The Role Of Ethics In Peace And Conflict Research

The devastating violent conflicts experienced in Africa have raised numerous questions about their nature, causes, participants and ways to amicably end their intractableness. Other questions that require satisfactorily answers include why conflict actors like the political leaders, militias, extremists and suicide bombers, pirates, child soldiers, renegades and genocidiers, among others, behave(d) the way they do(did). In order to find satisfactory answers to some of these questions, research on violence and peace (even in dangerous settings) needs to be undertaken more often. This is will answer questions not only with respect to transitional societies emerging out of conflict but also stable countries like Zimbabwe and Kenya that repeatedly experience election-related violence, and South Africa which is technically a protest nation and always on the brink of xenophobic violence perpetrated by the locals against fellow black immigrants.

However, carrying out such research in challenging conflict and/or post-conflict zones raises acute ethical questions. While research is about expanding knowledge, researchers are still accountable to their research environment which, in peace and conflict studies, involves people and societies who, in most cases are respondents but above all perpetrators, victims or witnesses in the real-life situations under study. Many researchers consider the importance of ethical conduct by underscoring its significance in fieldwork. This reflection requires researchers to evaluate and make judgments about ethical behaviours even in challenging conflict and post-conflict situations. Increased attention on research ethics is dictated by the need to manage risks and the emergence of new rules to structure the conduct of research. In this regard, the assignment examines the importance of ethics in peace and conflict research, as both researchers and the researched are prone to physical and emotional effects of research. The assignment, however, argues that the need to gather data must not undermine the well-being of participants (Van Damme, 2013). Instead, the focus on the well-being should, at times, lead to decisions that may be to the detriment to the data being collected, and in the most extreme cases, “there will be field conditions in which ethical field research is not possible” (Wood: 2006, 385). Research is the systematic process of collecting and analysing information to increase one’s understanding of a phenomenon and to communicate the phenomenon to others.

Musingafi and Hlathwayo (2013) quoting various authors view research as the means towards knowledge, that is, a scientific and systematic search for pertinent evidence in a specific field. They consider it is a careful enquiry for new facts, or a methodical effort to gain new knowledge by moving from the known to the unknown. Citing the Encyclopaedia of Social Sciences (1930) the authors (Ibid) maintain that research manipulates phenomenon, concepts or symbols with a view to generalise, correct or verify knowledge. It involves the pursuit of truth with the help of study, observation, comparison and experiment. In summary, Musingafi and Hlathwayo (2013) view research as consisting of enunciating the problem, formulating a hypothesis, collecting facts, analysing the data and reaching certain conclusions or proffering solutions. A research is not conducted haphazardly because there are certain morals, values and beliefs which a researcher must always endeavour to observe during fieldwork. It is this set of moral principles, rules or standards that govern the researcher when conducting research in conflict and/or post-conflict zones which defines the concept of ethics in peace and research. According to Musingafi and Hlathwayo (2013: 168), ethics pertain to doing good and avoiding harm by protecting participants. Goodhand (n. d. ) states that “as aid agencies are increasingly invoked to ‘do no harm’ and develop an ethical consciousness, conflict researchers also need to develop a robust ethical framework to ensure that they do not inadvertently ‘do harm”. Musingafi and Hlathwayo (ibid: 169) argue that harm can be reduced or totally prevented by applying appropriate ethical principles in peace and conflict research. Citing Batchelor and Briggs (1994), the authors (Ibid) explain that failure to address ethical issues results in the researchers being ill-prepared to cope with the unpredictable nature of peace and conflict research.

Since peace and conflict research focuses on exploring, examining and describing people and their environment, the concepts of relationships and power between the researcher and participants should always be respected. As research involves people and their willingness to participate, research requires an awareness of the ethical issues that maybe derived from such interactions. Within the bulk of peace and conflict research are five major ethical concerns. These are; getting informed consent, recording interviews, avoiding psychological harm to respondents, psychological demands for the researcher, and providing feedback to respondents. These concerns assist to analyse the ethics principles upon which research is premised. The principles are: the ‘do no harm’ principle, protection of the privacy and anonymity of participants, maintenance of confidentiality of information, obtaining informed consent of participants including the assurance that participation is voluntary, with the chance to withdraw from the proposed research, avoidance of inappropriate behaviour by researchers, honesty interpretation of data without exaggeration and providing feedback to participants in order for them to own the research.

Musingafi and Hlathwayo (2013) quoting the Journal of Nurse Scholarship (2000), categorises the above-mentioned ethical principles into four, namely; autonomy, beneficence, justice and privacy. Highlighting the significance of observing these principles, the Queens University explains that ethics in peace and conflict research deal with the legal, ethical and moral issues around studying conflict, violence and peace in dangerous and sensitive locations. The ethical issues concern themselves with the management of risk and danger to both researchers and respondents, problems posed when undertaking sensitive research, management of gender and identity in dangerous settings, recent developments in ethical and legal practice and the new regulatory codes of conduct, problems around the legal constraints operating on informed consent, promises of confidentiality, management of risk in data collection; dealing with the problem of respondents' "guilty knowledge", and the legal and ethical issues involved in dissemination and publication. Getting informed consent from participants/respondents in conflict zones must be prioritised given the environment risks like being killed, torture arrests and other human rights abuses that can be perpetrated to the participants as they may be labelled as sell-outs by those against the study. Researchgate (2018) states that informed consent entails respondents being aware of the purpose of the study and the potential risks and benefits of partaking in the study. Furthermore, it involves the procedure by which an individual may opt whether or not to be involved in the proposed study by the investigator. The researcher’s, thus, is to make certain that participants completely understand the purpose and methods to be used in the study, the risk involved and the demands placed upon them as a participants (Best & Khan,2006; Jones & Kottler, 2006). )

The participant must also understand that he or she has the right to withdraw from the study at any time. A challenge often occurs to get people to be fully informed about the study and to thereby give proper informed consent. One of the many issues that can come into play when conducting research in a conflict setting is knowing how informed consent will affect the participant. That is, what does it mean for a participant to sign a consent form when the context is unsafe or the participant feels unsure whose hands the form will fall into? Will they give the correct responses or they tell what they feel is the safe response. Wood (2006: 381) explains that in order to obtain informed consent for during her research in El Salvador, she informed the respondents that they could “exercise control over the content of the interview and my use of it”. Passing on some of the control over the interviews helped avoid traumatisation and re-traumatisation of the respondents, as it was the participants controlled what (not) to tell the researcher. Wood (2003) further states that in conflict settings, informed consent should involve a thorough understanding of not only the study, but other groups like ethnic, ideological, or political which the sample consists of. While this is necessary for the consent, it also helps respondents to decide “what to say and what not to say. ” In her work in Rwanda, Thomson (2013: 37) also pointed to getting informed consent as a challenge, as most of the people she interviewed “were unable to understand the concepts associated with informed consent”. With her main participants, she says that the key aspect was the “conditions of use” of the material, and that these “were always under negotiation”. Obtaining signed informed consent in difficult contexts can be very challenging, and there might be different reasons for this. People may be illiterate, more comfortable reading material in a different language than that in which a researcher’s document is written, fearful of putting their names on a piece of paper, or skeptical of formal documents, potentially linked to authorities.

Often times, peace and conflict researchers encounter participants who are afraid to sign documents, yet they are willing to participate in the sensitive research. To overcome the challenges associated with informed consent, Researchgate (2018) suggests the translation of letters of information and the form for informed consent in the relevant local language(s). If respondents do not want to sign their name, a solution may be to have people sign a cross or a doodle on the paper. Another solution is to accept that people do not want to sign the document at all and let them give oral consent. This entails going over the letter of information with them, making sure that they are familiar with its content and the scope of the research, and then ask them if they giver their consent to this study. It is important to emphasize to respondents that participation is voluntary. To make sure respondents are giving informed consent, either oral or written, it is vital to thoroughly cover all aspects of relevance, including how the results will be disseminated, who else is being interviewed, and issues of anonymity. Another ethical consideration relates to recording of interviews, wherein interview recordings are viewed as important for the accuracy of the transcript. When doing interviews in difficult contexts, however, it is a very common case scenario that respondents do not wish for the interview to be recorded.

Many see this as threatening, do not trust how the recording may be used, or fear it may be misplaced or come into the wrong hands. Researchgate (2018) states that in her work in Palestine, Shalhoub-Kevorkian (2009: 28) often avoided using a recorder, as she was “aware of the fear caused by this practice”. Similarly, Weinstein (2006) researching rebel groups chose not to record any of his interviews with combatants and civilians because of the sensitivity of the study. Ethically, therefore, it is of course extremely important to respect respondents’ choices and be prepared to take extensive notes instead. In extra sensitive situations, researchers should avoid note-taking during the encounter and rather rely on notes wrote after the meeting. Given the common reservations about interview recordings in conflict settings, it is often recommended that although researchers should still ask to record interviews, they should assume participants will not want their interview recorded and prepare to rely on interview notes. Planning for that, one should practice taking extensive notes that involve the use of codes and abbreviations to make sure to get down as much as possible from the interviews. Without a research assistant, researchers should practice taking extensive notes while keeping eye contact with the respondent.

Furthermore, in tense situations where the conflict is at a peak or the setting is characterized by distrust, there is need to continuously evaluate the situation and discuss the use of recordings. It may, at times, be better to not even ask to record the interview, as this may influence the interview setting and the respondents may become skeptical or suspicious. Elites and experts may be more willing to have their interviews recorded, but again it should be noted that it depends on the context. One approach that can be used to increase trust is to allow participants to see the transcript of the conversation after the interview. They can then edit the transcript as they wish. This is approach is usually appreciated by political leaders, academics, and activists who would really want assurance about whether they were not misrepresented by the researcher. Most often, after seeing the transcripts, participants did not feel the need to edit, and what was gained in the increased trust made it well worth giving them the opportunity to edit the transcript. If using this approach, it is key to indicate in the informed consent a time limit for the respondent to edit the transcript, and that if no response is given, or if it takes too long, that the researcher can see this as a sign that the respondent approves of the transcript. Regardless of how the data is collected, it is of course essential to protect the material.

The third ethical consideration is avoiding harm to respondents, both psychological harm and physical harm in the form of repercussions for speaking on conflict issues, is the key concern of the research. Harm includes extreme physical pain or death, but also involves such factors as psychological stress, personal embarrassment or humiliation, or myriad influences that may adversely affect the participants in a significant way. Avoiding harm is linked to contextual knowledge, such as knowing which questions to ask, what wording to avoid, and how to go about certain topics. An example is not to ask women about sexual violence while men are present. Dickson-Swift, James, & Liamputtong (2008) states that it is always stressful for participants to relive difficulty aspects of their life especially when they were victims of horrendous acts like being raped infront of family members. This is also applicable in fieldwork, as we expect many respondents to choose to share very difficult aspects of their lives, even when not asked directly about them. For some, however, discussing difficult issues can be a positive experience: for example, needing to talk about loss, violence, and brutality.

For others, revisiting difficult aspects may be re-traumatizing (Pitman, Sparr, Saunders, & McFarlane, 1996). As such the researcher need to be sensitive to social cues. Doing research in conflict settings require a conceptualization of conflict that acknowledges the complexity of human construction of existence, involving both the negative and the positive: “war, rebellion, resistance, rape, torture, and defiance, as well as peace, victory, humor, boredom, and ingenuity, will have to be understood together through their expression in the everyday” (Robben & Nordstrom, 1995, p. 6). Conflict is, thus, not just about deconstruction, but also reconstruction. In approaching respondents in these settings, it is crucial not to push them solely into negative narratives, but allow room for a variety of narratives conceptualizing their setting in ways that make sense to them. Certain types of investigations present potential harm to participants. Research that involves physically dangerous treatment may present real possibilities for harm if the treatment is “inflicted” on the participants. Unfortunately, there are examples of investigations in which ethical principles were violated in an extreme fashion (see Young, 2005).

Other areas of research are specifically intended to examine the effects of psychological or emotional stress. Such research represents tremendously difficult circumstances, especially when the procedures involve actual “infliction” of stress. There is always the possibility that a subject may become seriously ill (e. g. , have a stroke or heart attack) as a result of the stress. In addition, the possibility exists that the stress itself may be harmful to participants from a psychological standpoint. People who are institutionalized or incarcerated, such as prisoners, person with severe disabilities, or people with serious mental illness, may agree to participate in a study either because they “should to be able to show evidence of good behavior” or to gain approval of supervisors. Unfortunately, some troubling examples of ethical violations have occurred with the studies involving these individuals (Field & Behrman, 2004; Moser et al. , 2004). Highly vulnerable populations should not be taken advantage of in the name of science. Researchers investigating topics involving these individuals must exercise extreme care. Very young children, the elderly, or people with disabilities may be easily convinced that most activities are important, are of little harm, and should be engaged in for the benefit of society (Drew & Hardman, 2007; Quadagno, 2005). A related ethical challenge regards what material to include in the publishing of the study.

Although one may have the respondents’ permission to include material, and in some cases respondents may insist on including names and positions, it is the responsibility of the researcher to make decisions to take material out if it may risk harming the respondents. The peace and conflict researcher should make an effort not to unnecessarily pry into peoples’ lives. There is a need to ask only what is required. In researching sexual violence in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Skjelsbæk (2016) asked about people’s experiences after the trauma, not for details about the assault itself. Researching harm to children in the Somaliland and Puntland, Kostelny and Ondoro (2016) sought to reduce negative emotions by not asking for participants’ own experiences, but rather focusing on harm to children in general in the local communities.

The door should be kept open for people to divulge details if they wish. When respondents choose to talk about sensitive issues, they should not be pushed to follow up on these (see Uvin, 2009), but be met with empathy and kindness if they do. Systems of support should also be considered. In her work in Rwanda, Thomson (2013) gave her respondents phone cards for use in case they needed to talk after going over traumatic experiences in the interviews. She also participated in trauma counsellor training prior to undertaking her research, and had local trained trauma counselors available to her participants. In their work with youth in Sierra Leone, Efevbera and Betancourt (2016) took similar measures. To avoid psychological harm to respondents, it can be an asset to draw on local sources and reflections in previous research. Researching identity policies in Rwanda, reserachers are usuall frequently presented with full accounts of genocide experiences. Reading up on former research in Rwanda and discussing these issues with other researchers helped prepare for this.