Reflecting on research: Researcher identity in conflict studies from the perspectives of participants

Abstract

While researchers have long discussed the impact that ingroup–outgroup identities may have on participant–researcher dynamics, no previous study that we know of has investigated how these identities impact participants’ decisions to participate in research in conflict contexts. In this study, we aimed to examine participants’ perspectives on their decisions to participate in research and how those decisions may be related to both their and the researchers’ identities as well as other important dynamics, such as political ideology. We used the Turkish–Kurdish conflict as a case and examined participants’ perspectives on Turkish researchers in this conflict context. More specifically, we investigated (1) opinions and feelings about Turkish researchers; (2) reasons for (not) participating in research by Turkish researchers; (3) the ways Turkish researchers affect participants’ decisions; and (4) attitudes toward Kurdish researchers. We used a survey with open‐ended questions to explore participants’ perspectives and analysed the data from 137 participants who identify as Kurdish using qualitative content analysis. Results highlighted the important opinions and feelings about Turkish researchers such as researchers’ ideological positions, objectivity, and sincerity, as well as how researchers’ other identities may affect participants’ evaluations of their research and how Kurdish researchers are perceived by Kurdish participants. We discuss the ingroup–outgroup dynamics together with other identities in relation to existing identity literature, as well as practical implications of our research for participant recruitment.

Introducing the Collective Action Recursive Empowerment (CARE) Model: HowSmall‐ScaleProtests Led toLarge‐ScaleCollective Action in Armenia's Velvet Revolution

“…Although the length and comprehensiveness of interview transcripts across interview types were consistent (and participants chose their preferred interview option voluntarily), operating between two languages provides room for misinterpretation and inaccuracy due to both linguistic as well as cultural understandings. Additionally, the subjective processes of data collection and interpretation may change based on whether the researchers approach the study as “insiders” (i.e., the Armenian coauthor) or as “outsiders” (i.e., the American coauthor), and the impact of researcher identity on project framing and development requires intentional acknowledgment (Acar & Uluğ, 2019; Uluğ et al, 2021).…”

Translating social science for peace: Benefits, challenges, and recommendations.

“…For instance, there might be certain religious or cultural taboos that researchers should be aware of ahead of study development and deployment (see Moss et al, 2019; Webb-Gannon, 2017 for case studies of working with vulnerable populations; see also Acar et al, 2020). Additionally, the researchers’ own identities might impact participants’ willingness to participate in the research and trust of the researchers (Uluğ et al, 2021). Further, researchers should consider whether their survey needs to be translated and whether, once translated, the measures carry the same connotation as initially intended and the scales translate to the new context.…”

Reflexivity in quantitative research: A rationale and beginner's guide

“…We argue that these topics are distinctly subjective and impacted by the researchers' own political, ideological, and personal agendas. For example, Moss et al (2019) note how social psychological fieldwork in conflict settings have practical and ethical considerations, which are heightened when researchers are 'outsiders' to the local context of the research (see also Uluğ et al, 2021). Therefore, how these topics are approached should be handled not only with care, but also with active deliberation through reflexive practice.…”