PRACTICE NOTES

First Encounters: Early Career Researchersand FieldworkPAUL GREADY*

This section of practice notes is written by early career researchers, reflectingon their first experiences of fieldwork in human rights-related settings. It hastwo sources of inspiration, the submission to JHRP of a practice note on thissubject (Browne and Moffett’s piece) and the subsequent realization by thejournal editors that although there is a growing literature on challenging field-work, there is little that directly addresses the challenges facing first timeresearchers. In the practice notes, authors address questions such as:

† What knowledge and skills should researchers have before first conductinghuman rights-related fieldwork?

† Are these requirements met by the training that NGOs, universities andothers provide?

† Are there attributes and sensibilities that can only be acquired by doingfieldwork (‘through research’—Darling, in this issue), and how should thedivide between the class or training room and the field be addressed?

The authors are from the global North working in the North, from theNorth working in the South, and from the South working in the South. Theycome from a range of academic disciplines, and reflect the fact that engage-ment with the practice and ethics of field research differs not only betweenacademia and practice, but also between academic disciplines. The selectionof notes presented here is by no means comprehensive. For example, none ofthe researchers conducted research on perpetrators, with the particular chal-lenges that such research brings. All are currently located in academia ratherthan NGOs or civil society groups, although each of the contributions reflectson the links between human rights-related research and pressure for socialand political change. The section also does not investigate what is specificabout human rights research—and uses the term ‘human rights-related re-search’ deliberately, to designate a broader category of research on violence,conflict, vulnerable groups, and so on. As such, a gap remains on questionssuch as what is distinctive about human rights research (subject matter? nor-mative reference points?) and how this label itself shapes research—forexample, victims may be more willing to talk to a ‘human rights researcher’,

* Paul Gready is Co-Editor of the Journal of Human Rights Practice (JHRP).

Journal of Human Rights Practice Vol. 0 | Number 0 | Month 2014 | pp. 1–6 DOI:10.1093/jhuman/huu013

# The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved.

Journal of Human Rights Practice Advance Access published July 10, 2014

but also have higher expectations and be placed at more risk (Dudai, personalcommunication). So this section is designed to be the start of a conversation.

What follows is a tentative attempt to provide some points of reference forearly career researchers considering fieldwork, and for trainers and organiza-tions or institutions with a responsibility to support such work. The list drawson the practice notes in this section and the experience of JHRP editors andothers in training early career researchers over many years.

1. Mind the gap: Integrate into training the fact that there is a divide betweenthe class or training room and the field. A distinction should be made betweenavoidable and unavoidable gaps. Avoidable gaps relate to training that is mis-directed or incomplete. There are studies which indicate that much trainingdoes not provide what employers or early career academics/professionalsneed (e.g. Carstarphen et al. 2010). What we are addressing in this section,however, are unavoidable gaps, those which cannot be fully addressed intraining or educational settings. Schon (1987) provides a helpful point of de-parture, with his distinction between the high ground and the swamp. On thehigh ground (training), manageable problems can be overcome by theoreticalor technical solutions. In the swamp (fieldwork) the reality is more complexand messy. ‘Indeterminate zones of practice’ are the hardest to prepare for:how do you anticipate and deal with uncertainty, uniqueness, and value con-flict (Schon 1987: 6)? These challenges can be partly addressed in training set-tings by emphasizing a kind of intelligence Schon calls ‘artistry’, and trainingwhich emphasizes ‘reflection-in-action’: ‘freedom to learn by doing in asetting relatively low in risk, with access to coaches who initiate students intothe “traditions of the calling” and help them, by “the right kind of telling”, tosee on their own behalf and in their own way what they need most to see’(ibid: 17). As such, even unavoidable gaps can be narrowed. While trainerscannot prepare early career researchers for every scenario they may encounter,they can, through methodologies such as role play and supported fieldwork,help researchers to develop the critical intelligence and ethical sensibility thatenables them to respond appropriately and humanely to the unforeseen andthe unknown.

2. ‘Immersive involvement’ (Darling, in this issue) and necessary boundaries:Prepare researchers for the fact that research on human rights and related con-cerns is difficult to neatly compartmentalize in time or space. In short, if youwant to do work that is all-consuming and challenges you at every level,human rights-related field research is a good choice. If you want a 9am to5pm job, do something else. That said, boundaries are important too, andresearchers need to be prepared to negotiate an appropriate balance betweenimmersion and necessary boundaries.

The challenge is that field research blurs boundaries between research andleisure/the social, between research and advocacy or seeking to help others

Paul Gready 2

and challenge injustices, and so on. As such, research is exhausting both intel-lectually and emotionally, and it holds up a mirror to the researcher inunusual and uncomfortable ways. Wamai (in this issue) reflects on how re-search in her home country, Kenya, shone a spotlight on her layered insider–outsider identity. Darling (in this issue) highlights how in working andforging relationships with asylum seekers in the UK, he came to (re)considerhis role as a citizen. In answering fundamental questions—Who am I? Whatam I doing here? What, if any, contribution can I make?—boundaries arerequired to enable the researcher to care for herself as well as others, and to berealistic about potential contributions.

Finally, it is important to keep faith in your ability to survive the process ofimmersion, however difficult it may feel at times. Jonathan Kaplan (2002: 26),a young doctor working in a hospital casualty department during apartheid eraunrest in South Africa, reflects on an operation he had to perform that pushedhim way beyond his comfort zone: ‘Inside this arena I had been lost, and thenrestored. I had learned that I could cope’. Trainers should talk openly about im-mersion and feeling lost, and invariably finding ways to cope and muddlethrough, as all field researchers have this experience at times; researchers needto hold on to the thought that they can cope. Darling (personal communica-tion) makes the important point that research is not a ‘lone or autonomousproject, although it can be a lonely one’, and researchers should be advised thatlearning to cope is in part about knowing when to draw on the support ofothers—friends, family, other researchers, supervisors, and so on.

3. Planning and flexibility: It is imperative to have a research plan; it is equallyimperative not to expect to adhere rigidly to the plan. Browne and Moffett (inthis issue) point out the potential for an enabling connection between the two:having planned and prepared well better enables you to adapt to changing cir-cumstances. You need to have been proactive, and plan, in order to be able toreact effectively to opportunities and threats. A form of immersion shouldtake place as part of the planning process, before the fieldwork begins—beyond the academic articles and the policy reports that are the basic fodderof preparation, researchers should immerse themselves in local radio andnewspapers, as well as novels and other creative media, to sensitize themselvesto local culture and concerns (Dudai, personal communication).

The rhythms of fieldwork inform the planning–flexibility balance. It isoften difficult to concretely plan very much from a distance. As such, earlydays can be characterized by waiting, phone calls, respondents not returningcalls or cancelling meetings at the last minute, navigating a new environment(street addresses have no numbers!), you or others being late, more waiting,more phone calls. This is not unproductive time; it is learning how to be pro-ductive. In contrast to slow beginnings, the end of fieldwork is often frantical-ly busy—17 interviews on the last day, plus social farewells, packing, and soon (Browne and Moffett, Darling, Wamai, in this issue). Given what is stated

3 First Encounters: Early Career Researchers and Fieldwork

in point 2 above, Browne and Moffett’s suggestion to keep a research or fielddiary is a good way of structuring reflection and self-care, as well as managingthe balance between planning and flexibility—finally, plan time out or relax-ation time, if you leave it to chance it will not happen.

4. Ethics: Conventional ethics training is necessary but insufficient for humanrights-related field work. Having some version of an informed consent formand information sheet, the foundational documents of ethics approvals pro-cesses, does matter. But such documents are designed for ideal type situa-tions—they assume that the interviewee is autonomous, understands theimplications of giving consent and that the relations of power in the interviewsetting are relatively equal. In reality interviewees are often vulnerable, rela-tively powerless, and mistrustful, while consent may have to be negotiatedwith communities and collectives rather than on a purely individual basis(Mackenzie, McDowell, and Pittaway 2007). Darling (in this issue) talks ofthe need to make ‘situated judgements which exceed procedural models ofethics’, and to negotiate consent as a process rather than a singular event. Thegoal should be the ‘best possible ethics’. If the bar is set at perfection nohuman rights-related research would ever take place. Some practitioner re-search is urgent; some interviewees can only be seen once, fleetingly. Situatedjudgements, a form of artistry, should replace a sole reliance on procedures;where possible process and dialogue should prevail.

5. Trust and access: Access challenges can be both geographical and social.Gaining access to, and travelling around within, a field site can be difficult (seeBrowne in this issue, on Palestine). The practice notes in this section attest tothe importance of having the right documentation from local and nationalgovernment agencies permitting research. In addition a ‘social permit’ fromlocal leaders (Wamai, in this issue), and carefully chosen gatekeepers, researchassistants, and translators, as well as social activities, may be required to buildtrust and rapport. This social element of research leads to what Darlingdescribes as ‘emotional entanglements’ and the above-mentioned ‘immersiveinvolvement’, while Browne and Moffett note:

Often trust was gained through a combination of personality, persever-ance and luck. Rarely do we read of the additional steps which research-ers should reasonably expect to engage in when working for a prolongedperiod of time in the field, yet arguably it is these ad hoc, bespoke activ-ities, whether engaging in and respecting local customs or taking part inunfamiliar social events, that are of crucial importance in helping to gen-erate a rapport with those identified as potential research participants.These additional activities are often as time-consuming as the researchitself and accordingly should be carefully considered when drafting atimeline for the fieldwork.

Paul Gready 4

6. Safety and security: Training is required in safety and security as it relates toresearch participants, the researcher and data, and as it informs preparations,the fieldwork itself, and post fieldwork activity. Elements of safety and secur-ity are interlinked. Data securely stored with an online data storage agencycan enhance all forms of safety and security (Browne, in this issue). Providingconfidentiality and anonymity is an ethical norm, and requires the teaching ofskills relating to field practice (e.g. where do interviews take place?) and datamanagement (how are identifiers such as names and places separated out andstored?). Training should introduce some of the basic tools, for example toolson risk and vulnerability assessment, as well as how to develop a security plan(Mertus 2009). Other measure are very context specific—Wamai (in thisissue), for example, talks of working with older, respected research assistants,as they were able to help her negotiate the local social and political terrain.

7. Expectations and reciprocity: All of the practice notes testify to expectations(from research participants) and desires (on behalf of researchers) with regardto ‘giving back’. Potential participants may feel over-researched and under-valued. They may have gained nothing from prior research. Local attitudesmay be informed by macro processes—International Criminal Court (ICC)investigations, a truth commission process—that shape the field for individualresearchers (Wamai, in this issue). Expectations can be financial or relate toanticipated political and advocacy support. There is perhaps just one goldenrule on expectations: make clear, modest commitments and keep them, ratherthan extravagant promises which are forgotten. The authors of the practicenotes found ways of giving back. For example, Browne and Moffett champion‘knowledge exchange’ (Moffett offered to local actors in Uganda knowledgeand explanation of ongoing activity at the ICC and relating to domestic legalproceedings).

To conclude, human rights-related research has particular characteristicsand challenges, including engagement with violence, violation and marginal-ity; the instability of the settings and individual circumstances; and the desirefor assistance and advocacy (Darling, personal communication). The first en-counter with such research is often a pivotal moment in a researcher’s career.This ‘First Encounters’ section is presented as a point of reference for thispivotal moment, but also as an invitation, to other early career researchers tosubmit similar pieces to JHRP, and to research and practitioner communitiesto take the needs of early career researchers more seriously.

Acknowledgements

A number of people provided helpful comments on earlier drafts of this intro-duction. My thanks to Ron Dudai, Brian Phillips, Lucy Harding, MichelleParlevliet, Irina Ichim, Jonathan Darling, and Njoki Wamai.

5 First Encounters: Early Career Researchers and Fieldwork

References

Carstarphen, N., C. Zelizer, R. Harris, and D. Smith. 2010. Graduate Education andProfessional Practice in International Peace and Conflict. United States Institute ofPeace, Special Report 246.

Kaplan, J. 2002. The Dressing Station: A Surgeon’s Journey. Picador.

Mackenzie, C., C. McDowell, and E. Pittaway. 2007. Beyond ‘Do No Harm’: TheChallenge of Constructing Ethical Relationships in Refugee Research. Journal ofRefugee Studies 20(2): 299–319.

Mertus, J. 2009. Maintenance of Personal Security: Ethical and Operational Issues. InC. L. Sriram et al. (eds), Surviving Field Research: Working in Violent and DifficultSituations: 165–76. London: Routledge.

Schon, D. 1987. Educating the Reflective Practitioner: Toward a New Design forTeaching and Learning in the Professions. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Paul Gready 6