“Partially Trusting” Field Relationships Opportunities and Constraints of Fieldwork in Rwanda’s Postconflict Setting

Chakravarty, Anuradha

doi:10.1177/1525822x12443664

Cited by 23 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…13.Chakravarty (2012), Fujii (2010), and Thomson (2013) discussed the nature of interviewer–interviewee trust and the complexity of interpreting testimony and participant responses in politically challenging environments. Nilan (2002) discussed researcher–research-subject relationships.…”

Section: Notesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ethics Abroad: Fieldwork in Fragile and Violent Contexts

Cronin-Furman

Lake

2018

APSC

114

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The diversity of political spaces, availability of cheap labor, ease of access to powerful figures, and safety net of a foreign passport attract researchers to the developing world. However, environments of extreme state weakness and ongoing conflict permit research behavior that would be frowned on in the global north. We suggest that weak regulatory authority in conflict-affected states offers foreign academics opportunities that are not available when states have greater reach or capacity. Qualitative researchers may find requests to interview victims or perpetrators of wartime violence granted with ease. Experimenters can coerce under-resourced NGOs to pursue interventions at odds with their organizational mandates. We posit that conflict contexts can constitute permissive environments in which researchers can engage in conduct that would be considered deeply problematic at home. Because studying political violence can require firsthand research on aspects of political life not easily observed elsewhere, this article offers a set of guidelines to foster more ethical and responsible research practices.A political scientist conducting interviews on wartime sexual violence finds herself at a health clinic being introduced to patients who are obviously younger than 18. A team of researchers running a behavioral experiment wonders if its local partner organization is endangering participants to randomize treatment in its conflict-adjacent villages. A graduate student working on a shoestring budget in a refugee camp is relieved to find an educated, passionate research assistant (RA) who is eager for work experience and will set up, conduct, translate, and transcribe politically sensitive interviews for only $60 a month.All of these academics are benefiting from the unparalleled access to research subjects, local partners, and labor that often are present in environments of extreme state fragility or conflict. As the volume of field-based research in such contexts increases, it is difficult to ignore the fact that these settings pose challenges not present elsewhere. In countless discussions at conferences, in graduate-student seminars, and in the field, we have heard fellow social scientists echo a common theme regarding research in these contexts: concerns about the ethical implications of their fieldwork and uncertainty about how to mitigate them. 1 Nearly every researcher we spoke with described at least one instance in which they were called on to make an on-the-spot decision involving ethical issues that they had not anticipated, without time to fully consider the consequences. On subsequent reflection, they often wished they had made different decisions.This article explores the ethical pitfalls presented by conflict field research by drawing on our own experiences and those of our colleagues. 2 Following a brief discussion of some common features of these settings, we explain how fragility and conflict can generate ethical dilemmas involving research subjects and partners not present elsewhere. We ...

show abstract

Section: Notesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ethics Abroad: Fieldwork in Fragile and Violent Contexts

Cronin-Furman

Lake

2018

APSC

114

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Both attributes can help to navigate between outsider-insider. While she had language’s barriers when doing her field research in Rwanda, Chakravarty (2012, p. 259) reveals how “accidently accessed findings” contributed to her research. Thus, languages and informal settings can be as source of research data to validate the existing ones.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fieldnotes, Field Research, and Positionality of a “Contested-Native Researcher”

Ntanyoma

2021

International Journal of Qualitative Methods

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The article recapitulates field research experiences of a native researcher in Eastern DRC. In many cases, a native is considered an insider. However, the field research took place in an ethnically polarized context where an insider researcher can be mischaracterized and amalgamated to her own ethnic community. Besides polarization, the fieldwork took place in a volatile setting to the extent that it increases security concerns for a researcher who belongs to a “contested community”; meaning, researcher’s position is likely associated with his ethnic community. Based on the field experience, the article shares insights of dealing with this complexity, volatility, and uncertainties. While the article does not claim that insights can be generalized across different contexts, it specifically proposes some attitudes to take when a researcher faces a dilemma of touching the ground realities while he might individually be amalgamated within socio-cultural differences. The article recalls the necessity of understanding the effects of socio-cultural polarization within the academic field.

show abstract

“…cholera outbreaks) was not without risk for the research participants. We addressed this by applying strict confidentiality rules (Chakravarty 2012; Matelski 2014). The confidentiality of individuals, institutions and localities was guaranteed, and local officials’ authorisation to conduct fieldwork in a particular location was always obtained.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The humanitarian theatre: drought response during Ethiopia's low-intensity conflict of 2016

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article aims to rekindle the debate on the politics of aid in the increasingly common – yet still under-studied – authoritarian and low-intensity conflict settings, detailing the case of Ethiopia in 2016, when a 50-year drought coincided with a wave of protests and a state of emergency. During four months of qualitative fieldwork in 2017, state, civil society, Ethiopian and international actors were approached – from humanitarian headquarters to communities in the Amhara, Oromiya and Somali regions. Research participants relayed stark discrepancies between the humanitarian theatre's ‘frontstage’, where disaster responders showcase an exemplary response, and its ‘backstage’, where they remove their frontstage masks and reflect on the information, the decision-making monopoly of the state and the intrusion of conflict dynamics into the humanitarian response. In humanitarian research and in policy, a collective conversation is necessary on where to draw the line between respect for governments’ sovereignty and the intrusion of humanitarian principles.

show abstract

“Partially Trusting” Field Relationships Opportunities and Constraints of Fieldwork in Rwanda’s Postconflict Setting

Cited by 23 publications

References 34 publications

Ethics Abroad: Fieldwork in Fragile and Violent Contexts

Ethics Abroad: Fieldwork in Fragile and Violent Contexts

Fieldnotes, Field Research, and Positionality of a “Contested-Native Researcher”

The humanitarian theatre: drought response during Ethiopia's low-intensity conflict of 2016

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About