Figure 2 . Boundary- Responsibility relationship of fieldwork
risk management
The figure shows how the data and information collected through analysis
provide the evidence that informs the knowledge base. This includes
obtaining the expert knowledge that can augment the existing knowledge
base. The inclusion of experts who have specific knowledge is assumed to
be positive in creating a knowledge base that is considered the ‘truth’
and perceived to be legitimate. This provides scope for further
evaluation by all involved in the risk management process and forms the
intersection of fact and value-based judgements. The interaction of
available scientific proof and value-based judgments is often
complicated when the broad risk evaluation is taking place and has a
direct impact on the decision outcome. As a result, final decisions are
inherently based on a combination of subjective and objective data and
information. As the model suggests, risk-informed decision-making is
mostly context-specific and constrains the ability to generalise. Thus,
having a context-specific understanding is important for effective risk
management.
The evidence gathered through data and information is provided in
partnership with researchers, supervisors and the ethics committee
involved in the research project. Accommodating a model of risk-informed
decision-making that has a partnership approach requires clear lines of
responsibility in establishing the knowledge base and decision-making.
This hypothetical boundary between creating the knowledge base and
decision-making is implicit and becomes apparent at the planning /
pre-fieldwork stage. This hypothetical boundary needs to be established
and managed pre-fieldwork and during the fieldwork stages in order to
produce a successful risk management plan. The responsibility for
establishing this hypothetical boundary involves a negotiation between
researchers, supervisors and the ethics committee at the pre-fieldwork
stage although the burden is tilted toward the institution, i.e.
supervisors and the ethics committee, which has the overall
responsibility and authority in reviewing and making decisions. However,
once the boundary needs to be managed during fieldwork, the partnership
dynamic changes and the responsibility shifts to the researchers, due to
their proximity to data and information and the need for time-critical
decision-making when responding to fluid adverse events. At this point,
the boundary is not hypothetical and the researchers are faced with real
events in real-time, which needed to be managed effectively in order to
mitigate risks.
Hence, at the pre-fieldwork stage, a lead role in the risk-management
process is undertaken at the institutional level, in checking that the
proposed research meets ethical standards and guidelines for the
prevention of harm and that appropriate risk assessment have been
conducted. As the final decision-making authority on whether or not to
grant ethical approval for the research to start, it must be satisfied
that such standards and guidelines have been given due consideration.
However, this lead role necessarily shifts to researchers during the
actual conduct of fieldwork, as they have the real-time,
context-specific understanding, and must make appropriate decisions when
facing risk events that may be fluid and time-sensitive. The non-time
critical emerging risks should be evaluated by the researcher and
communicated to supervisors as appropriate to facilitate broad risk
evaluation. At this point, it is a supervisory responsibility to inform
the ethics committee, if warranted, for further review and decision
making.
The management of this boundary has implications that are not always
fully considered in research. This paper provides examples of the
implications of this and suggests some positive ways forward for risk
management in research. It seeks to aid researchers in effective risk
mitigation when faced with real-world, real-time risk events. Facing
these risks as an individual researcher can become challenging, given
the changing nature of the above boundary, which shifts from being
implicit, hypothetical and timeless at the pre-fieldwork stage to
becoming explicit, real and time-defined during fieldwork. If this
boundary is not carefully managed, there can be a blurring of
responsibilities within the partnership for managing fieldwork risks.
This article intends to highlight this gap by placing researchers at the
centre of safety protocols. Further, the safety of researchers and
participants is interrelated; thus, prioritising researcher safety will
arguably enable researchers to effectively assure participant safety.
Moreover, this article intends to provide a theoretical understanding of
risk management, highlight the importance of proactive planning and
emphasise the value of decision-making when doing fieldwork in high-risk
post-war zones.