International

Social Work
http://isw.sagepub.com/

Reflections on research: Families affected by counter-terrorism in

the UK
Surinder Guru
International Social Work 2012 55: 689
DOI: 10.1177/0020872812447625
The online version of this article can be found at:
http://isw.sagepub.com/content/55/5/689

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

On behalf of:
International Association of Schools of Social Work
International Council of Social Welfare
International Federation of Social Workers

Additional services and information for International Social Work can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://isw.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://isw.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

>> Version of Record - Aug 8, 2012

What is This?

Downloaded from isw.sagepub.com at Cairo University on October 20, 2014

447625

2012

ISW55510.1177/0020872812447625GuruInternational Social Work

i s w

Article

Reflections on
research:Families
affected by counterterrorism in the UK

International Social Work

55(5) 689703
The Author(s) 2012
Reprints and permission: sagepub.
co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0020872812447625
isw.sagepub.com

Surinder Guru
University of Birmingham, UK

Abstract
Following the terrorist attacks on New York and London, the counterterrorism
legislation in the UK strengthened surveillance and national security and led to
the incarceration of many Muslim men. Whilst the treatment of prisoners and
detainees received considerable attention in public debate, the families that
are left behind have been neglected by politicians, academics, the media and
service providers alike. This article reflects on the experiences of conducting
a small exploratory study amongst such families in the West Midlands and
highlights some of the ways in which the heightened concerns about national
security impinged upon the research process.
Keywords
counter-terrorism, methodology, personal and political, political conflict,
subjectivity
The political conflict engendered by the terrorist attacks on the Twin Towers
in New York (2001) and London (2005) culminated in the strengthening of
national and international security as well as the demonization of Muslim
communities who tended to be equated with terrorism and extremism.
Some of the draconian responses of the government to terrorism included

Corresponding author: Surinder Guru, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham

B15 2TT, UK.
Email: s.guru@bham.ac.uk

Downloaded from isw.sagepub.com at Cairo University on October 20, 2014

690

International Social Work 55(5)

legislation permitting the incarceration of suspected terrorists, without the

disclosure of incriminating evidence. Many Muslim men in particular were
held in detention and imprisoned, or placed under control orders at home,
without having knowledge of the evidence against them. Whilst the treatment of men held in these conditions was the subject of considerable political debate, the plight of their families was largely ignored. This article
reflects on the process of conducting a small exploratory study of seven
women whose husbands were detained or charged with terrorism offences.
The aim of the research was to explore and identify the needs of women and
children and to establish the nature and the effectiveness of the support
mechanisms available to them. However, the focus of this article is not to
report on the findings but to reflect upon the methodological considerations.
Issues of objectivity/subjectivity, sampling, access, confidentiality, trust and
reciprocity are explored. The article explores how, in the context of counterterrorism legislation, the researchers subjectivity and identity were implicated in accessing respondents; it describes the choice of methodology
before looking at the issues of informed consent and confidentiality, the
importance of trust and reciprocity in relationship-building and the obstacles and opportunities presented by the research.

The personal, political and the professional

Ones social identity and the social context in which the research is based
are central to the research process and the interpretations of the findings
(Atkinson, 1992; Boden et al., 2009; Renold et al., 2008; Shakespeare et
al., 1993). The research here was produced in the context of the researchers political leanings, social networks and level of research expertise.
Research amidst political conflict is likely to lead from a biased viewpoint as the researcher, even if entering the research field from an independent stance, is recruited into the field on the ground that s/he is not a
hostile intruder likely to misrepresent the views, experiences and demands
of the particular faction of the political divide. It is by its nature a partisan
activity. Yet such partiality is likely to be questioned and perceived with
suspicion in situations of political conflict, particularly in relation to counter-terrorism laws.
As a South Asian woman interested in anti-colonial and Black community issues and a one-time community worker and activist in anti-racist and
Black feminist struggles, I was acutely aware that research is rarely objective and that the lens of the dominant majority viewpoint is as biased as
those of the marginalized (Becker, 1967; DCruze, 2000; Hammersley and
Gomm, 1997; Mies, 1993; Romm, 1997). Being prepared to take a partisan

Downloaded from isw.sagepub.com at Cairo University on October 20, 2014

691

Guru

stance, to advocate for women who had become targets of their own
and host communities and who were made vulnerable by subjection to
counter-terrorism laws and the incarceration of their husbands (Deacon and
Sullivan, 2009) was an important aspect of this research. However, as a
belated emerging researcher, since I had no contact with the families
themselves this would be a difficult task: the moral panics and the furor surrounding the war-on-terror, extremism and the enemy within meant
that the population under study feared being labelled guilty by association
(Brittain, 2009). It was unlikely that families would willingly subject themselves to being researched by a stranger. Hence methods detached from
respondents, such as structured interviews, questionnaires and observations
would be untenable. This required a more personal approach and insider
knowledge. As I was not an insider, this was difficult.

Methodology
The study was to proceed against the backdrop of the securitization agenda
which the counter-terrorism legislation sought to strengthen and which academic institutions had to heed, in addition to ensuring compliance with ethical standards of research.
An opportunity to gain access to participants arose after a co-incidental
(rather than designed) re-establishment of contact with friends who happened to be community/political activists involved in this area of work,
helping families to readjust to their new circumstances. I tentatively
explored the possibility of making contact with these families through the
friends, who in turn confirmed arrangements with the organization (Helping
Households Under Great Stress (HHUGS)) for whom they volunteered. It
emerged that contact was possible. This improved the possibility of gaining
rich data. Access to a purposeful, opportunistic sample (Coyne, 1997) was
secured through HHUGS. The research aimed to engage in a deeper level of
relationship, in varied settings and contexts and to show some sort of reciprocity in order to build trust and rapport (Emmel et al., 2007) to acquire a
first hand feel and to help gain different perspectives on respondents lives
(Agar, 1996; Williams, 1993). The methodology would not preclude interviews but these would be supplemented by other types of richer engagements and interactions, building stronger, more meaningful relationships
through reciprocity, which might include practical assistance, for example,
to help gain access to support services, legal advice and so on. In pursuit of
rich qualitative data, at first non-structured interviews would both permit
more informal conversational types of environment and capture the breadth
of issues that respondents considered important. Once patterns and issues

Downloaded from isw.sagepub.com at Cairo University on October 20, 2014

692

International Social Work 55(5)

became more clearly identified, semi-structured interviews would be more

appropriate.
The study was not ethnographic in the sense of focusing upon a culturally homogenous community as a participant/observer totally immersed in
respondents culture over lengthy periods to examine their norms and values. The women shared a religion, but not a cultural heritage since they
came from different countries; nevertheless, their unique shared experiences of counter-terrorism were significant enough to treat them as a community. As the establishment of trust would be difficult in the prevalent
distrustful environment of political conflict, it was envisaged that there
would be a need to adopt an ethnographically-informed approach where the
researcher was more than a mere interviewer disengaged from the respondent in a one-way exchange without reciprocity (Oakley, 1981).
In order to acquire a fuller picture of family life and a meaningful understanding of each of the members, in ideal circumstances it would have been
useful to have conversations with all members, including those detained in
prisons as well as those on control orders at home. However, wishing to stay
clear of any difficulties of having direct contact with people suspected or
convicted of terrorism, the decision to talk to men themselves was ruled
out. The children were also ruled out as respondents as further ethical considerations and methodologies would apply for which time was limited.
However, an impression of childrens experiences would be gained from
mothers. The methodology of the study therefore depended upon the
researchers preference to access rich data, but its design was affected by
the external circumstances and the ethical considerations which had to consider the demands of the research ethics committee and the fear of the legislation surrounding terrorism.

Informed consent and confidentiality

Issues of confidentiality and informed consent are important and complex and
are developed later, but these too were considered within the context of the
panic generated by the war-on-terror and the counter-terrorism legislation.
The Terrorism Act (2000) defined terrorism as the use of threat . . .
designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public . . . for the
purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause and
extended the definitions of terrorism to include the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism. The Terrorism Act 2006 created a
series of new offences including direct or indirect encouragement of terrorism, dissemination and preparation of terrorist publications, and prohibited
the publication of statements likely to be understood or to induce people to

Downloaded from isw.sagepub.com at Cairo University on October 20, 2014

693

Guru

commit, prepare or instigate acts of terrorism; this is often referred to as

glorification of terrorism. These measures have caused considerable angst
and consternation amongst community and political activists and amongst
academics and academic institutions, especially amidst government criticisms that universities are failing to fight extremism and to identify people
suspected of radicalising or being radicalised whilst within the university
(Lord Carlisle, quoted in Stratton et al., 2011).
These fears were exacerbated and given substance in 2008 when two
students at the University of Nottingham (Rizwaan Sabir and Hichem
Yezza) were arrested and a lecturer (Rod Thornton) was suspended under
this legislation during their research on terrorism. The legislation, therefore,
produced an environment of risk aversion for universities which were keen
not to be seen as encouraging terrorism. Hence, the task was not only to
overcome the sensitivities with which the university would be concerned,
but also those of the potential respondents who too lived in an atmosphere
of fear and suspicion, particularly over related concerns about informed
consent and confidentiality.
It was extremely important that the respondents knew what the research
was about and the extent and nature of their participation, the venues used
and of rights to withdraw. The ways in which informed consent was to be
gained also had to be carefully assessed against an environment where the
families would be extremely wary of strangers and officialdom and so
reluctant to give signed (or even verbal) consent. It was proposed, therefore,
that an information sheet would outline the purpose and nature of the
research and that a request for a signed consent be made at a face-to-face
meeting. However, if respondents were uncomfortable with giving this consent, then a concession would be made to acquire verbally (audio) recorded
consent. But this presented concerns about confidentiality.
The maintenance of confidentiality was pivotal because of the legislation
around the glorification of terrorism which can criminalize people for expressing particular opinions. The fear of being accused of terrorism was palpable and
there was a common feeling in Muslim communities that ones actions or views
could easily be interpreted as glorying terrorism. Women may therefore be
reluctant to come forth for research unless they had clarification about this.
However, I felt bound to comply with what seemed normal procedure, which
was to assure confidentiality, with the exception of any illegal/harmful activity
that came to light and which presented risk to the respondent or others. In
addition, where respondents might appear to be glorifying terrorism but
there was no sound evidence to suspect risk to individual, national or public
security, it was stated that such instances would not be reported to the authorities. Instead, discussion with experienced colleagues within the academic

Downloaded from isw.sagepub.com at Cairo University on October 20, 2014

694

International Social Work 55(5)

department would help guide and assess if any action was required and if so, the
participants would be notified that reporting to the relevant authorities was necessary. Wanting to safeguard the anonymity of records, a numerical system
would be used to store data electronically, accessible only to the researcher.
Another important consideration related to interpreters, who would be
required in some cases. Again, I anticipated that given the suspicion of
strangers and fears about confidentiality, some respondents may resist
external interpreters and may be more comfortable choosing their own from
their family/friends.
The social context therefore shaped the approach of the research; its
topic, conceptualization, construction and investigation were all formulated
through the subjectivity and positionality of the researcher, and influenced
by the interaction of the social and political/legal environment as well as the
demands made upon researchers on ethical grounds. As a researcher who
knew the sensitivities of the field, it was important to protect participants,
but these demands were likely to conflict with those of research ethics committees, often operating from a biomedical ethical stance and requiring
strict procedural adherence to acquisitions of written or other forms of consent and of confirmation that respondents would be warned about breaches
of confidentiality under specific circumstances. These pressures were further compounded by counter-terrorism laws that created an atmosphere of
fear where research activities could be criminalized as glorification of terrorism. These processes had the potential to silence research (Boden et al.,
2009; Renold et al., 2008).

The Universitys Research Ethical Committee

(UREC)
The UREC was approached with the application for ethical clearance which
stressed in detail the points considered above. It emphasized the importance
of examining the topic, the difficulties of accessing this hard-to-reach
group, the focus on women rather than the detained men, the necessity of
employing the gatekeepers and interpreters, as well as the particular need to
go beyond the interviews. It also explained the need to engage in acts of
reciprocity, and the issues surrounding informed consent and confidentiality
together with the manner in which these would be managed.
The UREC was generally supportive and it was clear that it wished to see
the research progress. However, it was concerned with the complex legislation and sought additional advice from the universitys Legal Services and
called a meeting for further clarification. Matters of the gatekeepers role,
written consent and the statement about confidentiality were clarified,

Downloaded from isw.sagepub.com at Cairo University on October 20, 2014

695

Guru

mostly confirming the statements already made in the application, but the
Chair emphasized the need to record consent in audio format if not in written form and further clarification was requested about the circumstances
upon which confidentiality may be breached in the eventuality of criminal
activity coming to attention. The Chair proved to be sensitive to peculiarities of social science research and was also helpful in recommending a
reduction in the size of the information sheet and, to ease matters about
confidentiality, suggested a script that would be verbally communicated
when interviewing participants.
The Legal Services adopted a more traditional, procedural approach.
They were more persistent about securing written consent and emphasized
the need to secure electronic data in line with university requirements.
However, the outcome of the UREC was generally supportive, but it was
clear that given the seriousness of counter-terrorism legislation, it was compelled to demonstrate its explicit scrutinization of the application in order to
safeguard institutional interests (Coomber, 2002; Truman, 2003). The process took five months to gain ethical clearance and in the meantime the
initial enthusiasm and support of the gatekeepers had waned and some of
the contacts that they initially envisaged were no longer available, due to
illnesses and relocations to other areas. The ethics committee, in this sense,
had become officious gate-keepers (Redwood and Todres, 2006) and
risked the commencement of the research.
The insistence of the Legal Services upon securing written consent is
controversial and presents ethical dilemmas for social scientists. In terms of
this research, surprisingly, written consent was secured for all participants,
but had it failed, the research process would have encountered obstacles and
further delay, if not termination. The notion that the social processes underpinning research-ethic reviews . . . are similar to those associated with moral
panic (Van Den Hoonaard, 2001: 1920, cited in Truman, 2003) is certainly
true as far as the Legal Services were concerned in this case. It seemed that
they were more concerned with the protection of institutional interest, rather
than that of participants.
In some areas of social science research (e.g. crime, disability) it is not
always feasible to acquire informed consent, and insistence upon it can discourage participation or lead researchers to adopt superficial strategies of compliance without being sincere in practising them in the field (Coomber, 2002;
Hammersley, 2009; Wiles et al., 2007). Consent is contingent upon the relationship built between the researcher and researched and so a greater autonomy
is called for in enabling researchers to be responsible decision makers in the
context of the field (Boden et al., 2009; Renold et al., 2008; Truman, 2003).

Downloaded from isw.sagepub.com at Cairo University on October 20, 2014

696

International Social Work 55(5)

Alderson (1999) and Hammersley (2009) implore research ethics committees to understand the contextual and contingent nature of consent and
confidentiality and not to insist upon requiring formal consent. Instead, it
should be ensured that research is respectful to participants and that it
encourages their well-being, rather than be against their interests. These are
also values that run parallel to social work values and ethics (Butler, 2002).
Coomber (2002) warns Research Ethics Committees (RECs) that for
researchers in crime related work, even asking for signatures can alienate
and lose credibility with respondents. Concerns about confidentiality have
witnessed competing arguments, particularly since signed, informed consent gives way to breaches of confidentiality and anonymity (Coomber,
2002). On the one hand, there is widespread agreement that confidentiality
should always be ensured with respondents, except where there is actual or
potential risk of harm to respondents. On the other hand, the situational and
contingent nature of confidentiality must be considered, particularly in
areas where a breach of confidentiality results in the breach of respect for
individual privacy, security and well-being. In certain areas such as crime,
breaching confidentiality would compromise the confidentiality and security of participants and signed consents may not be in the interest of researchers as they may be complicit in the incrimination and prosecution of
research participants, which conflicts with the professional responsibilities
of social scientists who must protect their research participants (Coomber,
2002: 1.2). Coomber (2002) and others (Boden et al., 2009; Renold et al.,
2008) call for RECs to recognize the distinct nature of social science
research which requires different sensitivities. They recommend that standardized procedures requiring signed consent be avoided in favour of assessing harm accruing to participants from the results of the research.
Hence, competing ethical values form important considerations in the
context of counter-terrorism, where insistence upon signed consent may be
detrimental to participants and erode trust, as well as place participants in
precarious situations. This acts against the grain of social work and social
work research based in fundamental human rights and social justice
approaches.
The next section explores issues of trust and reciprocity in relation to
gatekeepers, participants and other stakeholders and leads onto an outline of
some unexpected outcomes of the research.

Trust Friends as gatekeepers and me

The trust developed between the gatekeepers and respondents is the gateway for the potential trust between researchers and participants (Emmel

Downloaded from isw.sagepub.com at Cairo University on October 20, 2014

697

Guru

et al., 2007). However, in researching political conflict, the trust between

the gatekeepers and the researcher is equally important and it was this
that I felt I had to develop despite the fact that the gatekeepers were also
friends. In an environment of political conflict there is likely to be great
suspicion of outsiders who may misrepresent or be hostile to the issues
facing particular groups.
In privileging the researcher to gain access to participants the gatekeepers would not have allowed contact if they had any suspicions that the
researcher, or the research, may bring harm and risk to respondents. The
context of counter-terrorism made it necessary for the gatekeepers to ratify
and vet the researcher before they allowed access; otherwise their own credibility might be questioned. Perhaps because I was a non-white, nonWestern woman, but more importantly, because of a demonstrated political affinity, empathy and understanding, it was possible to elicit the trust of
the gatekeepers and the participants themselves that is, I would not misrepresent their experiences or cause. Nevertheless, it was quite feasible that
the activists/friends with whom I had campaigned and mingled more than a
decade ago would now see me in a different light, particularly when there
was an ever-present hostility towards careerist, exploitative academics. I
felt a perpetual unease about whether my personal and professional interests
were perceived as, or were indeed, one or different spheres (Mies, 1993)
and the extent to which I was considered an insider (sympathizer) or an
outsider (academic, non-Muslim), both amongst the gatekeepers and the
respondents. My integrity did not seem to be questioned but ultimately I had
to accept that there was always going to be an element of exploitation and
power that rested with me because although I may have participated in these
activities as a sympathizer, the research reflected efforts to enhance career
prospects, and I had to rely upon my own integrity and self-reflection/
respect and draw upon my ethics as an academic, not overstep the mark.
The close entanglement of the personal/professional self also raised
questions of rights and risks to the different stakeholders in the research. For
instance, the attendance at a public meeting, where Moazzam Beg (an exdetainee of Guantanamo Bay, whose meetings I had previously attended
independently of the research interest) addressed the issue of detainees and
their families, was beneficial to me in understanding his perspective and
simultaneously establishing trust with respondents and friends. However, in
the research context it raised concerns for me about whether this placed me,
my employers and the respondents at risk in case this activity was perceived
to be glorifying terrorism. Hammersley (2009) and Truman (2003) argue
that harms and benefits are relative, situational constructs that have to be
weighed against each other, but there is no calculus for weighing the harms

Downloaded from isw.sagepub.com at Cairo University on October 20, 2014

698

International Social Work 55(5)

against benefits. In this case I judged the autonomy of attending a meeting

as a citizen and an academic to be more beneficial than the potential risk
of being (collectively) criminalized under the law, particularly when the
respondents attending felt they had little to lose as they were already under
surveillance.
My biography as a non-Western woman, political activist and an academic was therefore inextricably entangled in my research interest, methodology and process (Almack, 2008). Where the personal and the professional
are closely intermeshed there may be tensions in the loyalty one owes to
ones personal/professional spheres; how one is perceived in each has ramifications for the other. These are bound to present constraints and opportunities in the context of research.

Trust and reciprocity Obstacles and

opportunities
. . . reciprocity is a strategy necessary to maintain the relationship between
researcher and participant during the research process once successful access has
been gained. (Emmel et al., 2007: 2.7)

The integrity and credibility of the researcher rests on effective rapport and
reciprocity with participants and it is through this mechanism that greater
trust can ensue between them. In this case, the organization which was
another gatekeeper to the women first needed to establish trust and confidence in me.
HHUGS looked after the welfare of the families of incarcerated men
(and women), helping them with prison visits, finance and social activities
to reduce isolation. The organization was not previously known to me and
gaining access to it was another venture in negotiating contact and demonstrating commitment. Having gained access to it through the friends/gatekeepers and requesting contact with participants, it transpired that contact
was conditional on the presence of a bona fide representative of HHUGS
in all interviews to ensure that the women were not subjected to a stranger,
and that a female interpreter, who knew all the women and was trusted by
the women, was to be designated by the organization. I feared that the presence of the representatives was irregular and would intrude upon the
researcherparticipant relationship and, more importantly, prevent
respondents from voicing their opinions, particularly about the services
that HHUGS provided. Moreover, the organization of the interviews would
become a complex task with having to negotiate dates and times between
three to four different parties. It was not a situation I felt I could challenge,

Downloaded from isw.sagepub.com at Cairo University on October 20, 2014

699

Guru

however. Having been given the rare and valuable privilege of accessing
the families, any questioning of the decision may begin the onset of distrust
and destroy the relationship that had been build to date. In addition, I did
understand the anxieties of the respondents and was sensitive to their
needs; I considered that if it did not work I would be able to re-negotiate.
However, the reality was that the presence of the agency worker made a
positive contribution: it meant that the respondents trusted the researcher,
vis-a-vis the agency representative, and felt confident enough to give their
written consent without hesitation (which would have been very difficult to
obtain otherwise) and to talk openly about their experiences, without fear of
breach of confidentiality or the misuse of the information. Furthermore,
there were many instances when the interjections of the agency representative clarified points (e.g. dates or chronology of particular events) which
were useful in making sense of the information the participant provided.
I was mindful that the HHUGS representative did not talk for the
respondents and that information they gave was only for clarification purposes rather than their own opinions. However, although their presence was
useful, it must have influenced how respondents formulated their responses
to questions about the nature of the service HHUGS offered, as confirmed
perhaps by the absence of any negative responses towards the agencys
work.
In terms of my relationship with respondents, a total reliance upon the
interviews would have obstructed my relationship with them, but my
engagement with them in other scenarios, where I was freer to build a oneto-one relationship (e.g. at social events), meant that a more engaging
encounter was possible. There were instances where reciprocity was used
to strengthen the researcherresearched relationship deliberately in terms
of offering respondents services such as transport to social events organized by HHUGS. Other activities challenged the traditional researcher role
when I was asked by women to help them set up appointments with and
accompany them to see their MPs; I encountered a family whose children
had been absent from school for four months due to the failure of the local
authority to allocate schools after re-housing the family to another area,
and advised her to go and see her MP. These activities may have been
deemed by the ethics committee as providing advice, as being outside the
purview of the researcher and perhaps glorifying terrorism under the
counter-terrorism legislation; but refraining from them would have meant
that my role, otherwise, would have been a clinical one where the research
merely enters and exits the research site. They helped me gain a better
insight into the problems the women faced and to build trust through deeper
engagement.

Downloaded from isw.sagepub.com at Cairo University on October 20, 2014

700

International Social Work 55(5)

The employment of interpreters in any research remains problematic in

representing the real views of respondents and in this case the interpreter
being a HHUGS volunteer may have presented an even more subjective
picture of events. However, if this was the case the impact will have been
minimal since there was only one woman who could not understand English;
the majority had a reasonable understanding of the language but lacked confidence to speak, and on one or two occasions when they felt clarification
was necessary, they interjected and restated their views.
Another unexpected consequence of HHUGS involvement with interviews was the opportunity to demonstrate reciprocity in terms of the emerging results of the research. The representatives, for the first time, heard
womens encounters from the beginning to the current situation and so they
were able to develop a fuller picture of the experiences their service users
were subjected to, rather than the fragmented stories they had gathered during sporadic visits and meetings. As women narrated their stories, the nature
of their needs that had to be addressed also became clearer (e.g. to reduce
their isolation and set up groups for them to participate without the presence
of children, address post-traumatic stress, etc.). In this sense the unexpected
outcome led the research to be of immediate value to the agency (and hopefully to the women), something that a participatory action research approach
might have addressed. However, that was not the aim of the research at the
outset and so it was not designed for that purpose, but the benefits that
accrued helped to deepen the level of reciprocity and trust with both the
organization and the participants. This highlights the very fluid and unpredictable nature of research (Boden et al., 2009; Renold et al., 2008) which
the inflexibilities of ethics committees do not always take into account.
Trust and reciprocity are closely connected; trust is underpinned by reciprocity. Feminist methodology has long recognized the need for reciprocity
in the researcher(ed) relationship. Reciprocity does not necessarily reduce
power relations of class, race or gender, but it gives value to respondents by
acknowledging their contributions as worthy of knowledge; the notion that
the researcher should give back something in return is a step towards that
recognition (Goode, 2000; Oakley, 1981).
Thus, encounters with HHUGS presented an unexpected terrain in which
to build relations of reciprocity but which had to be built in the context of the
various power relationships between the different parties which actually or
potentially complicated negotiations over informed consent and confidentiality. These issues were further exacerbated by the concerns around counterterrorism measures, encapsulated in risks of glorifying terrorism. Research
dynamics are situational as they operate within particular social and political
context, and fixed demands to adhere to procedural requirements of informed

Downloaded from isw.sagepub.com at Cairo University on October 20, 2014

701

Guru

consent, or to breach confidentiality of respondents, can present potential

problems for social research and endanger its existence.

Conclusions
Against the backdrop of counter-terrorism legislation, the researcher had to
negotiate trusts at different levels with different stakeholders, always cautious of not glorifying terrorism. The researchers own biography and her
commitment to highlight and improve the lives of the families were instrumental in securing trust. However, the activities that helped develop trust
could easily be (mis)construed as glorification of terrorism under the
counter-terrorism legislation, and as such presented a perpetual risk to the
researcher and possibly her employer, as well as the participants. Activities
of building trust through notions of reciprocity had to be carefully negotiated, whilst guarding relationships with gatekeepers and respondents.
Reciprocity and research based upon the commitment to improve the position of the respondents did, however, have immediate and positive impact
on participants.
Social work research must be embedded in principles of social justice
and human rights (Butler, 2002) and researchers have to be morally
responsible whilst engaged in emancipatory research amongst disempowered groups. There are insurmountable difficulties facing families of
incarcerated people who are stigmatized, shunned and marginalized by
their own communities and by the dominant society. Any exposition of
their plight promotes social justice. Morality, however, is an ambiguous
and shifting notion and the competing moralities of research, meeting
procedural ethical demands versus the rights and responsibilities of social
scientists to safeguard their participants, are ongoing conflicting issues.
The draconian counter-terrorism laws intensify these tensions by the
threat of criminalization and make research potentially more dangerous
for researchers. If researchers are discouraged by this in social work
research, they risk doing a disservice to groups whose needs and rights
will remain suppressed.
Funding
The research was funded by a small grant from the Institute of Applied Social
Studies Research Fund, University of Birmingham.

Acknowledgements
I am grateful to the anonymous reviewers for their comments on this article.

Downloaded from isw.sagepub.com at Cairo University on October 20, 2014

702

International Social Work 55(5)

References
Agar, M.H. (1996) The Professional Stranger: An Informal Introduction to Ethnography, 2nd edn. London: Academic Press, Inc.
Alderson, P. (1999) Disturbed Young People, Research for What, Research for
Whom? in S. Hood, B. Mayall and S. Oliver (eds) Critical Issues in Social
Research: Power and Prejudice. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Almack, K. (2008) Women Parenting Together: A Reflexive Account of the Ways
in Which the Researchers Identity and Experience May Impact on the Processes
of Doing Research, Sociological Research Online 13(1), available online at:
http://www.socresonline.org.uk/13/1/4.html.
Atkinson, P. (1992) Understanding Ethnographic Text. London: SAGE.
Becker, H. (1967) Whose Side Are We On?, Social Problems 14(3): 23447.
Boden, R., D. Epstein and J. Latimer (2009) Accounting for Ethos or Programmes
for Conduct? The Brave New World of Research Ethics Committees, The Sociological Review 57(4): 72749.
Brittain, V. (2009) Besieged in Britain, Race and Class 50(3): 129.
Butler, I. (2002) A Code of Ethics for Social Work and Social Care Research, British Journal of Social Work 32(2): 23048.
Coomber, R. (2002) Signing Your Life Away? Why Research Ethics Committees
(REC) Shouldnt Always Require Written Confirmation that Participants in Research Have Been Informed of the Aims of a Study and their Rights The Case
of Criminal Populations, Sociological Research Online 7(1), available online
at: http://www.socresonline.org,uk/7/1/coomber.html.
Coyne, I.T. (1997) Sampling in Qualitative Research. Purposeful and Theoretical
Sampling: Merging or Clear Boundaries?, Journal of Advanced Nursing 26:
62330.
DCruze, H. (2000) Social Work Research as Knowledge/Power in Practice,
Sociological Research Online 5(1), available online at: http://www.socreson
line.org.uk/5/1/dcruz.html.
Deacon, A. and C. Sullivan (2009) Responding to the Complex and Gendered
Needs of Refugee Women, Affilia 23(3): 27284.
Emmel, N., K. Hughes, J. Greeenhalgh and A. Sales (2007) Accessing Socially
Excluded People Trust and the Gatekeeper in the ResearcherParticipant Relationship, Sociological Research Online 12(2), available online at: http://www.
socresonline.org.uk/12/2/emmel.html.
Goode, S. (2000) Researching a Hard-to-Access and Vulnerable Population: Some
Considerations on Researching Drug and Alcohol-using Mothers, Sociological
Research Online5(1),available online at: http://www.socresonline.org.uk/5-1/
goode.html.
Hammersley, M. (2009) Against the Ethicists: On the Evils of Ethical Regulation,
International Journal of Social Research Methodology 12(3): 21125.
Hammersley, M. and R. Gomm (1997) Bias in Social Research, Sociological
Research Online 2(1), available online at: http://www.socresonline.org.uk/
socresonline/2/1/2.html.

Downloaded from isw.sagepub.com at Cairo University on October 20, 2014

703

Guru

Mies, M. (1993) Towards a Methodology in Feminist Research, in Social Research: Philosophy, Politics and Practice, pp. 6482. London: SAGE.
Oakley, A. (1981) Interviewing Women: A Contradiction in Terms, in H. Roberts
(ed.)Doing Feminist Research, pp. 3061.London: Routledge.
Redwood, S. and L. Todres (2006) Exploring the Ethical Imagination: Conversation as Practice versus Committee as Gatekeeper, Forum: Qualitative Social
Research 7(2), Art. 26, available online at: http://www.qualitative-research.net/
index.php/fqs/article/view/129/271.
Renold, E., S. Holland, N.J. Ross and A. Hillman (2008) Becoming Participant:
Problematizing Informed Consent in Participatory Research with Young People, Qualitative Social Work 7(4): 42748.
Romm, N. (1997) Becoming More Accountable: A Comment on Hammersley and
Gomm, Sociological Research Online 2(3), available online at: http://www.
socresonline.org.uk/socresonline/2/3/2.html.
Shakespeare, P., D. Atkinson and S. French (1993) Reflecting on Research Practice:
Issues in Health and Social Welfare. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Stratton, A., P. Wintour and J. Vasager (2011) Universities Failing to Fight Extremism, Says Watchdog, The Guardian, available online at: http://www.guardian.
co.uk/world/2011/feb/18/counter-terrorism-watchdog-universities-fail-fightextremism.
Truman, C. (2003) Ethics and the Ruling Relations of Research Production, Sociological Research Online 8(1), available online at: http://www.socresonline.org.
uk/8/1/truman.html.
Van Den Hoonaard, W. (2001) Is Ethics Review a Moral Panic?, Canadian Review
of Sociology and Anthropology 38(1): 1935.
Wiles, R., G. Crow, V. Charles and S. Heath (2007) Informed Consent and the Research Process: Following Rules or Striking Balances?, Sociological Research
Online 12(2), available online at: http://www.socresonline.org.uk/12/2/wiles.html.
Williams, F. (1993) Thinking, in P. Shakespeare, D. Atkinson and S. French (eds)
Reflecting on Research Practice: Issues in Health and Social Welfare, pp. 1124.
Buckingham: Open University Press.

Author biography
Surinder Guru is a Lecturer in Social Work at the Institute of Applied Social Studies,
University of Birmingham, UK.

Downloaded from isw.sagepub.com at Cairo University on October 20, 2014