Advertisement

Qualitative Sociology

, Volume 29, Issue 3, pp 373–386 | Cite as

The Ethical Challenges of Field Research in Conflict Zones

  • Elisabeth Jean Wood
Special Issue: Political Ethnography I

Abstract

Drawing on 26 months of field research in El Salvador during the civil war, I analyze some ethical challenges that confront field researchers working in conflict zones. After briefly summarizing the purpose and general methodology of my research, I discuss in detail the research procedures I followed to implement the “do no harm” ethic of empirical research. I first analyze the particular conditions of the Salvadoran civil war during the period of research. I then discuss the procedures meant to ensure that my interviews with people took place with their fully informed consent—what I understood that to mean and how I implemented it. I then turn to the procedures whereby the anonymity of those interviewed and the confidentiality of the data gathered were ensured to the extent possible. Throughout I discuss particular ethical dilemmas that I confronted, including issues of self-presentation and mistaken identity, the emotional challenges of field work in highly polarized settings (which if not well understood may lead to lapse in judgment), and my evolving questions concerning the researcher role and its limitations. I also discuss the dilemmas that arise in the dissemination of research findings and the repatriation of data.

Keywords

Ethics in research Civil war Political violence Qualitative research methods Field research 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Thanks to Severine Autesserre, Samuel Bowles, Alexandra Garrison, Micheline Egge Grung, Richard L. Wood, and the participants in the seminar “Research Ethics in Conflict Zones—Facing the Ethical Challenges for the Researcher” sponsored by the National Committee for Research Ethics in the Social Sciences and the Humanities (Oslo, April 4, 2005) for their comments on an earlier version, and to the Yale Center for International and Area Studies and the Santa Fe Institute for research support.

References

  1. Bell, P. (2001). The ethics of conducting psychiatric research in war-torn contexts. In M. Smyth & G. Robinson (Eds.), Researching Violently Divided Societies. Ethical and Methodological Issues. London: UN University Press and Pluto Press.Google Scholar
  2. Das, V. (1990). Our work to cry: Your work to listen. In V. Das (Ed.), Mirrors of Violence: Communities, Riots and Survivors in South Asia (pp. 345–398). Delhi and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Green, L. (1995). Living in a state of fear. In C. Nordstrom & A. C. G. M. Robben (Eds.), Fieldwork Under Fire: Contemporary Studies of Violence and Survival (pp. 105–127). Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  4. Green, L. (1999). Fear as a Way of Life. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Jaarsma, S. R. (Ed.). (2002). Handle with Care. Ownership and Control of Ethnographic Materials. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
  6. Kalyvas, S. (2006). The Logic of Violence in Civil War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Kelman, H. C. (1972). The rights of the subject in social research: An analysis in terms of relative power and legitimacy. American Psychologist, 27(11), 989–1016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. National Research Council. (2003). Protecting Participants and Facilitating Social and Behavioral Sciences Research. Panel on Institutional Review Boards, Surveys, and Social Science Research. C. F. Citro, D. R. Ilgen, & C. B. Marrett (Eds.), Committee on National Statistions and Board on Behavioral, Cognitive, and Sensory Sciences. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  9. Nordstrom, C. (1997). A Different Kind of War Story. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
  10. Nordstrom, C., & Robben, A. C. G. M. (Eds.). (1995). Fieldwork Under Fire: Contemporary Studies of Violence and Survival. Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  11. Peritore, N. P. (1990). Reflections on dangerous fieldwork. The American Sociologist, 21(1), 359–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Sluka, J. A. (1995). Reflections on managing danger in fieldwork: Dangerous anthropology in Belfast. In C. Nordstrom & A. C. G. M. Robben (Eds.), Fieldwork Under Fire: Contemporary Studies of Violence and Survival (pp. 276–294). Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  13. Smyth, M. (2001). Introduction. In M. Smyth & G. Robinson (Eds.), Researching Violently Divided Societies. Ethical and Methodological Issues. UN University Press and Pluto Press.Google Scholar
  14. Smyth, M., & Gillian, R. (Eds.). (2001). Researching Violently Divided Societies. Ethical and Methodological Issues. London: UN University Press and Pluto Press.Google Scholar
  15. The National Commission for the Protection Of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research [The Belmont Report]. (1979). Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research.Google Scholar
  16. Weinstein, J. (2006). Inside Rebellion: The Politics of Insurgent Violence. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Wood, E. (2000). Forging democracy from below: Insurgent transitions in South Africa and El Salvador. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Wood, E. (2003). Insurgent Collective Action and Civil War in El Salvador. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Santa Fe Institute and Department of Political ScienceYale UniversityNew HavenUSA

Personalised recommendations