Ethical Issues

Like any other, this study was shaped by a number of concerns. Importantly, the research had to follow regulations laid down by the University of Birmingham. The methodology for this research was approved by the University of Birmingham’s ethics committee in line with the University’s rules guiding doctoral research. While the approval was necessary to ensure that ethical issues were considered and followed during the fieldwork, the entire process took long before the approval was granted.

This was important because ethics involves the careful consideration about the impact of our research on others. Bulmer (1992) referred to ethics as a matter of principled sensitivity to the rights of others. It is a form of social responsibility by the researcher to ensure that the process of gathering and disseminating information is free from any

55 See Kane and O’Reilly-de Brun: 2001.

undesirable immediate and future consequences to the respondent. Good ethical practice involves being a good researcher at the same time as being a good human being (Iphofen, 2011). The process also encompasses all aspects relating to anonymity, confidentiality, consent, feedback and storage and withdrawal, which also have to be explained to the respondent at the onset of each interview. Researchers, therefore, must be careful to ensure that they are not harming their respondents.⁵⁶

As my research relies on the narratives of people, and especially women, who are in many instances impacted negatively by these conflicts, I took time to explain to the respondents all the aspects of my research in order to obtain their informed permission to record the interviews and assured them of confidentiality. The participants in the research were given a consent form to indicate that they agreed to participate in the study.

The consent form explained clearly the purpose of this research and informed respondents how they could obtain information about this research after it was completed. On the form, the respondents were asked to indicate how they wanted their information recorded, either through a voice recorder or just note-taking. Participants were informed how their information will be used and stored. Respondents’ consent forms also asked them how they wanted their information shared, and they were given the option to choose if they wanted their identity known. For most respondents, this research used a different name and code to identify them so nobody could link their responses to them personally. While several people willingly allowed me to use their

56 Systematic Harm to the respondent could mean, but not limited to, raising false expectations of gain to participants, unwarranted exclusion as a result taking part in a research. Refer to Iphofen, (2011) for more on harming respondents.

names I still decided that in most cases, usually with the exception of public figures, anonymity was the better option.

Some of the respondents especially in the markets gave me permission to arrange a video recording of the interview. This was useful particularly in the markets where this technology allowed me to capture complex events and settings rather than just the spoken word. While the doctoral results do not include these videos in order to ensure anonymity, they have served as a very good reminder of the environment in which I carried out fieldwork. Many respondents allowed me to take voice recordings of interviews, while some of the respondents were more comfortable with note-taking which they considered as less of a threat than having their voices or images recorded.

The potential impact of recordings was an important consideration even for ostensibly powerful people. One of my respondents, a politician and chairman of one of the political parties in the state, did not allow me to record or take notes of an interview.

He told me to just listen and later make sense of what he said, which I did. Immediately after I left his office I stopped to jot down all I could recollect.

Upon agreement the consent form was signed in duplicate and the respondents retained a copy for their own records. I pointed out to all respondents about their right to withdraw their consent for up to a year after the interview, and I left my telephone number, email address and postal details in Nigeria and Birmingham with each of them.

Because consent forms immediately take the respondents into the realm of officialdom, the need to obtain signatures limited the level of informality and freedom of speech I enjoyed with them. In addition to that most of the interviews were accompanied by note-taking and voice recording which immediately put the respondent in a position of

reservation where he or she focused on accuracy and correctness of speech. Despite the difficulties associated with the consent forms, my respondents were very happy to know that they could have a copy of the form and that they could also contact me or my supervisor at any point to withdraw from the research. It was extremely important to many of my respondents to be sure that their information was not going to be used against them at any point in time.

In addition to the formal requirements set out by the university, I also ensured that data gathered through recording was properly transcribed and well coded, and I kept a record of the contact details of respondents which enabled me to get back to them for the duration of the research to ensure that the data was presented accurately and constituted a true representation of what they told me. I also avoided or consciously moderated very sensitive questions or emotion triggers that would bring back bad memories and hurtful feelings. I did that through paying attention to the respondent’s facial expressions and body language as questions were asked, and empathising with them when the need arose.

As a researcher, I am also human and have feelings. There were sober moments when I had to stop recording and empathise with the respondents before going on. This is what Sarantakos (1998) referred to as issues that would have jeopardised the respondent’s psychological well-being, but showing concern and empathy goes a long way in assisting respondents to quickly relax again and move on with the interview.

While interviewing was often difficult I noticed that it also frequently had a positive impact on the respondents. Many people became more relaxed and were willing to go on with the interview after a moment of shared solemnity. These sort of experiences

occurred mostly with the women in inter-faith marriages whose interviews were conducted in their homes, and many of them were moved to tears as they recollected some of their experiences. The conflict had come to define the way they related to society and the way society saw them. The need for breaks and pauses made the interview periods longer and more demanding personally as I empathised and in some instances even cried with them.