The practice of ethnography relies upon the exchange of lives, selves and voices (Coffey, 1999). “Attention to reciprocity is a characteristic of such qualitative interactions” (Harrison, MacGibbon and Morton, 2001:332) and of feminist research, in particular (De Vault, 1990). “While many authors like Tuhiwai Smith (1999) suggest that research ought to give something back to research participants, others like Jeffrey (2006) disagree” (cited in Swartz, 2011:48). Instead, he views giving tangible rewards to participants, such as material payments, as being patronising (ibid). In her opinion, “participants are entitled to be treated as people who can give their opinions or explain their lives to other people, without requiring always to be given something tangible as a reward” (Swartz, 2011:62). On the other hand, Rossman and Rallis (2012:158) define the norms of reciprocity as being embedded in the view that research is a two-way street where the researcher obtains data, “while the participants find something that makes their cooperation worthwhile – whether that is a feeling of importance from being studied, pleasure from interactions with the researcher, assistance in some task, or actual changes in life circumstances from action research”. According to Nama and Swartz (2002:295), “understanding research as psychosocial intervention is one way in which ‘giving back’ can be non-patronising, while addressing the local ethics of immediate need”.
During my fieldwork, the norm of reciprocity – which was informed by philanthropic ethics and the Afrocentric principles involving collective responsibility for what happens to individuals – was achieved through multiple forms of interventions. Given the sensitive nature of sexuality as a field of study, I entered the research site aware that the study had potential to invoke unintended distress or post-traumas. Clearly, one would prefer not to conduct research that harms or injures participants, but sometimes participants’ past traumatic
134
experiences resurfaces unintentionally (Pitts and Smith, 2007). To meet the ethical requirement of minimising harm of risks to participants, I prepared a database of relevant, area-based bio-psychosocial service providers which could be accessed by the school during and after the research.
Dominelli (2002:35) believes that social workers become agents of change when they “ensure that no one has to worry about how they are to access social resources to meet basic needs”. This database was announced during assembly and was kept at my mentor’s office – since she is in charge of the psychosocial services at the school. As a social worker with more than 19 years of experience, I did not just hand in the database; I facilitated the formation of an alliance and a working relationship between my mentor and the area-based service providers. Moreover, I established a professional referral procedure to be followed, which was discussed and adopted by the service providers and my mentor. The database did not only become a resource to help learners who participated in my study, but became a resource for every learner in the school – including the educators who required bio-psychosocial services. Without escaping my ethical responsibility to address sensitive matters emanating from my research, I also adopted the same referral procedure for learners who came to me needing services. These learners were referred after crisis intervention or assessment services were provided. These were learners who, for instance, needed to test for HIV and sexually transmitted infections, to access contraceptives, or to help their siblings who were abusing drugs and alcohol.
Like the experiences of researchers who have conducted their research with young people in Africa, listening or giving voice to young people became an intervention (Swartz, 2011; Anderson, 2010; Pattman and Bhana, 2009; Pattman and Chege, 2003). “It was in the process of being listened to by an interested adult and being asked endless questions (in enjoyable environments) – that young people spoke of experiencing the most benefit” (Swartz, 2011:62). The talks, as an intervention, not only benefitted research participants, but also all grade 11 learners, and to some extent some of the teachers. The talks facilitated dialogues, which were aimed at shifting and broadening the thinking and the constructions of gender and sexuality. For instance, talks on homosexuality, sexual orientation, and/or gender identities conscientised and affirmed sexual diversity of young people. The values underpinning tese talks required that students learn to respect themselves, others and human rights.
135
These talks occurred during the orientation month with all grade 11 learners, in the staffroom, during participants’ observations, during walks with learners around the school, during our lunch-break sittings, and during our WhatsApp and email conversations. I listened to the stories they were telling, but also to how they were telling their stories, and what they were not telling (Ivey, Gluckstern and Bradford-Ivey, 1997). As noted earlier, invitations from learners to spend time with them were not restricted to research participants, but rather learners who were not part of the research group invited me to visit their groups or classrooms. The friendly atmosphere, non-judgmental attitude, and learner-centred dialogues were most appreciated by the learners, and built learners’ confidence in expressing their views.
The active listening was not limited to ‘listening with ears’: I also ‘listened with my eyes and with my heart’. Learners expressed appreciation for my displayed interest in their academic and social activities. I attended, among other things, their sporting activities, debating team forum, their feeding schemes, their baking competitions, and their music rehearsals which I ended up mentoring unofficially. Using my computer and my work data projector, I also presented career information sessions to them. I brought them undergraduate Central Application Office (CAO) forms and helped them with their applications. With Izikhokho, I made extended efforts to attend and help them with their school work projects. They experienced my displayed interest as being supportive and motivational. I also observed that my presence during their activities facilitated some degree of competition among them. While learners competed to impress me during their activities, they indirectly sharpened their academic skills and knowledge, and, in turn, their self-concepts and self-confidence improved. These improvements reaped unintended improved behavioural and academic performance. The improved concentration span and the class stability of Izikhokho, for instance, was noticed and communicated by the teachers to me. Izikhokho’s final examination performance also surprised everyone (teachers and Izikhokho alike). In a class with known bad academic standing and a high failure rate, only two learners failed the 2012 final examination.
While my research “was never designed to be ‘research-as-intervention’, offering learners opportunities for their own development during the gender and sexuality study seemed to be reasonable within an emancipatory framework, and served to demonstrate an intentional
136
ethics of reciprocation” (Swartz, 2011:64). During my sponsor’s LO lessons, I several consciousness-raising dialogues which were introduced as supplementary activities to the prescribed LO curriculum or having directly emanated from the activities of the curriculum. While I viewed learners as self-directed agents, the assumptions that they are expert in matters concerning their sexuality where their actions or their expressed ideologies could lead to HIV infections, boy superiority and dominance, heterosexism, gender-based violence, or unplanned teenage pregnancy – masked some noxious realities.
Within this reality, I viewed preserving learners’ constructed meanings and realities as hypocritical, and silence where their comments and actions were harmful to themselves or others was unethical. During these sessions, I shared with the learners information I had collected that demonstrated the high price that large numbers of young people are paying for the various forms of ideologies and actions that keep them trapped within the vicious cycle of poverty and violence. Through dialogue, we engaged in the process of meanings and identity co-construction. As an enabler, I assisted them in the process of formulating the solutions to their identified problems and challenges. During these consciousness-raising dialogues, I was aware of the risks of denting my relationship with the learners. However, I accepted that as a critical researcher, I was part of social relations and not working outside them in a detached and neutral manner (Dominelli, 2002; Griffiths, 1995).
The research interventions sustained and strengthened my relationship not only with the research participants, but with the whole school. Coffey (1999:7) argued that, “ethnographers rarely leave fieldwork totally unaffected by their research experience”. All these unplanned and unintended interventions ended up achieving the ultimate goal of feminist research, which, according to Harding (1998), is to contribute towards social change and reconstruction. My relationship with the school developed from being the ‘old girl’/ grade 11 researcher through to being the school’s mentor. Towards the final examination, teachers from classes and grades that were not part of my research were referring their learners for academic counselling or motivation, and asked me to do a career-guidance presentation to their learners. Even my sponsor began her plans to register for her Master’s degree with my university; she registered for a Master’s degree in gender studies in 2013.
137
The work with the broader school constituency offered me opportunities to say goodbyes in advance – not only to my research participants, but to all learners. Moreover, it served as a best systematic strategy for preparing my research participants for the end of our research relationship. According to Coffey (1999), leaving the field usually means emotional and physical disengagement from people, and perhaps leaving a part of you behind. As learners got used to me working broadly in the school, any dependencies and attractions that might have been created by our close relationship during data collection, were slowly reduced. I got used to the idea of not spending all my fieldwork time with the dedicated group of learners, and they slowly started to accept that our relationship was coming to an end. The formal ending of my fieldwork coincided with ending of the school term, which made it less emotional. When our relationship finally ended, I said my last goodbyes and promised to keep in touch with the learners and with the school, which I have done.