Policies affecting Nackens (Scottish Gypsy Travellers), Gypsy/Travellers and Scottish Travellers: lived experience testimonies

Positionality and Methodology

Before moving on to documenting and commentating on the testimonies gathered, I provide readers with a brief statement on positionality and how the discussions where conceptualised and conducted.

I am not a Nacken, Gypsy/Traveller or Scottish Traveller, and come from a white, settled, middle-income background in suburban Edinburgh. Over the previous 10 years I have taken a serious academic interest in the sociocultural history and intangible cultural heritage of Nackens, Gypsy/Travellers and Scottish Travellers. I hold masters by research and doctoral degrees from a foundational academic institution, Celtic and Scottish Studies at the University of Edinburgh, where concerted research into Nackens, Gypsy/Travellers and Scottish Travellers has been undertaken since the school’s inception in 1951. My research focuses on subalternised histories and demonstrates how bottom-up research within communities of tradition-bearers can provide insights into alternative forms of knowledge production and help us better understand unique subjectivities. I have published a monograph on the subject with Edinburgh University Press and several related articles in leading journals, one of which won the 2021 Tunnock Prize for the use and interpretation of Scottish archives. My formal training, and exposure to Nacken, Gypsy/Traveller and Scottish Traveller experiences means that I come to this project with a great deal of sympathy and understanding. However, my training in oral history and ethnology means that I can deliver effective and unbiased reports of testimony without any conflict of interest.

The chosen methodology for the research is qualitative, semi-structured in-person focus group discussions. Given the tight timescales between award of the contract and the discussions (14 business days), and because knowledge and experience surrounding the policies and their impacts is a highly sensitive issue, the research opted for snowballing techniques that can give access to hard-to-reach groups and previously unheard voices quickly.^[12] Snowballing involves using well-established, trusting relationships with individuals to who contact potential participants on the researcher’s behalf to increase participation.

The results of this method were only partially successful, with some respondents citing the short notice period as an obstacle, and others the highly sensitive nature of the discussions as a barrier to sharing their experiences in public.^[13] The discussions went ahead with limited participants (c. 50% of projected best-case scenario of 40 participants) but allowed for in-depth discussions about lived experiences and prompted useful suggestions for moving forward. With the informed consent from all participants the discussions were audio recorded, with minimal input from the researcher apart from mitigating tangential, inappropriate or unrelated discussion(s).

When approaching traumatic or sensitive issues such as those presented in this report – sometimes referred to as ‘crisis oral history’ – theorists in the field remind us that some participants’ involvement can renew their trauma and can make them feel exploited.[14] However, bringing the voices of marginalised groups and their traumatic experiences to all our attentions is to be applauded. This work can allow those who experienced trauma to share their lived experiences and extend their agency.[15] These testimonies provide the Scottish Government with much-needed new and actionable knowledge about the mistreatment of Nackens, Gypsy/Travellers and Scottish Travellers. They also provide insights into marginalised sociocultural histories, that recent research reminds us, should not be forgotten.^[16]