Thinking about Ethics in Burma/Myanmar Research.

Th n n b t th n B r R r h

Lisa Brooten, Rosalie Metro

Journal of Burma Studies, Volume 18, Number 1, June 2014, pp. 1-22(Article)

Published by NUS Press Pte LtdDOI: 10.1353/jbs.2014.0001

For additional information about this article

Access provided by York University (4 Jun 2014 13:49 GMT)

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/jbs/summary/v018/18.1.brooten.html

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/jbs/summary/v018/18.1.brooten.html

1

The Journal of Burma Studies Vol. 18 No. 1 (2014), pp. 1–22 © 2014 Center for Burma StudiesNorthern Illinois University

1

Thinking about Ethics in Burma ResearchLisa Brooten and Rosalie Metro

Burma’s colonial past, its years under military dictatorship, its ongoing ethnic and religious confl icts, and the current shift s in the political landscape all present unique challenges for researchers seeking to behave ethically with their infor-mants, their institutions, each other, and the public sphere. The recent upsurge of interest in Burma presents an oppor-tunity for scholars who study the country to refl ect on the ethical dilemmas they have confronted and to articulate how they have addressed them. It is our hope that this eff ort can help those who specialize in Burma to consider the norms and divergences that exist within our inter-disciplinary schol-arly community, and can aid those new to Burma Studies in navigating their research in a more informed manner. In light of the need for such a conversation, The Journal of Burma Studies agreed to publish this special issue.

The inspiration for this issue came from a panel discussion Rose organized at the 2012 Burma Studies Conference in DeKalb, Illinois, USA. Elliott Prasse-Freeman and Patrick McCormick both presented earlier versions of the essays included here, and Rose described her diffi culties with using consent forms in her ethnographic research with teachers on the Thai-Burma border (Metro 2014). The audience members, who represented a broad cross-section of the fi eld, raised a number of important issues that bear further exploration, and several tensions emerged that are echoed in these pages. In particular, a debate on the nature of objectivity between a senior and a mid-career scholar, both anthropologists, pointed to a generational paradigm shift toward an engagement with

JBS_01_Brooten&Metro.indd 1JBS_01_Brooten&Metro.indd 1 4/24/2014 3:38:09 PM4/24/2014 3:38:09 PM

Lisa BROOTEN and Rosalie METRO2

the inevitably political nature of Burma Studies. Another exchange, between McCormick, a US researcher based in Burma, and a Burmese person based in the US, highlighted what McCormick calls the “hierarchies of interpretation” in which the academic credentials and positionality of local and international scholars privilege some epistemologies over others. Additionally, several scholars brought up concerns with the consequences of conducting and publishing their research, whether that meant jeopardizing local contacts or having their work appropriated to ends they did not support. These discussions were thought provoking, despite the brevity, and when we found ourselves talking aft er the con-ference about the need for more discussion, we decided to continue the conversation in these pages.

Burma Studies, perhaps more than in other fi elds given that research opportunities were limited for decades, has a largely unacknowledged division between those who ascribe to an approach to research that seeks “objectivity,” and those who have come of age as researchers during or aft er what is variously referred to as the “refl ective turn” or the crisis of representation. This refl ective turn provoked researchers to acknowledge the inevitable human lenses through which all research is conducted and reported, and to argue that because a single objective account is impossible, a researcher’s posi-tionality becomes necessary to understanding their “lens.” This has resulted in charges of research politicization (by both camps) in a country that is already politically polarized, creating a landscape in which ethical decisions are especially fraught. The fact that Burma was under offi cial military rule until 2010, and that repression continues under the current government, raises the stakes of scholars’ decisions. All of these issues invite researchers to engage more deeply in refl exivity and to pay critical att ention to power, as well as to the specifi cs of context, when making decisions about what is acceptable in the fi eld, in relationships, and in publication. In this complex terrain, it seems clear that the most useful ethical guidelines will not be determined by an overarch-ing set of rules, but rather, as Maaike Matelski and Anne


Thinking about Ethics in Burma Research 3

Décobert suggest in their essays, by case-by-case negotiations unique to each sett ing. There are no easy answers; double-binds are common, and ethical decisions cannot be bracketed neatly so the conclusions remain “pure.” Unfortunately, the richest source of our potential refl ection — those mistakes we inevitably make in the fi eld — are rarely discussed or remain “hidden and backstage” (Fine 1993: 269; see also Altheide and Johnson 2011; Li 2008). We hope to generate a discussion here that makes ethical decisions central to research rather than peripheral to it, making them the subject of inquiry rather than its by-product.

For this special issue, we solicited traditional academic articles (Prasse-Freeman, Matelski, and Décobert) as well as less formal “refl ections from the fi eld” (Violet Cho, McCor-mick, and Busarin). Our goal was to fi nd contributions from both established scholars and younger researchers; from “insider” researchers with roots in Burma in addition to those from abroad; and from those in a variety of disciplines who conduct research with human subjects, historical sources, contemporary media, or other material. In fact, all the contri-butions we received came from researchers who are currently doing graduate studies or who completed their doctoral research within the past fi ve years. We are glad that ethics is an issue of interest to the emerging generation of scholars, but we also look forward to hearing the voices of seasoned scholars who have seen Burma Studies change over the course of decades. We are publishing one essay from a Karen aca-demic (however ambivalently she adopts the labels “Karen” and “academic”), Violet Cho, and one from a Thai researcher, Busarin Lertchavalitsakul, but the majority come from people based in or trained in the west. This imbalance refl ects the colonial roots of Burma Studies, an issue with which McCor-mick, Cho, and Prasse-Freeman wrestle in their essays. We were glad to be able to publish contributions from scholars who conducted research both inside Myanmar and on the Thai-Burma border, especially given the tensions that both Matelski and Décobert mention between “inside” and “outside” research.



Even as we publish these contributions from researchers with a variety of backgrounds, we need not be naive in assert-ing the equality of all interlocutors given power diff erentials, nor should we patronize those with less power by asserting that they cannot speak for themselves, as Prasse-Freeman and Matelski both point out. Words do have diff erent mean-ings depending on who says them (Prasse-Freeman), and we are glad that each of the authors included here has taken the time to explain their positionality so that readers can put their conclusions into context. In sum, we have sought throughout this process to question what we mean when we say “we” in Burma Studies, and we (Lisa and Rose) have encouraged the authors to be clear on this point in their essays, even as the “we” of Burma Studies expands and shift s.

Most contributors employed ethnographic or qualitative methods, and this is expected as such scholars oft en receive training in “research ethics” and come across messy ethical dilemmas in their fi eldwork. We are nevertheless curious to hear, perhaps during future Burma Studies conferences or in the pages of this journal, from those using quantitative methods or engaged in what is not traditionally understood as “human subjects research” about the ethical dilemmas they face. As McCormick’s article shows, even those not engaged in “human subjects research” face ethical dilemmas, including during inevitable meetings with librarians at archives, colleagues, competitors, and all the ordinary people one interacts with in the course of doing research. Both Matel-ski and Décobert point out that they received inadequate preparation in their graduate programs for the breadth and depth of ethical issues they would face when conducting ethnographic research, and there is oft en litt le or no instruc-tion in graduate programs in history, for example, on how to navigate human interactions ethically. Therefore, we hope that this special issue will be useful to scholars who advise students preparing to do any kind of research on Burma, regardless of methodology or discipline.

It is also important to note that this special issue is being published in a time of rapid fl ux in Burma. Matelski points



out that she conducted her research only a few years ago, yet conditions have changed considerably already. As a result, we do not present these essays as any kind of fi nal reckoning, but rather as a watermark in the post-2010 landscape. By publishing this special issue, The Journal of Burma Studies also tests how much the political situation in Burma has changed. Just a few years ago, the Journal’s editorial policy felt it must take into consideration whether its contents would be safe for readers inside Burma to possess, balancing giving access to its contents to readers inside the country with the needs of academics to address controversial subjects, as part of a range of ethical and expressive concerns. The recent liberalization has changed the landscape for such ethical considerations of expression and access. Authors in this issue mention contro-versial and timely topics, such as Buddhist-Muslim violence (Prasse-Freeman), ongoing clashes between ethnic armed groups and the Burmese army (Busarin), and the movement of refugees, migrants, and aid dollars (Décobert). Therefore we are grateful to The Journal of Burma Studies for publishing this issue. We know that academic and press freedom cannot be taken for granted and has its own ethical quandaries. We aim, as Prasse-Freeman and Matelski suggest is possible, to change the material situation for academics (and others) by expanding the discourses. In other words, by publishing these essays, we hope to make it more acceptable to bring up these controversial issues in print inside Burma.

In this Introduction, we highlight some debates that emerge from the essays in this issue, and distill a set of best practices for research in Burma, not as a totalizing project, but rather as a starting point for discussion. We hope this issue of the Journal will be useful not only to new scholars entering the fi eld, but also to those with considerable experience who are interested in the techniques and tensions that these contribu-tions raise. While we focus here primarily on issues facing scholars doing “fi eldwork” of some kind inside Myanmar or in the border areas, we hope the conversation started here will include more in-depth discussion of ethics in history, the arts, and other forms of scholarly analysis in the future.



Key Debates and Best Practices

At the 2013 Burma Studies Conference, an intense debate developed about the degree to which researchers need to make clear their role in conducting research and producing “fi ndings.” One senior (non-Burman) Burma scholar argued from the classic, realist ethnographic position that there is a “truth” to be found which ethnographers must work care-fully to get at; they must try to avoid “reactivity” and keep their research “clean” of any contamination by their own presence as a researcher. This scholar was reacting against those trained in more interpretive, constructivist, critical, or postmodern approaches to understanding meaning, who seek “narrative truths” rather than “objective truths,” and conceptualize reality (and research fi ndings) as multiple reali-ties, always partial, contextual, perspectival, and socially con-structed (Polkinghorne 2007: 9). From this perspective, the scholar is understood to construct meaning through the very act of writing.

This debate points us to questions of research credibility and ethics. The standards by which we evaluate research vary contextually, based on the standards of a particular discipline or community of scholars. Some argue that “any eff ort to standardize and limit qualitative research criteria is doomed to failure and irrelevance” (Altheide and Johnson 2011: 586). Yet while some scholars might work to prevent “reactivity,” so as to present an objective analysis, more recent analytical approaches demand that researchers include at the most basic level an “ethnographic ethic” of making transparent and refl exive one’s claims and perspectives as well as the process that led to their fi ndings (Altheide and Johnson 2011: 587; see also Alcadipani and Hodgson 2009; Ditt on and Lehane 2009). Given the premise that “the social world is an interpreted world, not a literal world, always under symbolic construction,” Altheide and Johnson call for validity to be judged by the work’s degree of refl exive accounting, which demands interaction between the researcher, the research



topic, and the sense-making process (2011: 585). Thus, researchers are encouraged to engage a high degree of refl ex-ivity, including how one’s positionality and methods may have aff ected data collection.

Other best practices have emerged for conducting ethical research. These include contextualizing the political, eco-nomic, social, and cultural aspects of the scene of study so as to address structural as well as local factors in a study’s fi nd-ings. Researchers are also urged to include as data multiple perspectives and a complexity that mirrors the complexity of the scene, including identifying and managing various stake-holders during the research process itself. The values, goals, and “biases” of the researcher must be made clear, and researchers must pay careful att ention to their discursive practices in presenting themselves and their work (see Altheide and Johnson 2011: 584; Ditt on and Lehane 2009; Fine 1993; Kovats-Bernat 2002).

Research in sensitive areas or on sensitive topics poses special ethical concerns for researchers, who rather than search for universal solutions to ethical issues, need instead to determine on a case-by-case basis the appropriate level of transparency regarding their research and how to navigate the dangers to the security and safety of their research participants and themselves. Kovats-Bernat (2002) suggests a “localized ethic” in which researchers draw on the tacit knowledge of local informants about what research risks are and are not appropriate, even if it runs counter to established ethical standards (see also Ditt on and Lehane 2009). We can see Busarin employing this tactic in her research discussed here. Some researchers argue that in certain circumstances, and despite the controversies involved, covert research can be more appropriate than complete transparency, especially in working to uncover stories of “troubled lives, so as to prevent a perpetuation of the stereotyping, stigmatization, and marginalization” faced daily by those so troubled (Li 2008: 101; see also Ditt on and Lehane 2009; Fine 1993; Kovats-Bernat 2002). Such an understanding requires taking account



of the complexities of the circumstances such people face in their lives, and as several of our contributors note, to do this requires the ability to remain methodologically fl exible and to make frequent adjustments as necessary in the research and in response to the varied levels of vulnerability of the participants (Gray 1980; Kovats-Bernat 2002; Li 2008).

Fieldwork helps reveal “the situated rationality of the context within which people’s actions make sense” (Parker 2007: 2249), and thus the ethnographer is able to get at the moral standards of a community revealed in local actions and behaviors that “actualize values both for collectives and for individuals” (Kleinman 1999: 71). In other words, ethnogra-phers are trying to describe how people’s behavior illustrates their underlying values and their logic. Ethics, Parker argues, is “an assemblage constituted by the organization of material objects in specifi c spatial and temporal relations” (2007: 2257). Since the ethnographer is required to negotiate values very diff erent from his own in a specifi c local context within this world of material objects and spatial and temporal relations, he or she is equipped to learn these values and act according to them in the context of her unique research site. We have structured the following discussion to refl ect ethical concerns that might be encountered during the various stages in the process of an unfolding research project, from planning the research to leaving the fi eld and producing the fi nal report.

Laying the GroundworkAs the essays collected here and the literature on research ethics in general propose, ethical obligations begin even before the researcher enters the fi eld. Such concerns begin when the researcher makes initial contacts, learns about the situation to be researched, and considers his own positional-ity in relation to informants, other scholars, and those with power over informants’ lives. Researchers need to be aware that, as they enter the spheres of scholarly and public debates, they are stepping into what Presse-Freeman calls a know-ledge-power matrix, in which “authentic” and authoritative



perspectives compete for primacy. As Décobert points out, consciously choosing a “positioned interpretation” allows scholars to acknowledge that their scholarship is aff ected by who they are, where they come from, and the political and personal sympathies they hold. This type of approach can be, at the very least, an inoculation against the naiveté of positiv-ism as well as the fallacy that all interpretations are equally valid.

First and foremost, then, it is important at this early stage for researchers to consider their positionality and how it aff ects the research. One point we noticed when editing this issue was that Western contributors sometimes used “we” and “our” to refer to a milieu of non-Burmese academics and specifi cally to those from the west. Violet Cho’s essay is a reminder that the Burmese “they” speak back and form their own academic theories; moreover, that “they” are neither unschooled masses incapable of reading this journal, nor “just like us” intellectually. As Cho points out, quoting Linda Tuhiwai Smith, the researched have been and continue to be mostly indigenous; however, she also thematizes the increas-ing hybridity of the scholarly community that Burma Studies authors must address. The boundary between assumed “we” and “they” shows the importance of the larger issue of refl ex-ivity. Scholars need not indulge in navel-gazing or include gratuitous detail about their own lives, but failing to consider where they come from and how they are received in the research sett ing leads to decontextualized research. Our posi-tionality implicates us in various regimes of power besides just that of the research sett ing — including various local, national and geopolitical contexts and the diff erent agendas at play in these arenas — all of which inform the research and should consciously inform our research ethics as well.

Having a sense of the power dynamics between research-ers and informants, as well as among informants, can help researchers prepare for the ethical dilemmas they may face. For instance, informants may consider researchers to be gate-keepers for the public sphere and shapers of discursive rep-resentations of themselves and their communities (Décobert),



and informants will unconsciously or consciously work to persuade researchers of their own perspectives (Matelski). It is important to note that there is no way for researchers to remove themselves from these messy dynamics; researchers may not be able to access data without connections to power-ful people (Busarin), and indeed those negotiations with informants construct important limits on researchers’ ability to speak for and on their behalf (Matelski). However, it is helpful if researchers expect these complexities to arise so they are not taken off guard, and so that they can see their engagement with ethical dilemmas not as a distraction from their research, but rather as an integral part of it (Décobert). In other words, scholars should be ready to att end to and learn from the ethical decisions they are forced to make, and may even consider discussing those dilemmas in the work they publish.

In this early stage, it is also important to consider the complexity of a researcher’s primary obligation: avoiding harm to participants. While reading about a culture can provide some preparation, it is diffi cult to know exactly what will be considered harmful in a fi eld site without a deep understanding of that culture (which is exactly what social scientists hope to gain through research). Inevitably, there is a trial and error process that can have consequences ranging from comical to grave. For instance, while Rose was living with a group of Burmese students in Thailand as a volunteer English teacher, years before she started conducting research, she made a common foreigner faux pas: she hung her laundry on a high clothesline in front of the house. Aft er several weeks during which many Burmese visitors were surely shocked and discomfi ted by her laundry, one of her house-mates took her aside to explain that many Burmese men believed that walking under women’s clothing damaged their spiritual potency. However, some feminist Burmese friends dismissed this concern as patriarchal superstition. Although she moved her laundry, she wondered if she was harming her feminist friends by upholding a convention that they felt designated women’s bodies as inferior or unclean. Living



with Burmese people brought up many such tensions between “culture” and social change, and Rose began research years later knowing that her research participants might not agree on what was “harmful.” While many researchers are not able to spend signifi cant time in their fi eld sites before starting research, it is valuable to gain some on-the-ground experi-ence before adopting the title of “researcher.”

In the Field

Trust and Informed ConsentOne of the fi rst issues that comes up for “human subjects” researchers is informed consent. This seemingly basic issue is in fact quite nuanced. Trust between researchers and par-ticipants is not just a matt er of training and technical proce-dures, but rather it is at the heart of research approaches based on interaction and building relationships. Several scholars question the assumption that informed consent can be antici-pated and agreed upon in advance or that scholars are even able to protect those with whom they work from danger, especially in confl ict-laden areas (Alcadipani and Hodgson 2009; Fine 1993; Kovats-Bernat 2002; Metro 2014; Parker 2007; Zavisca 2007). Parker argues that the anticipatory consent form arrangement is itself unethical, as obtaining consent undervalues the creative power of the relationships formed in the fi eld that involves “developmental and creative pro-cesses incompatible with the concept of anticipatory informed consent” (2007: 2252). Contextually appropriate consent is increasingly recognized as an “ongoing and developmental negotiation of the relationship between researcher and research hosts” rather than an agreement which can be understood and anticipated in advance of this unfolding relationship of trust (Parker 2007: 2253; see also Gray 1980). Kovats-Bernat’s “localized ethic,” mentioned earlier, relies on the expertise, wishes and will of the local people with whom one is working; he challenges the notion that the researcher is always in a position of power over research participants (2002: 214).



Some researchers working on Burma (Metro 2014) echo those scholars in other sett ings with a history of political repression (Atheide and Johnson 2011; Kovats-Bernat 2002) who have found that consent forms induce anxiety or are meaningless to informants because they commodify the research process. Some prefer to use verbal consent processes that can be particularized to the sett ing, and most university institutional review boards allow researchers to obtain consent verbally on recorded interviews if the consent form is too formal or literacy is low (Kovats-Bernat 2002). Consent is also a concern because many informants in and around Burma could be considered “vulnerable”: those who are stateless, recovering from trauma, or at risk of political repres-sion may be in less of a position to provide fully informed consent due to their vulnerabilities and/or because of real or perceived power diff erentials between the researcher and the researched. Anonymity cannot always be guaranteed if the organization, the sett ing, or the individual may be identifi ed even if anonymized. Yet, as Matelski points out here, there is a risk of paternalism if researchers assume that they know what is best for informants. Therefore a balance is necessary between trusting the instincts of the informant and using common sense as a researcher. As Busarin notes, researchers’ own excitement to access data may lead them to engage in behavior that puts informants at risk; therefore, researchers should probe their own motivations and consult with expe-rienced advisors before proceeding.

It is also important to acknowledge that the commitments researchers make to their informants must be weighed against the other personal and professional responsibilities research-ers have to governments, to their institutions, their funders, their families, and their academic communities; they may not always be free to treat their informants as they would choose to if they were acting in a vacuum. Like their informants, researchers exist in a web of relationships that demand responsiveness. Furthermore, the promise to protect partici-pants from all harm related to research, although standard



verbiage on consent forms, implies the researcher’s omnipo-tence, which is especially misleading in a context such as Burma, where power structures are shift ing and tenuous. Moreover, those boilerplate consent form phrases assume that the researcher and the participant would agree on what is harmful, which cannot be taken for granted especially when working across cultural divides (Metro 2014). There-fore, it is crucial to maintain a code of ethics grounded in the real world rather than in an ideal world, while at the same time striving to design projects responsibly and thoughtfully.

Illegality or Other Questionable BehaviorThe blurred boundary between legality and illegality is of special concern in Burma as the “rule of law” evolves. When scholars working around laws that they and informants alike may feel are unjust (for instance, laws that privilege certain ethnic or religious groups over others), they could make a reasonable argument that breaking the law is more ethical than following it. Yet even if most observers would agree that breaking a law would be ethical in a certain situation, it might still have negative consequences both for informants and for researchers. Moreover, acknowledging that such situations exist should not be taken as a carte blanche for lawless behavior.

Nevertheless, it is important to acknowledge that in some cases, “ethical guidance can have the perverse consequence of hiding ethically contentious issues,” for example in cases where confi dentiality agreements clash with observed illegal or otherwise problematic behavior (Alcadipani and Hodgson 2009: 139). These dilemmas become especially fraught when researchers observe informants acting in ethically problem-atic ways or when informants engage in culturally inappro-priate or taboo behaviors they may hide from others. Scholars cannot be expected to change an entire system steeped in corruption, yet there are situations in which refusing to go along with unethical behaviors may seem the most appropri-



ate decision. Busarin grapples with this topic in her contribu-tion to this issue. In a similar vein, Li (2008) describes her own dilemmas in conducting research on the culturally suspect phenomenon of female gambling; Alcadipani and Hodgson (2009) discuss their ambivalence about not speak-ing out aft er witnessing bullying and racist behavior for fear of jeopardizing confi dentiality agreements with participants and their research access; and Zavisca (2007) discusses her response to anti-Semitic comments during fi eldwork. All note the importance of ethical decision-making based on the spe-cifi cs of the context, and argue against universals. It is impor-tant for researchers entering Burma Studies to understand, as Busarin notes, that they may be interacting with people at various levels of power and responsibility, such as represen-tatives of state or non-state power who have the capability to make an illegal action legal (or vice versa); this situation, however, does not absolve researchers from ethical responsi-bility for the consequences of their actions.

ReciprocityReciprocity is a key theme in the essays here, echoing the thoughts of other scholars on its importance to the ethics of research and on the various forms it may take during research (Gray 1980; Lincoln 1995). Matelski and Décobert both describe the ways in which they contributed their labor and energy to their research participants, although both note the importance of sett ing boundaries in these interactions. It is wise not to leave the scene of your research without contrib-uting something to it — at the very least your time, and fi nancial support or labor may be appropriate. It is unrealistic to expect participants to give time and energy to researchers, and in some cases to go through considerable inconvenience, expecting nothing in return but the abstract satisfaction of having contributed to the advancement of knowledge. More-over, researchers should acknowledge that they are not the only seekers of knowledge — their informants want insight and information that may or may not overlap with what they



themselves seek to learn. At the very least, reciprocity suggests that researchers should share their writings with interested participants. More collaborative approaches include participants as much as possible in the research itself, even from the start with research design, in order to ensure that their interests or information needs are met (Lincoln 1995).

The degree of researchers’ contributions to their research site raises diffi cult questions. Becoming enmeshed with the people and organizations that one is studying is neither avoidable nor undesirable, but when researchers become beholden to informants in terms of the conclusions they draw, the reciprocal relationship is also jeopardized. As the term “reciprocity” suggests, ethical relationships in research require ongoing negotiations and continual balancing among the various interests at play.

Research and Confl ictEspecially pertinent for Burma Studies scholars is the ques-tion of whether their activities or writings may perpetuate violent confl ict. At the very least, researchers must name and identify violence when they see it, but also recognize that “witnessing is not inherently a form of activism” and research-ers should be honest with themselves and their participants about how much the research can realistically be expected to achieve (Zavisca 2007: 142). Burma has been embroiled in civil war since it became an independent country. McCormick brings up the important question of whether scholars create or perpetuate confl ict by drawing certain conclusions, or just by bringing up controversial issues. McCormick’s reaction is to actively oppose an interpretation of Burmese history cen-tered on ethnic confl ict, which he argues is historically inac-curate as well as damaging to Burma’s social fabric. Indeed, unless researchers are proactive in addressing the ways in which their work may perpetuate violence, they are not taking up the responsibility that comes with doing research in a confl ict-aff ected country.



Likewise, as Décobert, Matelski, and Prasse-Freeman all note, researchers should not lose sight of the fact that very real physical and structural violence may threaten informants and subjects of research on a daily basis. However, none are naive about the ways in which their descriptions of this violence may shape its continuation. In Burma, even more than countries at peace, research is never “just research” — it is always a contribution to a discourse that may reify or change the situation it describes.

Leaving the Field, Hopefully Better than We Found ItResearchers have a responsibility not to “spoil the fi eld” for future researchers by treating participants in a way that creates ill will. One way to live up to this responsibility is to maintain relationships with participants beyond the duration of fi eldwork. Researchers may not realize the extent to which participants feel slighted when a researcher disappears, never to be heard from again, aft er participants have shared what may be deeply personal information. Keeping up connections in the fi eld has special challenges in Burma because many of the populations under study (refugees, migrants, or anyone struggling for livelihood) may be transitory and diffi cult to locate again. Researchers should plan in advance for how they can take on these obligations in sett ings where they could easily lose track of informants. When that will be impossible, they should try to bring the relationship to a point of closure that feels comfortable for participants.

An anecdote from Lisa’s fi eldwork illustrates these points. In the years following her introduction to the border areas in 1989, she witnessed how local activists and NGO workers developed a reticence regarding the reception of foreign researchers. In 2008, sitt ing around a friend’s table at her house in Mae Sot, several friends working with organizations providing assistance to refugees and internally displaced persons (IDPs) from Burma described the behavior of



researchers they had met. The discussion helped explain an increased wariness Lisa was witnessing among people living locally, both from Burma and elsewhere, when researchers from outside asked them to assist with their work. These friends described how researchers oft en showed up expect-ing time and att ention, were usually welcomed by local people who shared their experiences, only to never see or hear from the researcher again. In the worst cases, researchers had collected interviews with women traumatized by rape, at great emotional cost to the participants, who then never heard back again from those who recorded their stories. Lisa noticed how local politicians, activists and others had become increasingly selective about who they would grant time and interviews, and increasingly questioned visiting researchers about their purpose and about how local groups would benefi t from the exchange. People generally give generously of their time until they come to believe they are becoming a commodity, when researchers (even inadvertently) treat them as sources of data rather than the traumatized yet resilient people they are.

Another way to fulfi ll one’s responsibility to leave the fi eld bett er than we found it is to engage in “member checks,” asking participants for feedback on writings prior to publica-tion, as Décobert and Matelski did. This gives participants a chance to object to the way they are being portrayed, or to clarify misunderstandings. Then even if the researcher may not always incorporate exactly what the participants want them to say, the disagreement can be acknowledged and can itself become an example of dissent worth examining. At the very least, this process can help researchers be aware of and reference any discrepancies in their work. However, as Déc-obert and Matelski both point out, the researcher must be explicit about to what extent participants’ views are incorpo-rated into published research in order to avoid controversies over intellectual property as well as accusations of bias. Moreover, as Décobert wisely recommends, distancing oneself from the fi eld before writing up conclusions is helpful in order to gain perspective.



Writing and PublishingWe contextualize events in a social system, within a web of meaning, and provide a nameable causation. We transform them into meaningful patt erns, and in so doing, we exclude other patt erns, meanings, or causes. Transformation is about hiding. ... We ethnographers cannot help but lie, but in lying, we reveal truths that escape those who are not so bold. (Fine 1993: 290)

The refl exive turn in ethnographic fi eldwork has led to the understanding that any ethnographic account is itself a con-struction, or rather a reconstruction, of the scene for the benefi t of the readers in which “details of quotations and descriptions of behaviors are approximations, signposts, and mini-docudramas” (Fine 1993: 276). Yet the ability of any researcher to “see” the situation varies greatly given personal beliefs, abilities, and familiarity with the scene, and no single ethnography can depict the “whole picture” (Fine 1993: 280). Questions about the researcher’s experiences of and reactions to the scene and how these reactions should be incorporated into the presentation of data are key to understanding the work, and are especially relevant in areas of violence (Kovats-Bernat 2002: 210).

Language UseIssues surrounding the language(s) we use in our research pervade the entire fi eldwork experience, but become a special consideration when we write, as Cho points out. Researchers conceiving their projects should carefully consider the medium and style in which they will convey their fi ndings, and the ethical implications of these choices in terms of who can access and understand the presentation of fi ndings. As Cho notes, even the choice to use a writt en form represents a certain epistemological position, as orality is a strong tradi-tion in Burma and can be incorporated into academic work. Similarly, the traditional form of the academic article or con-ference paper represents a choice. Increasingly, scholars may



choose to embrace more innovative forms of scholarship, such as inclusion of traditional forms, as Cho has done in recording a hta (available on The Journal of Burma Studies website) around which her essay centers.

Some scholars also argue that research results should be used to improve the lives of the participants, especially if they are members of marginalized or oppressed groups (Smith 2009), including eff orts to counteract stereotypes. Clearly, this must be a goal of researchers who must avoid stereotyping research participants by choosing their words carefully. It is also important, whenever possible, to incorporate into one’s writing the discursive constructions and conceptualizations of the participants themselves. Researchers would also do well to acquaint themselves with the expectations of their research participants and the various options they have when express-ing their fi ndings, as this may help them set appropriate goals in terms of the interactions they hope to have in the fi eld.

Creating Room for “Speaking Back”A common theme that emerged in these essays is the neces-sity of enabling Burmese participants who are being writt en about to object to the way they are represented. This theme echoes calls by other scholars for qualitative research to “provide a window for a critical reading” of the research (Altheide and Johnson 2011: 588). This eff ort not only entails receiving feedback prior to publication, as discussed earlier, but also aff ects the way researchers present their conclusions. As Prasse-Freeman suggests, researchers should be aware of how they are deploying “native” voices in order to undergird their conclusions. Practically, this means acknowledging that the researcher’s view is limited and that others with diff erent knowledge and experience may reach diff erent but still valid conclusions. It also means anticipating what objections may be made, acknowledging them, placing them in context, and writing about them.

Whatever precautions are taken, researchers must acknowl-edge that others may try to co-opt their work in the service



of objectives that the researchers do not share. McCormick explains that an active eff ort is sometimes necessary to prevent readers from drawing conclusions that he did not intend. That said, it is important for researchers to acknowl-edge that they cannot control the way their ideas will be used in all situations. However, one way to address concerns about the misuse of one’s work is fi rst to anticipate how that might happen, and write objections to such potential misuses directly into one’s text.

Following Our Own Ethical PrescriptionsPerhaps the greatest challenge that we faced (and that the contributors to this issue shared) was following the ethical imperatives that we lay out in our own work. Contributors rose to the challenge of doing so in many cases. For instance, in keeping with the “positioned interpretation” Décobert embraces, she signposts her decision to call the country Burma and not Myanmar as part of her primary association with border-based activists. Likewise, McCormick takes a clear stance against the projection of ethnic categories into history, in keeping with his conviction that doing so can be harmful to people today. Busarin’s willingness to discuss her fi eldwork experiences frankly is in line with her call for greater transparency.

We have also tried to follow our own ethical prescription to address the power dynamics at work in the fi eld of Burma Studies by soliciting wide participation in this issue, acknowl-edging the voices that are left out, and placing the contribu-tions in the context of current politics. We also want to allow readers to “object” to the best practices we suggest in this essay by presenting them as our own normative ideas (infl u-enced by the literature and our own experiences) rather than objective principles upon which all would agree. Moreover, we hope to create the opportunity for objection or elaboration by continuing discussions of research ethics, perhaps at future Burma Studies Conferences or in the pages of this journal. In particular, we hope that future discussions will



address the many questions that this special issue raises but leaves unanswered. How do senior scholars respond to the challenges that these younger voices raise? How would researchers using quantitative or historical methods diff eren-tiate their ethical considerations from the ones described here by qualitative researchers? How would research and writing practices change if scholars implemented the ideas suggested here? What other steps have researchers been taking in order to behave ethically in their research contexts? As the situation in and around Burma continues to change, what new ethical issues will be raised?

We look forward to the continuing conversation.

Lisa Brooten is an Associate Professor in the College of Mass Communications and Media Arts at Southern Illinois University Carbondale. Her research focuses on media reform and democratization, local and global social movement media, com-munity media, indigenous media, human rights, gender and militarization, and interpretive/critical research methods. She has been studying Burmese media for over 15 years, and her current research includes a comparison of media reform eff orts in Thailand, the Philippines, and Burma/Myanmar. Her work has been pub-lished in the International Journal of Communication; Asian Journal of Communication; Communication, Culture & Critique; International Journal of Media and Cultural Politics; Journal of Communication Inquiry; NWSA Journal; Journal of Children and Media; Asian Congress for Media & Communication Journal; Oxford University Press Handbook on Information and Communication Technologies; the International Encyclopedia of Commu-nication, as well as in several books. She can be reached at [email protected].

Rosalie Metro is a teacher, independent scholar, and educational consultant based in the US. She has been training teachers, writing curriculum, and doing research on regular visits to Thailand and Burma since 2000. In 2011, she completed her PhD in Learning, Teaching, and Social Policy at Cornell University; her dissertation was titled, “History Curricula and the Reconciliation of Ethnic Confl ict: A Collaborative Project with Burmese Migrants and Refugees in Thailand.” In 2013, Mote Oo pub-lished her thematically-organized, primary source-based post-secondary curricu-lum, Histories of Burma, which is used in Burma and Thailand. Her work has also appeared in Comparative Education Review, Anthropology and Education Quarterly, and in edited volumes. She can be reached at [email protected].

ReferencesAlcadipani, Rafael and Dami an Hodgson. 2009. “By Any Means

Necessary? Ethnographic Access, Ethics and the Critical Researcher.” Tamara: Journal of Critical Postmodern Organization Science 7(4): 127–46.



Altheide, David L. and John M. Johnson. 2011. “Refl ections on Interpretive Adequacy in Qualitative Research.” In The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, 4th edition, ed. Norman Denzin and Yvonna Lincoln. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 581–94.

Ditt on, Mary J. and Leigh Lehane. 2009. “ The Control of Foreigners as Researchers in Thailand.” Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics 4(3): 49–57.

Fine, Gary Alan. 1993. “Ten Lies of Ethnog raphy: Moral Dilemmas of Field Research.” Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 22: 267–94.

Gray, Paul S. 1980. “Exchange and Access in Field Work.” Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 9: 309–31.

Kleinman, Arthur. 1999. “Moral Experience and Ethical Refl ection: Can Ethnography Reconcile Them? A Quandary for ‘The New Bioethics’.” Daedalus 128(4): 69–97.

Kovats-Bernat, J. Christopher. 2002. “Negotiating Dangerous Fields: Pragmatic Strategies for Fieldwork amid Violence and Terror.” American Anthropologist 104(1): 208–22.

Li, Jun. 2008. “Ethical Challenges in Participan t Observation: A Refl ection on Ethnographic Fieldwork.” The Qualitative Report 13(11): 100–15.

Lincoln, Yvonna. 1995. “Emerging Criteria for Qua lity in Qualita-tive and Interpretive Research.” Qualitative Inquiry 1(3): 275–89.

Metro, Rosalie. 2014. “From the Form to the Face-t o-Face: IRBs, Ethnographic Researchers, and Human Subjects Translate Consent.” Anthropology and Education Quarterly 45(2).

Parker, Michael. 2007. “Ethnography/Ethics.” Socia l Science & Med-icine 65(11): 2248–59.

Polkinghorne, Donald. 2007. “Validity Issues in Nar rative Research.” Qualitative Inquiry 10(10): 1–16.

Smith, Valeria. 2009. “Ethical and Eff ective Ethnogr aphic Research Methods: A Case Study with Afghan Refugees in California.” Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics 4(33): 59–72.

Zavisca, Jane. 2007. “Ethics in Ethnographic Fieldwor k.” Forum for Anthropology and Culture 4: 127–46.


Thinking about Ethics in Burma/Myanmar Research.

Documents

Transcript of Thinking about Ethics in Burma/Myanmar Research.