Another issue that may arise and which has been part of feminist discussion is harm to participants as a result of their participation in the research. Women’s participation in research, or their association with the researcher, may put them at risk especially if the research is believed to question the already established strong relations between men and women in a patriarchal community.151 Even though it seems to be the responsibility of
the researcher, at least, to attempt to avoid bringing harm to the participants, it seems rather difficult to predict when potential harm may occur,152 and in some cases the
150 De Laine, 2002; Sultana, 2007.
151 Berik, 1996; Wolf, 1996; De Laine, 2002.
researcher may not be in control of the situation to prevent and stop any harm.153 Bearing
all this in mind, this study followed the principle of ‘thinking ethically’.154
Given the difficulties in terms of having a ‘close’ relationship with participants discussed in the work of Jaffe and Miller155I decided that in the context of Tajikistan I may face
similar ethical dilemmas. In addition, my previous experience of interviewing women victims of violence and the experience of other researchers156 left me with the belief that
a more ‘distant’ relationship with participants should be pursued in this research.157 I
found Finch’s work158 useful to employ in the context of Tajikistan who notes that there
are moral issues raised by the interview model of research, which encourages friendship between researchers and researched, leaving room for potential exploitation of subjects of research to gain source material. Although most of feminist scholarship, including the studies of Finch and Oakley, discuss the ethical dilemmas with regard to interviewing women in the Western context, they still informed my research of potential dilemmas I might face during the fieldwork. I initially decided that I would not establish friendship or intimacy with the participants in order to reach the goal of ‘finding out about people’159
because of the possible implications. However, when I was in the field it was hard to keep a distance, and I sympathized with women participants and developed strong relationships with them. It was also difficult to keep a distance relationship with participants in the context of Tajikistan because I stayed with families, in an environment where it is difficult to remain a ‘stranger’ if the families welcome you and start treating you as their family member. I failed with my initial intention to pursue the role of a
153 Berik, G. 1996. ‘Understanding the Gender System in Rural Turkey: Fieldwork Dilemmas of Conformity and Intervention’, Wolf D. (Ed.) Feminist Dilemmas in Fieldwork, Oxford: Westview Press. pp. 56-71; Sultana, 2007.
154 Piper and Simons, 2005.
155 The work of Jaffe and Miller (1994) focuses on positionality and structural embeddedness in qualitative research; Oakley, 1997. “Interviewing Women: A Contradiction in Terms”, H. Roberts (Ed.), Doing Feminist Research, London: Routledge, pp. 30-61;
156 Ribbens, 1983; Wolf, 1996; Russell 1999; De Laine, 2002. 157 Jaffe and Miller 1994, p. 55.
158 Finch, J. 1984. “It’s Great to Have Someone to Talk to: The Ethics and Politics of Interviewing Women”, in C. Bell and H. Roberts (Eds.), Social Researching: Politics, Problems, Practice, London: Routledge,pp. 70- 87.
‘friendly stranger’ but I managed to provide a ‘sympathetic ear’ as suggested by Cotteril160
and developed ‘partnership’ relationships with participants for this particular research. The ‘sympathetic ear’ or a ‘friendly stranger’ approach perhaps would have worked if the interaction between the researcher and the researched was limited to interviews only, but since I spent days in close contact with key participants it was difficult to provide participants only with a sympathetic ear.
After each interview or informal discussion, when I summarized my notes and reflections, I checked it with the participants. I asked them if they had any questions or comments. Modavlat and Nisso both expressed their disbelief that anyone is interested in their problems or that any institution is willing to solve their problems. 161 Modavlat
noted that ‘don’t think that it’s like in the west, unfortunately no one follows the law here … nobody (including the government) really cares about what is happening to us.162
I came to realize that it was difficult to draw a clear line between the role of ‘friendly stranger’ and a friend who cares and is in a position to provide assistance of any form, which may lead some participants, especially vulnerable ones, to develop false expectations (e.g. about the provision of financial/material and/or psychological support). In cases when potential participants were identified through women’s centres, I discussed potential psychological and/or physical harm with the centre personnel and whether I should refrain from contacting them. In cases when a potential participant was identified through another participant (e.g. a woman victim of violence identified other victims of violence) I had to consider carefully whether the identified participant/s should be contacted.
I sought the consent of the participants. I informed the participants about the purpose, nature and implications of my study, and asked for their permission in sharing their
160 Cotterill, P. 1992. “Interviewing women: Issues of Friendship, Vulnerability, and Power” in Women Studies Int. Forum, Vol. 15, Nos 5/6, pp. 593-606; Ribbens, J. 1989. “Interviewing –an “Unnatural Situation”?” in Women’s Studies Int. Forum, Vol. 12, No.6, pp. 579-592; Russell, C. 1999. “Interviewing Vulnerable Old People” Ethical and Methodological Implications of Imagining Our Subjects”, Journal of Aging Studies, Vol. 13, No 4, pp. 403-417.
161 Interviewees F30 and F16. 162 Interviewee F30.
views. I also explained that they had a right to withdraw their participation at any time during the interview or the research in general. The participants were given the opportunity to keep their information private and confidential. However, in certain circumstances, where there was a possibility that participants could be identified, I took necessary precautions to protect the identity of participants, not only changing their real names, but also any other characteristics which may give a hint as to their identity. This issue is more relevant to small urban or rural places. In such small places, apart from names, other characteristics, such as place of birth, number of children, ethnicity and educational background may expose the identity of participants.
The identities of participants were not revealed to other participants during the fieldwork. There were queries from some participants to name others who had participated in the study. The police officers and officers at the prosecution office seemed to be more curious than others to know if other law enforcement officers had also ‘given interviews’ and what they had said.
When participants had been recruited and interviews conducted, I checked and verified with them the nature of the information obtained in the interview whenever it was possible (it was not always possible, especially in places that were not easily accessible). I drew a summary of each interview and checked it with the participant. If I made any initial summary and interpretation of topics and themes that I thought had come up during the interviews, I checked with participants if they agreed with my summary and interpretation. I also recognized that the actual thesis would be written outside of Tajikistan and verifying and checking analysis of the obtained information might be difficult with some participants due to the lack of means of communication. I therefore pointed out this problem to potential participants before they had made their decision to participate. Potential participants were also informed of the possibility of publishing an article in Tajikistan upon completion and approval of the thesis. I intend to remain cautious of the implications of publishing.