Skip to content

2.4 Research Ethics and Risk Management

2.4 Research Ethics and Risk Management (TENK)

2.4.1 The risk of retribution

Given the prevailing conditions in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, sharing personal experiences or political perspectives as a Palestinian carries significant risks. Recognising the delicacy of this subject matter, I strictly adhered to the guidelines set forth by the Finnish National Board on Research Integrity (TENK). I meticulously followed the ethical principles outlined in The ethical principles of research with human participants and ethical review in the human sciences in Finland (TENK 2019)1.

In my research, I prioritise the lived experiences, agency, and knowledge of my participants. I emphasise reflexivity and continuous informed consent and actively seek to address and minimise the inherent power imbalances between myself and the participants (Stacey 1988)2. My research hinges on interviews with NGO workers and individual participants, delving into the violence stemming from the occupation. This sensitive research “potentially poses a substantial threat to those who are or have been involved in it” (Lee 1993, 4)3. Careless dissemination of interviews could jeopardise participants, potentially exposing them to retaliatory actions from Israel, their own community or family, or the Palestinian Authority.

Given my research objectives, my paramount ethical priority was protecting the individuals who contributed to this study. Adhering to a strict do-no-harm principle (O'Leary 2004)4 ensures that my research does not inadvertently lead to any retaliatory actions against the contributors, whether by Israel or the Palestinian Authority. I firmly emphasise preserving the anonymity of all participants. It is worth noting that some individuals had a nonchalant attitude towards their identity being disclosed, akin to the casual approach many adopt towards privacy on social media platforms. Therefore, I informed participants that their data would be anonymised by default rather than asking them if they desired it.

Informed consent is a cornerstone of ethical research practices. For my study, obtaining informed consent was not limited to the participants but also extended to my research assistant, who also served as interpreter and translator, as my Arabic knowledge is insufficient to conduct interviews by myself. Radical care ethics emphasises the importance of extending informed consent beyond research participants to include research assistants and interpreters, ensuring they are fully informed of the risks and supported with appropriate resources to navigate ethical challenges (Clark-Kazak 2023)5. Ensuring that participants felt in control of their contributions and understood their rights within the research process was imperative.

Each interviewee was clearly informed of their right to halt the interview at any juncture and opt out of the study. In such cases, any information or insights they had provided up to that point would be excluded from the research, ensuring their contributions remained confidential and unused. This provision was crucial in ensuring participants felt secure and respected throughout the process.

Furthermore, to facilitate open communication and address potential concerns post-interview, every participant was provided with my contact details. This allowed them the opportunity to revisit our discussion, request modifications, or raise any concerns about the content or context of their contributions.

Additionally, recognising the sensitive nature of the topics discussed, participants were given the autonomy to decide the method of recording their responses. They were presented with the option to forgo digital recording or even manual note-taking, ensuring they felt comfortable and unpressured during the interview. This approach underscores the commitment to prioritising participants’ comfort and agency throughout the research process.

2.4.3 Anonymity

In the quest to ensure the anonymity of interviewees, I adopted a multi-pronged approach. Firstly, pseudonyms replaced actual names, and specific geographical details were deliberately eschewed. Additionally, to further obfuscate any potential identifiers, the age of participants was presented within a range. Importantly, no records containing the personal specifics of the participants were retained in association with this study.

Despite any perceived familiarity with the region, my position remains that of an outsider, unfamiliar with the nuanced intricacies of Palestinian society. This outsider status necessitates a judicious selection of interview locations. Given the research’s sensitive nature, certain interviews were strategically conducted outside customary locales to prevent arousing community suspicion due to my evident outsider presence. As articulated by Will C. van den Hoonaard (van den Hoonaard 2003)6, community members possess a collective reservoir of knowledge about an outsider researcher’s activities and interactions.

Furthermore, the potential for identifiable material within recorded and transcribed interviews, or even within handwritten notes, must be considered. As Elizabeth Murphy and Robert Dingwall (Murphy and Dingwall 2007, 341)7 elucidate, ensuring complete non-attribution of data is challenging, as transcripts often inadvertently capture details that could compromise participant anonymity. Consequently, each transcript underwent meticulous scrutiny to eliminate any such details. However, the integrity and utility of the data for research purposes had to be maintained. Thus, this work incorporates descriptive renditions of participant narratives rather than including verbatim transcripts where needed.

Specific geographical details were also cautiously managed, especially when combined with event descriptions. For instance, explicit location names within a participant’s narrative were replaced with broader descriptions, such as “a small rural village near Hebron, adjacent to an Israeli settlement.” Other background specifics, like occupation and household composition, were deliberately kept vague.

Lastly, the role of translators, especially during Arabic interviews, warrants mention. Whether acquaintances with prior research experience or professionals affiliated with Birzeit University, their involvement necessitated an unequivocal commitment to discretion concerning both the interview content and participant identity.

2.4.4 Retraumatisation risks

Recognising trauma (see Chapter Four) not as a private wound but as a political condition compels us to rethink how research itself engages with survivors of torture, occupation, and displacement. If maiming extends beyond the moment of physical harm into the emotional and social fabric of Indigenous life, then scholarly methods must be attuned to these afterlives of violence. Interviews, in this context, are not neutral exchanges; they are encounters shaped by histories of surveillance, violation, and resistance. As such, ethical research must account for the potential reactivation of trauma, the relational circulation of affect, and the risks of reproducing epistemic harm. Hence, the methodological methodological framework is grounded in care, responsibility, and anti-colonial praxis, one that acknowledges the complex entanglements of memory, pain, and political struggle in the lives of those who bear the marks of necropolitical violence.

According to the ethics considered above, conducting research on violence through interviews inherently carries the potential risk of re-evoking traumatic memories for participants. It is, therefore, paramount to tread cautiously to prevent psychological triggers and to remain vigilant for any indicators of distress, whether manifested through body language or vocal cues. While all interviews proceeded without incident, protocols were in place to immediately halt any conversation that inadvertently elicited traumatic responses. Any distressing information that emerged unexpectedly would have been excluded from the research; in situations where an interview might have inadvertently triggered traumatic memories, a victim-centric approach would have been adopted, prioritising the emotional and psychological well-being of the participant.

Due to those risks, I applied for a statement from the Tampere Academic Ethics Committee of the Tampere Region. The research methodology I use in this work and the risk assessments I presented to the Committee resulted in a positive statement: 24/2020.

2.4.5 Self-protection

Conducting research in societies marred by conflict, such as those under military occupation, can profoundly affect the researcher’s emotional well-being due to the intense experiences encountered. Christine Clark-Kazak (Clark-Kazak 2023)5 draws on the idea of care as radical praxis and underscores the necessity of collective approaches to survival and support in a world that renders some lives more precarious than others. Timothy Jenkins (Jenkins 1994)8 posits that the researcher and the Indigenous subject navigate the same intricate world, mutually exploring and interpreting it. This notion, coupled with Clifford Geertz’s assertion that the researcher becomes deeply immersed in another way of life (Geertz 1988)9, leads Emma Varley to suggest that research in volatile environments, characterised by political unrest or interpersonal or religious strife, is fraught with moral ambiguities. These uncertainties influence our interactions, research decisions, and capacity to interpret and convey participants’ experiences (Varley 2008, 133)10.

Undoubtedly, immersing oneself in environments where daily exposure to violence is the norm can leave indelible marks on the researcher’s psyche. This was also true for me, given that I had heard personal accounts from friends long before the formal research began. However, the familiarity with the narrators and the continued intersections of our lives provided, and still provides, a source of strength. These shared emotional journeys were channelled into the motivation and energy needed to complete this research.

The interpreter/translator with whom I collaborated brought invaluable insights from their extensive experience assisting researchers in Palestine and personal connections to the narratives, having family members who endured similar hardships. Our post-interview reflections and discussions about the shared stories, juxtaposed with our personal experiences, offered a mutual therapeutic space to process and contextualise the information.

References

  1. TENK. 2019. The Ethical Principles of Research with Human Participants and Ethical Review in the Human Sciences in Finland. Finnish National Board on Research Integrity TENK. Finnish National Board on Research Integrity TENK. ↩

  2. Stacey, Judith. 1988. "Can There Be a Feminist Ethnography?" Women's Studies International Forum 11 (1): 21--27. https://doi.org/10.1016/0277-5395(88)90004-0. ↩

  3. Lee, Raymond M. 1993. Doing Research on Sensitive Topics. SAGE Publications. SAGE Publications. ↩

  4. O'Leary, Zina. 2004. The Essential Guide to Doing Research. SAGE Publications. SAGE Publications. ↩

  5. Clark-Kazak, Christina. 2023. "'Why Care Now' in Forced Migration Research?: Imagining a Radical Feminist Ethics of Care." ACME 22 (4): 1151--73. https://doi.org/10.7202/1106679ar. ↩↩

  6. van den Hoonaard, Will C. 2003. "Is Anonymity an Artifact in Ethnographic Research?" Journal of Academic Ethics 1 (2): 141--51. https://doi.org/10.1023/b:jaet.0000006919.58804.4c. ↩

  7. Murphy, Elizabeth, and Robert Dingwall. 2007. "Informed Consent, Anticipatory Regulation and Ethnographic Practice." Social Science\ & Medicine 65 (11): 2223--34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.08.008. ↩

  8. Jenkins, Timothy. 1994. "Fieldwork and the Perception of Everyday Life." Man 29 (2): 433--24. https://doi.org/10.2307/2804481. ↩

  9. Geertz, Clifford. 1988. Works and Lives: The Anthropologist as Author. Stanford University Press. Stanford University Press. ↩

  10. Varley, Emma. 2008. Enmities and Introspection: Fieldwork Entanglements and Ethnographic Reflexivity. Edited by Liana Chua, Timm Lau, and Casey High. How Do We Know? Evidence, Ethnography, and the Making of Anthropological Knowledge. Cambridge Scholars Publishing. ↩