Research ethics

3.4.1.

Ethics and ethical behaviour

This research has involved human participants as one of the elements in its data collection process. Following the guidelines of ethical conduct established by the Massey University Human Ethics Committee (MUHEC) was necessary prior to conducting the fieldwork in August 2013. The formal procedures required by MUHEC were fulfilled, and I was notified that my project was accepted as being low risk (see Appendix 1). Prior to the interviews, participants were informed about the objectives of the research in brief to gain their trust and agreement to participate in the research (see Appendix 4) and informed consent was given (see Appendix 5). Participation in this research was voluntary. Banks and Scheyvens (2014) and O'Leary (2004) suggested that informed consent help to protect the participants’ rights by showing their agreement to be involved in the research.

While complete confidentiality is difficult to achieve, I have attempted to focus on the position of the participants and organisations by which they are employed and their roles in the policy and planning development of BRT. This brings benefits not only in terms of concealing the identity of the participants, but also because it can highlight the tensions between different organisations and units involved in the BRT case study.

Ethical research recognises the role of power in undertaking the knowledge production process (Robbins, 2006). Although I gained informed consent from all participants at the central, provincial and city level of government, it is important to protect the confidentiality of participants (Banks & Scheyvens, 2014). This can protect the participants from harm and helps me to gain trust for further investigations in the urban transport policy and planning fields. Therefore, I have presented the results of the direct interviews with the participants by using direct quotation that associates the participants with their responsibilities, rather than their names. However, in other interviews and specific personal communication with other researchers and experts in urban transport policy and planning, their names are revealed. This ethical procedure was used for qualitative data gained during the interviews and personal communication and discussion with the participants.

3.4.2.

Research permits in Indonesia

Indonesian law requires researchers to apply for research permits before commencing data collection. Borovnik, Leslie, and Storey (2014) argued that research permission can come from official authorities and from local gatekeepers, which sometimes is complicated and time consuming. From government authorities, I was not able to access government data and conduct interviews with transport-related government institutions directly without applying to the appointed government agencies for research permission. I had to apply to separate government levels, such as East Java Provincial government, Surabaya City government, West Java Provincial Government, and Bandung City government, to gain the needed research permits (see Appendix 2). For research at the national level government, the researcher had to apply for a research permit to the Ministry of Home Affairs in Jakarta (see Appendix 3). During the fieldwork, receiving these formal stamps of approval from the government at a different level is not a guarantee that I gained all the data and information that I needed. This is because data and information availability is associated with different government organisations and the existence of local actors from both formal and informal sectors who also act as local gatekeepers. Banks and Scheyvens (2014) argued that the existence of local gatekeepers may control the researcher and the process of data and information collection. Therefore, I have had to gain research permissions to access both my participants and gain qualitative data for my research.

3.4.3.

Positionality and reflectivity

The issues of the research’s positionality and ethics are important to discuss in this chapter as suggested by Stewart-Withers et al. (2014). In Indonesia, I work for the West Nusa Tenggara Provincial government in the Regional Development Planning Agency (BAPPEDA). My daily routine is managing the spatial plan for the provincial level government. I have a familiarity with planning laws and regulations in Indonesia. This familiarity has helped to make connections between transport and transport-related policies from cross-sectoral sources. The positionality is reflected in my position as a government officer, which is beneficial for making a connection with participants within government networks. However, the subjectivity in seeing urban transport problems is embedded from a government-mind set or perspective, not from non-government and academic perspectives. I manage this challenge by accepting my position as a researcher

and I was doing my fieldwork to have comprehensive data in understanding the process, relationships, and interactions among multiple actors in urban transport policy and planning.

Scheyvens, Scheyvens, and Murray (2014) argued that positionality is also associated with ‘insider’ and ‘outsider’ notions that may influence the fieldwork practices. McLennan, Storey, and Leslie (2014) also argued that language can create barriers in doing fieldwork successfully. In my case, I was doing fieldwork in my own country, where I can be considered as an insider. There are no language issues because I am a native speaker of Bahasa Indonesia and also speak other local languages in Indonesia (such as Bahasa Sasak, Bahasa Bima/Mbojo), which enabled me to understand the content and translate it into English. There is no conflict of interest between me and the subject under investigation. However, from the case study locations, Bandung and Surabaya, I was an outsider, because I came from a different provincial government, West Nusa Tenggara Province. My professional experiences help to highlight some research insights and build my intuitions, particularly from my interactions with spatial plan development for transport planning and other non-transport related policies.

In terms of reflectivity, I was concerned that participants would only inform me about partial aspects, rather than whole stories. This is due to their perspective on the research under investigation about the low performance of BRT development in both cities. Differences are found in the information provided by government officials and local transport experts who have different interests in relation to the research under investigation. The relationships between the researcher and participants are equal (Dowling, 2000). However, I have limitations in gaining the whole stories from participants, especially research with the elite and powerful actors at hierarchical government levels. Scheyvens et al. (2014) argued that “gaining access to an elite group is often difficult” (p.201). During the fieldwork, I managed to interview the Mayor of Surabaya, by using my informal network that is well-known to the Mayor, but only for less than 20 minutes, In Bandung, the previous Mayor who dealt with the BRT project was in prison because of corruption charges and hence was not contacted for this research.