Qualitative Health Research

http://qhr.sagepub.com

"I Wish he hadn't Told Me that": Methodological and Ethical Issues in Social Trauma and Conflict
Research
Julia Chaitin
Qual Health Res 2003; 13; 1145
DOI: 10.1177/1049732303255997
The online version of this article can be found at:
http://qhr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/13/8/1145

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Qualitative Health Research can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://qhr.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://qhr.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations http://qhr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/13/8/1145

Downloaded from http://qhr.sagepub.com at SWETS WISE ONLINE CONTENT on March 31, 2009

10.1177/1049732303255997

QUALITATIVE
Chaitin
/ SOCIAL
HEALTH
TRAUMA
RESEARCH
AND CONFLICT
/ OctoberRESEARCH
2003

Keynote Address:
Fourth Advances in Qualitative Methods Conference
I Wish He Hadnt Told Me That:
Methodological and Ethical Issues in
Social Trauma and Conflict Research
Julia Chaitin

Undertaking research on individuals who have experienced social traumas, such as being a
victim or perpetrator of genocides and wars, presents difficult decisions for qualitative researchers. Deciding how to deal with these issues becomes more problematic when the researcher is a member of the society in conflict. To do this work, and to work collaboratively
with researchers from the other side, sensitive ways to collect data have to be chosen. Interpretations of the materials can be no less difficult: Analyses often lead to information and
understandings that may be difficult for the researcher to deal with from ethical, moral, and
personal standpoints, especially when he or she is a member of the society and culture under
study. In this keynote address, the author explores methodological and ethical issues connected to these topics. She brings examples from her work on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict
and focuses on use of the life story methodology.
Keywords: methodological issues; ethical issues; conflict research; Palestinian-Israeli
conflict; life story methodology

hree years ago, I sat in a room with 23 other women. Of these, 21 were women
who had lived, or were still living, in the war-torn and conflict-ridden societies
of Northern Ireland, South Africa, Croatia, and Israel and the Palestinian Authority.
We were three facilitators: a Palestinian refugee who lives in Bethlehem, in the Palestinian Authority, a Palestinian woman who is an Israeli citizen, and mean
Israeli Jew. The goal of our project was to bring women together who live in war
zones to learn from them about their experiences and how they live with the pain,
hardships, and violence. We were to analyze the material afterward, seeing what
could be learned from this intensive 3-day seminar.

AUTHORS NOTE: This keynote address was presented at the Fourth Advances in Qualitative Methods
Conference, Banff, Alberta, Canada, May 2-5, 2003.
QUALITATIVE HEALTH RESEARCH, Vol. 13 No. 8, October 2003 1145-1154
DOI: 10.1177/1049732303255997
2003 Sage Publications

1145

Downloaded from http://qhr.sagepub.com at SWETS WISE ONLINE CONTENT on March 31, 2009

1146

QUALITATIVE HEALTH RESEARCH / October 2003

I sat in the room as an objective facilitator and researcherit was my job to

make sure that each woman got the chance to tell her story and that all would be
treated with respect. It was my job to listen and to try to contain all of those stories of
pain without feeling the need to talk about my own experiences in our war-torn
region. It was my job to have good working relations with my colleaguestwo
Palestinianswho, I knew, held the belief that I and other Jewish Israeli women,
both in the group and outside of it, had stolen the land from their parents and grandparents. I sat in the room and carried out my role as facilitator/researcher with great
difficulty.
Lets skip forward 3 years to another research experience. Two months ago, I
phoned a man named Rafi, the youngest son of Flora. Flora had immigrated to Israel
when she was 16 years old, leaving her parents in Poland. Flora never saw them
again, as they were all killed in the Holocaust. Earlier, I had videotaped an interview
with Flora for a joint Palestinian-Israeli study, which we call The Refugee Project.
In this study, Palestinian researchers are interviewing Palestinians who have been
refugees since 1948 and we Israelis are interviewing Jewish Israelis who were refugees either from the Holocaust or Northern Africa and Asia, who immigrated
to Israel, and who eventually established rural and communal communities
moshavim and kibbutzimwhere Palestinian villages once stood. Because we are
interested in the stories of the second generation as well, we have begun interviewing some of the grown children of these former refugees.
When Flora asked Rafi if he would be interested in being interviewed, he said
that he would be glad tohis family past is very important to him. So she gave me
his phone number, and I called him on Friday, his day off from work. As I began
explaining the project, Rafis voice became filled with anger: Whoa! Stop right
there! I didnt know that this had anything to do with Palestinians. I dont want to be
involved. When I asked him if he would tell me why, he continued, clearly very
emotional and clearly very angry with me:
They are a despicable enemy! [his words] All they want to do is kill us and throw us
into the sea. What makes a nice girl like you do such a thing! I am surprised at you. I
didnt ask you before, but you must belong to one of the left-wing parties . . . am
I right? You should be ashamed of yourself!

I thanked him for his time, and we ended the conversation. Throughout the call,
I remained an extremely polite and respectful researcher. Rafis angry words, however, continued to reverberate in my head for many days after; and I wasnt having
such polite and respectful thoughts about Rafi . . . It had been a long time since I had
been accosted with such hate. I couldnt remember ever getting such a reaction from
a potential interviewee for any of my studies.
Carrying out qualitative research in conflict-ridden contexts, in which people
have experienced much social trauma in their lives, is a difficult task. The task
becomes even more difficult when you are a member of such a society, when you are
not a third party who can maintain neutrality, when you try to understand what the
other is trying to tell you and when every stage of the research affects not only your
professional life but your emotional and personal ones as well.
Today, I will touch on some methodological and ethical issues that are connected to undertaking qualitative research in such contexts. I will draw on my own

Downloaded from http://qhr.sagepub.com at SWETS WISE ONLINE CONTENT on March 31, 2009

Chaitin / SOCIAL TRAUMA AND CONFLICT RESEARCH

1147

work, done in collaboration with colleagues, to demonstrate issues that we confront

in the planning, collection, analysis, and writing stages of such work.

DOING JOINT PALESTINIAN-ISRAELI RESEARCH

As a social psychologist, the research in which I am involved has two main focithe
long-term psychosocial effects of the Holocaust on the survivors, children, and
grandchildren and the psychosocial effects of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on people who live in the region. I have been involved in qualitative research of these
issues, using the methodology of life stories/biographical narrativesa very openended method of data collection that has rather elaborate methods of data analysis.
The methods that I use have their bases in the work of Gabriele Rosenthal (1993,
1998) from Germany and Amia Lieblich (Lieblich, Tuval-Mashiach, & Zilber, 1998)
and Ruthellen Josselson (Josselson & Lieblich, 1991) from Israel. Before I explain a
bit more about the life story methodology, I would like to discuss some methodological issues that are connected to the planning and running of joint research in a context of conflict in which the researcher is a member of the society in conflict. I will be
focusing on research that is being jointly carried out with researchers from the
other side.
For the past 3 years, I have been a researcher for PRIMEThe Peace Research
Institute in the Middle Eastwhich is a jointly run Palestinian-Israeli institution.
The Israeli codirector is Professor Dan Bar-On, a psychologist and qualitative
scholar from Ben Gurion University of the Negev, and the Palestinian codirector is
Professor Sami Adwan, from the Education department at Bethlehem University.
At PRIME, we undertake educational and psychosocial science research that, we
hope, will enhance dialogue and peace building between the two peoples.
Three years ago, we undertook our first big project: We interviewed and analyzed Israeli and Palestinian environmental nongovernmental organizations
(NGOs) that had worked together on joint projects. We were a research team of six:
three Palestinians and three Israelis who came from different backgrounds and disciplines, and who had different ideas what constituted research. We began our work
in April 2000, meeting in our offices in Beit Jala, situated near Bethlehem in the Palestinian Authority (also called the PNA). The planning was done together; we
agreed on a research plan that took our different perspectives on research into
account we drew up the interview guide, discussed ways of mapping out the organizations, other ways we would collect data, et cetera. The Palestinians began interviewing Palestinian NGOs, and we began interviewing Israeli NGOs.
This stage proceeded fairly smoothly; every 2 to 3 weeks, we would meet in Beit
Jala, exchange summaries of interviews, and discuss how it was going. We decided
to carry out joint observations to see what joint ecological work really looked like
(and to compare this to the information that we were learning in our interviews). I
began feeling comfortable in this project, and it no longer seemed all that different to
me from other studies that I had undertaken with Israeli partners. Then Dan, the
head of the Israeli team, asked me to do something that made me realize that this
project was not like all those others studies.
For the Palestinians to interview members of organizations in the Gaza Strip
(they were from the West Bank), they needed permission from the Israeli army to

Downloaded from http://qhr.sagepub.com at SWETS WISE ONLINE CONTENT on March 31, 2009

1148

QUALITATIVE HEALTH RESEARCH / October 2003

cross the borders. These permission slips needed to be renewed every few months.
The time had come, and Dan asked me to take care of this matter. I realized that
whether or not the project would continue was in no small part not only up to the
authorities but also up to us Israeli researchers. We held the power to get these
researchers permission to travel from one area to another. If I was diligent, they
would get the permission sooner (perhaps). If I forgot, or got busy with other things,
then they would have to wait. No longer were we talking about power relations
only between researcher and research participants, but also between researcher and
researcher!
It was difficult for me to admit that there was asymmetry in the relations
between the Israeli and the Palestinian teamsbut there it was. It was very difficult
for me to be in the position of such unwanted power. I felt ashamed, and this shame
grew when my Palestinian colleagues gave me their details so nonchalantly, so it
seemed, so that I could take care of getting permission. For them, it was an everyday
occurrence, one that they did not like but one that they were used to. This request
shook me up and made me realize, just a bit, what constituted a daily routine for the
Palestinians. I didnt remember reading about such asymmetry between researchers, or how a researcher should handle him- or herself when such an occasion arises,
in any of the qualitative methodology books that I had read.

THE INTIFADA
When the Intifada1 broke out in late September 2000, the project came to a standstill. We could no longer meet face to face. It was too dangerous for us Israelis to
travel the roads to Beit Jala, because Palestinians were firing from buildings in that
town across the way to the Gilo neighborhood, and the road that we needed to take
led between those two points. And the Palestinians were under fire from the Israeli
army, and had curfews and military road blocks imposed on them. All of us
Palestinians and Israeliswere in shock over the very quick and violent deterioration of the relationships between the two peoples. The importance of researching
environmental NGOs faded when people were being murdered and terrorized
every day. We did manage to talk to one another on the phone a few times and to
keep up some e-mail contact, but these calls and e-mails always left me feeling
uneasy and helpless.
A month into the war, after we saw that the situation was not going to be
resolved quickly, we decided that we would write a report based on what we had
succeeded in gathering for submission to our donors. Because we couldnt discuss
together how to do this, each side made its own plan and did what seemed right to
itagain, not an optimal situation and one not addressed in methodology books.
Eventually, we did manage to meet three times in Jerusalem. These were good
working meetings; the relations between us were more or less the way they had
been before, and we managed to make joint decisions.
The writing of the joint report was also very difficult for both sides. At times, I
felt that parts of the Palestinian chapters included propaganda and were not scientific in nature. At times, my Palestinian colleagues told me that something that I
had incorporated into the report was unacceptable to them, as it struck them as
offensive or as going against their norms.

Downloaded from http://qhr.sagepub.com at SWETS WISE ONLINE CONTENT on March 31, 2009

Chaitin / SOCIAL TRAUMA AND CONFLICT RESEARCH

1149

This work was difficult, not just from the professional and academic viewpoint
but from the emotional one as well. There were a number of times when I felt on my
guard, on the defensive. I was uneasy with statements that appeared in the Palestinian chapters claiming that the Israelis were responsible for all of the damage that
had been done to the Palestinian environment. These statements made me angry,
and I was willing to accept them only when they were specifically prefaced with
such remarks as According to Dr. so and so . . . If such statements could not be
clarified, then, I said, that they must be deleted.
The writing stage appeared to be emotionally difficult for the Palestinian
researchers as well. My Palestinian colleagues did the same with my chapters. For
example, if I included something in the text that appeared to them to be insensitive,
such as when I quoted one of my interviewees who had used derogatory and insulting language about Palestinians and about Islam, they demanded that I reword or
black out the remark. In short, both teams were extremely sensitive, not only to the
overall product but to every line, indeed to every word. After a number of e-mail
rounds and discussions, we did manage to write a report that we all felt reflected
our work and even to publish an article about the workno minor victory in these
days of troubles.
The work on the environmental project ended 2 years ago. Over these past 2
years, the relationships, in general, between the Israelis and the Palestinians have
continually deteriorated, making it harder and harder technically to find a way for
Palestinians and Israelis to work together. But more than that, the war is taking its
toll on all of us. None of us are immune to what is going on around us and to the
almost complete portrayal of the other side as a demonic enemy. The Palestinians
are discouraged from working with Israelis, and we Israelis often meet with similar
opposition on our side. So, how does one go on with joint projects when coexistence
continues to be out of reach? We must continually redecide to continue our work to
face these kinds of problems. I assume that these are the kinds of problems that
researchers working within other conflict areas must face as well, as they try to continue on with their work.

THE REFUGEE PROJECT

Last year, in the middle of the Intifada, we began our Refugee Project, the project
that I mentioned earlier on. I would now like to go into more detail about the project.
The goals of this project are
1. to document life stories of former/present refugees and to make this documentation
available for students, teachers and researchers,
2. to gain insight into the understanding of issues such as the connection that these individuals have in regards to the land and to their societies, perception of self identity
and of the other, and to learn how the individuals live with their traumatic experiences, and
3. to get their perspective on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, especially in connection to
the Palestinian refugee problem.

To date, the Palestinian team has interviewed more than 70 peopleall of

whom have been refugees since 1948 who are living in the area of Bethlehem and the
refugee camps there. On the Israeli side, we have interviewed approximately 20

Downloaded from http://qhr.sagepub.com at SWETS WISE ONLINE CONTENT on March 31, 2009

1150

QUALITATIVE HEALTH RESEARCH / October 2003

people. All of the interviews are videotaped. Because of the ongoing war, we are
working in parallel, not jointly. From time to time, we update one another concerning progress on the project. I will now focus on the Israeli side of the project.
The interview process begins well before I arrive at the home of the participant
with the videographer. In my first phone call to the potential interviewee, I begin
with an explanation of the project, making sure that the person understands that
this is a joint Palestinian-Israeli venture. Except for the call with Rafi that I described
at the beginning of my remarks, I have never been turned down by anyone because
this is a joint project (or at least never been told that this is the reason). However, I am
often told, I dont want to get into politics, or asked, Can you assure me that this
wont be used for political gain? I promise that whatever is said will be used only
for educational and research purposes, and clarify that although I will be asking
some specific questions connected to the study, the interviewees are completely free
to answer how they see fit.
I begin with a modified version of the life story, which I will now explain in
more detail. When we use life stories for data collection, we ask our interviewees a
variant of a very open question, Please tell me your life story, whatever you think is
relevant. When this method is used in its purest form, I sit back and do not interrupt the interviewees at all; I let them talk about whatever they want, in whatever
order they choose, touching on the topics that they choose, until they let me know
that they have reached the end of their main narrative (by saying something like,
And thats about it. Do you have other questions for me?). At times, the narrative
or main narration might last no more than 10 minutes; it usually lasts somewhere
between 1 hour and an hour an a half but can go for as long as 4 to 5 hours.

THE LIFE STORY METHOD

Why do I use the life story as the main method in my work? This project, as well as
most of the others that I am involved in, taps extremely sensitive issuesmassive
social trauma that includes experiences such as wars, genocide, difficult and forced
immigration processes, deep and personal losses, with complex layers of meaning.
Therefore, I need a method that is both openone that does not limit the scope of
answers a participant wishes to give, giving him or her as free reign as possible
and one that is sensitivea methodology that does so in an unobtrusive, accepting,
and nonjudgmental way. It is important to have a method that helps me go to the
complex heart of the matters I am researchingthat mirrors, as much as possible,
the world of the person sitting across from me.
I use the life story method because I see it as a method that reflects my values
and one that I consider good for undertaking research. Here, I will mention two
reasons.
First, the life story method assumes an almost peer-like relationship between
researcher and interviewee. When using this method, the researcher refrains, as
much as possible, from imposing his or her theoretical framework or perspectives
on the world on the autobiographer. What to talk about, and how to talk about it, is
initially and primarily left up to the interviewee. Although the dominant power
relations between the researcher and the interviewee still remain (after all, I am the
one from the university who will eventually publish findings and get most, if not all,
of the credit for the work, and that is the reason for calling these relations almost

Downloaded from http://qhr.sagepub.com at SWETS WISE ONLINE CONTENT on March 31, 2009

Chaitin / SOCIAL TRAUMA AND CONFLICT RESEARCH

1151

peer-like), it limits them, making the researcher a bit more humble and more
respectful of the other. To no small degree, we consciously forfeit control of the interview, and we let the interviewee lead us.
Second, by depending on the life story method as my main way of gathering
material, it infers that the researcher will not be able to understand, for example,
what it was like to have lived through the Holocaust, to have served as a soldier during the first Intifada, to have lived through a terror attack, or to have forcibly been
uprooted from your home and to have become a refugee, without being able to put
the event into the context of the entire life story. It says that context is everything,
and that we must be respectful of that context as well.
In the Refugee Project, I begin by asking the autobiographer to tell me his or her
life story, but I modify it by asking them to begin with their childhood, only interrupting to help the person keep to a chronological order or to provide detail, as I
think that this will make it easier for others to understand and follow the interviews.
At the end of the life storywhich usually lasts 1 hour to an hour and a halfI ask
the interviewee three questions connected directly to the study:
1. Do you know what was on this land before the establishment of the state in 1948?
2. If a Palestinian were to come to your community and say, Im originally from here,
would you be interested in talking to him or her? What would you like to say to him
or her?
3. When you think about the conflict between us and the Palestinians, do you have any
ideas concerning a solution? How do you think the Palestinian refugee problem
could/should be resolved?

The answers range in time from 5 minutes to half an hour. I then ask the participant
if there is anything else that he or she would like to add to the life story.
After this stage of the interview, the participants have the opportunity to show
photographs, documents, or artifacts that have meaning to them, which are also
videotaped. In the last part of the interview, the participant is asked to take us to a
place in the community that has special meaning for him or her. At times, the person
takes us to such a place (for example, the community synagogue); at others, the person just wants to show us around his or her house and farm. This can also take from
5 minutes to half an hour. At the end of the entire process, we have a video of about 3
hours for each person (who, of course, gets a copy).
I have found these interviews to be extremely exciting for me as a researcher
and as a person. They are rich in detail, emotionally touching, and, at times, emotionally difficult. I do not always hear things that I would like to hear, and at times, I
wish that I had not asked the question. For example, Yona, a Holocaust survivor
who was incarcerated in Auschwitz as a boy, told me at the end of his interview, If it
were up to me, I would put all of the Palestinians on transports and send them
away. I did not hear this sentence when Yona said it during the interview; it was
only when I was making a copy of the tape for him that I heard what he said. I did
not want to hear Yona, a man who had suffered so much at the hands of the Nazis
and their collaborators, talk about shipping out Palestinians to other countries. It
would be much easier for me if he had expressed empathy toward the suffering of
the Palestinians due to what others had done to him. Denial (Langer, 1991) and wishful thinking on the part of the researcher should be another note discussed in methodology books.

Downloaded from http://qhr.sagepub.com at SWETS WISE ONLINE CONTENT on March 31, 2009

1152

QUALITATIVE HEALTH RESEARCH / October 2003

ETHICAL CONCERNS
This brings us to the issue of ethical concerns in research undertaken in conflict
arenas. It is very difficult for us Jews who research Holocaust survivors to present
them in a bad light. These are people who suffered what no one should ever have to
suffer; they lost their families, their homes, and their communities in ways that the
mind can barely imagine. After the war, they could not return to their homes,
because these homes no longer existed. All that they had known was destroyed.
This dilemma is made even more difficult when we remember that the information that I am gathering is part of a joint Palestinian-Israeli study. If I have difficulty
in hearing what Yona had to say, how will the Palestinians react? How will they understand this man? And if such statements are being made on the Israeli side, then
I assume that such statements are also being made on the Palestinian side. And, I
know from prior experience, such as the womens meeting that I briefly described at
the beginning of this lecture, that it is very difficult for me, and for my Jewish-Israeli
colleagues as well, to continue on with this work when we hear and face hate from
Palestinians.
When we ask people to be open with us, and to tell us about their lives and
about their thoughts, we run the risk that what they have to say may lead not only to
further deterioration of the relationships between the two conflict sides but also to
uneasiness on the part of the researchers from the same side. Such openness and
honesty might lead the researchers to becoming too hurt, frightened, or emotionally
overwhelmed to want to continue.
As researchers, it is not our task to edit out statements that we find unpleasant
or, worse, that offend our sense of morality. As part of a research team, it is my job to
be honest with my partners about my findings. These tasks take on added significance in the context of joint Palestinian-Israeli research. Although I work hard at
remaining true to these requirements and ethical standards, I raise the point to show
that, when working in such a conflictual context, the decision to stay true to these
golden rules can never be taken for granted. The decision is made consciously each
time.

CONTINUING ON WITH THE JOINT RESEARCH

I prepared a short film that demonstrates the kinds of material and issues that are
emerging from the Refugee Project. Unfortunately, I will not be able to show it at this
meeting because the Israeli video system and the North American video system are
incompatible with one another. Even though you will not be able to see it now, I
have chosen to mention this film for another reason. When I was in the process of
making it, and upon its conclusion, I showed the film to a number of family members, friends, and colleagues. I was very surprisedindeed, taken abackby a
number of comments that I received about the film. I learned that this film was seen
as being anti-Israeli by some of these viewers. It presents Israelis in a bad light
the people who hate us will love it! You should have censored what Mordechai
saidit doesnt sound nice, and Your presentation of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict at the beginning of the film is one-sided. You present the Palestinian side, and
distort facts about the Jewish side. There were other viewers, of course, who saw

Downloaded from http://qhr.sagepub.com at SWETS WISE ONLINE CONTENT on March 31, 2009

Chaitin / SOCIAL TRAUMA AND CONFLICT RESEARCH

1153

the film in a different lightas representing a real part of our Israeli context. Painful, yes, but also truthful. In short, I learned from this experience that the making
and screening of such a documentary is connected to extreme political overtones
and strong emotions as well as to methodological, research, and educational
aspects.
Lets go back now to the Refugee Project, and to collaborative work with the
enemy in general. When working as part of a team of researchers, not only in conflict situations but in general, each one of us must work in ways that mesh with the
understandings and expectations of all members on the staff. When working with
researchers from the other side, there are often greater differences in these understandings and expectations. In the present study, in the coming months, we will sit
down together, we hope face to face and not only via e-mail or on the phone, and
decide on broad guidelines for analyzing the materials. It is clear to me, as in the case
of the environmental project, that there will be differences between our approaches
to the analyses and to the end products. The interviews differ not only in style but
also in length. For instance, the Israeli interviews tend to be longer than the Palestinian ones, as we are using life stories as the basis of the interviews whereas the Palestinian team has designed an interview based on five questions. In our work, we are
acutely aware of giving equal time for each side and that it is of utmost importance
to present an equal number of quotations from each side. We believe that our final
joint products must reflect symmetry even though there is no such symmetry on the
outside, in the real world.
From my acquaintance with researchers in other conflict areas, there is no doubt
that the overall issues that I have noted in this talk are not unique to the PalestinianIsraeli context. Joint research between former/present enemies affects the planning,
collection, analysis, and writing stages. And all of these issues connect to ethical and
moral questions, which are central not only to our work but to our personal lives as
well.

CONCLUSION
If I attempt to summarize the points that I see as being connected to methodological
issues in conflict research that I have noted in this article, I think that we must be
aware of the following.
Everything is politicalevery stage of our research is connected to and affected by
politics.
At times, we see the other researcher as the enemy. Learning to see the other as a fellow
researcher and collaborator in peace-building efforts is one of our many challenges.
Your research participants might see you as the enemy, making it difficult not only to
find potential interviewees but also to carry on with the work without becoming too
discouraged.
Different political viewsfrom the same side and from the other sidecan come to the
surface, making it hard to carry out the work that the researcher set out to do.
There is a difficulty in containing statements that go against ones worldviews and sense
of morality.
To carry on, we use defense mechanisms, such as repression, denial, intellectualization,
and wishful thinking.

Downloaded from http://qhr.sagepub.com at SWETS WISE ONLINE CONTENT on March 31, 2009

1154

QUALITATIVE HEALTH RESEARCH / October 2003

Being embedded in an atmosphere of hate can affect ones resolve to work on the research. This resolve might wane, and, at times, it will be hard to remain immune to
social and political events.
Research touches ones professional, social, family, and personal life. Collaborative conflict research touches every aspect of ones life.
There is often asymmetry between researchers from conflict groups. We must work to
minimize this as much as possible.
Violence and conflict bring research to a standstill; there is an inability to know whether
or not you will be able to finish what you began.
Inability to meet affects the stages of data collection and data analysis. This can lead each
side to work with different procedures.
Difficulties continue into the writing stage. There might be defensive writing and a
heightened sensitivity to the written word.
At times, the researcher might need to compromise his or her ethical and research standards. These might take a back seat to the superordinate goal of continuing joint
work.

Three years ago, when I began undertaking collaborative conflict research with
Palestinians, I was a rather naive researcher, unaware of much of what I was getting
myself into. As time goes on, and as our political situation further deteriorates, I
become more convinced that this work must go on, though it becomes more difficult
as we go on. Perhaps the only way to continue to plan, to collect data, to begin to
analyze the data, and to produce end products is by believing that one day, in the not
too distant future, we will have helped establish the groundwork for additional
researchers, in our conflict region, and in other conflict arenas as well, who will
choose to follow a similar path.

NOTE
1. Intifada refers to an uprising or shaking off in Arabicthe name given by the Palestinians for
the mass uprising against the Israeli Occupation. The first Intifada began in December 1987; the second
onethe al-Aqsa Intifadabegan in late September 2000.

REFERENCES
Josselson, R., & Lieblich, A. (1991). The narrative study of lives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Langer, L. (1991) Holocaust testimonies: The ruins of memory. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Lieblich, A., Tuval-Mashiach, R., & Zilber, T. (1998). Narrative research: Reading analysis and interpretation.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Rosenthal, G. (1993). Reconstruction of life stories: Principles of selection in generating stories for narrative biographical interviews. In R. Josselson & A. Lieblich (Eds.) The narrative study of lives (Vol. 1,
pp. 59- 91). London: Sage.
Rosenthal, G. (Ed.). (1998). The holocaust in three generations: Families of victims and perpetrators of the Nazi
regime. London: Kassel.

Julia Chaitin, Ph.D., is a professor and researcher at the Israeli Center for Qualitative Methodologies
(ICQM), Ben Gurion University of the Negev, Beer Sheva, Israel.

Downloaded from http://qhr.sagepub.com at SWETS WISE ONLINE CONTENT on March 31, 2009