Both primary and secondary data has been collected and assessed for this study. The secondary sources include books, journal articles, NGO, CSO, UN, and state government reports and websites, news media, and a variety of other grey literature (unpublished reports and policy
documents).278 News media reports, audio-visual material such as documentaries and other images and footage of civilians, NGOs and NSAGs in the region that were available were also examined to provide extra input that increased the available information and some
corroboration of other sources.
To reduce the inevitable gaps in the available information, the issues, were assessed in detail across four NSAGs as units of analysis, (mini case studies within the case). The chapter dealing with humanitarian
engagement actors and processes also included information on three further Burma NSAGs besides the four examined in the detailed case studies. The extra groups, however, reflected many of the same attributes of those that were included in the detailed case studies. This helped deepen the understanding of the engagement processes, in particular.
While there was similarity across the NSAGs, they also differed on some
275 The author worked as a volunteer with NZ Refugee services at this time, working with new Burmese refugees to NZ and the existing Burmese refugee community.
276 See, below regarding details of the field work and interview processes.
277 See further below in this chapter, regarding the process of selection of interview respondents.
278 Lena Dahlberg and Colin McCaig, eds., Practical Research and Evaluation: A Start to Finish Guide for Practitioners (London, UK: Sage,2010), 83-84.
92
vital issues such as ceasefire status, geographic dispersion, or economic support base.
Obtaining the perspectives of affected civilian populations in rural ethnic areas of NSAG control or influence was problematic. This was due to the difficulties presented by official denial of access to conflict-affected ethnic areas inside Burma, the range of different ethnic languages spoken in these areas, and the limitations for a researcher who was a western foreigner. While it was possible to access a couple of NSAG controlled areas, with NSAG permission, from across the Thai-Burma border, access to ethnic NSAG controlled civilian areas within Burma more generally was less practical. However, a valuable dataset of video interviews of villagers from rural township areas where NSAGs were active in Karen, Mon and Karenni states was collated in 2013 by a grouping of Thailand-based INGOs, The Border Consortium (TBC).279 Local CSOs working with the TBC, and often working cross-border from Thailand, were able to ask a set of questions of villagers in these areas. The ‘What Villagers Say’ interview videos were conducted in the appropriate local languages, and most were then translated with Burmese subtitles.280 A trusted local translator who spoke and read Burmese and Karen was enlisted by the researcher to further translate and transcribe these videos (available online from the TBC YouTube channel) into English. This data set was useful as it enabled perspectives from the affected populations to be considered.
Questions that were asked of the villagers in the videos included their opinions on the ceasefires between the government and ethnic armed groups since 2012, their protection and security concerns, the potential return of refugees, and basic living conditions in their areas.281
Most of the primary data for this study was collected through
approximately 65 formal semi-structured interviews, as well as four focus group discussions, and numerous personal communications and
observations. Interviews were conducted with the range of actors involved
279 The Border Consortium, "The Border Consortium (TBC),"
http://www.theborderconsortium.org/.
280 There was one short 10-minute summary that already had English subtitles.
281 See, for example, TBC, “What Villagers from Kyaukgyi Township in Southeast Myanmar Say…” https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCRy4VF4tReMOuOPG_ahhdwg
93
with the NSAGs and with the issues under consideration. The author also kept a research journal during fieldwork recording thoughts and
impressions of situations and developing ideas as they came. Any relevant personal communication that occurred in day to day conversations, work, or other situations in the field that provided further insight into the topic was also noted in the journal. In some instances, these have been called upon when they add depth, or another perspective, to a particular issue.
As Lisa Brooten and Rosalie Metro point out, in discussing the ethics of research in Burma “it is wise not to leave the scene of your research without contributing something to it — at the very least your time, and financial support or labor may be appropriate.”282 As part of the fieldwork process the author undertook periods of volunteer work with some local, mostly education-focused, organisations on the Thai-Burma border and inside Burma. These activities included teaching, working on project funding proposals, and drafting and editing documents and material for locally developed text books. This was a way to contribute a little to the communities and organisations in which the author was involved and improve understanding of the local context. It also produced further contacts in the course of these activities leading to further interviews.
Working with local education organisations known to other local
organisations, and to some NSAGs, and sometimes having an introduction from respected individuals from some of these, was often recognised by interview subjects when making first contacts via email, phone or in person. It also assisted when making introductions and establishing rapport at the outset of interviews.
Interviews
The interviews were semi-structured so as to allow flexibility to follow other valuable directions instigated by the interviewee that may not have been initially anticipated by the researcher.283 Most interviews were from 45
282 Lisa Brooten and Rosalie Metro, "Thinking about ethics in Burma Research," Journal of Burma Studies 18, no. 1 (2014).
283 Dahlberg and McCaig, eds., Practical Research and Evaluation: A Start to Finish Guide for Practitioners, 130-32.
94
minutes to just over an hour depending on the circumstances of the respondents and what they could offer on these topics.
The selection of participants was initially carried out by a purposive sampling strategy. This is where “those sampled are relevant to the research questions being posed,” and “differ from each other in terms of the key characteristics relevant to the research question.”284 The aim of this approach was, therefore, to gain multiple perspectives from relevant stakeholders involved with or affected by the issues under examination.
Individuals drawn from organisations within three broad categories were approached for interviews. These categories were humanitarian
engagement actors; observer groups; and NSAGs.
Humanitarian engagement actors were from those organisations working directly with NSAGs on humanitarian issues. This included international, national and local organisations. Some of these organisations specifically worked with NSAGs on humanitarian norms, landmines or child protection.
Other groups were engaged with NSAGs as part of work dealing with human rights, refugee or IDP protection, health, welfare, or education. The
‘observer’ actors provided perspectives on the wider context of
populations, NSAGs, economic and political conflict dynamics, and often on the role of the state itself in the conflicts and ceasefires. Some were from international agencies or local civil society, while others were long-term academics, researchers or journalists, with considerable knowledge of Burma, its ethnic conflicts and NSAGs. The ‘NSAG’ actors provided perspectives specific to the NSAGs themselves, their view of the issues, their policies and practices, and of any agreements they have made or other action they have taken in relation to the issues. Further interview participants were able to be incorporated due to snowball sampling where other interview subjects with useful knowledge and or experience were suggested to the researcher by those that were initially interviewed. That is where “sampled participants propose other participants who have had the experience or characteristics relevant to the research.”285
284 Bryman, Social Research Methods (4th Ed), 418.
285 Ibid., 424.
95
An important aspect of this study is also to examine alternate viewpoints and explanations for changes (or not) observed in NSAG behaviour and the material and social factors believed to influence them. Triangulation of information from interviews was, therefore, sought from other sources including news media, journalists and other observers. This enabled some method triangulation, through using both interviews and analysis of local and international media, and data triangulation, by including interview data from interested stakeholders and from observers with more objective distance from the issues.286 This diversity of method and sources helped verification and also consideration of alternate viewpoints or explanations of the information gained from the NSAGs and humanitarian actors who were the principal focus of the study.
Recruiting participants
Contact emails and phone numbers of staff working for particular organisations of interest to this study were compiled and they were approached initially by email or phone. Many interview subjects came to the attention of the researcher or were recommended by others, once in the field. In some cases, potential participants were met during the course of day-to-day activities. The author also had some existing personal contacts with people working for local organisations in the Thai-Burma border area who were also able to provide further initial contacts.
Information and consent for participants
Information about the study was initially developed into a one-page document that was sent as an email attachment to prospective interview participants, or given to them in person as background prior to
commencing the actual interview. As the process for generating interviews progressed, the most relevant details from the form were condensed to a shortened version that was sent as a part of the text of emails requesting interviews. Each email was customised to the organisation and individual wherever possible. The information outline and emails briefly introduced the researcher, explained the research focus, requested an interview, or
286 See, regarding types of triangulation, Jonathan Grix, The Foundations of Research (Second Edition) (New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan, 2010), 135-37.
96
recommendations for others known to the recipient who could give one. It also offered anonymity for the participant and for their organisation, and thanked them for their consideration of the request.
A consent form to be signed by respondents was originally developed prior to fieldwork, and modified slightly during the process. While it was feasible in situations where the interview subjects could read in English to use this, in some situations where a translator was involved, it was easier to explain the nature of the form via the translator. In some more spontaneous
situations, it was also not always feasible to interrupt the flow of
conversations or group discussions for the purposes of signing a form.
The decision to offer blanket anonymity to participants also made the main reason for the form largely redundant, since participants were no longer required (as was asked on the form) to choose whether to be anonymous or not; they all were. Nonetheless, where possible, the forms were still used and collected as they also presented proof of the interviews having been conducted.
Anonymity and recording interviews
All interview participants were offered anonymity for themselves and for their organisation. Some participants generously agreed to their names being used in the consent process. However, for the future security of participants the decision was made to not identify individuals. However, some organisations that people represented are acknowledged if that participant agreed to that organisation being named. In some instances, interview participants within the same interview, spoke ‘on the record’ as representatives of organisations, and ‘off the record,’ in providing more sensitive information they did not wish identified with themselves
personally or their organisation. This information has, where feasible, been used without compromising either personal or organisational anonymity.
The off-record input, where it is valuable to the study, is incorporated, but it is not attributed to any specific organisation and, if quoted, is assigned a second different designation, and different time and place. Most interviews were able to be voice recorded and transcribed as soon as possible
afterwards. A few participants requested not to be recorded, and hand
97
written notes were taken during those interviews. All identities and interview data are safely stored and remain in the possession of the author.
For members of international or national humanitarian organisations, the offer of anonymity was mostly for protection of their positions or careers inside their organisation. This would be the case with most studies involving interviews of members of an organisation if, for example, they were critical of some aspect of that organisation. The sensitive and confidential nature of some engagement activity and negotiations
conducted by NGOs and by NSAGs was another reason why anonymity for staff was maintained, and why anonymity for organisations was also required in some instances. Former or current members of NSAGs were offered anonymity expressly for their personal safety.
Translation
While most interview subjects spoke English to varying degrees of
proficiency, in some instances an intermediary translator was required. In these situations, the translation was performed by someone known to and trusted by the participant. This was usually done by another person from the same, or an associated, organisation to that of the respondent. This helped the respondents to relax and reduced any potential concerns over security if unknown translators had been brought in from outside.
Semi-structured interview prompts
The interviews followed a short set of thematic areas and prompts based on the questions and central issues of concern to the study. These were:
Landmines, their use or non-use, NSAG policies, practices, or agreements regarding these;
Children affected by armed conflict and/or associated with NSAGs, NSAG practices, policies, or agreements regarding these;
Identification of wider political, social, economic or military factors respondents believed influenced the humanitarian situation and the role of the NSAGs regarding these issues;
98
The policies and practices of other actors that engage with armed groups on these matters; and,
Opinions, perspectives, or anecdotes of the respondents about the issues, NSAGs or actors engaging with NSAGs.