Qualitative Approach

The reason for dominant use of the qualitative method in this research is because this research is a case study. Neuman (2011) has pointed out that in case study research, a researcher investigates social features in depth and detail, often in a qualitative form. The qualitative method is an inquiry aiming to understand larger social phenomena of which the qualitative researcher is an integral part (Denzin and Lincoln 2005). The qualitative method is appropriate in this research because it is concerned primarily with process rather than outcomes (Creswell and Plano Clark 2007; Bogdan and Biklen 1982). The qualitative method is strongly focused on participant perspectives and seeks to uncover the essential meaning behind their life experiences (Bogdan and Biklen 1982).

In this study, data collection involves primary and secondary data. Primary resources come from fieldwork involving observation, focus group discussions and in-depth interviews. The main research tools are observation, focus group discussions (FGDs) among young adults aged between 18–24 years25 and in-depth interviews with key informants.

3.3.1. Participant Observation

In fieldwork, it is important to gain insight into the political and socio-economic situation of the area and its surrounding borders. Participant observation is an excellent method for doing so. It is a form of sociological research methodology in which the researcher takes on a role in the social situation under observation. Researchers employing participant observation aim to experience events happening in the research field sites to understand participants’ perception and interpret the nature of social reality in the field. By immersing herself in the field through key actors in that location, the researcher can observe local community and group meetings including participants’ actions in everyday life (Neuman 2011). Participant observation is very useful not only because the researcher

25

According to the UN Secretariat, youth and young people refer to individuals aged between 15–24 years old. However, the definition of youth changes with circumstances depending on

can experience transnational forced migrants in their everyday life through direct observation, but also because it allows the researcher to examine, analyse, understand and explain the social world under study and the underlying logic of participants’ experiences and actions on a daily basis (Neuman 2011).

Advantages of the use of participant observation include being able to observe the group of participants in its real-life field setting and data may also be openly recorded (Neuman 2011). The most important problem with observation is, however, observer effect. The presence of the researcher may alter the behaviour of those under study as the participants may feel offended ‘once they know of an authorised invasion of their ‘privacy’26 for research purposes’ (Neuman 2011, p.150). On the other hand, they may enjoy it and play to the researcher.

3.3.2. Focus Group Discussions (FGDs)

The focus group discussion (FGD) is a qualitative research technique ‘in which people are informally interviewed in a group discussion setting’ (Neuman 2011). The researcher can collect data through interaction with certain groups on a guided topic (Morgan 1997). FGDs provide an in-depth understanding of participants’ experience and knowledge relating to the topic. With FGDs, a structured group process is employed to obtain detailed data about certain circumstances. The focus group discussion is an effective tool, because it can obtain the consensus of groups about the discussed topics during the process (Kitzinger 1994). In the FGDs, the researcher acts in the context freely, and on the basis of a research theme can formulate a research question or checklist and employ neutral probing (Sarantakos 2012). Furthermore, Morgan (1997) points out that FGDs can be used in combination with participants’ observation. With a very clear approach and careful selection of participants, FGDs can provide useful data (Neuman 2011).

In this research, qualitative methods applied to three focus group discussions with stateless youth were organised at local level. The target groups of FGDs were stateless young adults who were born and have lived in and around the areas along the Thailand– Myanmar border. In this research, stateless young adults are aged between 18–24 years who are about to finish basic education and find their first job. The focus group

discussions were scheduled by NGO and INGO officers who referred the researcher to a variety of community schools and public education institutions in order to select the participants. Snowball sampling was employed to identify a simple pattern of networks and relationships between the stateless youth in certain areas (Neuman 2011, p.209).

For the FGDs involving young adults, the researcher used various techniques including games, plays and art to approach the youth and for youth to tell their stories and be able to express their feelings. The researcher also prepared an FGD guide prior to the event (see Appendix 2). However, it was important that the focus group participants be selected from different social groups in order to obtain a variety of experiences, and to avoid privacy and confidentiality issues; participants were not close friends or relatives, but around the same age level in order to minimise the sense of hierarchy (Neuman 2011, p.459).

Figure 3.3: The diagram of focus group discussions

Source: Developed by Ladawan Khaikham, 2016

Each focus group discussion consisted of four to six youth participants aged between 18 and 24 years. FGDs were conducted in two fieldwork sites: two groups of youth participants in Chiang Mai province and two groups of youth participants in Mae Sot district, Tak province. In total, there were 19 stateless youths who participated in FGDs.

Focus Group Discussions Five participants, Chiang

Mai province

Four participants, Tak province

Six participants, Tak province Four participants, Chiang

Each FGD lasted for approximately one and a half hours in a community where participants were familiar with the atmosphere.

3.3.3. Semi-structured In-Depth Interviews

The semi-structured in-depth interview with key informants is a common qualitative method (Mack et al. 2005). It is essential for improving understanding of the problems of statelessness, lack of citizenship and their impact on stateless youth in temporary shelter areas along the Thailand-Myanmar border (the first research question) and national security policy (the second research question and part of the fourth research question). As Bouma (2000) has argued, the strength of in-depth interviews is their ability to ‘provide the greatest opportunity to find out individual thinking or feelings, or how they react to various issues and situations’ (Bouma 2000, p.180). As suggested by Kvale (1996), the research employs the process of thematising, designing, interviewing, transcribing, analysing, verifying and reporting data obtained by this method.

The researcher prepared and used an in-depth interview guide (see Appendix 3) as instrument during the in-depth interview process. Some of the respondents were selected with assistance from the shelter committee and with the collaboration of local ethnic groups. The range of key informants interviewed in this research is as follows:

1. Four parents of stateless youth

2. Three school teachers teaching stateless youth

3. Three NGO/INGO representatives working with/for these stateless youth

4. Two government officials working with stateless youth

In total, there were 12 various key informants in the in-depth interviews. The semi structured interviews were conducted by using open-ended questions as they were expected to gain an in-depth understanding of participants’ knowledge relating to statelessness and Thailand’s national security policies. This explored their views on the statelessness situation, the problem of statelessness, lack of citizenship and their impacts on the human rights of stateless young people. Each in-depth interview was conducted for one hour to one hour and a half. All respondents were interviewed in their community in Thailand where they felt safe. No one was interviewed in his/her home village in

Myanmar, although the interviewees were asked about conditions existing there before they fled.