Accountability to research participants: unresolved dilemmas and unravelling ethics

Abstract

Drawing on findings from an ethnographic study of Romani Gypsy groups in England (1996–2000), along with data from follow-up work involving original and additional participants (2005–ongoing), this paper explores several ethical issues that arose. It traces developing relationships across a 13-year period, identifying the problems of attempting to construct a ‘research community’ consisting of individuals with diverse lifestyles, and at times, conflicting agendas. It problematises issues concerning the negotiation and maintenance of access, and considers, also, the prioritisation of certain voices at the expense of others, and the difficulties of ‘openness’ when the researcher is unsure where a project is heading.

Rather than engaging with a full literature review of the themes discussed, this paper seeks to highlight the situated negotiation of ethics within a specific research context. The focus is on shifting events in which official codes of practice do not seem to provide an adequate means of navigation.

The paper argues that it is not sufficient for the researcher to pay lip service to superficial guidelines, calling, instead, for deeper reflection that might lead to greater honesty with both oneself and the community/communities involved in research. It implies a need to react quickly to events in the field, informing participants about any perceived flaws and ambiguities in the original research design that may have emerged during data collection and led to changes of direction. Finally, it recommends that participants are fully involved in processes, including those that are interpretive, and that they, too, share any benefit of considering the research study, retrospectively, as an historical artefact.

Keywords:

• Gypsy-Travellers
• marginalised groups
• reluctant participants
• access
• researcher–participant relationships
• ethics

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank participants who have been so open in discussing their lives with me over the years, so often, in such a lively, colourful manner that the research has been none other than a pleasure to undertake. I would also like to thank Elizabeth Wood for her unfailing generosity with her time in exploring the ideas that have emerged from this work.

Notes

1. Gadje – often pejorative term used by Gypsies for non-Gypsies.

2. All the names used here are pseudonyms, except in cases where participants specifically requested otherwise.

3. It should be noted that Gypsies live in a number of different contexts, and it is therefore potentially misleading to generalise. However, it remains true that certain types of knowledge, constituting an identifiable skills-base, have persisted across communities. These extend beyond the actual knowledge itself, and relate to the sense of a specific Gypsy identity.

4. Use of terms: Researchers differ as to preferences regarding the terms Gypsy and Traveller. In the UK, fieldworkers involved with the groups concerned have in recent years tended to opt for the latter. In view of the negative associations with the term Gypsy, there is a certain political correctness here. While each term has its own connotations, my own decision has been determined by the self-ascription of many participants in my study, who tended to select the term Gypsy, often on the grounds that they wished to distinguish themselves from New Age or New Travellers _ though some did express a preference for the terms Rom and Roma. My choice is also influenced by Liegeois’ (1986, 16) rejection of Traveller, nomad and other ‘non-ethnic’ generic terms on the grounds that, by avoiding any ethnic content, these labels effectively deny the existence of a specifically Gypsy culture. I have used the Gypsy term for non-Gypsy. Gadjo (singular); Gadje (plural) – spelt in various ways elsewhere: Gorgio, Gauje, Gadze, etc., whenever this was used in speech. Participants themselves have often ignored traditional singular and plural endings, using the terms Gadje and Gadjes, instead. It should also be noted that the word Gadje has pejorative connotations, and when not reporting conversations, I have opted for the term non-Gypsy.