Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Ethics, Intimacy, and Distance in Longitudinal, Qualitative Research: Experiences from Reality Check Bangladesh

  • Chapter
Methodological Challenges and New Approaches to Research in International Development

Abstract

This chapter originates from the experience of working as a researcher with a longitudinal study, the Reality Check Approach (RCA) in Bangladesh. The approach puts intimacy, immersion, and consensus at its core. These concepts signify an ethically motivated approach that aims to “give voice” to people living in poverty. They also describe an ideal research relationship assumed as the basis for good quality data. The chapter examines some difficulties encountered in the field and it aims to contribute to our understanding of the various dilemmas researchers, and practitioners, may experience when research principles and ideals are transferred to practice.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Action Aid International (2006) ALPS. Accountability, Learning and Planning System, http://www.actionaid.org.uk/sites/default/files/doc_lib/alpsfinal2006.pdf, [Accessed 13 August 2013].

    Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson, P. and Hammersley, M. (1994) “Ethnography and participant observation.” In: Denzin N. K and Lincoln Y. S. (eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research (Thousand Oaks, CA, UK: Sage Publications), pp. 248–261.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brinkmann, S. and Kvale, S. (2005) Confronting the ethics of qualitative research, Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 18: 157–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Busier, H-L., Clark, K., Esch, R., Glesne, C., Pigeon, Y., and Tarule, J. (1997) Intimacy in research, International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 10(2): 165–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chambers, R. (2005) Ideas for Development (London: Earthscan).

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, D., Morduch, J., Rutherford, S., and Ruthven, O. (2009) Portfolios of the Poor (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook, B. and Kothari, U. (eds) (2001) Participation: The New Tyranny? (London: Zed Books).

    Google Scholar 

  • David, M. (2002) Problems of participation: The limits of action research, International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 5(1): 37–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davies, R. and Dart, J. (2005) The “Most Significant Change” (MSC) Technique: Guide to its Use, ISBN-10: 0955549809, http://www.mande.co.uk/docs/MSCGuide.pdf, [Accessed 13 August 2013].

    Google Scholar 

  • De Laine, M. (2000) Fieldwork, Participation and Practice. Ethics and Dilemmas in Qualitative Research (London: Sage).

    Google Scholar 

  • Dickson-Swift, V., James, E. L., Kippen, S., and Liamputtong, P. (2006) Blurring boundaries in qualitative health research on sensitive topics, Qualitative Health Research, 16: 853–871.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duncombe, J. and Jessop, J. (2002) “‘Doing ra pport’ and the ethics of ‘faking friendship.’” In: Hammersley, M. and Traianou, A. (eds) Ethics in qualitative research (London: SAGE Publications), pp. 107–122.

    Google Scholar 

  • ESRC (2012) Framework for Research Ethics (FRE) 2010 Updated September 2012, http://www.esrc.ac.uk/_images/Framework-for-Research-Ethics_tcm8–4586.pdf, [Accessed 13 August 2013].

  • Greene, J. (1988) Stakeholder participation and utilization in program evaluation, Evaluation Review, 12(2): 91–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glesne, C. (1989) Rapport and friendship in ethnographic research, Qualitative Studies in Education, 2(1): 45–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • GRM International (2011) Reality Check Bangladesh 2010: Listening to Poor People’s Realities about Primary Health Care and Primary Education, Year 4. (Sweden: Sida).

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrington, B. (2002) Obtrusiveness as strategy in ethnographic research, Qualitative sociology, 25(1): 49–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hewitt, J. (2007) Ethical components of researcher-researched relationships in qualitative interviewing, Journal of Qualitative Health Research, 18: 1149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hickey, S. and Mohan, G. (eds) (2004) Participation — From Tyranny to Transformation. Exploring New Approaches to Participation in Development (London: Zed Books).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hulme, D. (2004) Thinking small and the understanding of poverty: Maymana and Mofizul’s story, Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 5(2): 161–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, C. (2012) Speech, gender and power: Beyond testimony, Development and Change, 43(5): 999–1023.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, H. J. (2012) Emotions on the move: Mobile motions among train commuters in the South East of Denmark, Emotions, Space and Society, 5: 201–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karnieli-Miller, O., Strier, R., and Pessach, L. (2009) Power relations in qualitative research, Qualitative Health Research, 19(2): 279–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kleinman, S. and Copp, M. A. (1993) Emotions and Fieldwork, Qualitative Research Methods Series, no. 28: Sage University Paper.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knowles, C. (2006) Handling your baggage in the field reflections on research relationships, International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 9(5): 393–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, D. (2012) Reality Check Reflection Report (May 2012, draft).

    Google Scholar 

  • Lister, R. (2004) Poverty (Cambridge: Polity Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Ludema, J. D., Cooperider, D., and Barret, F. J. (2001) “Appreciative inquiry: The power of the positive questions.” In: Reason, P. and Bradburg, H. (eds) Handbook of Action Research (London: Sage), pp. 155–174.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mauthner, M., Birch, M., Jessop, J., and Miller, T. (2002) Ethics in Qualitative Research (London: Sage).

    Google Scholar 

  • Mellor, M. (2007) “Researching for change.” In: Smith, M. (ed.) Negotiating Boundaries and Borders, Studies in Qualitative Methodology, Volume 8 (Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited), pp. 177, 195.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mizen, P. and Ofosu-Kusi, Y. (2007) “Researching with, not on: Using photography in researching street children in Accra, Ghana.” In: Smith, M. (ed.) Negotiating Boundaries and Borders, Studies in Qualitative Methodology, Volume 8 (Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited), pp. 57–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Narayan, D., Patel, R., Schafft, K., Rademacher, A., and Koch-Schulte, S. (1999) Can Anyone Hear Us? Voices from 47 Countries (Washington DC: World Bank).

    Google Scholar 

  • Pitts, M. J. and Miller-Day, J. (2007) Upward turning points and positive rapportdevelopment across time in researcher — participant relationships, Qualitative Research, 7(2): 177–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reality Check Approach (2010–2013) http://reality-check-approach.com/approach, [Accessed 13 August 2013].

  • Sida (2011) Reality Check Bangladesh. Listening to Poor People’s Realities about Primary Healthcare and Primary Education. Year 5. http://reality-check-approach.com/download/view_document/21-sida-bd-reality-check-2011, [Accesses 13 August 2013].

    Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, K. (2007) “Hearing voices? Negotiating multiple ethical commitments in development research.” In: Smith, M. (ed.) Negotiating Boundaries and Borders, Studies in Qualitative Methodology, Volume 8 (Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited), pp. 177–195.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomson, R. and Holland, J. (2003) Hindsight, foresight and insight: The challenges of longitudinal qualitative research, International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 3(6): 233–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watson, A. (2012) I crashed the boat and wept: Localizing the “field” in critical geographical practice, Emotion, Space and Society, 5: 192–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • World Bank (2008) Whispers to Voices: Gender and Social Transformation in Bangladesh. Bangladesh Development Series, No. 22 (Washington DC: World Bank).

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, D., Corner, J., Hopkinson, J., and Foster, C. (2006) Listening to the views of people affected by cancer about cancer research, Health Expectations, 9(1): 3–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Malin Arvidson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of International Development, University of East Anglia, UK

    Laura Camfield (Senior Lecturer) (Senior Lecturer)

Copyright information

© 2014 Malin Arvidson

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Arvidson, M. (2014). Ethics, Intimacy, and Distance in Longitudinal, Qualitative Research: Experiences from Reality Check Bangladesh. In: Camfield, L. (eds) Methodological Challenges and New Approaches to Research in International Development. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137293626_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation