Emotional risks
For ease of discussion, physical and emotional risks are discussed
separately here, although it is important to note that they are
interrelated where there is the possibility of both physical and
emotional harm taking place at the same time. Although some associations
occur at the time, some may go well beyond the period of the fieldwork.
For example, the emotional harm that has occurred during fieldwork may
lead researchers to ‘self-harm’ later; therefore, restricting emotional
harm to the time span of fieldwork is problematic. Mattley (2002)
describes emotions as “social objects, formed by a social process,
generated by actors and groups who have rendered people’s feelings and
“emotional lives” of social significance”. These socially constructed
emotions are considered as ‘risks’ when they negatively affect
researchers.
Emotional risks tend to take a backstage position, due to their
intangible nature and the belief that researchers should distance
themselves from the data collected (Widdowfield, 2000). However, Punch
(2012) argues that emotional traumas are frequently unavoidable during
fieldwork and form part of the research process. Further, it is
acknowledged that there is an emotional cost of undertaking fieldwork in
qualitative research (Bloor et al., 2008). This highlights the need to
incorporate a proactive approach to emotional risk analysis; however,
mainstream research has frequently avoided or placed less emphasis on
the need to acknowledge the importance of emotional risk management in
the overall research process (Lund, 2012; Paterson et al., 1999; Sluka,
1990).
Modern wars have often been increasingly violent, with many casualties.
The effects on the victims often go beyond the war period, where victims
find themselves in a long-lasting struggle to overcome and heal physical
as well as emotional wounds and traumas. As such, researchers who are
engaging in fieldwork in post-war zones must accept that they will
inevitably come across victims of the war such as the wounded, the
disabled, rape victims and relatives that have lost their loved ones.
The stories they share with researchers will unavoidably be stressful
and researchers may find themselves experiencing the same pain by proxy
(Bloor et al., 2010), just as the victims of the war. Failure to
recognise the importance of emotional harm, in the beginning, may
overwhelm researchers and potentially compromise the whole research
process (Sanders, Munford, Liebenberg, & Henaghan, 2014). Having early
recognition of potential emotional harm will place researchers at an
advantage when it comes to managing and coping with emotional risks, and
accessing help.
The respondents and the natives of post-war areas may not consider
researchers as neutral, altruistic and friendly (Goodhand, 2000; Sluka,
1990), due to bitter experience and widespread distrust in post-war
zones. There is a potential to open up old wounds, to be targeted as
perpetrators and being accused of having hidden agendas against these
groups. For example, the researcher was confronted by a respondent
saying that the researcher is a ‘Sinhalese’ (the majority ethnic group
in Sri Lanka) and he bombed them and destroyed everything they had and,
after doing all that, now has returned to ask how they are doing. Then
she started crying, crying loudly until her mother came and consoled
her. Silence is probably a coping strategy for traumatised individuals.
For her, the researcher was the face of evil that destroyed everything
they ever had and the researcher had opened up old wounds. The mere
presence of the researcher created a negative situation. The researcher
did not feel good at that time partly because of sympathy towards the
respondent and partly due to been accused of something that the
researcher was not responsible for.
Although these situations are emotional for both sides, arguably they
help to understand and interpret the data collected in a ‘genuine’ way
in the specific context. In many instances, the researcher came across
victims of violence, injured and disabled by participants of the war who
had ‘stories’ to tell. These respondents were vivid in their information
and sometimes they were eager to share their horrific stories. These
emotionally charged discussions have the potential to overwhelm
researchers and have a long-term impact. The ability to anticipate and
understand the emotions of respondents whilst becoming familiar with the
background of specific post-war areas will help researchers to cope with
their own emotions, which may be negative and harmful. Researchers
should access the help of professionals when needed.