Las escritoras

Risks to researchers should be taken seriously in research with street children.

During the field work I encountered a series of incidents. Maintaining a

relationship was most important in combating difficult situations, but it was also a difficult process. I found that the children sometimes did not recognize me, even though I had already established a good relationship with them and had had

143 several good conversations with them. I was sometimes scared of the young people because they could be aggressive. Also, most of the time I found that they used various types of drugs and alcohol. Bemark (1996) stated that “ street culture was danger - danger lurks around the corners and movement of drugs, prostitution and crime follows them.” Bemark further said that the street researcher needs to learn how to remain safe in the “potentially threatening world” of a context where people are scared to walk alone because of limited enforcement of laws and few rules are implemented by authorities (Bemark, 1996 ,p. 151).

There were occasions where I felt it was necessary to leave the area for my own safety because the street children were drunk or drowsy. For example, one

afternoon when I entered the park, I noticed a street girl sitting on the grass. I will refer to her as Girl A. She used to speak nicely to me but always avoided giving me an interview. I decided to ask her again if she was interested but she refused to respond to me. Even so, I tried to build a relationship and would often converse with her. On another day, another street girl (Girl B), who was very drunk, came up to us and started to shout and asked: “What happened here? What are you doing?” I thought that she had come towards us to find out who I was, what I was doing and what I was talking about with her friend. She had a razor blade in her hand, which frightened me. Though it scared me, I was trying to handle the situation by being well-mannered, polite and respectful. Street girl B dropped the blade after Girl A convinced B to be quiet, telling her that the interviewer was just a student. She also said: “Leave her, leave her; don’t do anything.” She also said other things that I did not understand. After Girl B had calmed down, I asked her about her reason for carrying a blade. She said the blade was to slash anyone who harassed them. I assume that if Girl A had not talked to Girl B in my support, Girl B would have harmed me. Nevertheless, I visited Girl B regularly, though

sometimes she did not even recognize me. Girl B also refused to give me an interview at first, but later asked if she could take part. What I believe is that my friendly, smiling manner, and a polite and respectful approach, over time earned

144 her trust and persuaded her to be friendly with me. She later appeared to be more supportive than many others in introducing to me other street girls.

I knew that the young children took interest in, and were suspicious about, a new person chatting with their friends in their area. I realised this as I found that groups of children encircled me several times when I spoke to a child and were curious to know what we were talking about. They must have been suspicious that I was trying to abuse them since children in the street were found to be often abused in various ways by pimps and political groups. Sometimes I was asked by children if I wanted to take them home as a maid. I also got hints that children were abused by an organ transplantation mafia (see Chapter Six).

On another day, when I was heading towards the park, a street girl who was drunk came over, shouting wildly so that people around could hear her. She shouted: “I know why you are coming here. You are not providing any help for us; do you give us job? Do you give us any money for interviewing?” She used harsh language. The incident happened in a busy place and everybody was looking at me. People encircled us. I was worried, not only because of the girl’s behaviour, but also because I thought my future interviews would be jeopardised. I was equally concerned about my public image; people might misunderstand my role and think I was manipulating the girl in some way. I was calm but nervous as she screamed continuously, without caring about others. She further said that I should not enter the park and I should immediately leave the area. However Girl B, whom I mentioned earlier, came up to us and stopped her shouting at me. I could not enter the park for a while, fearing that she would attack me. Though a

chaperone was nearby, I found her to be no help as she would not handle such a threatening situation. Also, the chaperone could not have used force against the street children, because the children were dominant as well as being numerous, and could have been carrying weapons. I think that the use of a chaperone in research with street children is not very helpful.

145 Later one man, who was a casual worker, boldly said he would help me to enter the park. He accompanied me to the park for my safety and I continued my usual work. I felt protected and taken care of by that man, because he had stayed in the area to find petty jobs and I believed that he knew the street environment, as well as the behaviour and attitudes of the children, and had learnt how to handle them.

Thus, being a researcher with street children always remained a risk. The safety of the researcher is one of the challenges in research with street children, because a researcher has to encounter people who might bring about unpredictable and difficult situations. The challenges were exaggerated due to the children’s drug use and previous experiences of abuse at the hands of adults. Also, it was clearly evident that the street children often had weapons with them to defend themselves.

Another notable example of the challenges I faced during fieldwork is

demonstrated below. Topics that included sex and sexuality were an issue of the research that increased its difficulty. On one field visit, it was drizzling in the afternoon and people were sheltering from the rain. I was with a boy, conducting an interview under the roof of a cottage. The research process had gone well until the topic of sexuality was discussed. He started to touch my lower back, trying to demonstrate his way of approaching his sexual partners. I was startled by his behaviour and moved slightly away from him. I was aware of his sexually charged behaviour but did not make any comment. He saw that I felt uncomfortable and he apologised. However, he repeatedly showed the same behaviour during the

interview. I ended the interview at this point and went to leave; he came along with me for a couple of steps and so I walked faster and left the place. I could not look back at the boy because I felt threatened by his behaviour. That was one of the scariest days for me during the fieldwork. I understood that a researcher should be careful and watchful, especially while talking about sexuality with children; otherwise they might take things the wrong way.

146 Though talking about sexuality is a social taboo, the children talked without being embarrassed. Although some children hesitated at first, they generally felt at ease when talking about sexual issues and their lack of inhibition showed that they were used to these activities. Nevertheless it clearly was unusual to be asked questions about sex, and some children might have misinterpreted these questions, which may have sent the wrong signal to them. They were a sexually active group, and conversations about sex might have provoked sexual behaviour towards me.

My strategy was to stop if the children started to show any unusual behaviour.

On another data collection visit, one woman suddenly came up to me and asked:

“What types of questions did you ask the girls?” She said that I had annoyed one or two girls by asking about private matters on sex and sexuality, so they were thinking of getting revenge on me and had said they would beat me. She further stated: “Be careful, you know that these children do anything; some of them also know HIV positive people and they might use needles to harm you.” It left me with the impression that the children might harm people by pricking them with the needles of HIV infected people in order to infect others.

I also encountered some other incidents. On one day it was raining heavily. I was standing under a tree along with some street boys under an umbrella. A street girl whom I knew came over to me and shouted and behaved as if she was about to hit me. The boys who were with me chased her, protecting me. Similarly, on another day, when I was looking for a group of children in the park, a boy whom I had never seen before started asking sharply about the purpose of my work. Another boy, who had refused to take part in an interview, stopped him from harassing me.

Some street children took an interest in the interviews, while others ignored me, but I treated all the children equally: those who were willing to co-operate to give an interview, those who were not, and those who mistreated me. That helped me to have a good relationship with all the children, and therefore I got support from children in difficult situations. What I learnt is that we should treat all children equally and respectfully, even when they display challenging behaviour. Good

147 relationships with street children have a great impact on the safety of the

researcher, establishing feelings of security for the young people and also impact on the success of the data gathering process.

It is thus confirmed that researchers are potentially vulnerable in research with street children. Safety measures should be applied in order to protect the

researcher from any possible harm. I did a risk analysis and management plan for ethical approval by having a chaperone during the fieldwork. However, research involving street children places the researcher in a dilemma regarding whether the idea of having a companion with them during an interview is appropriate or not.

The presence of a chaperone might affect the interview process, especially if the research topics are sensitive and related to issues such as poverty, violence, sex and sexuality. Ryan & Bernard (2003) also stated that participants hesitated to respond in the presence of a chaperone. Yet, even if the researcher has a companion who stays nearby, the researcher may still be at high risk. Bemark (1996) states that since children might carry weapons, an unforeseen incident might happen at any moment and an unpredictable crime might follow. Given these two limitations regarding the use of a chaperone, I feel that the negative features outweigh the positive features.I chose to have a chaperone because they might be helpful in case of emergency however this person was always kept at a distance in order to make the children feel at ease with me while having a conversation. Despite these precautions, I felt at risk during my field work because I was in such close contact with the children, that anything could have happened within a moment and it would take time for the chaperone to come to my rescue. I also tried to minimise the risk by avoiding conducting the interviews in the evening, even though this was also potentially the best time to visit the street children as they tended to gather in one place during the evening. Instead, I conducted interviews in the morning and afternoon with a companion nearby. To conclude, I would say good relationships and establishing trust were the most important ways of accessing the children. Good relationships with street children have a great impact on the safety of the researcher as well. I was cautious to

148 maintain good relationships with all the street children I visited. Any

misunderstanding spread among the street children about my research would have increased the risk.

5.2.4 Misconceptions

Another concern was negative impressions regarding my role. The children were unaware that a researcher could also be a student, and it was difficult to convince them of this. It was difficult to explain to them, as the children had very poor educational backgrounds and most were illiterate. They did not understand about research, researchers and doctorate studies. At the beginning of the fieldwork, the children were suspicious of my role as a researcher and were convinced that I was involved with organisations that work with children, or that my motives for

talking to them were different from what I had stated. They frequently asked about the organisation I was involved in, and asked the name of the organisation. Street children having negative attitudes to the researcher has also been experienced in previous studies (ILO, 2001). The children in the ILO study believed that the researchers were benefiting from different donor agencies and using them.

However, in my study when the children were convinced that I was just a student with an academic objective, that made it easier to interact with them.

There were negative perceptions regarding researchers amongst the public at large as well. I was commonly asked by onlookers which organisation I represented and what benefit the street children were receiving in return for the interviews. People believed that organisations associated with street children working in Nepal were sponsored by foreign agencies in the name of street children, but were not

working sufficiently well. They also thought that I was from an organisation and was working for personal profit.