Mohammad Ilyas

Doctoral Research Scholar, National Institute of Educational Planning and Administration, New Delhi

Researching in conflict zones or even after a crisis has ended can be extremely difficult. As a researcher interacting with people and communities in the midst of  conflict I needed to proceed with caution and sensitivity. My doctoral thesis examines the effects of armed conflict on the management and operation of schools in Kashmir, as well as how state and non-state actors respond to such situations in order to mitigate the detrimental effects of armed conflict on education. The research focused on broad objectives that centred around core concepts such as armed conflict, school education, and nongovernmental organisations (NGOs). I wanted to understand the problems encountered by educational stakeholders within the conflict situation in Kashmir and how NGOs are engaging in school education. The study is based on data gathered through questionnaires, interviews and Focus Group Discussions in the research area from the actual experience of various stakeholders.. For conducting fieldwork, government higher secondary schools (GHSS) located in both rural and urban areas were considered through purposive sampling. The respondents in the study include teachers, educational administrators, students, and the parents of the students studying in the selected schools.

While conducting research I was confronted with endless dilemmas concerning the methodology and ethics of conducting field work in these areas. There are various obstacles unique to doing research in conflict areas that social scientists must overcome (Shah, 2017). Researchers’ safety and security are of utmost importance. Moreover, respondents often give inaccurate information because of their preconceived notions and prejudices about  researchers. Ideally, a researcher must observe the field and represent the situation “as it is”. In reality, however, research is shaped by various factors, including how much time one spends in the field, how much prior knowledge one has, follow-ups with respondents, and cross-checking of facts, among others. These are questions that I grappled with as a researcher, alongside concerns about rapport building, methodological lapses, financial constraints, and time management. The whole process was time-consuming; approaching the respondents and getting information from them took a lot of time, energy, and resources.

Problems on the Ground

 I planned the study procedure after choosing the research area and developing a preliminary qualitative research design.  Being form the same region (Union territory of J&K) I was familiar with the areas where I situated my Ph.D. study. Also I did my M.Phil. fieldwork there in Kashmir. In familiarity with the field, I downplayed the hazards and issues of conflict zone study. Fieldwork in conflict areas sometimes presents overt and covert problems. My study had issues too. I experienced various challenges while I was in the field. Shutdowns forced many trip postponements. Internet and mobile phone services can be interrupted at any time, making it impossible to accomplish any task.

Insider outsider debate

The general mistrust towards the researcher was a persistent problem, and I was often questioned about my motives. Some of the participants had strong doubts as to whether I was associated with any agencies. In one interaction, a research participant in conversation with me was stopped by another person who referred to me as a ‘sarkar agent’ (a government agent). This is because I was interviewing them about the problems related to education and conflict situations. Many participants (including teachers and other government employees) were not ready to talk, as they reasoned that, as a part of society, the researcher should know the situations, as not everyone will share the information and risk his or her job. The major issues and fears among the subjects of the study were fear of losing government jobs, as speaking about negative things about the system will create difficulties for them to survive.

Similarly, if the people speak in favour of one conflicting party, the others will keep disturbing them unnecessarily. In one of the instances when I was conducting my fieldwork in a rural area, a family told me whether the interaction with them was going to get their kids a job. They think that a researcher is a government official, and he or she would help them get their needs fulfilled. In other instances, the respondents are also concerned that the information and spelling of their wards’ names should be written correctly, as it is extremely difficult for them to get the spelling correction through an official channel if researchers fill incorrect spelling into the information schedules. These experiences made me understand that researchers shouldn’t give locals false hopes and should be clear about their objectives and intentions when they do interviews or interact with them.

Access to conflict areas, including individuals and communities, may depend on a number of factors, such as security issues, the identity of the researcher, the funding of the research, and so on. Fieldworkers in conflict zones often experience difficulties finding respondents. The insider-outsider debate raises the question of whether the researcher should or should not be a member of the society, group, or culture that he or she is researching. (Andersen and Taylor, 2006).  As far as Kashmir is concerned, my identity as a researcher in the valley has constantly experienced changes on the insider-outsider continuum. At one moment, I was an insider, and I was an outsider on another occasion. Here, as a researcher I could not define myself as an insider or outsider merely in terms of religious, social, or political identities but in terms of my personal experiences with each respondent.

Always under suspicion, gaining trust presented a challenge, and building rapport proved extremely difficult. There were always suspicious eyes whenever I entered a new locality or any school. Sometimes, even after stating the purpose of my visit and showing them the official letter from the respective institution, people could not be convinced of my academic motives. To overcome this, I made changes to my research strategy and shifted the focus to involve local friends and acquaintances with rapport with the local communities. I also involved and took the help of my college teachers, in order to enter the schools and interact with teachers and students. My training as a social worker brought me into contact with the local friends, teachers, and NGOs working with the conflict-affected subjects. Some friends accompanied me to the site during the first few trips, but later on I minimised such interaction to avoid interfering with the study process. Gradually, I could make sense of my new-found role in the social setting and learned to navigate the difficult terrain. The role of the local friends and teachers was then limited to the initial stages of field work only.

Ethical challenges: Informed Consent

In the context of my field research, this norm of informed consent meant that the people I talked to should know why I was interviewing them, so they could decide for themselves if they wanted to talk to me or not. Over the course of my work, I found that I was better able to judge conditions on the field and understand the problems and dilemmas of field research. I insisted on using the voice recorder at first, but was met with resistance. Most of the respondents did not allow me to use any sort of device while conducting interviews. The participants appeared to be concerned about how this information might be used. Many did not even let me take notes, and most of the writing happened after the completion of the interview. It is here that I could relate to Nguyen-Gillham et al.’s (2008) observations on research conducted with Palestinian children.

Coming to the question of the informed consent of respondents, at first I offered my respondents to fill out the informed consent form to participate in the research, but respondents were hesitant to give written consent for the interviews, citing the safety and security of their respective jobs, besides the mistrust for the researcher about the use of conversations against the respondents. This paved the way for the use of verbal consent only. Even then, there were cases when I was asked, on subsequent visits, not to report on anything discussed by the participants. To provide security, I was ever mindful to make the participants secure in the purpose of the research as well as reassure them about confidentiality.

Concluding Remarks

Researchers in conflict zones should be mindful of the field and the automatic assumptions that violence is the problem and the only lens through which to view the lives of the people. I tried to navigate limitations like issues of informed consent, anonymity, confidentiality, and the ethical dilemmas of self-preservation, mistaken identity, and the emotional challenges of working in contexts of conflict through the principle of ‘do no harm’ (Wood, 2006), and I have been careful that none of my actions or research aims or outcomes bring any new insecurity to the participants. Therefore, it is necessary to build frameworks to aid researchers in making ethical decisions. Protocols for informed consent and security measures should ensure that the field researcher ‘experiences no harm’ and ‘do some good’. However, situations in conflict zones vary considerably.

---

References:

Andersen, M.L. and Taylor, H.F. (2005). Sociology: Understanding a Diverse Society Cengage Learning. Thomson Learning Inc.

Dixit, M. (2012). Field research in conflict zones: Experience from India and Sierra Leone. International Studies, 49(1-2), 133-150.

Goodhand, J. (2000). Research in conflict zones: ethics and accountability. Forced Migration Review, 8(4), 12-16.

Nguyen‐Gillham, V., Giacaman, R., Naser, G., & Boyce, W. (2008). Normalising the abnormal: Palestinian youth and the contradictions of resilience in protracted conflict. Health & social care in the community, 16(3), 291-298.

Shah, D.A. (2017). Re-reading the field in conflict zones: Experiences from Kashmir Valley. Forthcoming, Economic & Political Weekly, ISSN (Online)-2349-8846.

Wood, E.J. (2006). The ethical challenges of field research in conflict zones. Qualitative sociology, 29(3), pp.373-386.