The sensitivity of the topics addressed in this research made it necessary to pay close attention to ethics during the whole process, including data collection, data analysis and the transmission of findings.
Conducting social science research can affect the research participants and their relations in positive and negative ways, that were unintended initially. The analysis of the post-disaster recovery processes tackles a multitude of very sensitive topics. This period corresponds to a period of quick transition and leads to major and sometimes difficult changes in the personal lives of the inhabitants of Montserrat. This included displacement, social and demographic change linked to migration, and considerable uncertainty concerning the future.
It is vital to be aware that addressing, analysing and then communicating about these topics may raise strong disagreement and tension among the society. This possible tension requires constantly adapting the research methods depending on the emerging necessities and observations. Being constantly reflexive as a researcher (and as a human) facilitates an improved ethical stance, particularly in choices around frameworking, methodology and reporting of results. It is important to balance high quality research with being sensitive to those I am studying.
Different measures were adopted to respect ethical necessities. Before conducting the fieldwork, an ethic clearance form was submitted to the General Research Ethics Committee of the University of East Anglia, and accepted. Critical choices in seeking ethical approval and subsequent reflexive choices are summarised here:
(i) Interview authorisation. I was not to ask the participants of the research to sign an authorisation form before each interview as it would have affected the flow of the discussion and made the interviews much more formal, therefore adversely affecting the quality of the interviews. However, each time that I recorded an
Page | 57 interview, I orally asked permission from the person. A few times I was planning to record but as the discussion started very rapidly and in a very passionate way, I did not get the opportunity to ask and therefore decided not to record in order not to interrupt the discussion. I never asked for authorization or informed the people when I conducted observation for several reasons, mainly practical. Living in Montserrat during the whole fieldwork, I was continuously observing my environment. I did not hide the purpose of my presence in Montserrat, letting people know that I was doing research when they asked me. However, it was impossible to inform people systematically. This was also so that I would not intervene in what I was observing, or as little as possible, and therefore prevent biases in the observations.
(ii) Focus-group discussion: location and privacy. Dealing with sensitive topics also required regularly adapting the methods used for data collection. For instance, it appeared quite rapidly that interviewing immigrants in a face-to-face situation and without knowing them more personally was not efficient as it was very difficult to get meaningful answers. It was therefore necessary to create a trusting environment in order to give voice to these marginalized groups (Marra & McCullagh, 2018;
Winke, 2017). It had to be an environment that corresponded to the wishes and requirements of the participants. For instance, I decided to conduct focus group discussions (FGDs) as I estimated that it would be more efficient than face-to-face interviews, but I had to adapt the organization of each FGD to each group. While the group of Montserratians had no objection to do this in a public place as long as it was easily accessible to all, the non-nationals wanted to do it in a private place where they could talk without being heard. The organization of each FGD was therefore very individualized to respect ethics and requirements of confidentiality at the expense of a systematic method and possibilities of comparisons.
(iii) Anonymity. The question of anonymity is crucial, especially as the research tackles sensitive issues. As explained previously, I decided to anonymise the interviewees by specifying only their job or their role in the society, rather than mentioning their names. In some cases however, due to the small size of the Island, people remain
very recognizable even if they are identified them only by their job or status. Hence, despite the lack of scientific accuracy, I decided sometimes to remain vague about their identification in order to prevent them being recognized. Indeed, the small size of the population and the transitional period that Montserrat is experiencing encourages intense and emotional reactions. A quote may therefore have very important consequences and raise national debates if it is related to a sensitive or personal matter.
(iv) Approach to reporting findings locally. Considering the small size of the country and the challenging period it is dealing with, it rapidly appeared important to share the findings to both policy-makers and the population. While social research aims to “add to the stock of knowledge about the social world” (Bryman, 2004, p.5), I feel that this study has a role to play at the local level in a more practical way. Many participants showed a strong interest in my research and asked me to provide recommendations or to communicate the main findings. I therefore decided to organize some presentations and discussions with the different stakeholders involved in the recovery process. Two were organized at the end of the third fieldwork, one that was open to the public, and one that was addressed more specifically to the policy-makers and the agencies in charge of different sectors of development, including schools, Red Cross, Disaster Management Coordination Agencies. The two presentations were separated assuming that it would facilitate discussion and avoid some groups of people feeling uncomfortable talking in front of policy-makers. Both meetings led to interesting discussions and encouraged reflections, but the attendance was quite limited. Therefore another presentation was organized with the support of the Governor’s office in September 2017, with the objective of having a wider attendance. The presentation was recorded, broadcasted on the national radio and on Facebook live for those who could not attend it physically. Another presentation was organized in London in June 2017 and addressed to the community of Montserratians living in the UK. Organizing these presentations raised several ethical issues and questions about what should be presented and how, as a number of issues raised were sensitive ones. To address these, I worked beforehand with three people, a Montserratian living in Montserrat,
Page | 59 a Montserratian living in the UK and a Jamaican living in Montserrat, to adjust the presentations. The objective was to be able to present my main findings and generate discussion without being insensitive, and hence preventing emotional rejection and blockage reactions. It was also necessary to specify my role as a researcher and to mention my research autonomy with respect to the British government. Contrary to what was required by some of the participants, I did not give recommendations but rather large guidelines derived from my findings. Indeed from an ethical point of view, I believe that the researcher can inform thanks to their expertise. They are not mandated to say what should or should not be done and he has to leave the people concerned in charge of deciding.
Being clear about the specific objectives of the research, the complexity of the situation and the ethical necessities allowed me to design the research accordingly. It has in particular determined the choice of conducting research based on a specific case study, and the use of interviews, focus group discussion and observation as the main methods for data collection.
3.2. Designing the research 3.2.1. Case study research
The structure of the research is organized around the use of a specific case study in order to understand complex issues, especially how disaster, post-disaster recovery and associated processes are socially constructed in a particular context. According to Hartley (2004 in Kohlbacher, 2006, p.6), a case study research corresponds to "a detailed investigation, often with data collected over a period of time, of phenomena, within their context” in order
"to provide an analysis of the context and processes which illuminate the theoretical issues being studied". It corresponds to an intensive research approach, which aims to focus on a particular instance, within its specific context, its history, in order to get a great amount of details and to understand its evolution and its specificities (Swamborn, 2010). In this instance, focusing on a specific case study appears as a broad, multidisciplinary and comprehensive manner to understand disasters and their recovery process (Burton, 2010). The case study is used through an iterative process, which allows the researcher to gradually clarify the research questions as the different processes and their interaction become better understood. For the
understanding of the general process of recovery, the use of case studies allows us to adopt a comprehensive perspective and to test the validity of previous research, mostly focusing on specific aspects of the process of post-disaster recovery.
The use of case studies is now commonly used in social sciences and is associated with a systematic and rigorous research design. It presents a large number of advantages, especially in the case where little is already known and where there are few or no quantitative data. It is also often used as a complementary method of quantitative research in order to validate hypothesis and/or to determine and orient the trajectory of the research according to the actual observed issues. According to Yin (2003a in Kohlbacher, 2006, p.5), “the case study method allows investigators to retain the holistic and meaningful characteristics of real-life events”. A major concern about case studies is the difficulty to provide scientific generalization. However Yin (2003a, in Kohlbacher, 2006, p.6) argues that "case studies […] are generalizable to theoretical propositions and not to populations or universes. In this sense, the case study […]
does not represent a 'sample', and in doing a case study, your goal will be to generalize theories (analytical generalization) and not to enumerate frequencies (statistical generalization)". The use of the case study does not therefore aim to make general truth but rather to test theories in particular context for, eventually, reinforcing and creating new theories. The use of case studies is thus well adapted to test hypothesis and to bring more insight to a theoretical question.
The selection of the case study depends on various criteria, specific to each research project and depending both on scientific and practical purposes. Due to the relatively low number of places significantly affected by volcanic eruptions in the last 10-20 years, the choice has been limited to a few number of possible cases. Moreover, practical matters have largely contributed to the selection, such as the language spoken, the cost of access and the level of safety. It was therefore decided to conduct the research based on the case of Montserrat, a Caribbean island. The general context of this country and its interest for the research are outlined in more details in the Chapter Four.
Page | 61 3.2.2. Three seasons of fieldwork
Considering the lack of scientific valid grey literature and previous social research conducted in Montserrat which could have informed my research, it was decided that three fieldwork seasons in Montserrat needed to be conducted. This enabled a deeper immersion in the society, necessary to tackle sensitive questions in a less aggressive way, and to better understand the different perspectives.
Exploratory fieldwork was conducted in March and April 2015 in St Vincent and the Grenadines and in Montserrat. It aimed to settle the basis of the research, both in practical terms and in terms of research focus. The second fieldwork, conducted from January to May 2016, was dedicated to the main data collection, completed the following year during the third fieldwork between January and March 2017. The latter was also the opportunity to disseminate the main findings of the research through various meetings with communities, decision-makers and disaster managers.
The first fieldwork, conducted after six months of literature review, aimed essentially to settle the basis of the research, namely 1/ determine the methodology to be used for the data collection mainly according to the specificities of the context, 2/ determine the location of the case study, and 3/ clarify the research questions. This fieldwork was composed of three weeks in St Vincent and the Grenadines, followed by five weeks in Montserrat. In both countries, semi-structured interviews were conducted with key stakeholders in charge of disaster management and planning for socio-economic development following the volcanic crisis.
Informal discussions and observation also played a large role. The initial objective was to conduct a comparative study between the two islands, which were both strongly affected by volcanic eruptions, the last one being in 1979 in St Vincent, and between 1995 and 2010 in Montserrat. However, this first fieldwork led to the decision to conduct a study on the unique case of Montserrat. The major differences of context, included the time-scale of the disasters and the extent of the population affected,revealed that a comparison would be inadequate or would require a deeper understanding of each context to be relevant. Practical considerations, such as the limited time available for fieldwork in each place and the high cost of conducting research in two places, also contributed to the focus on a single case study. It was therefore decided to focus on the case of Montserrat. Indeed the first series of interviews revealed that the socio-economic development of Montserrat was still largely influenced by the volcanic
disaster, more explicitly than in St Vincent, where the volcanic eruption occurred longer ago.
The exploratory fieldwork in Montserrat also enabled me to clarify the research focus, by reorienting it slightly according to the specificities of the context and making it more relevant to the local considerations. Informal discussions and semi-structured interviews revealed the importance of demographic changes in the recovery process of Montserrat. The importance of immigration, in a positive and negative way, was almost systematically and very spontaneously mentioned during the discussions with a range of actors. Although I did not anticipate to tackle this topic when designing my research, it appeared to be an important one during the recovery process. I therefore decided to focus more on the role of demographic changes, especially immigration, in the process of recovery. Moreover a quick literature review highlighted that there was a major gap in research concerning the impact of demographic change on post-disaster recovery (see Chapter 2), despite being a universal and critical issue. The fieldwork also revealed that the risk of eruption was less determining in the in the recovery process than what was initially expected. While I expected it to be a major concern considering that the last eruption had occurred less than five years ago at the time of the fieldwork, interviews contradicted that hypothesis. It appeared very clearly that talking about the risk of future eruption triggered annoyance or even anger. On the contrary, people happily discussed the past eruptions. Therefore it was decided to adapt the methodology for addressing questions about the role of the risk of disaster in the recovery process in a less direct way and to explore the reasons for such negative reactions when it comes to risks in the future.
Most of the data collection was conducted during the second fieldwork, between January and May 2016. I specified the research questions thanks to the initial findings following the exploratory fieldwork, seven months earlier, and thanks to an extensive literature review. I used a similar methodology as for the exploratory fieldwork. However, instead of getting a general overview of the local context, the second fieldwork directly aimed to explore and test the hypothesis determined during the previous months of work. The methodology followed during these five months was therefore designed specifically to respond to these objectives.
Mixed qualitative methods were used to conduct the data collection, including semi-structured and informal interviews (see Appendix), observation and focus group discussions.
I gradually adapted the methods during the fieldwork with the emergence of some difficulties,
Page | 63 related to the high sensitivity of some topics and the difficulty to meet people especially from immigrant communities. That includes a more indirect way to address risk perception and the necessity to build trust and provide a very safe and anonymous environment to address the questions of social cohesion and discrimination. For that, I needed preliminary work to identify adequate gatekeepers, people who had a good knowledge of the community, who were trusted by its members and who were able to introduce me to the rest of the community. The selection of gatekeepers for starting the data collection was very important in this research due to the sensitivity of the topic tackled. Gatekeepers helped to gain credibility and to build trust with the participants, two conditions for conducting qualitative research (Petts, 2007; Reeves, 2010). The interviewees and the sample groups for conducting the research were composed of:
○ The main communities including:
○ the three main immigrant communities, namely Jamaican, Guyanese and Dominican (DR),
○ The native-community, namely Montserratians
○ Authorities/ Policy-makers including members of the GoM, of the British government and DfID
○ Disaster managers and monitoring, including staff of the Red Cross, of the Montserrat Volcano Observatory and of the Disaster Management Coordination Agency
○ Workers in the social sector, including school teachers, social services, church representatives, psychologist, medical doctor
During the third field season, conducted between January and March 2017, I completed data collection. Before that, I had conducted a first session of data analysis, which aimed to tackle the contradictions and the grey areas, and therefore allowed me to tackle more specific questions rather than looking at the general context. I used the same methods as during the previous fieldwork for data collection. In addition to completing the data collection, I aimed to communicate some of the initial findings of the research to the residents of Montserrat, including people from different communities, to policy-makers, social workers (including teachers, counsellor, social services), and agencies in charge of disaster management and
hazard monitoring. For that purpose, two meetings were successively organized during the last week of February 2017. An additional presentation wasconducted later with the support of the Governor’s office at the Government’s Residence in September 2017.
Figure 3.1 below illustrates the main steps of the research.
Figure 3.1: Data collection process and main objectives