Process, practice and priorities — key lessons learnt undertaking sensitive social reconnaissance research as part of an (UNESCO-IOC) International Tsunami Survey Team

A consultation journey: developing a Kaupapa Māori research methodology to explore Māori whānau experiences of harm and loss around birth

“…Mutch and Weir (2016) continue, stating, “researchers need to consider strategies for meeting the safety needs of all participants, including the researchers” (p. 32). Furthermore, Van Zijll de Jong and colleagues (2011) suggest that researchers need relevant experiences of proactive approaches to responsible research and strategies for meeting the safety needs of all participants including the researchers. This research methodology may be one strategy that may assist in safeguarding all involved in the research project.…”

Evaluating in traumatic contexts: Considering the contextual, ethical, emotional, and political aspects

“…While physical, emotional, and psychological safety appear the most obvious concerns, evaluators also need to consider participants' age, gender, religion, socio-economic and social status, cultural or ethnic affiliation (including indigeneity), languages spoken, and their ability or disability (Puri et al, 2015;van Zijll de Jong et al, 2011;World Bank, n.d.). There is also a political dimension to consider, most obviously in post-conflict situations or zones with high political tension (Morris, 2014;van Zijll de Jong et al, 2011), but also the politics of aid distribution and the day-to-day power politics of communities and organisations. Discussing their post-disaster situation, van Zijll de Jong et al 2011outline some of the complexities: "We understood that we would be addressing fundamental issues of violence, death, destruction, fear, grief, loss of identity, loss of community, foreign interventions, and financial aid, the negation of truth and power relations in [this] post-disaster context" (p. 181).…”

“…Writers note that doing sensitive research involves more than ethical concerns in relation to the participants, it also presents dilemmas of selection of participants, gaining access, entering the field, conducting the research, leaving the field, analysing data and disseminating findings (Connolly & Reilly, 2007;Dickson-Swift et al, 2007;Dickson Swift et al, 2008;Watts, 2008). Sensitive research also impacts strongly on the researcher, and writers claim this is not given due attention (Connolly & Reilly, 2007;Dickson-Swift et al, 2007;Dickson Swift et al, 2008;McCosker, Barnard & Gerber, 2001;van Zijll de Jong, 2011;Watts, 2008).…”

Reflections and recommendations on transitioning from pre‐ to post‐disaster research

“…At present, a modest literature examines the challenges of conducting research in post‐crisis contexts, but most of this discusses research that has been initiated post hoc (e.g., Adams‐Hutcheson, 2018; Bell, 2009; Brun, 2009; Dominey‐Howes, 2015; Hu, 2015; Miyazawa, 2018; Sloan, 2008; van Zijll de Jong et al, 2011). Literature addressing the particular challenges of transitioning from conducting pre‐ to peri‐ or post‐crisis research when crises occur mid‐fieldwork is much more limited.…”