Ethics 100

I got ethical approval from the University's ethics board in August 2012. Two of the key ethical risks I identified during the ethical approval process were the difficulties of gaining informed consent and ensuring that vulnerable people were protected. The issue of gaining effective informed consent permeated the entirety of the primary research process from selecting communities for the research to identifying participants for interviews.

The original research design envisaged a process whereby community leaders and the local population would be briefed about the project and given the opportunity to

the purpose of my visit and then requested their participation at the group events that I was running or for the household survey. Opportunities for discussion about the nature of the research and any risks that the participants may be exposing themselves to as a result of participating were limited or non-existent.

During the data collection, I ran a number of group exercises and had originally planned to seek informed consent (written or verbal) at the beginning of each activity. This was to help ensure that the participants were aware of the project and that they could refuse to participate if they wished. However, my Chinese collaborators felt that gaining informed consent in the way I outlined above was not a normal practice in fieldwork. The compromise was for the project outline and the informed consent process to be explained at the outset and verbal consent sought. Written consent would be requested at the end of each activity. Given the realities of language, I was reliant on my collaborators honouring this agreement in the field. This process fell short of my own aspirations for informed consent, but evidently went further than the usual practice adopted by my collaborators in their own fieldwork. These issues mirror the notion of consent ‘cascades’ described by Pamela Cox (2010) in her article on researching youth justice in Vietnam. In her article, Cox talks about consent from above opening doors further down the institutional hierarchy with the result that the consent of actual participants in the study was assumed rather than given.

I managed ethical considerations to the best of my ability in the field, although the need for snap decisions meant the choices that I was making would sometimes feel rushed and poorly considered. I was able to reflect on these issues through the extensive notes that I keep in my fieldwork journal, and I spoke at length with my supervisors via Skype and email. Through these processes of reflection and discussion, I was able to consider how I would behave if faced with the same or similar circumstances. This reflective analysis ensured I was better prepared for subsequent visits to the field. The issues that I experienced are neither unfamiliar nor uncommon, especially in former socialist states, and have been reported extensively (for Chinese case studies see, for example, Cornet, 2010; Gros, 2010; Heimer and Thøgersen, 2006; Michaud, 2010; Turner, 2010a). This process of reading and reflection away from the immediacy of the fieldwork provided me with the space to consider things more objectively and is

something I recommend for other researchers (especially those who, like me, are new to the game).

Protecting vulnerable people and those in dependent relationships was another key ethical issue of which I was very aware during fieldwork. To administer my

university). To mitigate the risks for vulnerable people and those in dependent relationships during the survey work, I emphasised the importance of being alert for people who might be coerced into participating or responding. Furthermore, I

highlighted that everyone undertaking any aspect of the research should be alert for vulnerable people (such as young adults or those with a mental disability for example) and make an assessment on a case-by-case basis as to whether they should and could participate in the research or not. The questionnaire survey was administered by a larger group of enumerators than I had intended. Using a larger number of

enumerators reduced the amount of oversight and quality assurance possible during the conduct of the survey, leading to a greater reliance on the effectiveness of pre- survey training. For example, enumerators were trained to be upfront about the research and to clearly state that participation in the research was entirely voluntary. I had originally intended to quality assure the interviews by sitting in on a sample of them. This was not practicable as my presence often made the interviewees feel uncomfortable. Furthermore, there was not enough time or capacity to assess survey enumeration in practice and to confirm that protocols set out during the enumerator training were being followed. After some consideration, I took the decision that I should not physically sit in on questionnaire surveys but request that enumerators record a sample of their interviews so that I could listen back to them once completed. The recordings were in Chinese, and it was not possible to listen to a translated version of them during the data collection phase itself. As such, these recordings only provided some sort of retrospective insight into the data-gathering process. I also sought feedback about the survey approach and the quality of the data generated from the enumerators and other members of the research team. These issues highlighted the reliance I had on my Chinese collaborators to guide me during the fieldwork and to provide assurances regarding quality and reliability of the data collection process.

The particular sets of issues described above revealed the complex and highly

dependent relationships into which I entered with my research assistants and the wider Chinese research team. I was reliant on them to buy into the processes I wanted enacted in the field and communicate their importance to the enumerators. Such reliance often left me with a feeling of powerlessness as I could not directly

determine to a significant extent how the research is portrayed to participants (Turner, 2010b). In short, the research assistant was central within my cross-cultural fieldwork and, I believe, significantly influenced the subjectivity of the data collected (Tebboth, 2014)39_.

In this chapter I have described my general research design and detailed the methods and analytical approach that I have used. I also provided an introduction to the

research sites with specific reference to the climate context – a vital facet of the

research before concluding with a discussion of the key limitations and reflected on the ethics of my research.

39 _{Some parts of this section have appeared in the published article by Tebboth (2014), the content for the}

4 Major determinants that affect the endowment and

entitlement to mobility