Volume 8 Issue 3
A Constructivist Enquiry into the Problem of Piracy
By Candyce Kelshall
Piracy has been a long studied and well documented concept for centuries. In an era of intense globalization, the scope and reach of pirate activities has increased, and has a greater impact on a larger variety of actors and individuals. Though Taiwan has a limited history of dealing with Somali piracy, a thorough understanding of the nature of this problem is advised, as the applications of the methodology can be applied in order to address other contemporary security challenges.[1] This methodology aims to provide an alternative to realist and liberal perspectives when addressing security challenges. While commercial and merchant ship instances of piracy have been impacted by the continuing presence of anti-piracy multi-lateral operations, fishing and smaller vessels remain targeted in lower profile attacks. Several vessels have been attacked in March and April 2019. This aspect of Somali maritime activity has been grossly under reported.
This paper suggests that piracy might be viewed from a constructivist perspective as it might help with framing an understanding of the phenomenon from the perspectives of the actors involved. Identifying subjective meanings may be useful in understanding intentions and motivations of such actors. Such an approach may avoid the layering of assumption which objective interpretations and existing understanding might imply. The purpose of this paper is to offer an updated methodological approach for addressing issues of piracy, which is grounded in international relations theory. This is proposed as the problem of piracy is an international problem that crosses borders and boundaries of international law. As instances of piracy are increasing, it is suggested that the current international law and multilateral approaches to dealing with this problem may not be adequate or appropriate, as these responses come from realist and liberal perspectives, which are superimposed over the actions or actors, who may not have the same origins.
There are three approaches which might be applied to the study of international relations. These are social scientific, historical and constructivist.[2] The social scientific approach uses the same methodology as the natural sciences - using objectivity to analyse issues at various levels such as the individual level, the domestic and national, the systemic level and global levels. It seeks to break down the constituent parts of an issue into dependent and independent variables. Such a positivist and empirical approach suggests singular truths.
The historical approach does not seek to understand all occurrences of an issue but approaches the unfolding narrative of an event to generate specific understanding of that individual occurrence by a detailed narrative. Assessments are valid only for the single issue under review.
The constructivist approach is one in which there is no single narrative to explain international issues but instead the interests of actors shape occurrences and outcomes. Actors are constrained in their interpretation of events based on their specific existing norms, understandings and identities. Actors are therefore not free to act as they please but do so based on a limited menu of options which are informed by the prevailing interests and goals which shape the environment.[3] Where two discrete sets of actors are engaged in conflict there may well be two sets of norms and interpretations which are at odds. This paper suggests the constructivist approach to international relations be employed to frame situational awareness, in order to examine these two versions of “reality” which the security problem of Somali piracy presents.
The constructivist approach is one in which there is no single narrative to explain international issues but instead the interests of actors shape occurrences and outcomes.
The Constructivist Approach
This paper suggests the importance of a constructivist lens through which the reconstruction of experiences and meaning from the discrete actions of the two groups of actors may be undertaken.[4] In fact, grounded theory constructivism, the research methodology used in this paper, rejects the idea of a single objective reality.[5]
The primary objective of this paper is to demonstrate that the relationship between our understanding of piracy and identifying acts as being such, may be dependent upon our socially constructed notion of the nature of Somali pirate actions.
A constructivist methodological approach, therefore, is an analysis of the interests, narratives, motivations and actions of the actors in this security problem. Such an approach proposes that there are two perspectives at play in Somali piracy and seeks to demonstrate that the conceptualisation of piracy is informed by different interests, which are dependent on who is doing the interpreting. The constructivist tool of interpretivism is therefore advanced to enquire into what the dominant interests are at stake, and how these interests inform the actions on both sides, both mitigator and pirate actors.
Less common approaches within constructivism, namely structuration and post structuralism might also be employed, particularly in examining the self-selected labels of the actors. While there are some distinctions between the two approaches, post structuralism and constructivism – both cover similar ground. One seeks to explain the dynamic between the actor and the structure of the environment and the other, the nature of the environment in which policy is made. Post structuralism explores the relationship of power and knowledge and might therefore be employed in explaining why normative arguments for piracy have become the dominant perspective on the part of the west. From this perspective, it might be argued that dominance and power determine the norms and interests which inform understanding, and the nature of our knowing, what piracy is. The lack of control and lack of power of the Somali actors, on the other hand inform an alternative understanding of their actions distinct from those of the western mitigators. Arguably, there is a lacuna in how the actions of Somali actors are perceived in the West, and how the actions are being rationalised by the actors themselves.
A constructivist approach therefore questions “the underlying assumptions supporting social and historical approaches to understanding” both Somali piracy and state responses to violent armed non-state actors[6] and therefore examines the interests of two parties who are attempting to gain power in a particular circumstance and time period. The pirates are over what appears to be at first glance, a conflict trap and the western mitigators (international rules-based system) seeking power over the pirates to protect and maintain their interests – commercial shipping. From a constructivist perspective, “meanings, symbols and identities are subjective and are used by individuals, groups and society to gain and maintain power.”[7] So the self-identification of the Somali pirates have to be ascertained and western perceptions of piracy, understood. This approach may help explain why the western narrative and responses framed by this perspective, when applied to piracy, might actually compound and not erode the security problem- at best they may temporarily mitigate the problem as long as a deterrent is present. Pirate attacks still occur off the coast of Somalia and an international maritime presence (European Union Naval Force Somalia Operation Atalanta) remains in operation to deter Somali pirate activity. In the first half of 2019, The International Chamber of Commerce’s International Maritime Bureau (IMB) Piracy Reporting Centre reported 78 incidents of piracy and armed robbery against ships worldwide.[8]

Somali pirates captured by the European Union Naval Force (EU NAVFOR) Somalia Operation Atalanta. (Source: EU NAVFOR)
Basic Social Processes and Community Relationships
The constructivist approach to observing and understanding the different perspectives of Somali pirates and western responders suggests that basic social processes - as it applies to both groups - is deemed worthy of deeper enquiry. Basic social processes are actions which the individuals under study carry out and which have the same meanings for that group.[9] It is suggested that each of the groups being analysed - the western responders and the Somali pirates - have a set of distinct social processes. Identifying the dominant interests of each group may prove to be an important step in understanding the motivations of both factions.
The approach may also establish a model which defines and describes the actions of the pirate groups but also demonstrates the relationships of the pirates to their communities and the basic social processes in which they are engaged. This approach might demonstrate that a theory based upon the miscommunication of two distinct sets of motivating factors and paradigms in the two respective communities, Somali pirate actor and western responder, is valid.[10]
Grounded theory assumes a particular philosophical perspective and a specific set of assumptions for each distinct group of actors being examined. The overall paradigm of a constructivist enquiry might then be framed within this context. Having identified the possibility of two different conceptualisations of the security problem of piracy, such an approach might then explore the possible juxtaposition of the two distinct perspectives (Somali post-positivist, post-colonial actor contrasted with the positivist, realist perspective and rationale of the Western response.) The objective of this distinction is to focus on the impact and consequences of the international responses to piracy in both the onshore and offshore communities.
A review of the data should ensure that nuances and deviations are allowed to reveal themselves and not be subsumed by the prevailing western norms and definitions regarding piracy. In examining datasets regarding piracy, it is important that small points of deviation from the characteristics of normative conceptualisations of piracy are noted.
Such deviations might be considered significant markers in the development of the nature of Somali piracy both on and off shore. Indeed, the very existence of pirate actors operating ashore is itself definitionally problematic. An examination of the existing definitions being applied to the problem might follow with a view to establishing whether these definitions do or do not adequately account for either the act or actions being observed. It is also significant to note that established definitions of piracy were being changed in order to account for the activity - rather than the activity being labelled appropriately - based on distinguishing anomalies as a basis for classification.
It is suggested that the activity which creates the security problem should not be shoe-horned into a category in order to make it familiar and manageable, in the absence of any other label that might apply, to enable the possibility of addressing it with existing methodologies that fit that particular definition.
An analysis of some of the key variables which must be applied before considering either definitions and or policy determinations, for an effective elimination strategy should follow. In this case the key variables which might be addressed are:
● Globalisation and its twin- grey area phenomenon actors,
● Theoretical paradigm dissonance or the existence of multiple realities operating in conflicting paradigms.
● The effects of the application of state violence on non-state actors.
These three variables, it has been determined, play a role in the structure- agent effect on the development of the problem of piracy whereby they both inform and create the nature and consequently the definition of the problem under investigation. One of the objectives of a constructivist investigation is the contribution of new knowledge and a consideration of how possible new typological classifications might encompass these considerations, thus contributing to the development and application of more rigorous, tailored and effective long-term approaches to this problem and similar problems involving non-state violent transnational actors.
The constructivist approach might be utilised where the data suggests that either the generation of a new scientific theory or the adaptation of an existing theory is required. The establishment of a clear hypothesis is necessary in order to apply the scientific method- in order to combine existing knowledge, assumptions and observation - to the problem of Somali piracy. In particular, it seeks to understand and ultimately address the cause of the phenomenon being scrutinized. Where the problem does not fit into current accepted scientific theory and is either unexplained in motivation, action, act or definition, this process seeks to derive both a classification and an understanding for the occurrences classed as piracy. Such a study might not be efficiently approached from a positivist perspective as one of the main suppositions of this study is that the behaviour of the Somali actors has a meaning or causative root which originates in their social construction and an interpretation of a specific reality unique to themselves.
A positivist approach would reduce this interpretation to a single objective reality which is valid to both the western responder and the Somali problem actor. Constructivist analysis rejects this notion and instead uses an interpretivist approach in decoding the socially constructed meanings of the actions by both groups. The aim of the study therefore is to zero in or focus on a process or a system by which meanings and consequently actions can be determined.[11] In order to understand how Somali activity came to be named “pirate” a study might explore how the actors on both sides of the study experience their version of a normative “reality.” The problem of Somali piracy might thus be explored as a social phenomenon and not as an objective act. The aim is to understand this phenomenon from the perspectives and motivations of both sets of actors given the assumption that both sets of actors are informed by two sets of unique social constructs. The study is therefore interpretivist in nature while fully cognisant of the dangers or tensions inherent in attempted objective interpretation of subjective experiences of the two sets of actors.
Distinguishing between Normative and Counter-normative Understandings of Piracy
For the purpose of this enquiry, piracy should be examined from two distinct perspectives, a normative and counter-normative conceptualisation. A constructivist study therefore relies upon the interpretation of meanings and interests as being distinct to the two conceptualisations (Western and Somali actors). This process might begin with ontology which is taken to mean how we refer to basic beliefs about what piracy is, and the nature of reality from the normative view. This belief is the basis for developing an epistemology which defines the nature of the relationship between the enquirer, what is known about piracy and what counts as knowledge on piracy, and on what basis we can make these knowledge claims. “Having a particular ontological position constrains the epistemological position you can logically hold. Methodologies, in turn, express ontology and epistemology in terms of how we know the world or gain knowledge of it.”[12] The perspectives being employed have to first be made abundantly clear.[13] The primary aim of such an approach is to distinguish between the two perspectives. Understanding how each faction views Somali piracy (how west views piracy and how Somalis view piracy) – ontology - will determine the nature of our relationship to it.
Is It Important to Ask If Piracy Changed or Evolved ?
One means of answering the above question might be to focus on a small number of cases to understand how and why they occurred in the way that they did and also to derive meaning from the reality in which these cases occurred rather than simply accepting the “hegemon determined” label of piracy ascribed as a result of the western experience of these acts. The dominant perspective on the problem has arguably been derived by and for western knowledge. Understanding of the problem we might argue has been based on the effect of the activities of the Somali “pirates” on countries in the international rules-based liberal system. The context in which the realities and actions occur, or are seen from, becomes paramount.[14] One focus of a constructivist study might therefore not be limited to explaining or describing why the problem is occurring and how its nature was changing during the period under review but rather to understand why this change occurred and how varying perspectives of the same activity contributed to the nature of the change. One might argue that piracy is a specific set of actions conducted in a particular space in international waters. If the activities and locations are changing, then an interpretation of this change and its meaning and purpose ought to be considered and if possible, explained.
Both piracy - the specific problem under investigation - and conflict do not occur in vacuums but in socially constructed contexts
“Explaining” might be defined as describing how something works, and “understanding” might be defined as learning why it works that way. A constructivist study into Somali piracy would therefore seek to derive an understanding of why the problem of piracy was perceived as changing- by the actors-despite the label and description applied being objective and static (Piracy is piracy. It is an act with clear definitions and not an act which allows a dynamic range of interpretations).
A constructivist analysis suggests that both western responder and Somali actor interpret and determine their actions based on a reality which is specific to each. Interpretivism as a constructivist methodological approach might therefore be used as it supports the concept that realities can be multiple and relative to each actor.[15] This approach may help assess the suggestion that an escalation of intensity in conflict scenarios may be the result of exactly this dissonance between perceived realities and the interpretations of the experiences which inform mutual responses by both problem actor and the western rules based responder. A constructivist approach might therefore help develop an understanding that multiple realities - when viewed from a single western liberal rules-based, positivist objective perspective - might be missed and therefore unaccounted for, in western determinations of response strategy.
Such an approach suggests that if the behaviour displayed by the two sets of actors (western responders and problem actors) is understood to be occurring in two different conceptualisations of truth and situational awareness, this understanding might reveal set patterns in the development of this problem which were hitherto blocked from view by positivist definition and a single western reality perspective. These perspectives are distinct from each other but simultaneously occurring, both as the problem is unfolding and which emerge, as the constructivist methodology allows multiple perspectives and conceptualisations of the same issue to be investigated. This approach it is hoped, will reveal layers of action which were previously subsumed in definitional generalisation. While the aim is to generate or adapt existing scientific theory as a generality and this seems at odds with an interpretivist approach- the adaptation being suggested is that objective laws are possible but that the dynamic nature of these laws must be considered.
Both piracy- the specific problem under investigation -and conflict do not occur in vacuums but in socially constructed contexts. The relativity of time, culture, context and values held by the actors and responders are therefore important variables which “universal” laws must take into account since all conflict scenarios are dynamic and positivist labels cannot be fixed, given the fact that these occur as a result of social interaction.
Based on the assumptions in the chart above, a constructivist approach suggests that western responders have determined their response actions based on a single objective reality and positivist approach to dealing with the Somali problem.
It is suggested that an objective Western reality, based on the experience of the West, and the application of linear causal models to account for this experience cannot determine how to resolve the problem at root, because mitigation conceived in one reality will not be relevant or effective in another socially constructed reality. This methodological approach rejects the application of one dimensional causal models to account for problem behaviour as these models and assumptions pre-judge and imply one set of rigid accepted hegemonic meanings to actions and consequently result in a fixed or rigid response regardless of the unique paradigm which each scenario presents. By paradigm we refer to the uniqueness of context which constitutes a particular culture, set of norms, prevailing conventional wisdom and specificity of time in which the problem is occurring. There are dangers inherent in this interpretivist approach, in particular, polemical views which result from bias toward one group of actors since the method requires the researcher to take cognisance of each subset of actors, whilst attempting to objectively categorise and classify the observations in order to discern meanings and motivations.
This has been accounted for by keeping the study grounded in “understanding” the situation rather than in trying to present outcomes and to solve the problem or to take a view on the question of right and wrong. While the researcher is using interpretivism based grounded theory to observe and collect information on each perspective (using constant comparative analysis and theoretical sampling) and interpret actions based on social contexts and meanings, cognisance must be given to the fact that this is a western piece of research seen through and interpreted through western eyes. The meanings applied may be simplistically presented within the context of understanding available to the researcher who is not a member of either subset of actors. Awareness of postcolonial orientalism in the determination of meanings is therefore paramount. Such a constructivist approach does not seek to speak the truth but to present a truth situated between Somali experience and western responder experience in order to better view the problem not from within either paradigm but from a position where it is possible to view both realities (Somali and western responder) simultaneously.
Figure 1. Differences between Positivism and Interpretivism
Assumptions
|
Positivism
|
Interpretivism
|
Nature of reality
|
Objective, tangible, single
|
Socially constructed, multiple
|
Goal of research
|
Explanation, strong prediction
|
Understanding, weak prediction
|
Focus on interest
|
What is general, average, representative
|
What is special, unique or deviant
|
Knowledge generated
|
Laws, absolute (time, context and value free)
|
Meanings, relative (time, context, culture, value bond)
|
Subject/
Researcher relationship
|
Rigid separation
|
Interactive, cooperative, participatory
|
Desired information
|
How many people think and do a specific thing, and have a specific problem
|
What some people think and do, what kind of problems do they encounter, how do they deal with them
|
Source: A. M. Pizam and Y. Mansfield, eds., Consumer Behaviour in Travel and Tourism (New York: Routledge, 1999).
Developing a Framework for a New Maritime Violence Typology
The data used for a constructivist approach should focus on selected pirate incidents which denote a change in tactics and direction from other contemporary and geographically relevant, “pirate” occurrences within the same geographical and temporal space. Incidents might be simply presented in summary as physical evidence that demonstrate a marked change in behaviour by the problem actors. These incidents might be considered marker incidents. All incidents of piracy during the period under review need not be presented but rather, the cases which denote anomalies to the accepted international legal definition. Interpretivism as a constructivist, methodological approach allows for selectivity of this nature as the intention is to account for deviations from the generalisation.[16]
Pirates off Somalia (Source: United Nations)
Data for these assumptions (for the theoretical sampling which will allow anomalies to be highlighted and separated as distinct from the general category of “piracy”) could then be collected and codified into various categories of activity for consideration within a maritime crime typology matrix.[17] Developing such a typology would involve a “recursive, theory driven comparative process in order to surface links and relationships among categories to construct a theoretical framework.”[18] In this way, the typology might reference and classify the anomalies observed in the development of the nature of Somali “piracy,” within the context of other maritime crime. In order to accomplish this, theoretical sampling should follow until theoretical saturation[19] which might surface the possibility of unacknowledged distinct phases of activity. Previously all activity in the area during the entire period under review was categorised under the heading of piracy as a single distinct set of actions and occurrences. This generalisation is what a constructivist approach might deconstruct with the aim of identifying how western mitigation might have inadvertently shaped these changes in the nature of the activity engaged in by Somali actors.
Understanding the Outcomes of Mitigation
Viewing and observing actions from the perspective of differing social realities leads to the constructivist, interpretivist goal of understanding- not of simply recording or counting without reference to meanings and interpretations -as is expected in a positivist study of the same issue. In this case understanding the two realities and how this may have led to definitions and responses which may not be valid for one of the binary actors. It may also possibly account for actions or changes to the security problem which were unexpected.
From this perspective, a constructivist study develops an understanding of the reasons if any, for the actual outcomes of mitigation activity by western responders- in relation to the results which mitigation activity was projected to deliver.
While the outcomes generated would be specific to the culture, geography and particulars of this occurrence there are some generalities which might be discerned. A constructivist enquiry might distil these generalities into a reflective document which might inform policy and mitigation in similar scenarios in the future. The study therefore seeks to establish the possibility that a framework might be discernible within which we can classify and categorise the intentions as well as the acts and actions under investigation. Such a framework might be useful if applied in examining future occurrences where state response against non-state actors is a mitigation strategy. Such a framework must be dynamic in nature as constructivism suggests that there can be no static definitions for security problems as these indicate a uni-dimensional and uni-paradigmatic approach to an issue.
Dr. Candyce Kelshall is currently the president of the Canadian Association for Security and Intelligence Studies. She has previously served as a diplomat, naval officer, specialist advisor and consultant in disaster response, critical incident and terrorist response, national emergency management and multi-agency joint operations architecture, as well as training design for intelligence fusion centers, special forces units and national operations centers.
[1] Government limited in fight against Somali pirates. (August 2, 2011). Retrieved from https://safety4sea.com/government-limited-in-fight-against-somali-pirates/ ;Ralph Jennings (2016, October 31). Taiwan ex-legislator helped free sailors held off Somalia. Retrieved from https://apnews.com/c5a54d4ab7d443939f40c63ea0331bb3 .
[2] Steven L. Lamy and John Masker, Introduction to Global Politics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016), p. 18.
[3] Lamy and Masker, p. 19.
[4] Notion is taken to mean already existing understandings of a subject and concept is taken to mean the introduction of a new way of looking at the problem.
[5] Constructivism is a research paradigm that denies the existence of an objective reality, “asserting instead that realities are social constructions of the mind.” E. G. Guba and Y. S Lincoln, Fourth Generation Evaluation (California: Sage, 1989), p. 43, cited in J. Mills, A. Bonner and K. Francis, “The Development of Constructivist Grounded Theory,” International Journal of Qualitative Methods, Vol. 5, No. 1, 2006, pp. 1-10.
[6] Lamy and Masker, pp. 18, 67.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Seas off West Africa World's Worst for Pirate Attacks, IMB Reports (July 8, 2009). Retrieved from https://iccwbo.org/media-wall/news-speeches/seas-off-west-africa-worlds-worst-pirate-attacks-imb-reports/#targetText=Gulf of Guinea world piracy hotspot&targetText=Armed pirates in these high,then used in another attack.
[9] Barney G. Glaser and Anselm L. Strauss, The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategy for Qualitative Research (Chicago: Aldin Pub, 1967).
[10] Backman K., “Challenges of the Grounded Theory Approach to a Novice Researcher,” Nursing and Health Sciences, Vol. 1, 1999, pp. 147-153.
[11] T. A. Schwandt, “Three Epistemological Stances for Qualitative Inquiry: Interpretivism, Hermeneutics and Social Constructionism” in N. Denzin and Y. Lincoln, eds. The Landscape of Qualitative Research: Theories and Issues (Thousand Oaks: Sage, 2003), pp. 292-331.
[12] Denzin & Lincoln, 1994: 13 as cited by Barbara M. Grant and Lynne S. Giddings, “Making Sense of Methodologies: A Paradigm Framework for the Novice Researcher,” Contemporary Nurse, Vol. 13, Issue 1, August 2002, pp. 10-28.
[13] H.J. Smyth and P.W.G. Morris, “An Epistemological Evaluation of Research into Projects and Their Management: Methodological Issues,” International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 25, 2007, pp. 423-436.
[14] J. G. Carson, “A Task Analysis of Reading and Writing in Academic Contexts” in D. Belcher and A. Hirvela, eds., Linking Literacies: Perspectives on L2 Reading-writing Connections (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2001), pp. 48-83.
[15] Y. S. Lincoln and E. G. Guba, Naturalistic Inquiry (Newbury Park: Sage, 1985).
[16] In particular, the cases selected were selected on the basis of their being specific, unique and deviant from “piracy.” The classification comes from the work of A. Pizam and Y. Mansfield, Consumer Behaviour in Travel and Tourism (New York: Routledge, 1999).
[17] Theoretical sampling is “the process of data collection for generating theory whereby the analyst jointly collects, codes and analyses his data and decides what data to collect next and where to find them, in order to develop his theory as it emerges” (Source: B. G. Glaser and A. L. Strauss, The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research, (Chicago: Aldine, 1967), p. 45. Theoretical saturation occurs when the data reveals no further ambiguity. For a fuller discussion, see C. M. Kelshall, “Conceptualisations of Contemporary Transnational Threats: The Case of Somali Piracy and Its Threat Evolution. An Examination of How Conflict Mitigation Choices Can Worsen Conflict Scenarios” (Ph.D. diss., University of Buckingham).
[18] K. Locke, “Rewriting the Discovery of Grounded Theory after 25 years?” Journal of Management Inquiry, Vol. 5, No. 3, 1996, pp. 241.
[19] M. Lewis-Beck and T. Liao, The Sage Encyclopaedia of Social Science Research Methods, (Thousand Oaks: Sage, 2004).