The growing prominence of disaster research has also prompted vibrant discussions about the motivation and ethical conduct of disaster researchers. Yet, the individual…
Abstract
Purpose
The growing prominence of disaster research has also prompted vibrant discussions about the motivation and ethical conduct of disaster researchers. Yet, the individual researchers' aspirations and aims, together with the challenging and changing circumstances under which one undertakes disaster research have received relatively scant attention. Drawing on the author’s personal experience of becoming a disaster researcher under the unexpected humanitarian crisis following the 2015 Nepal earthquakes, this paper seeks to contribute to the debates surrounding the role of reflexivity and ethical sensitivity in doing disaster research under the climate of uncertainty.
Design/methodology/approach
The paper draws on the author’s reflections and vignettes to highlight the author’s experience of becoming a disaster researcher, and my trajectory of navigating the complex terrain of fieldwork.
Findings
The paper underscores how the process of becoming a disaster researcher was closely intertwined with and shaped by my concerns and care for the disaster-affected communities. The paper argues that doing contextually relevant and ethically sensitive research is not a static target. It demands constant reflexivity and improvisation, in response to the unpredictable real-world conditions of disasters. Instead of aiming to tame such uncertainty, disaster researchers may benefit from appreciating and embracing uncertainty as a major facet of its epistemological distinctiveness.
Originality/value
The paper contributes to the ongoing efforts in advancing methodological reflection and innovation in disaster research. In so doing, the paper is expected to aid early-career researchers who are often faced with ethical and practical dilemmas of doing fieldwork.
Details
Keywords
Eefje Hendriks, Laura Marlene Kmoch, Femke Mulder and Ricardo Fuentealba
The purpose of this paper is to highlight how keeping a reflective research journal can help disaster researchers to work in a more ethical and engaged way.
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to highlight how keeping a reflective research journal can help disaster researchers to work in a more ethical and engaged way.
Design/methodology/approach
The author analyses the reflective research diary to illustrate how keeping it has helped the author, a white, non-Indigenous researcher, navigate British academia whilst trying to plan a collaborative project with Indigenous peoples during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic.
Findings
The author draws out some of the ways that academic institutions can undermine ethical research practice through opaque structures and by incentivising pressuring early-career researchers (ECRs) to conduct fieldwork in dangerous times. The author demonstrates ways the rpeers and author have tried to push against these structures, noting that this is not always possible and that their efforts are always limited without institutional support or change.
Originality/value
Many ECRs and PhD students have written reflective accounts about the ethical challenges they have faced during fieldwork. In this article, the author adds to this by building on literature in disaster studies and positing how ethical and engaged research can be conducted within British (colonial) institutions.
Details
Keywords
The paper explores why local disaster scholars often fail to put the needs of local people at the centre of their research. Specifically, it explores two questions: (1) why local…
Abstract
Purpose
The paper explores why local disaster scholars often fail to put the needs of local people at the centre of their research. Specifically, it explores two questions: (1) why local concerns are often not reflected in the research agenda? And (2) why we are falling behind in generating locally applicable disaster knowledge? The paper engages with the experiences of local disaster researchers to answer the research questions.
Design/methodology/approach
A qualitative approach was undertaken to conduct the study. In total, 15 in-depth interviews were conducted with practitioners and academics working in the domain of disaster studies in different regions of India. Criterion sampling was employed to recruit the participants. An interview guide with open ended questions was used to conduct the interviews. The data were thematically analysed utilizing qualitative data analysis software to arrive at the findings.
Findings
The participants identified three potential reasons behind the lack of locally relevant disaster research. First, the existing concepts and terminologies which guide disaster research are often inadequate to represent the local reality. Second, “foreign” funders and policymakers often influence the agenda and emphasis of the research which creates barriers in developing research agenda relevant to the local needs. The time-bound project format of research is often problematic. It resembles looking at the community through a peephole which hardly gives the whole picture. Third, resource constraints also create substantial hindrances in conducting locally relevant research.
Research limitations/implications
The sample only included participants who believed that disaster research is often not relevant locally in India. Participants having different standpoints on the issue were not included which remains as a limitation of the study.
Practical implications
The research highlights the challenges that local researchers face while conducting locally relevant research and how they can be overcome. The author expects that the findings of the research will help in challenging and transforming established practices in disaster studies and bridging the gap between disaster research and vulnerable people.
Originality/value
This paper is valuable because it documents the perspectives of local researchers on the barriers that need to be overcome to produce locally relevant disaster research.