Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Are you a spy? On the inconveniences of conventional methodology in terror wrap ethnography

Are you a spy? On the inconveniences of conventional methodology in terror wrap ethnography The purpose of this paper is to explain the significance of contextually localized strategies and to engage researchers in critical reflection about the ethical dilemmas of researching in volatile situations.Design/methodology/approachBased on 14 months of research experience, the paper reflects on the challenges and difficulties in qualitative data collection through conventional methodology in dangerous fields.FindingsThe paper argues that conventional methodology and the established codes of ethics and their guidelines certainly provide a useful starting point but each dangerous setting requires different localized approaches whereas ethics need to be considered as a process approach.Practical implicationsThis paper not only suggests the significance of “intermittent interview method” and its effectivity but also the importance of “respondent pyramiding” and “mutual confidentiality” in a dangerous field.Originality/valueThe paper reflects on the original 14 months of ethnographic accounts which will add value to the existing literature on qualitative research in dangerously hazardous fields. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Qualitative Research Journal Emerald Publishing

Are you a spy? On the inconveniences of conventional methodology in terror wrap ethnography

Dawar, Asif Iqbal
Qualitative Research Journal , Volume 21 (1): 11 – Jan 19, 2021
Download PDF
11 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/emerald-publishing/are-you-a-spy-on-the-inconveniences-of-conventional-methodology-in-yRZC4Xq21J
Publisher
Emerald Publishing
Copyright
© Emerald Publishing Limited
ISSN
1443-9883
DOI
10.1108/qrj-11-2019-0091
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to explain the significance of contextually localized strategies and to engage researchers in critical reflection about the ethical dilemmas of researching in volatile situations.Design/methodology/approachBased on 14 months of research experience, the paper reflects on the challenges and difficulties in qualitative data collection through conventional methodology in dangerous fields.FindingsThe paper argues that conventional methodology and the established codes of ethics and their guidelines certainly provide a useful starting point but each dangerous setting requires different localized approaches whereas ethics need to be considered as a process approach.Practical implicationsThis paper not only suggests the significance of “intermittent interview method” and its effectivity but also the importance of “respondent pyramiding” and “mutual confidentiality” in a dangerous field.Originality/valueThe paper reflects on the original 14 months of ethnographic accounts which will add value to the existing literature on qualitative research in dangerously hazardous fields.

Journal

Qualitative Research Journal – Emerald Publishing

Published: Jan 19, 2021

Keywords: Research ethics; Dangerous fieldwork; Intermittent-interviews; Mutual confidentiality; Researcher safety; Respondents pyramiding; Spy; Terror wrap ethnography; Undercover policing

References

  • Dancing with danger: ethnographic safety, male bravado and gang research in Colombia
    Baird, A.
  • Fieldwork and its ethical challenges: reflections from research in Bosnia
    Clark, J.N.
  • Geopolitics, identity, and discourse analysis of conflict in Pakistan's tribal areas
    Dawar, A.I.
  • Is North Waziristan ready to be called home?
    Dawn
  • Field research in conflict zones: experience from India and Sierra Leone
    Dixit, M.
  • Qualitative research in dangerous places: becoming an ‘ethnographer’ of violence and personal safety
    Goldstein, D.M.
  • When the power relationship is not in favour of the anthropologist: reflections on fieldwork in Gilgit-Baltistan
    Grieser, A.
  • Negotiating dangerous fields: pragmatic strategies for fieldwork amid violence and terror
    Kovats-Bernat, J.C.
  • Learning not to ask: some methodological implications of studying Eritrean refugees in Ethiopia
    Massa, A.
  • Doing research in conflict contexts: practical and ethical challenges for researchers when conducting fieldwork
    Moss, S.; Uluğ, Ö.; Acar, Y.
  • Reflections on dangerous fieldwork
    Peritore, N.P.
  • Odd man out: the participant observer in an absolutist setting
    Peshkin, A.
  • Participant observation in violent social contexts
    Sluka, J.
  • Introduction: under suspicious eyes–surveillance states, security zones and ethnographic fieldwork
    Sökefeld, M.; Strasser, S.
  • Observers observed: an anthropologist under surveillance
    Verdery, K.
  • The ethical challenges of field research in conflict zones
    Wood, E.J.
  • What are you really looking for? Ethnography while (feeling) under surveillance
    Zadrożna, A.