholars?


Moloney refers to McIntyre as a ‘lead IRA researcher’, and his blog defends his and McIntyre’s professionalism, integrity and detachment.  Yet, looking at the Boston College debacle, it appears that what the project lacks is the very professionalism, integrity and detachment that Moloney claims. What would shed light on Moloney’s claims is openness and honesty about the ethical integrity of the project. What is missing in the public debate around this issue is information on the ethical scrutiny and oversight applied by Boston College. Like any academic institution, surely Boston College must have a procedure for the ethical scrutiny of research, and an ethics committee that scrutinizes the ethical practice underpinning research. Did an ethics review happen in the case of the Boston College project? And what was its outcome?

gerry adams

The project is now treated by academics as a textbook case of ethical malpractice. In addition to the project’s well-rehearsed problems with confidentiality, it also raises concerns regarding the safety of the research participants. I wish to highlight a different issue: is it permissible to engage in research to make a political point? And is it acceptable to undermine good ethical practice in the name of a political cause? Both researchers on this project are well-known critics of Gerry Adams and the Sinn Fein strategy pursued under his leadership. This is a legitimate political view to take; it is also legitimate and necessary to submit the actions, ideas and practices of political actors to robust and critical scholarly scrutiny. However, when the political views of researchers permeate the aim and methodology of their research, we enter a grey zone where the lines between scholarly research and propaganda become blurred. From what we know so far, all of the republican research participants seem to espouse the same political stance as McIntyre and Moloney. Such an apparent disavowal of a balanced approach in its choice of research participants, together with Dr McIntyre’s recent insinuation that he used leading questions, challenges the aim, remit and indeed the name of the project. Put differently, was the project designed to produce an oral history archive of the protagonists of the conflict, or is its purpose to advance a one-sided view on the conflict? If the latter is the case, then this project disguises political propaganda as scholarly research.



The conduct of McIntyre and Moloney has shaken the trust of conflict protagonists to participate in oral history research, and it is fair to conclude that this project has had a negative impact on the use of research as an aid to understanding conflict. It has also damaged the prospects of other scholars, especially those interested in oral history and narrative research, to conduct similar projects. One would hope that future projects restore some of the lost confidence in the integrity of research and produce work that is more thoughtful and  reflective.


This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to When Research Meets Politics: Lessons from Boston College’s Belfast Oral History Project

  1. Malachi says:

    You have an ethical problem of your own for you are making sweeping assumptions about undeclared intentions of the researchers and about the nature of the interviews. Most of the subjects interviewed are unknown to you, or to me or to any but a few. Yet you repeat the claim made by others that there is an obvious bias in the selection towards people critical of Gerry Adams.
    You don’t know that.
    Yet I doubt anyone would claim that they are a representative sample of republican and loyalist paramilitaries or even that such a sample is attainable by any researcher.

  2. Aesop says:

    What an enchanting take on the old Blind men and an elephant parable! Quite a construct made using some of its parts, yet missing the totality that would give the full picture, namely, the research itself. Good guessing though, Dr Schippers. It is as well academia is left to the academics if this is how it’s done.

  3. Peter Breheny says:

    It is interesting that the Linen Library in Belfast has been more successful in protecting the contents of papers it keeps under similar circumstances from demands made by the PSNI.

  4. Chris Bray says:

    The list of untested assumptions in this post would be very long indeed. We know the identity of four interviewees — one still disputed, as Ivor Bell does not acknowledge being interviewee “Z” — out of several dozen. And the project also contains interviews with loyalists, whose views would not offer insider condemnation of Gerry Adams. Nor do we know the identities of interviewees who were approached by the Belfast Project but declined to participate.

    Beyond that, how likely is it that a “detached” scholarly outsider would have penetrated the ranks of the IRA for open and candid discussion of illegal violence? A few scholars have managed this kind of engagement with paramilitaries — Jeffrey Sluka comes to mind — but a deep archive containing hundreds of interviews with dozens of people? Who else has accomplished that? An oral history of the IRA was only going to be done by someone who could win the trust of interviewees, and Anthony McIntyre had the background to do that. He also has a PhD in history, and is entirely qualified to conduct historical research.

    Finally, as you correctly suggest, all academic researchers carry political baggage with them. Historians who use oral history resources understand that the content of oral history interviews isn’t all factually true and objectively rendered. All oral history resources must always be approached with caution, being understood as subjective renderings of individual perspectives. There was no alternative Belfast Project in which detached and rigidly neutral interviewers would have sat down with IRA and UVF/UDA members for lengthy factual discussions of paramilitary activity.

    The bottom line is that the Belfast Project could have offered historians hundreds of detailed and candid insider interviews about the Troubles. Who else has accomplished that?

    • Laura Haydon says:

      The Layers of Meaning project, conducted by researchers from Queen Mary and Trinity College, has gathered a significant body of oral history material while remaining under the radar. Participants were guaranteed a 40-year embargo on their interviews. It was an academic, rather than a journalistic, exercise. By contrast, Moloney appears to have confused oral history with investigative journalism. The latter benefits from legal protection of sources, under the public interest privilege. Oral history does not.

      • Chris Bray says:

        The Layers of Meaning project website says that the project focused on the peace process, not on the violence of the Troubles. We won’t be able to directly compare until and unless all of the material from both projects becomes available, but it does not appear that these were comparable projects.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>