I informed the participants in the interviews and questionnaires that I was conducting the interviews as part of my doctoral research. They gave verbal permission at the start of the interviews to participate in the research. Names and positions were anonymised to protect their identities. In only a couple of rare cases were the names published as part of an article. In those cases, the
participants were specifically asked for permission. I do not consider that there were ethical difficulties for the individuals involved.
As an insider-researcher, the situation was complicated. Some of the persons interviewed in the Nepal case studies were employees of the project where I work (Articles IV and V). There was a risk that my colleagues might feel obliged to cooperate with my research. However, I was not their direct manager, and this potential risk did not appear to matter to our respondents.
I was also able to have a relationship as a friend and colleague. In all the Nepal-based articles my role as a representative of the consulting company might potentially have influenced the responses of some persons. My experience was that they were mainly enthusiastic participants, appreciating the opportunity to tell their stories. We had a good relationship and I think that they felt able to open up to me without concerns of repercussions. No-one was pressured to participate in the research if they chose not to (and some did). The same was true of almost all respondents. The interviews were a chance to talk about themselves. I found that most people enjoyed the opportunity to reflect on their life and work.
In addition, there was a risk that when I made observations of normal project activities, project staff or community members might not have been necessarily aware that they were being researched. I do not believe that I crossed any ethical barriers.
Most of the documents from projects were publicly available in the MFA’s archive. Some internal documents and reports were accessed in my role as project manager or worker within the projects in Nepal. None of these were sensitive in nature. Some information was obtained from carrying out the MFA’s Evaluation of Junior Professional Officer programme. I only used information from the evaluation that was already published, or that came from my own earlier research.
In both evaluation and research, there is a risk when interviewing members of the broader community or local government that they may think that their responses could lead to additional financial or technical support. This is one reason why it is so difficult to get a true control group in evaluations. It is important to not raise any false expectations. Honesty in responses must also be considered. Respondents do not always tell the truth, and it is important not to fall into the trap of thinking there is an idealised community, prepared to expose all their opinions and feelings to a stranger who arrives and asks questions. This is particularly so when discussing difficult issues of values and taboos. Triangulation is vital, and finding a position between trust and open enquiry, and scepticism. Observation is also useful for this (for instance, when staying overnight in villages). This is also a situation where a long term involvement was useful, rather than parachuting in and out (as with participants in monitoring or evaluation visits, or purely researchers).
As noted above, when interviewing Finns involved in international development, there was little power differential. My respondents were usually enthusiastic participants. In all the interviews, my subjects were protected. I
minimised any risk of harming them or exposing them to external criticism. I applied the basic principle of “First, do no harm” to my research and work, and considered this to be more important than the results of my research. As noted above, I considered it would be unethical to publish some sensitive insider information, while stressing that this does not imply that the persons I deal with have broken ethical rules or been involved in corruption. Since in social sciences research, the direct benefits to the subjects are minimal, it is important to protect them from harm. For this reason, I did not publish their identities. I changed names and any identifying information, and always considered their personal safety. I ensured that the subjects knew why I was interviewing them, and what the information would be used for (informed consent). I refrained from asking potentially controversial questions in public (much as in normal project work). I built trust with the subjects, and if needed, the interpreter, before touching on sensitive issues. I did not ask delicate questions if it was clear that they would cause embarrassment. I tried not to cause undue disturbance in the lives of my subjects. For instance, I considered their workload and timetable and tried to minimise the interference with their normal responsibilities.
Honesty in interpretation is complicated – it would be quite easy to consider only corroborating evidence and articles, and minimise the importance of opposing views. In social sciences we mainly consider the opinions of others when reviewing literature and it is tempting to set them aside if they don’t coincide with our own. The simple existence of many views that oppose mine does not mean that they are right and I am wrong. I try to acknowledge that there are other opinions.