Potential Risks and Challenges

When conducting research by fieldwork that involves youth, in particular stateless youth, there are at least three potential risks. The primary risk of the research is unbalanced power relations between adults and youth. The second potential risk relates to the vulnerability of the youth, especially the stateless youth along the Thailand and Myanmar border who have been excluded from the society surrounding them. The last risk is the gap in understanding between adults and youth. The final risk applies directly to the researcher concerning personal security in a volatile context.

Unbalanced power relations between adults and youth are the primary risk of the research. Naturally adults in all societies have power over children and youth (Greig, Taylor and MacKay 2012). The dominating power relations between adults and youth may make them avoid answering questions honestly. In a particular culture, youth may be afraid that if adults are not satisfied with their answer, the youth may be punished. This problem can be minimised by the development of trust between the researcher and the youth participants.

As a result of the researcher’s past experience in the temporary shelter areas in Mae La refugee camp, she has developed excellent communication skills and a strong connection with local people. She also has deep local knowledge of the fieldwork sites and a robust understanding of the socioeconomic, cultural and environmental situation of the forcibly displaced people in her research areas. A communal meal as an incentive for research

livelihoods, as well as trust from the local community. The researcher believed that with strong trust gained from the targeted youth, her power over the youth would be minimised. Consequently, the researcher believes that the targeted youth provided her with honest answers. Moreover, the researcher always kept in mind that she was working ‘with’ the youth in a partnership. It is important to consider the inclusion and participation of youth in all aspects. This research could be seen as being in the best interests of the displaced youth, especially the fact that this research may have a significant beneficial impact on their future lives.

Youth participation is important because the research aimed to ensure that the opinions and experiences of the youth are not only listened to, but understood by outsiders (Tisdall, Davis and Gallagher 2009). Doing research with youth, the researcher ensured that the youth contributed to the activities so that their interests and views were not forgotten. Furthermore, according to article 12–13 in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child

(1989), everyone has the right to freedom of expression. Youth participants have a right to say what they think should happen when adults are making decisions that affect them, and to have their opinions taken into account. This right also includes freedom to seek, receive and impart information and all kinds of ideas, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media. Also the youth were assured that their views are given due weight in accordance with their age and maturity. For this purpose, the youth participants in this research were provided with the opportunity to hear the research proceedings and results that affect them, either directly, or through a representative or an appropriate body, in a manner consistent with the procedural rules of national and international law.

The second risk of this research is the vulnerability of the youth. All youth are vulnerable and this vulnerability is heightened in some groups (Greig, Taylor and MacKay 2012). The researcher acknowledged the fact that stateless youth were more vulnerable, because they were already singled out and different from other youth in Thai society. Therefore, word usage in a set of focus group questions for the youth, was selected and developed carefully. For example, instead of asking ‘where is your home?’ the researcher reframed the question by asking ‘where do you live now?’ to avoid the emphasis on ‘home’ which they would probably not have. This also avoids the youth feeling embarrassed, if they are reluctant to answer about home. The researcher also encouraged the youth to express their

thoughts through drawing and simple story-telling, if they prefer, instead of giving a direct answer, in order to minimise the risk that the process may do harm to their minds.

Drawing and simple story-telling by the groups of stateless youth led to the third potential risk. The third risk is the gap in understanding between the researcher and the youth participants. During data collection and analysis, the researcher’s interpretation of events may be significantly different from the perspectives of participants (Flewitt 2005). It is very important to note that youth understanding, concept interpreting, languages and cultures are developed in different ways from those of the adult world. To ensure appropriate understanding of their intentions, behaviours, drawings and story-telling, the researcher always consulted with their parents, teachers, and the NGO/INGO representatives who were working with them. This qualitative method is designed particularly for youth participating in an attempt to prevent potential harm and to avoid the ‘thwarting biases’ of researcher subjectivity that can mar interpretive research (Peshkin 1988, p.21).

In focus group discussions, each participant was provided equal time to explain meanings which underpin their behaviour, drawing and story-telling according to their own understanding. This activity can give the researcher better knowledge, information and a greater understanding of issues and concerns underlying that information. However, this activity was based on equality. It is emphasised here that it is their right and the researcher’s responsibility to ensure that all youth were treated the same (Greig, Taylor and MacKay 2012). The researcher ensured that all the youth were provided with equal access to information and resources.

The final risk applied directly to the researcher. Personal security was one of the key concerns for the conduct of the research. The researcher’s fieldwork was in confined temporary shelter areas. As mentioned before, the fieldwork location is in one of the most politically sensitive areas for Thailand’s national security as the areas are surrounded by the Royal Thai Army. In this regard, outsiders are not allowed to gain access to these areas easily. The researcher acknowledges this fact, so that she chose to conduct the research fieldwork in certain provinces where the refugees were allowed to work outside the camps on a temporary basis during the day. This means outsiders are allowed to visit the camp during the day. Some areas allow outsiders to access development projects as

volunteers, yet not stay overnight. Importantly, the researcher’s past experience in temporary shelter areas has developed her communication skills. Her ability to speak Thai and her position as a civil servant working in a leading university in Thailand allow her to gain access to the areas and communicate with the participant. At the same time, she was aware that these practices may be introducing biases to the openness of respondents, so that the development of trust between the researcher and the participants could minimise this risk. Furthermore, this research project has been supported by the Royal Thai Government scholarship. Therefore, the process of gaining permission to access the areas was well managed through the bureaucratic system of the Thai Government to ensure that there was no legal harm from the research practice.

3.8.Conclusion

This chapter discussed the mixed method approach adopted in the study. Multi-site fieldwork for the case study of stateless young adults was undertaken in order to answer the research questions mentioned in Chapter 1. The research data collection employed several qualitative methods; most notably, participant observation, focus group discussions with stateless youth and semi-structured in-depth interviews with stateless youth and key informants who work closely with stateless young people (including parents of stateless youth, school teachers and local government officers in the field). Since the research uses mixed-methods with the qualitative method as the dominant approach, the quantitative method is also used to answer the research question on Thai respondents’ opinions relating to the statelessness issue. Finally, potential risks and challenges were discussed. The next chapter discusses the problem of citizenship, statelessness and livelihood vulnerability along the Thailand–Myanmar border.

Chapter 4:

Becoming Stateless in Thailand