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.