El Derecho de transmisión y el consorcio foral

The qualitative interview is a method to bring forth people’s reflections, descriptions and understandings of their lives and situation (Widerberg 2001:58). It was important for me to create a comfortable and informal atmosphere, which could encourage more detailed answers from the interviewees. I used an interview guide (see appendix I), but the order of the questions was not important and I was free to follow up on the answers given. I was also not obliged to go through all the topics. I also had a ‘Fact Sheet’ (appendix I) listing specific points where I wished information – matters like family, occupation, education, languages, place of birth, other places of refuge, and so forth. The interview guide proved to be too broad, especially when the answers were elaborated. And yet, it was the more detailed answers, where I was able to follow up and ask for examples and concrete experience, which proved most fruitful. I therefore focused more on the conversation and answers than on covering all the prepared topics. Thus the interviews functioned as a way of exploring the respondents’ understandings, experiences and perceptions of their situation in Uganda.

Depth and time varied from interview to interview. Most primary respondents were interviewed for about an hour, and four of them were interviewed more than once. Many of the interviews in Kampala were conducted in a quiet corner in the garden at Makerere campus or in one of the cafeterias. These were discreet, neutral, and public meeting places, and it was easier to create trust in such an atmosphere. When I visited people or met someone at a meeting or seminar I would as often as possible try to arrange for a interview separately and at Makerere. In Adjumani I conducted most of the interviews in the camps. There I would ask to be able to speak with people separately, which was possible most of the time. I also conducted a few interviews on the premises of an NGO, and two interviews in the dining hall of the guesthouse where I was staying. The NGO affiliation in Adjumani proved disturbing in some of the group discussions, as the answers I got were often directed to the NGO activity and its funding. I therefore asked the representative to wait outside, or to leave the camp and come pick me up later.

The interviews were conducted in English, as the primary respondents were already defined as a resourceful group, in being involved in organizations. They all had at least

attended primary school in Uganda, and the instruction language in Uganda is English. Some group discussions were conducted in local languages, where one of my contacts would translate.

An important principle guiding my approach to interviewing and thesis writing was confidentiality, which implies that information revealing the identity of the interviewee is not made public (Thagaard 1998). I started the interviews by assuring my respondents that confidentiality would be respected. Confidentiality is important for the protection of the people being studied. In addition it is helpful in focusing the research on social,

generalizable patterns rather than on personal details about the persons involved in the research (Lofland and Lofland 1995:43–44). I also ensured confidentiality in how I stored the interviews; I never kept the names together with the interviews, and the interviews were entered and saved in my computer, which was locked with a secret password and left in my lodgings. The names of interviewees were kept separately. After some while, I discovered another challenge with regard to confidentiality: some of the interviewees told their friends about the interviews. I therefore underlined the issue of confidentiality in the interviews and explained what I meant by it. For example I would explain that even though I met someone I knew that this person knew, I would not tell that I had conducted an interview, nor what was said during the interview. All the same, it was obvious that I could not control every aspect of the confidentiality issue. Luckily, most interviewees did not know each other, but some of them were acquainted, and a few saw each other regularly. In addition I have also anonymized persons and quotes in the text.

Before starting the interviews, I asked each respondent for his or her consent to take part in the study. I was also careful to point out that if I asked questions that they felt were unpleasant, too private or too sensitive, they should not feel obliged to answer. In fact, this happened in only two instances. In the one, the interviewee felt uncomfortable because there were many people at the cafeteria where we met, although nobody was sitting very close to us. Sensing his worries, I simply dropped the topic. Thus, informed consent is not an issue only in introducing the interview, but something to be kept in mind the whole time.

I chose not to tape the interviews as I perceived some of the topics to be politically sensitive. I was therefore careful to take as many notes as possible during the interviews, and always planned to write up the interviews immediately afterwards. I would either go straight home, or stay at Makerere and do the write-up in the student computer room, where I had access because of my affiliation with the Sociology Department. The

interviews were therefore quite accurate in content, although the exact phrasing and some parts have been omitted. I believe that the essential parts of the interviews have remained intact. Moreover, this study does not focus on discourse analysis, where the exact phrasing might be more important.

To sum up: confidentiality, informed consent and creation of a trusting environment were central issues in conducting interviews and in obtaining detailed and fruitful answers. Interviewing as a method proved conducive for generating knowledge about the refugees’ perceptions, experiences and understandings of the situation.