Patients of the State: The Politics of Waiting in Argentina

Methodological Appendix

methodological appendix The ethnographic fieldwork for this project was composed of four continuous months of observations and informal interviews on the outside of the Registro Nacional de las Personas (renaper) and twelve months,dividedintwoperiodsofsixmonths,ofobservationsandboth formal and informal interviews in the waiting area of the welfare o≈ce. Fieldwork was conducted during 2008 and 2009. At the renaper we conducted only ten informal interviews, but one of the research assistants went through the entire id application process along with other foreign residents. At the welfare o≈ce we conducted eighty-nine interviews lasting between thirty minutes and two hours with welfare applicants and recipients, and ten interviews with social workers and o≈cials who work at the welfare ministry. The revisit to Flammable included six interviews with residents, the recoding of fieldnotes and interviews conducted for a previous project (Auyero and Swistun 2009), and conversations with current residents conducted by the author . Four research assistants collaborated in this project, Agustín Burbano de Lara, Nadia Finck, Shila Vilker, and Regina Ricco. Agustín conducted observations and interviews at the renaper and at the welfare o≈ce. Nadia and Shila conducted observations and interviews only at the welfare o≈ce. Shila also conducted interviews with welfare o≈cials. Regina carried out the interviews in Flammable. Fieldwork at the renaper and at the welfare o≈ce began with one and a half months of unobtrusive observation. After we familiarized ourselves with the routines—or the lack thereof—in the waiting lines, we began to chat with those who, for lack of a better term, we called los 166 appendix esperantes. Toward the end of the four months of fieldwork at the renaper, we carried out ten informal interviews that confirmed what we observed during the previous months of both first unobtrusive and then participant observation. The initial six weeks of nonparticipant observation at the welfare o≈ce were followed by five months of focused observations and indepth interviews, during which we visited the sites two or three times per week. The initial objective of the nonparticipant observation at both sites was to register, as best as we could, what happened when people were waiting. We concentrated on the following very general questions: What do los esperantes do (sleep, eat, read, chat, complain, etc.)? Are they alone or in groups? How do they talk about what is going on? What do they say about o≈cials and about the others who are waiting with them? If they are with children, how do they interact with them? What do children do while their parents wait? Informal interviews at the renaper were shorter than at the welfare o≈ce, and the main objective was to reconstruct the application process from the point of view of the applicant by focusing on access to information, requirements, and the general experience of waiting on the sidewalks of the o≈ce. Interviews at the welfare o≈ce typically began with a general inquiry about the welfare clients’ reasons to be applying for a specific benefit. This served to reconstruct the clients’ trajectory into the world of welfare. I then focused on the following nine dimensions: (1) general evaluations of the working of the welfare o≈ce, such as the things attendants think are working well and the things they believe should be improved; (2) perceptions regarding requirements to access welfare and information about paydays; (3) reasons they have been given to explain lack of payments or cancellation of a program; (4) times they have been asked to come back for the same claim and reasons they have been given for such a request; (5) comparison between the time they have to wait at the o≈ce with their ‘‘waiting times’’ at other public institutions (we let them come up with a comparison); (6) views of others who are waiting alongside them; (7) views of the welfare agents; (8) whether they come alone or appendix 167 in groups; and (9) ways of finding out about the particular program they are trying to access. We also asked them about their previous visits to the o≈ce and their reasons for coming, and about whether or not, at the time of the interview, they knew if or when they were going to receive the benefit or payment. This latter question served as a rough indicator of the uncertainty regarding the workings of each program. We also...