La temporalidad como constitución de subjetividad 53

Ethical considerations are paramount in any research that involves human beings as subjects. As a student from Victoria University, the researcher complied with ethical

217 _{Steinar Kvale and Svend Brinkmann, InterViews: Learning the Craft of Qualitative Research}

Interviewing (Sage, 2009) 178.

218 _{The time needed to transcribe interviews depends on the quality of the recording, the typing} experience of the transcriber, and the need for detail and precision. According to Kvale and Brinkmann, transcribing large amounts of interview material is often a tiresome and stressing task. An experienced secretary, they report, could take about five hours to type a one hour interview.

See: Steinar Kvale and Svend Brinkmann, InterViews: Learning the Craft of Qualitative

Research Interviewing (Sage, 2009) 178.

219 _{John, above n 180,191.} 220 _{Dawson, above n 181, 170.}

53

procedures under the Guidelines of National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research221 in conducting this research. The interview schedule focuses on issues of legal policies, legal rules and processes. The questions were designed to reduce any risks by not asking participants to reveal personal or private issues. In particular, the interview questions do not seek to obtain any information about the facts or causes which gave rise to any claims. This also eliminated most psychological and social stress. The questions sought to establish only knowledge and opinions relating to the law and enforcement of state liability for compensation. They did not seek to elicit information which may jeopardise any claims.

The researcher first submitted an ethics application with the proposal to the Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) for review and approval in 2011. However, the HREC granted the researcher only a conditional approval because it was concerned with risks to participants, particularly claimants, in the process. They asked the researcher to restrict any risk by (1) having a supervisor who would supervise and assist the researcher in Vietnam during the fieldwork, and, (2) provide counselling services in the host country to informants who may require counselling. In order to support the research, the researcher and the Hanoi Law University in Vietnam nominated Dr Nguyen Van Quang, who is the head of Department of International Operations, as a local supervisor for the researcher conducting the research in Vietnam (Appendix 12). However, the second requirement could not be met because such counselling services do not exist in Vietnam.

The fieldwork is significant for the research. The experiences, attitudes and views of the participants in state liability issues potentially had a significant impact on understanding and answering the research questions comprehensively. It was thought that the interview results would reveal the enforcement of the law more effectively than would other resources. It may help the researcher investigate more effectively the gap between the law in the books and the law in practice. The researcher submitted another ethics application in 2012 which included specific techniques to limit any risk. This principally involved contacting claimants through their lawyers who could give them independent advice on participating. (The ethics application form is attached). Ethics

221 _{Commitment of VU’s HREC at}

<http://www.vu.edu.au/research/our-approach/research-conduct-ethics/human-research-ethic> The National Statement: <http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/guidelines/publications/e72>

54

approval was finally given in December, 2012. It took more than one year to receive this approval. As the time for the fieldwork was limited, the interviews were conducted immediately afterwards from January to March 2013.

Before conducting the interviews, the researcher met with Dr Nguyen Van Quang and discussed with him the plans and schedules for the fieldwork to ensure that the interviews were conducted under his supervision. During the interviews, the researcher often contacted him to report the results and to obtain advice.

From the commencement of data collection to the end of the interviews, the researcher ensured that ethical values were upheld. The researcher maintained a respectful attitude to the participants at all times and treated them in accordance with the ethics guide and interview schedule. After the completion of every interview, the researcher reflected on how comfortable the participants had been in providing information. Douglas notes that creative interviewing “involves the use of many strategies and tactics of interaction, largely based on an understanding of friendly feelings and intimacy, to optimize co-operative, mutual disclosure and a creative search for mutual understanding”.222

In the pre-interview stage, the interviewer prepared all of the materials required: documents, pens, paper notes and answer sheet. The interviewer wore appropriate clothing depending on the social context of the interview and the participant’s status as a state officer, professor, editor or claimant; the researcher ensured that she was always punctual. Careful preparation shows that a researcher respects interviewees and has given consideration to the best means of encouraging responses from the participants.

Before the interviews the researcher introduced herself to the participants, told them about the purpose of the interviews and the nature of the study. Further, the researcher explained how privacy and confidentiality would be respected. This information generally appeared to make the participants more confident. They thought that they were engaged in a meaningful and valuable task that would contribute to the community.

During the interviews, the researcher assessed the participants to ensure that a friendly atmosphere was created and any tensions were removed. The researcher smiled and maintained composure. The researcher listened attentively and took notes of

55

important points raised but maintained regular eye contact. If the participant did not understand the question, the researcher explained it more clearly. If they had any questions, the researcher encouraged them to feel free to ask at any time. Also, whenever participants felt uncomfortable with any question, the interviewer moved on to other questions and asked them if they could share any experiences they were more willing to talk about. Most of the participants appeared to feel free to talk about what they knew of state compensation and their experience with procedures and practices relating to it.

Furthermore, the researcher regarded their rights to privacy as important in the research. The researcher was aware of the fact that many state officers are politically appointed and therefore would not want any criticism of the government to be recorded. The researcher was also aware that several participants were fearful that if some issues of state liability were exposed to the public, it would create a negative reaction, so they were unwilling to disclose the information.