This research is a social study using a qualitative approach that requires the observation of the ethics of social research. It is a defined process through which the researcher obtains the consent of respondents to voluntary participation and freely reveals information relevant to the issue under study. Without doing any harm, confidentiality must be guaranteed. All research involving people must define the ethical values that are going to pave the way of gaining consistent information. In order to observe the ethics of social research in this study, meetings were organized with the people who agreed to participate in different group discussions.
169 A particular presentation was organized to explain the nature of the research. It examined what was required from respondents‘ participation as well as the practical modalities. This study highlights the three values of social research, namely voluntary participation, no harm to the participants, and confidentiality. A thorough look at the ethics of social research allowed the author to collect the required and consistent information. This is because the respondents undertook discussion in an atmosphere of mutual respect. They were comfortable in exchanging their views. This was a positive contribution to data collection using a sensitive study of genocide memorials.
In each case, the venues and times for the first meetings were agreed upon by the respondents of the focus groups themselves. The purpose of this initial discussion was the presentation of the nature of the study, its interest and aims and, finally, the ethical issues of social research. The researcher started by briefly informing the respondents about the topic. This was conducted in the respondents‘ mother tongue, Kinyarwanda. The researcher then shared ethical conditions that would be observed in the study. Details regarding the way the respondents would be involved in the study were given; the following three ethical values were discussed in detail with respondents.
5.9.1 The respect of respondents‟ voluntary participation
The researcher explained the meaning of ‗voluntary participation‘ in the research. This is the first value to be respected when social research is conducted. The investigation required that the participants reveal personal details or information about a group or a community. Though their contribution was very important to accomplishing the research, their participation also had to be deliberate, unforced and not manipulated. To some extent, this ethical value enables the participants to be responsible for providing consistent information.
Voluntary participation is of paramount importance, because if it is not respected, the respondents will participate but they will not release genuine information. What is more, this
170 value increases the opportunity of gathering relevant data. The participants were clearly and fully informed about the study. This allowed them to make their decisions whether to participate or not with intent. Given that the researcher and the participants should benefit from the collaboration and co-operation, this would not occur if participation had been forced or manipulated (Babbie and Mouton 2001: 521-522).
To emphasize the necessity of this value of voluntary participation, the researcher stressed freedom of expression during the participation. For the members of a focus group, there was no pressure or obligation to attend the first meeting. This meant that respondents were allowed to withdraw the decision for participation. Respondents were sure that participation did not affect them in any way. After the exploration of this value, all the respondents expressed their free will to participate, because nobody forced them to decide.
5.9.2 The respect of „no harm to the participants‟
This is the second ethical value that was discussed. During the first meeting, the researcher promised not to harm the participants who willingly agreed to participate. Babbie (1992: 465) taught us that ―social research should never injure the people being studied, regardless of whether they volunteer for the study‖. Once participants offer their participation to the study, they should be guaranteed respect. This reflects respective communication in group discussions and the free decision to withdraw from the study for any reason. This withdrawal cannot be allowed to impede the process.
The participants who agreed to contribute to the study were asked to provide information, respect the duration of group discussions, participate actively in debates and respect the internal regulation of the group. Similarly, the respondents should exercise politeness when responding to points of views, listen carefully without talking while someone is speaking and wait for their turn by raising their hands. All the above details facilitated a good atmosphere during group discussions.
171 Another important detail that was discussed with the respondents was how to motivate their fellow participants who were hesitant to give their points of views. Participants devised a way of provoking them. They would be given a turn to express themselves, even though they did not raise their hands. The group leader, for instance, would say ‗let us hear the opinion of x‘; this was an interesting approach that broke the silence of some respondents. Each one contributed to the discussion, criticism and completion of the information by other members of the group.
For those who agreed to participate in the discussion, measures were taken to soothe emotions that could be roused by the sensitivity of the topic, which dug up terrible experiences. Although the researcher was a counsellor and equipped to face any problems which may arise from the discussions, she provided professional advice to settle any traumatic emotions which could arise during the focus group discussions. This gave increased confidence to the respondents, who could not be harmed psychologically by the discussions.
The present research develops a highly sensitive topic that requires focussed attention when conducting group discussions. The author had to be sure that the vulnerability that is included in its sensitivity was minimized. Although a specialist in counselling was provided to prevent distress that could arise when informants recalled their traumatic experiences, further measures to help those who might need extra therapy were taken before any group discussions. These measures were the provision of more psychological help and treatment, if necessary.
Throughout the discussion, only two respondents sought help, as they were stressed by the emotional aspect raised by the discussions. This issue was handled by the researcher herself as it was at the end of the focus group‘s discussion. Twenty minutes were spent with the participant and thereafter she confirmed she felt well. The next day, when the researcher did a follow up, she was doing well. Apart from these two respondents who felt disturbed, there was nobody else who asked for further treatment.
172 5.9.3 The confidentiality and anonymity values discussed
The last ethical value that was discussed with the respondents who agreed to participate in this study was confidentiality and anonymity, meaning the protection of a participant who revealed delicate information. Genocide memorials are open symbols that are rooted in Rwandan divisions. The memorials arouse different passions according to the person‘s background. This makes discussion concerning them so sensitive that confidentiality and anonymity were underlined to make sure that any information that was revealed would not affect any respondent.
5.9.3.1Confidentiality
In this case, the researcher knew who provided the information but their names were not revealed. Confidentiality was also applied to any descriptions that would reveal who provided the information and this was guaranteed to respondents (Babbie and Mouton 2001: 523). Any information that would reveal the identity of its source could not be discussed in the conference, in other public debate or published.
The discussion concerning the ethical value of confidentiality extended its discussion to protecting the autonomy of respondents to social stigmatization or victimization. The identification of the group and individuals did not include the names and addresses of the participants. The forms used required the provision of age brackets, gender and level of education only.
Apart from the identification form, which did not include names and addresses, the researcher assured the participants that there would be no exchange of information with third parties. In order to apply the ethical value of confidentiality, the researcher discussed with the respondents the materials to use in the group discussions and the time for the interviews to take place.
173 In addition to the above, audio recording and cameras could be used, but respondents expressed concern about the camera. For this reason, the researcher agreed not to take photographs of the groups but the audio recorder was utilized, as it was agreed upon by both sides. The researcher made sure that there was no respondent‘s name that was recorded in the discussion group, because some respondents mentioned their fellow participants‘ names unwittingly.
Sometimes, names were pronounced during the recording of a group discussion. For example, when the definition of a genocide memorial that was given by Y was incomplete, another respondent said ‗I would like to complete it if Y allows‘. It is understandable that the name of the respondent‘s real name was recorded, but the researcher could go back directly to the recorder to delete the real name in the recorded text to make sure that all information did not include any name. The respondents were very satisfied with this respectful procedure. This was done immediately when the name was mentioned because some of the respondents expressed their distress as they could hear their colleagues utter their names.
5.9.3.2 Anonymity
Anonymity was also mentioned with respect to ethical values. Although the researcher provided some explanation concerning this ethical value, respondents were very interested in it. In this context, the researcher received information but its source remained unknown. This may be willingly planned or not, such as when the researcher asked for information using internet tools.
The responses would not leak the respondents‘ identification (Babbie and Mouton 2001: 523).
Although the researcher did not plan to apply this ethical value, it surprisingly happened during the study.
Some respondents of the focus group decided to send e-mails and printed papers to add to their points of view, to complete the information that was raised during group discussions. Although their e-mails bore no names, they were coded and they had relevant and consistent information.
All these details, as well as hard copies, explained further messages of genocide memorials, their
174 interpretation and the way in which understanding affects the community‘s daily life. These were a part of group discussion, because they quoted groups‘ views in their responses.