This roundtable event brought together researchers with experience of carrying out research within conflict and post conflict contexts.  The aim was to explore the methodological considerations particular to situations of conflict across a range of topics:

• effective approaches to involving disadvantaged and ‘hidden’ groups in research on education and conflict;
• the concept of ‘disadvantage’ in situations of conflict and division;
• the relationship between conflict and disadvantage in children and young people’s lives;
• the ethical dimension of research with those most affected by conflict;
• insider/outsider perspectives and issues of researcher reflexivity;
• the purpose and impact of educational research with the most disadvantaged in situations of conflict.

Introductions

Professor Joanne Hughes, Queen’s University Belfast
Professor Hughes gave a welcome to the event on behalf of BERA and outlined the benefits of membership for those non-members in attendance.  She reminded delegates of the various bursaries available to facilitate member attendance at events within the organisation and for representing BERA at external events and conferences.   

Dr Rebecca Loader, Shared Education Centre, Queen’s University Belfast
Dr Loader welcomed delegates to the event and gave an introduction to the Shared Education Centre.  She outlined the focus of current research within the Centre which related to intergroup contact and intergroup relations.  This research has included a longitudinal study, involving a systematic review, of the impact of shared education and the development of a shared education programme which has been made government policy in Northern Ireland from 2015. 

She further discussed how the approach had been adopted to other contexts, namely Cyprus, Macedonia and South Africa.  The Director of the Centre, Professor Joanne Hughes, has recently been appointed as UNESCO Chair for Globalising Shared Education in recognition of her contribution and ongoing commitment to peace building through the promotion of intergroup contact and intercultural dialogue

It was therefore appropriate that this seminar be hosted by the Shared Education Centre at Queen’s which has a commitment to shared education and the development of methodologies which allow research to capture the range of perspectives of those living in situations of conflict or division.  This seminar aimed to bring together expertise from a range of disciplines to explore how we can research in situations of conflict but with a specific focus on the methodologies that we can use in accessing the voices of the most disadvantaged.

Seminar Sessions

Please note that seminar session presentations have been made available on the BERA site https://www.bera.ac.uk/event/methodologies-for-researching-with-the-most-disadvantaged-in-situations-of-conflict

Session 1: Integrated education in Israel: Anthropological reflections on the negotiation of identities and conflicting narratives

Dr Zvi Bekerman, Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Examining this ethnographic research in integrated education in Israel allows us to see the complexities of researching social realities in the context of Israel and the difficulties of collecting data.  An understanding of the context can be likened to Birdwhistell’s image of a rope which is made up of multiple threads which are, themselves, made up of multiple fibres.  The fibres might be seen as the key stakeholders and issues in research: children; parents; and policies.  In order to understand the identities and narratives of the researched and research we much acknowledge the multiple and often conflicting perspectives. 

Cultural issues are easy to be taught in schools and National narratives are difficult.  One example is the differential value placed on the learning of a second language (Arabic or Hebrew) at secondary school.  The higher status accorded to the learning of Hebrew among Palestinian children is indicative of its position as a necessary tool for social mobility in accessing the dominant culture within the Israeli-Palestinian context.  The research demonstrated that children attending integrated bilingual schools have much more complex views on Israeli-Palestinian conflict. 

The findings show strong support among teachers for Allport’s contact theory which allows us to: Re-examine dualistic epistemological perceptions; Re-examine and re-evaluate concepts of cultural identity which are shaped by, and shape political and social organisations; and to Re-examine understandings of what learning is, and might be.  In the context of schooling learning has more to do with the learning situations that we create and where these are not working they must be challenged and reinvented.  However, we must be aware that the problems that adults perceive can often differ greatly from the perceptions of children and young people.  We must be sure that our research does not result in adults finding solutions to problems that children do not have.

The research demonstrated the difficulties of separating socio-historically constructed understandings of identity and culture.  In contexts where identity and culture match this process is not problematic but in conflict and post-conflict societies a simplistic approach must be problematized because of the mismatch between identity and culture, and multiple identities and cultures.  For these reasons identity needs to be explained and not assumed.  We need to think of identity and culture as practices.  Reconceptualising identity and culture will allow us to research differently and more effectively.

The structures of schooling are based on societal structures and cannot be held responsible for addressing differences and inequities.  However, where a structure is compartmentalised, it cannot effectively address issues of difference and separateness within societies.  By falling into old patterns of interpretation research would sacrifice the potential for being sufficiently analytical.  This suggests a need to move away from epistemological questions and towards ontological considerations in order to address issues of identity and culture.  By avoiding methodological nationalism researchers can seek to achieve ‘objectivity’ but not within a positivist interpretation of objectivity.  Identity and culture are not the criteria we should use to describe the world.  Instead we need to seek out new ways, or new literacies, for children to describe identity and culture.  Labels and boundaries need to be challenged and the lack of theorisation in peace education needs to be addressed.  Totalizing conceptions and positivist approaches ignore contextual and historical factors

Need to be realistic and not falsely ‘optimistic’ if education is to address reconciliation.  Education cannot have the dual objectives of learning and ‘sorting out’.  The only way we can ‘sort out’ is to make real the belief that the sorting out is happening objectively.  By continuing to accept the use of the existing language of ‘achievement’ and ‘intelligence’ we are allowing a shift of focus away from fundamental inequities because these are hidden in language.  To address division in education we need to move beyond the limited provision of integrated education, which is for the rich and privileged, and look at other models.  Examples like the Shared Education model can redefine our understanding and improve the potential for positive change for those living in conflict affected societies.

Session 2: Researching youth marginalisation and punishment: reflections on critical social research in ‘post conflict’ Northern Ireland

Dr Siobhan McAlister – School of Social Work and Social Policy, Queen’s University Belfast
Young people are a marginalised group and, therefore, marginalised youth are among the most disadvantaged.  This group may have additional vulnerabilities, complex and multiple issues and life experiences.  Those living in communities affected by the conflict and legacy of the conflict are experiencing a ‘double disadvantage’ which adds an additional layer to their experience.  Not only are they punished by the criminal justice system but also within their communities and potentially by paramilitaries. 

The Risks, Rights and Justice (RRJ) research project was carried out to gain an understanding of youth experiences in three key areas: Negotiation of safety and risk in areas with paramilitary presence; Attitudes and experiences of informal justice; and Child protection and children’s rights.  The research engaged with three communities (1 Republican, 1 Loyalist, 1 both) with high level of paramilitary attacks and lower level manifestations of paramilitary activity.  Using Interviews with adult service providers and young people (aged 16-25) the research explored risk, rights and justice.  The research had a particular focus on children’s rights within this context of paramilitary presence.

The research was considered sensitive in the three domains generally used to define ‘risk’: intrusive threat; threat of sanction; and political threat.  In addition to the sensitivity of the research it was also with a ‘vulnerable’ group.  These issues presented additional challenges in terms of ethical considerations and the participation of young people in particular.  In addition to problems of access, safety and time there were political constraints and lack of funding for critical research.  Ethical approval required the research team to navigate multiple layers of ethical research governance and tended to focus on the potential harm rather than the potential good of the research.  These complexities mean that researchers tend not to engage with the most difficult issues and gain access to young people through schools.  This approach directly excludes many of the most vulnerable and disengaged young people who should be at the centre of the research. 

Dominant sources of knowledge relate to access to, and exercise of, power.  These official sources: police statistics, media sources, and politicians then dominate the conversation and can hide the realities of the young people’s experiences due to under-reporting and under-recording of incidents.  Within this hierarchy of discourses the voices of young people and their communities are silenced: both because of the powerful discourses; and because researchers have not effectively engaged with them.  Critical social research creates a space to confront the dominant discourses and try to draw out the views of young people.  Research in this context has to address difficult issues by recognising that social research is political and challenges power. 

Gaining access to research participants is particularly problematic with closed communities.   Potential risks for research participants and researchers dominate conversations around access.   Researcher identity, the funding body, and the range of participants all need to be considered carefully to mitigate the potential barriers to access which may also be limited according to political or social perceptions.  In the case of this research the benefits of access through community and service providers meant that young people’s voices, and in particular the voices of marginalised youth, were central to the research.  Indeed, the young people were defiant in wanting their voices to be heard.  However, the limited barriers that young people experienced in sharing their stories raised additional issues because of the resulting duty of care on the researchers.  The young people interviewed had not reported their experiences to the police and this research is the only evidence that we have of their experiences. 

Protecting the participants and the sensitivity of the data was addressed by record keeping which had multiple steps in securing anonymity.  A further issue was the potential detrimental effect on participants’ emotional well-being and re-traumatisation.  Need to balance the need to create opportunities for young people’s voices to be heard but also to protect the participants from further harm.  The researcher’s used strategies to manage this: for example, active listening; and having ‘key workers’ on hand to talk to participants who were experiencing emotional difficulties a

Acknowledge the politics of knowledge production by recognising the factors contributing to the construction of knowledge and the role and position of the researcher in this process.  A key challenge at this stage will be resisting the possibility of replacing the missing discourse, of young people, with an academic discourse.

Session 3: Designing, delivering and evaluating interventions for war-affected children in Uganda and the DR Congo

Dr John McMullan, Stranmillis University College, and Dr Paul O’Callaghan, Education Authority Northern Ireland and Queen’s University Belfast
This presentation considered the challenges faced by the researchers in carrying out group therapy and mental health interventions for war-affected children in Uganda and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).  Prior to the design and delivery of the interventions preliminary work was undertaken to develop a collaborative approach with local providers: combining research evidence base and cultural understanding to address mental health issues present in each context.  The presentation considered the issues raised in two studies carried out in the two regions.

In the DRC the research team designed a Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) Group Therapy Programme using the best research evidence for addressing Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).  The programme was evaluated using a Randomised Control Trial (RCT).  Significant differences between the intervention and control groups were found on the four indicators of: Traumatic Stress; Depression and Anxiety; Conduct problems; and Pro-social Behaviours.

In Uganda the team worked to develop a teacher-led mental health intervention for secondary school students according to a needs analysis carried out on site. This intervention worked closely with local people, and teachers, to identify aspects of the traumatisation of young people which should be addressed by the school based ‘Living well’ programme which focused on young people’s mental health and development of life skills.

In both contexts the main challenge was around cultural appropriateness of the research, particularly in relation to researcher identity.  This was magnified by the context of the interventions, with the normalisation of child soldiers, and how this was not the case in the researchers’ background.  This research attempted to address issues coming out of the severity of the situations experienced by children and its unprecedented nature by applying concepts of western psychology in a culturally appropriate way at the local level. 

In designing the research interventions and studies the principles of ‘primum non nocere’ (‘Do no harm’) were used to create contextually appropriate intervention.  These were evidence-based, evaluated rigorously – using validated cross-cultural instruments for evaluation – and disseminated.  Using this process maximised the potential of the interventions to be culturally appropriate, effective and more widely used.  Where interventions are needs based, and focused on resilience, as well as psychopathology they are more likely to be effective. 

In contexts where individual therapy is not a realistic possibility for the vast number of traumatised young people it is important to use the social structures in place within the country: family, community and schools.  These interventions therefore made appropriate use of family and community networks.  It was important to involve local people in ‘community advisory boards’ to allow the researchers to address the potential differences in power and gaps in cultural knowledge.  Conceptions of mental health vary across contexts and this is where cultural awareness is really important.

Carrying out the research in the contexts presented three main challenges for the research team: security issues; practical arrangements; and the wellbeing of researchers. 

The security issues presented in the context of work in an active conflict zone raised significant ethical issues.  There was a very real risk to the lives of the research team and a number of safeguards were put in place to minimise these risks.  For example: compulsory attendance at UN security briefings for NGOs operating in the area and making use of Congolese army intelligence. 

Additional practical arrangements were put in place to ensure that the research team were as safe as possible.  For example: provision of radios, and carrying extra food, money and petrol; Arranging air travel where possible; Providing healthcare arrangements and vaccinations; Hiring people with essential skills; and developing an Emergency evacuation plan. 

Wellbeing of local researchers was addressed by providing staff training and emotional support.  Financial remuneration, to provide food and cover costs involved, was given to mitigate the wider impact on families.  However, this presented an additional ethical dilemma because the employment of the Community Advisory Board and local research support created a temporary wage inflation in the towns and villages involved in the research.

Roundtable Discussions

A roundtable discussion followed the main seminar sessions and asked delegates to reflect, in small groups, on the seminars and consider resonances with their own work in conflict and post-conflict contexts. 

The range of issues discussed were fed back to the group and included: Our power as researchers and the risks to us as researchers engaged in challenging power and existing power structures; The difficulties and necessity of engaging with vulnerable participants in our own context and other contexts; and need to share and challenge practices in divided societies because they can often be underplayed in the literature.  The overarching message was the importance of rethinking language around identity, culture and peace.