principally regarding the relationship between my participants and the state. This came to affect the ways in which the research transpired and evolved over time, not least resulting in many problematic situations during pivotal moments in the research process. For example, one of the most crucial points at which this came to pass was when a series of government documents were leaked, showing that the Ecuadorian government had been conducting surveillance on certain groups of environmental activists. This resulted in a number of participants temporarily withdrawing from the research, as they felt it
presented a risk not only to themselves, but also to me. While after a relatively short period of time most of these participants decided to return to the research, some did not, resulting not only in destroyed data, but also in me feeling concerned about the effects that my research might have on participant’s lives. Furthermore, it forced me to reflect on my own safety and wellbeing in the context of the research process and any activities associated with it. In order to maintain and ensure my own safety I made sure to follow university regulations and guidelines, as well as guidance from supervisors.
From the beginning of the fieldwork period, participants were always made aware that their involvement in the research was voluntary, that they could withdraw at any time, and if they chose to do so that their data would not be used and would instead be
destroyed. While this is a routine process for many researchers, I had not anticipated that it would come to impact upon my own project. The pivotal moment involving the leaked government documents resulted in a shift in approach to data collection. Specific steps were taken in order to ensure that participants were, upon becoming re-involved in the research, comfortable with the methods and tools used in accordance with the changing political/security situation. These were:
98
• Using written notes instead of a Dictaphone for interviews.
• In some cases, contact to be made via mobile phones that were not their “official” personal devices.
• Email contact not to be used.
These changes were made in cooperation with participants, both those who chose to return to the research, as well as those who did not decide to leave. I made the decision to implement the above changes across the research project in its entirety (some participants were seemingly not worried about the unfolding political events) as I felt it was the most responsible and ethical action to take. I could have, for example, only initiated these changes in data collection with the participants who specifically stated they desired them, and then not have made these changes with others who were perfectly happy to continue as we had before. It is notable that there were some participants who felt that making these changes demonstrated a fear of the state, and that this was an undesirable position to take. However, I felt that it was my responsibility as the researcher to take the initiative in implementing these changes across the board, in order to ensure the safety and security of my participants and their data.
While these events and the subsequent changes to data collection and contact with participants presented a disruption in the research, they also provided an important moment to reflect on the situation within which I was operating. Whilst these problems were unfolding, I was initially tempted to think that my research was falling apart, and that I would not be able to continue with the project. However, after a short period of time I came to realise that what was occurring was in fact a vital part of my research, and that I instead had to learn to adapt to the changing political climate in order to better understand it and function within it. In this sense, my embeddedness as a researcher was demonstrated, further consolidating the notion that the researcher themselves are not separate from the object of research, and that in fact our role is vital to understand and reflect upon when considering our presence in a research environment, and the impact this has at the point of knowledge production.
Finally, given the precarious environment within which my research was taking place, it was also necessary to utilise strict procedures of anonymisation throughout the process of data collection, analysis, and writing. While the anonymisation of data
99
(particularly through the use of pseudonyms for participants) is a common practice in social science research (Nespor, 2000; Saunders et al., 2015) the levels to which anonymisation takes place can vary. For example, while the anonymisation of
participants’ names is conventional, sometimes it is also necessary to anonymise names of groups, organisations, communities, or locations (Wiles et al., 2008). As Nespor (2000) notes, in some cases this can lead to a de-contextualisation of qualitative data, and risks leaving certain aspects feeling disconnected or decoupled from the realities from which they originated.
For the purpose of this research I chose to anonymise names of individuals and organisations due to the political implications of the activities that many participants were engaging in (both inside and outside of the research). In regards to locations, I never specified the exact names or sites of private dwellings or community spaces and instead left the descriptions as general as possible, often only stating the city within which they existed. The exception to this was with data pertaining to specific sites where protests were held in the city of Quito, as the protests themselves were covered extensively throughout Ecuadorian media and were attended by many thousands of people, therefore they were not “hidden” events.
While the research presented in this thesis was indeed conducted during a time of political volatility in Ecuador, specifically in the context of the relationship between activists and the government, I do not believe that the data I collected was compromised as a result of this. However, and as I have illustrated here, the issues that were presented did have methodological implications for the research, and therefore had to be
acknowledged and overcome in order for the project to be carried out in a way that remained practically and ethically responsible.
4.11 Forging Personal Relationships in the Field: Reflections on objectivity and the