Ethical considerations

In planning and carrying out my research I followed the University of Sussex ‘Code of Practice of Research’ (2017) and I made an effort to implement the principles of the ‘Research Ethics Guidebook’ based on the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC 2015) framework: i) integrity and quality; ii) fully inform participants; iii) confidentiality and anonymity; iv) voluntary participation, free from coercion; v) avoiding harm and; vi) independence and impartiality of the researchers. In the following section, I briefly elaborate on how I managed three key ethical issues: voluntary participation, informed consent, and confidentiality. I then reflect on my personal approach and positionality in this research.

3.6.1. Voluntary participation, informed consent, and confidentiality

As mentioned earlier in this chapter, in addition to identifying potential participants, the questionnaire survey also became a way of introducing my research. Along with the completion of the questionnaire, I provided an information sheet (see Appendix 5) where I introduced the objective of the research, described the type of interview to be conducted and, most importantly, explained confidentiality issues. After providing the initial introduction, I asked if the participant was interested in participating and, if so, I collected their contact details in order to call them at a later date and set up an appointment for the interview. This gap between the meeting and the phone call would act, if necessary, as a 'cooling off period', allowing potential participants to make their excuses if they did not want to take part (Oeppen 2009:61). Of the total number of people who replied to the questionnaire, a minority did not qualify as participants (36), and the vast majority decided not to participate (118): either they

did not share their contact details with me, I was unable to contact them, or after contacting them, they decided not to participate in the study. Taking these numbers into account, I can conclude that people did not feel obligated to agree to take part in the study, and those who did participate did so of their free will. Initially I was concerned about having a biased sample as I thought that only those returnees who considered themselves to have been ‘successful’ or who came back ‘voluntarily’ had agreed to participate. However, following the analysis I can conclude that, in relation to their type of return, I achieved a diverse sample where the majority considered their return as compelled (see Figure 5).

An early thought to enhance participation was that I could provide an incentive61 _{for all} participants who agreed to take part in my research; however, after consulting with key informants this idea was discarded. As mentioned earlier, this research was conducted alongside electoral campaigns in both sites. Unfortunately, clientelist exchange of material rewards for political support is still a mainstream practice in Mexico. Therefore, key informants considered that providing incentives to promote returnees’ participation in this study could have been associated with these political practices. They asserted that these incentives could either have forced the participation of people who would not have otherwise agreed to participate, or discouraged participants that would have liked to participate, thinking this study was linked to any political group. Nonetheless, while I did not advertise this beforehand, every time an interview was conducted in a restaurant or cafeteria I covered the cost, more as a gesture of gratitude than an incentive for participation.

In relation to participants’ consent, as the use of the written ‘consent form’ proved not to be problematic during the pilot interviews, it was utilised prior to every interview in both sites. As described earlier, after reviewing the information sheet the participant would have time to review and sign the consent form. This consent form explained that participants could withdraw from the study at any time and if so, all information provided would be destroyed and removed from the project; that the information provided would only be used for the purpose of academic research and its dissemination products; that particulars and names mentioned by participants would be changed in those cases when it was requested; and that privacy regulations according to the UK Data Protection Act 1998 would be observed (see Appendix 6). While only four participants requested the change of their names, while writing up this thesis I decided to change the names of all participants to help preserve their

anonymity. Additionally, whenever I thought that the information given may help to identify a research participant I have also modified it, or avoided including specific data. By the end of the procedure, the participant would keep a form that I had signed which stated the agreements established, as well as my contact details in case there were further questions or concerns, and I would keep the signed consent form of the participant which was attached to each participant’s interview schedule.

In the case of key informants, while I raised the matter of confidentiality at the beginning of each interview, it became clear that this was not a major issue for the majority of the respondents, especially for those in governmental positions. This is probably due to the fact that people who are in high positions of authority and responsibility are often considered 'public' people, and their responses were aligned with official positions. While there were no concerns from the participants’ side, names and positions were not included in the thesis, but rather only the institution that they are part of.