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.