Síntesis de sondas e hibridación de ARN

This study was conducted in a mass violence area. Contexts such as this compromise people’s rights as human beings to go about their daily lives safely and with dignity. Because of this I was mindful that my research caused no harm and promoted participants’ rights to privacy, to be fully informed, and to feel they had been treated with respect. These was even more important, given my participants were located within a multi-cultural setting and held different religious, cultural, and lifestyle beliefs. This research was guided by and complied with Massey University Human Ethics Committee requirements. Additionally, I considered a number of long-standing ethical principles defined by Marshall and Rossman (2016) as beneficence and justice. Before I discuss how various principles were applied in practice, I outline briefly the Massey University institutional ethics process and aspects I was asked to consider.

3.4.1 The University ethics procedures

After gaining approval to undertake research via a permission letter from Centre 12’s Director, I looked to apply for University ethics approval. This study, Human Ethics Application no. 13/73, was considered on Thursday October 10, 2013. The ethics committee asked for consideration in seven areas before granting approval: interview location, participant recruitment, participant observer’s role and expectations, photograph usage, participants’ opportunity to review transcription, the risk of harm to the researcher and the risk to Centre 12 if participants spoke in a negative light about the Centre’s policies, strategies, and communication (See Appendix G for my answers to those questions; Appendix 1 and 2 contain copies of the information sheets and consent forms).

3.4.2 Ethics in practice

The major ethical principles as espoused in the University Code are:

74

x minimisation of harm to participants, researchers, institutions and groups;

x informed and voluntary consent;

x respect for privacy and confidentiality;

x the avoidance of unnecessary deception;

x avoidance of conflict of interest;

x social and cultural sensitivity to the age, gender, culture, religion, social class of the participants; and social justice (MUHEC, 2015).

While careful consideration was given to all principles I refer specifically to the ways I sought to show respectfulness and minimise harm, which also encapsulates other principles.

3.4.2.1 Demonstrating respectfulness

Marshall and Rossman’s (2016) ideals of respectfulness refer to the fact that: “We do not use the people who participate in our studies as a means to an end (often our own) and that we do respect their privacy, their anonymity, and the right to participate—or not—with their free consent” (p. 52). Hence the study information sheets were given to 17 participants (the Director of the 12th Mental Health Centre, 11 Centre staff, and 5 partner group representatives) when I first met them. After giving them the opportunity to ask questions, I emphasised that taking part in this study was entirely their own choice and would not affect their jobs in any way and they would be free to withdraw from the study at any stage.

I was able to enhance the ethical elements of the study when I later returned to Thailand and presented the draft findings to participants in a face-to-face situation, demonstrating my respect for their contribution. This review of the findings by the study’s participants also improved the accuracy and the overall quality of this study and links to my earlier point about the importance of process. This also supports the understanding that in qualitative research there are multiple truths, and knowledge is co-constructed between the researcher and the participants, that research is an iterative process (Stewart-Withers et al., 2014), and it is important that the participants feel listened to and genuinely heard.

Interviews were conducted where and when the participants felt comfortable, as will be described in section 3.5.1.4. For the Centre 12’s staff, most of the interviews were conducted at the Centre’s meeting room, which the participants preferred as they felt it

75

was safer in terms of privacy. I mainly used Thai language in the interviewing. Although Malayu-Pattani and Yawi language are used in daily life, all the participants could also speak Thai. When I asked them whether they wanted to use Malayu-Pattani or Yawi language because I could provide a translator, all participants said they preferred to use Thai.

Respect for social and cultural sensitivity is also important in qualitative data collection. As Patton (2015) emphasises, “Sensitivity to context is central in qualitative inquiry and analysis” (p. 9). As the participants include Buddhists and Muslims, I listened to and observed their social behaviours, beliefs, opinions, and knowledge without criticism, particularly, in relation to ideas about religions and cultural beliefs. Furthermore, I built rapport with the participants by using family-oriented terms. I referred to myself as “Pêe” (a Thai word meaning the elder sister in the family) and I referred to the Centre’s staff as “Nóng” (equivalent to a younger sibling). Most of the study’s participants were Muslim, so I was careful not to make appointments in their prayer time or on a Friday afternoon when Muslim males go to perform religious activities at the mosque. I also did not discuss or make any comparison between Buddhists and Muslims.

3.4.2.2 Minimising harm

There were possible risks for participants and for myself as the researcher. The participants were both Buddhist and Muslim, but because I have lived in the area for 8 years, I understood and respected their differences, reducing chances of individual harm, primarily emotional or spiritual. As the research setting was in the mass violence area I had prior discussions with my supervisors where they were reassured that violence is not an everyday occurrence and, for the most part, daily life carries on. Further, this was my former work place and I was relatively well-placed to understand and manage risk. In case of any potential risks, however, I understood I would put my safety over and above data collection by respectfully cancelling or postponing appointments, or by leaving the risky situation or area. Given that the research might provoke emotion as participants were talking about personal experiences I was also careful to support any participants if they became distressed by stopping the interview, directing them to support, and continuing only if they felt they were able to.

Two violent incidents occurred while I collected data. The first incident was bombing around the city at night time on May 24, 2014. It was claimed to be the most violent

76

incident in the 10 years of the on-going crisis because more than ten bombs exploded in the city in the same time. I left the area in the morning because there was no water and electricity in town. I contacted Centre 12’s Director and staff, asking about their safety and their plans to deal with the violence. They told me that they were preparing to visit people in some areas in the next few days. I had to check news reports all the time and confirmed the situation from people in the area. Two days later, I went back into the research setting and prepared to go to a hospital recommended by the Centre 12’s staff as their partner group. Unfortunately, a motorcycle bomb exploded in front of the hospital in the early morning (for news reports about this violent incident see Appendix H). I discussed these situations with my supervisor and changed my plans. My data collection plan was delayed because staff were busy responding to the crisis. More important, for safety’s sake, the partner group participant was changed from the hospital to the Provincial Public Health Office, the core organization that controls and supervises hospitals in the province but is less directly involved as a partner with Centre 12.

Part Two: Doing the Research