‘Respect’ and ‘justice’ for whom? Culturally irresponsive ethical practices with refugee communities

Abstract

This article explores how two common social work ethical principles, respect for persons and justice, are understood by refugee young people aged 18–30 years old in Kenya. Through 31 semi-structured, in-depth interviews with refugee young people who had previously participated in academic and/or organization-based qualitative research, this article explores how this group conceptualizes research ethics. The analysis suggests that refugee young people in Kenya did not necessarily feel that researchers were respectful. As such, the article claims that researchers must reconsider how Eurocentric social work and research ethics codes are understood globally.

Introduction

International social work researchers are ethically bound to respect the inherent dignity and worth of all people and promote social justice (IFSW, 2018). Though, the ways respect and justice are understood are contextually specific. For instance, based on sociopolitical context, culture, gender, colonialism, and power, social justice in Yemen may not look the same as it may in England (Sewpaul and Henrickson, 2019). Although ethical principles are an essential foundation for social work researchers, these concepts are generally abstract and provide researchers with minimal guidance on implementation (Mackenzie et al., 2007). Moreover, a culturally specific definition of respectful research is non-existent. Cross-cultural ethical issues may be compounded by power and colonialism. Research ethics guidelines are commonly developed and composed by researchers in the Global North. The Global North represents the economically developed countries of Europe, North America, Australia, and Israel, among others (Odeh, 2012). On the contrary, the Global South includes the less economically stable countries of Africa, India, China, South East Asia, Central and South America, among others (Odeh, 2012). Considering research ethics guidelines are most often drafted in the Global North, the attributes assigned to such codes (e.g. respect for persons) may culturally misalign with researchers and participants in the Global South (IFSW, 2018).

Facilitating research with refugee young people (RYP) warrants extra caution as researchers often work in socially unjust and unfamiliar contexts, which may engender convoluted and confusing ethical research encounters (Jacobsen and Landau, 2003). The term ‘young people’ is used instead of ‘youth’ because identifying RYP in chronological age is often culturally-insensitive as cultural variations may signify specific conceptualizations such as children, youth, adolescents, and adults (Clark-Kazak, 2011). Based on this understanding, this article defines RYP as those between the ages of 18 and 30 years old. Moreover, Krause (2017) claims that research ethics protocols with RYP are extensively used and assumed factual though actually subjective. This article examines two frequently cited guiding ethical social work and research concepts – respect for persons and justice – from the perspectives of RYP living in Kakuma refugee camp, Kenya. It uncovers the ways RYP who had (a) previously participated in research and (b) resided in Kakuma refugee camp comprehended and made sense of these ethical codes. This article argues that the constitution of respect for persons and justice, consistent with formal research ethics guidelines, misaligns with the ways RYP participants characterize them. Furthermore, without critically analyzing social work research ethics, researchers run the risk of Othering participants, especially when researchers from the Global North facilitate studies with participants from the Global South.

To justify these arguments, the manuscript will first provide a brief overview of research ethics, including the four research ethics protocols that framed this project and African-specific theories on research ethics. Next it offers a brief account of the main underpinnings of Othering, followed by the research methodology and methods. The article then details respect for persons and justice and illustrates how RYP participants understood them. During this section, RYP voices and social work ethical codes are compared and analyzed. Finally, the discussion section draws links between the Othering (Spivak, 1988) theoretical prism and research ethics principles, followed by the implications for the social work discipline.

In examining RYPs’ perceptions of research participation, the author analyzed extensive social work and refugee research ethics scholarship and formal ethical research protocols. The purpose was to assess alignment between the underpinnings of research ethics for researchers and RYP in Kakuma refugee camp. The search yielded academic scholarship (largely theoretical) and non-binding national, international, and organizational research ethics protocols. These included the Canadian Association for Social Work–Code of Ethics (CASW, 2005), the Canadian Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans (CIHR, 2014), Australian National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (NHMRC, 2015), the Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research (Miracle, 2016), and World Health Organization: Ethical and Safety Recommendations for Researching, Documenting and Monitoring Sexual Violence in Emergencies (WHO, 2007). These documents were studied to understand practical ways to implement ethical research with refugee populations. In addition, these texts were selected because of their prominence and frequency in social sciences research ethics scholarship. It must be noted that although these documents were selected for this study, ubiquitous across research ethics protocols with refugee populations are the constructs of respect for persons and justice. While the author surveyed ethics documents from multiple contexts in the Global North (i.e. UK, US), refugee literature most frequently cited the Canadian and Australian research ethics documents (Lawrence et al., 2013). As such, these ethical protocols framed this study.

The author also explored scholarship on African-specific research ethics. Included in this were African Ethics: An Anthology of Comparative and Applied Ethics (Murove, 2009), Research Ethics in Africa: A Resource for Research Ethics Committees (Kruger et al., 2014), and Indigenous Research Methodologies (Chilisa, 2012). Collectively, these scholars argue for the need to interrogate colonialism’s impact on research in Africa. Moreover, there is an emphasis on relational ethics, including reciprocity and community-based approaches to research (Chilisa and Ntseane, 2010). This will be expanded upon in the next section.

This study is anchored in the two most recurring ethical principles identified in all documents: respect for persons and justice. The concepts were selected based upon (a) the ubiquity of their presence in ethical research (and refugee specific) scholarship and (b) RYP participants’ consistent reference throughout the research study (e.g. ‘they were not respecting us’).

Relational ethics

Academic scholarship distinguishes between procedural and relational ethics, with the former dominating literature with young people affected by armed conflict (Vervliet et al., 2015). Procedural ethics include informed consent, privacy and confidentiality, institutional ethical approval, the right to withdrawal, dissemination practices, and so on (Vervliet et al., 2015). While procedural ethics are generally more objective and tangible than relational ethics, several procedural ethical challenges exist when conducting research with young people affected by war. For instance, the cultural nuances of communication may be lost when interviews are not conducted in participants’ native language or, conversely, when using an interpreter. Moreover, the cultural complexities of informed consent documents with displaced populations in the Global South have been given attention (Mackenzie et al., 2007). Scholars have acknowledged (Pittaway and Bartolomei, 2013: 159) the perspective of one researcher facilitating research in a refugee camp by stating that, ‘Informed consent is a joke when there is no food, no proper interpreters to read the legalistic forms we take . . . sometimes it makes me feel sick to have to ask people’.

Relational ethics refer to the recognition of value and respect (Lawrence et al., 2015), reciprocity (Chilisa, 2012), researchers’ reflexivity (Guillemin and Gillam, 2004), and the deconstruction of researchers’ power and positionality within the research process (Smith, 2012). Moreover, relational ethics include collaborating or partnering with community members, guardians, social workers, teachers, or other actors in the participant’s life to assuage the asymmetrical research relationship (Vervliet et al., 2015). Relational ethics attempt to privilege research participants’ agency while striving for dignity and connectedness between the researcher and participant (Ellis, 2007). This article focuses on relational ethics for several reasons. First, the principles of relational ethics parallel several cultural values of many residents of Kakuma refugee camp. Second, African scholars have acknowledged a need for researchers to move beyond procedural ethics and prioritize relationships and collectivism as significant research ethics concerns (Chuwa, 2014; Kruger et al., 2014). Furthermore, relational ethics ‘deals with the reality and practice of changing relationships with our research participants over time’ (Ellis, 2007: 4). Considering the author spent 5 months with participants, it was clear that relationships would, and did, shift over time. Finally, relational ethics are less acknowledged than procedural ethics in research with RYP.

Othering

Chilisa and Ntseane (2010) claim that colonial ideology was characterized by undermining the other’s authenticity. The Other or Othering, a critical concept of postcolonial theory, is a method for defining what is normal. In other words, the Other is separate from what is perceived as normal. Othering, coined by Gayatri Spivak (1988), refers to the social and/or psychological ways one group excludes or marginalizes another. Indeed, Othering continues to construct the world along opposing binaries – self/other, colonizer/colonized, researcher/researched, developed/developing, Global North/Global South, and so on (Chilisa, 2012). According to global discourse, the Global North is geographically, culturally, and politically centralized in the world (Said, 1978). This suggests that the Global South, and its inhabitants, remain on the margins – it is Othered (Wang, 1997).

While such binary constructions may be useful in specific contexts, they are broad and run the risk of being labeled universalistic or of homogenizing the differences within each side of the binary (Chilisa, 2005). In addition, binaries privilege the Global North and may categorize the Other as vulnerable and passive victims who lack agency. Though, the Other is not a helpless victim. Indeed, a critical aspect of postcolonial theory and Othering is resistance, and those suffering from the injustices of colonialism not only resisted with force but also through literature and art (Ashcroft, 2013). Finally, the ways in which the Other/Othering may affect research ethics in Kakuma refugee camp will be illustrated in the discussion section.

Methodology

This qualitative study draws upon 31 semi-structured, in-depth interviews conducted over 5 months (January to May 2017) in Kakuma refugee camp, Kenya. The analysis is part of a larger qualitative research project examining how research ethics are understood in refugee communities.

To be included in this research, participants had to be between the ages of 18 and 30 during data collection. As mentioned, this age bracket which denotes RYP was influenced by Clark-Kazak’s (2011) research with Congolese young people in Uganda coupled with feedback from residents of Kakuma. Criteria for inclusion also consisted of participation in research that was facilitated by outside researchers (i.e. non-Kenyan) that took place a minimum of 2 years before the interviews. This article focuses only on those who participated in qualitative research as qualitative interviews are commonly more intimate and may influence how participants unpack engaging in research. Of 31 participants in this study, 18 were male-identifying and 13 female-identifying. The research participants originated from several countries, including South Sudan, Sudan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Rwanda, Uganda, Eritrea, Somalia, and Burundi.

Participants were drawn into the study through display documents throughout the camp, conversations with NGO staff members, community health centers, restaurants and shops, as well as word of mouth. Of the 31 interviewees, 29 were conducted in English, and two participants requested a translator/interpreter. This is a limitation of the study, as it may have been better practice to provide a translator for all non-native English speakers to ensure a more comprehensive understanding. One interview in this article includes one participant (RYP4) whose interview was facilitated with a translator.

Formal interviews were conducted at locations selected by the participants. Interviews lasted anywhere from 45 minutes to 2 hours. In order to assess their understanding of research in general, participants were encouraged to describe their motivations for participating in this research. Semi-structured interviews included a broad and consistent theme, though they were adapted according to the conversation. Interview questions included: What kinds of research projects have you participated in? Why did you participate in research? Do you feel that the researcher respected you during the research process? In what ways has participating in research met your expectations? How did that make you feel? In what ways has it not met your expectations? How has it not met them? Why do you think that is? How does that make you feel? Data were analyzed via thematic analysis as it is a useful method for examining the perspectives of diverse research participants, highlighting similarities and differences, and generating unanticipated insights (Braun and Clark, 2006).

There are several limitations to this research, which include (a) a failure to interview researchers who conduct research in refugee camps or similar contexts, (b) the paradox of a White, non-African doctoral student-researcher from the Global North facilitating independent research exploring research ethics in a refugee camp in the Global South, (c) using a translator/interpreter for only two interviews, and (d) by focusing on relational ethics, this manuscript excludes the critical (procedural) ethical principle of ‘informed consent’. The omission of ‘informed consent’ was primarily related to: (a) the majority of RYP participants claimed not to have received an informed consent document in previous research, and (b) it is not a relational ethics component. Though considering informed consent is a vital aspect of research, the discussion section will touch on it briefly.

Respect for persons

Respect or respect for persons is a fundamental concept in both the social work discipline and research ethics protocols (CASW, 2005; NHMRC, 2015). Concerning research, respect for persons consists of acknowledging the autonomy of persons, protecting those without autonomy, and the importance of informed consent (CIHR, 2014; WHO, 2007). Due to such ambiguity in the meaning of ‘autonomy of persons’, Dickert (2009) claims that respect for research participants may surface in various ways. For instance, they found that respect while rooted in autonomy was understood as a multi-faceted concept that included elements of care, empathy, attention to needs, and researchers’ attitudes (Dickert, 2009).

Within the context of this research, respect was acknowledged through several lenses. For instance, RYP claimed that one researcher could potentially exhibit traits of both respect and disrespect. One participant claimed, ‘So they [researchers] were respectful while they were here. But after they left, there was no respect because they have gone without telling or sharing anything’ (RYP1, 2017). Another participant likened researchers’ respect to a double-sided coin:

Researchers respect us because if you don’t respect me, then you’re not going to be interested in getting my views. So, about the respect – for the researchers, they are on the upper side. They respect us, but we [participants] are on the lower side. The respect part with researchers is a coin because they respect us because they really want to get our views. And if you really want to get my views, you’re going to respect me. But then on the other side, you’re respecting my views, yes, but then you don’t come back and tell me, ‘This is what you shared, and this is how it went. This is going to be possible, and this is not going to be possible’. So, about respect, it’s a coin. (RYP13, 2017)

The respect ‘coin’ suggests that for participants of this study, respect is nuanced. The first element supports respect for persons regarding ethics documents’ notion of respect as autonomy, coupled with Dickert’s (2009) findings of empathy, researcher’s attitude, and kindness. Furthermore, this coin acknowledges respect in alliance with Mackenzie et al.’s (2007) argument that respectful research relationships are responsive to the participants’ needs and values. According to this research, RYP commonly value receiving feedback or results of the study in which they participated. Without addressing that side of the coin, researchers in Kakuma have not been portrayed as exceptionally respectful.

Another participant shared a story of unacknowledged attempts to communicate with two previous researchers via email and Facebook. Although they experienced the researchers as ‘nice people’, they also expressed feelings around the lack of follow-up:

So, I feel maybe there is not – there is a lack of respect. Actually, a lack of respect – that is the worst behavior. Because if you try to undermine somebody that has been trying to help you get what you want with your research – then after getting what you want you go and undermine that person? I feel, ah, really it is kind of unhuman. Maybe you feel that I’m not even human at all. (RYP2, 2017)

In their chapter on the role of respect in research interactions with RYP, Lawrence et al. (2013) claim that researchers’ acknowledgment of RYP primarily in terms of their displacement status may create disparaging relationships. Distinguishing RYP as ‘refugees’ paramount to their identity as an individual perpetuates an Othering divide between the powerful researcher and subjugated participants. Several RYP in Kakuma contemplated their African identities and refugee statuses while processing respect in research.

One participant spoke of being ‘homeless’ in their country of origin due to political violence:

What [RYP4] is saying is that he wants one thing from research. [RYP4] is a human being; even if a refugee and homeless, somebody needs to care. If [RYP4] shares information with somebody, [RYP4] wants to get some feedback . . . all of the researchers have shown no feedback . . . these researchers are not respecting [RYP4] as a human. (RYP4, 2017)

Finally, feeling confused by the lack of responses from previous researchers, another participant eventually questioned his status as an ‘African’:

I don’t know whether other researchers, who do their research in those Western countries, also don’t give out the feedback to their interviewees? But, maybe, I don’t know whether because we are Africans, or they feel maybe we are – ah you know – we are uninformed, so we may not follow up. You know some people they really feel that, ah these guys they are staying in Kakuma. Kakuma is a remote place; nobody will even try to follow up with what we went about during our research. So, they try maybe, I think, they try to undermine us. They don’t show us respect. Because we are Africans here in the camp, they think maybe we are uninformed. (RYP2, 2017)

From the perspectives of RYP, the concept of respect appeared to be rooted in an expectation of exchange. For instance, the participants claimed that there was a tacit or understood assumption that if researchers took something (e.g. their time and perspectives) that researchers would return with something, there would be an exchange. Although wary of essentializing an ‘African’ way of life, both Shutte (1993) and Otite (1978) recognize that in African societies, an individual is not identified by a set of properties, but instead their relationship with others. Embedded in such long-term relationships is the principle of reciprocity (Murove, 2009).

In failing to engage in reciprocal relationships with researchers, RYP participants reported feeling ‘disrespected’, ‘neglected’, and ‘undermined’. Moreover, the principle of exchange or reciprocity appeared much more substantial for some, as it was likened to a sense of dignity, worth, or humanity. Indeed, one participant acknowledged that a lack of exchange was ‘unhuman’ while another equated it to being treated like an ‘animal’ or a ‘donkey’. This exemplifies the prevailing notion of power with respect to reciprocal relationships. It seems reasonable to argue that many RYP equated respect to reciprocity.

Justice

Like respect for persons, justice is both a social work and research ethics principle that is culturally specific. Therefore, applying ‘justice-based’ research with RYP may engender misalignment between researchers and participants. The Canadian Tri-Council (CIHR, 2014) claims that justice includes researchers’ obligation to treat participants fairly and equitably by treating all people with respect and equal concern. Justice also incorporates procedural ethics such as informed consent and selecting potential participants fairly and impartially. It has been stated (Block et al., 2013: 6) that ‘justice-based vulnerability arises where neither the individuals participating in a study (who take on the associated risks and inconvenience), nor the society of which they are members, benefit directly from the outcomes of research’.

According to Australia’s National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (NHMRC, 2015: 5), justice involves

a regard for the human sameness that each person shares with every other. Human beings have a deep need to be treated in accordance with such justice . . . In the research context, distributive justice will be expressed in the fair distribution of the benefits and burdens of research . . . While benefit to humankind is an important result of research, it also matters that benefits of research are achieved through just means, are distributed fairly, and involve no unjust burdens.

The document, furthermore, identifies three principles of research justice that align with relational ethics. These include ‘fair distribution of the benefits of participation in research; no exploitation of participants in the conduct of research; and a fair access to the benefits of research’ (NHMRC, 2015: 6).

When struggling to make sense of research benefits, one participant stated:

I think if I’m to define the relationship between the researcher and the client he or she is interviewing, I would say it is kind of a parasitic relationship. That kind of parasitic relationship is that researchers are – I feel that researchers, they come get our data, then waste our time. There is no mutual benefit; the benefit is on one side. Those guys collect the data, and for us, at the end of it we don’t see any change. We expect to at least get some benefit back, but there is no benefit. You get your data; you go – maybe use it for your own benefit, and you leave us hanging. So that’s why I say it’s kind of a parasitic relationship. (RYP2, 2017)

In the following quote, RYP20 illustrates experiences of injustice or exploitation concerning research:

I think they [researchers] come here only for their own business. And once researchers go and they don’t come back, it means that they came – maybe, it’s like they are exploiting something, minerals. Then they go, and they disappear. But, instead of minerals, we are the targeted people, us refugees. They are exploiting the information because they are only benefitting. So, they will gain . . . but the refugee will never benefit. (RYP20, 2017)

The feelings of exploitation reverberated across interviews. Exploitation in research was detailed in ‘selling stories’ (e.g. writing books on RYPs’ stories, selling data to organizations, etc.), not providing feedback, and RYP discovering books/documents with acquaintances’ stories.

Exploitation in research has been identified as researchers’ failure to distribute research benefits equitably, while researchers gain benefits compared to participants (Schroeder et al., 2017). In discursive processes, RYP participants affirmed that following research interactions in Kakuma, researchers generally ‘sell the data and make money off of us’ (RYP1, 2017). Furthermore, it was noted that ‘rumors in the community say they [researchers] come here to make money’ (RYP7, 2017), and ‘these researchers, they come and sell our ideas and get money because of us’ (RYP24, 2017). Another participant claimed, ‘Since the researcher has finished his research, he is taking the results to the donors and is receiving money. Yeah, he is now eating money on the research he did with us’ (RYP19, 2017).

The following quote demonstrates RYP13’s feelings of inequitable research relationships:

The researchers get the information from us and type it in books. I don’t think they share it with concerned people. Instead, they write some books and make personal use off of those books. And, after making the books, they make money with the ideas we gave them. So, they write a book and sell the book and make money off of our stories. That’s what I think. They hustle – they do their work. They get what they want, and they get out. Maybe it’s the anthem for the researchers [laughter]. (RYP13, 2017)

Similarly, another participant disclosed thoughts about his story being sold:

So, you will find a lot of these researchers come to ask us a lot of questions. Then maybe, they are selling our life by the stories, yes. Because, after the research, there is a future for them. Maybe they will go and make some publications. So, they sell the research out. (RYP12, 2017)

The notion of selling refugees’ stories has previously surfaced in academic scholarship. While exploring research methodologies with those housed in refugee camps, Pittaway and colleagues (Pittaway et al., 2010) discovered similar interpretations from refugees claiming that their stories were being sold. Indeed, this led to feelings that researchers were exploiting participants by not sharing the research benefits (Pittaway and Bartolomei, 2013).

Two participants in this study had unexpectedly identified acquaintances in NGO-related research reports, which were accompanied by photos:

Some people write stories in books, and when you look at the book, you realize, ‘This is [mentions name]. I know this guy. He’s from Kakuma; he was once in Kakuma’. Then the question comes, ‘Has he ever been paid or appreciated for giving out this story?’ I’ve always been doubting whether these people have ever been appreciated for this work. (RYP13, 2017)

Although some participants were unsure how researchers used the information from their interviews, one participant countered one interview question with their own:

Let me ask you a question. If you come and do research about something, do you guys [researchers] focus on change or look at the money part? I don’t know. Or the grades part? Do you want to be pronounced the best researcher and get a lot of money through your work that you have done in Kakuma? Or are you doing it for a change? I don’t understand. If you are doing it for a change, then there should be a change in the situation you came to address. But, if you’re doing it for a different motive, then it makes sense as to why you people [researchers] never return. (RYP31, 2017)

Othering and research ethics in Kakuma

As researchers arrive in formerly colonized contexts, they enter a ‘postcolonial present, with all the symbolic and material remnants passed down from the history of colonialism’ (Madison, 2011: 55). By not amending the systematic use of Eurocentric research ethics protocols in Kakuma refugee camp, have outside researchers furthered the Othering divide? If so, these culturally inappropriate ethical concepts ought to be redressed. Othering not only determines what is normal but socially and/or emotionally excludes or marginalizes those that deviate from the norm (Ashcroft, 2013). In failing to account for intersectionality, Othering creates binaries that are reproduced in research with subjugated communities (e.g. researcher/subject). Indeed, the power of the outside researcher, who enters Kakuma refugee camp or similar contexts, seems to produce the research ‘subject’ (Other) as one who is different, most times inferior, and needs to be studied. Being Othered constrains how subjugated and marginalized communities are understood and appreciated, which often manifests in research and writings (Mohanty, 1991). Using ethical research frameworks established in the Global North, with RYP in Kakuma, may imply that such ethical principles are universal or perhaps ‘normal’. Without ascertaining whether these ethical codes are beneficial to participants, researchers may be employing what Grey (2016) calls benevolent Othering.

Benevolent Othering is a process by which Others are spoken of in ways that appear favorable, but function in ways that maintain the subordination of the Other (Grey, 2016). For instance, seeking donations via advertisements that portray Latinx women and children in ‘dire need’ of support (Grey, 2016: 241) may pathologize this population as incapable of or divorced from a sense of normalcy. A benevolent Othering stance toward research ethics in Kakuma suggests that researchers who instill ethical constructs developed in the Global North do not intend to Other RYP participants. Indeed, previous (outside) researchers in Kakuma may have abided by their own understandings (i.e. Global North) of respect for persons and justice to produce ‘ethical research’ practices. Despite the intentions, however, the impacts were still viewed as negative by RYP participants. Currently, considerations have not been made to shift research ethics protocols to meet the needs and values reported by RYP participants in Kakuma refugee camp. Instead, research ethics protocols instill ‘normal’ research ethics guides from the Global North.

Research reciprocity

In failing to explore research expectations with RYP, researchers may miss recognizing the significance of reciprocity in Kakuma. Research reciprocity has been acknowledged in scholarship with various populations, including African (Chilisa, 2012). Reciprocity is defined as ‘an ongoing exchange with the aim of establishing and maintaining equality between [research] parties’ (Maiter et al., 2008: 305). From the viewpoint of RYP, the practice of meaningful exchange appears absent between researchers and RYP in Kakuma. One participant identified their culture as one of sharing, which illustrates an expectation for reciprocity:

In [names culture of origin] if you have something, you have to share. If it is stories, you have to share. Yeah, everything we can share without any problem. So, we are also expecting something from the researcher. It [the expectation] can be sharing information or sharing about the research. Because when you are doing research, you are talking to someone. As I said, we usually expect something from you – like you will come in the future. But when you are not coming back, you are just making a point. So, that point has a lot of meaning. (RYP12, 2017)

Inherent power in research(er)

Power is a dynamic and negotiated process shaped by intersecting variables such as race, ethnicity, language, class, ability, gender, sexuality, and education (Foucault, 1982). Researchers enter into subjugated and oppressed contexts in positions of dominance, power, and control (Smith, 2012). Such power is evidenced in researchers’ privileged positionalities and identities (e.g. education level, country of origin, etc.) and their epistemological and ontological orientations (Madison, 2011). It is such epistemologies that determine which methodologies and theories researchers use in formerly colonized contexts. Without assessing how these epistemologies and ontologies correlate with research participants, researchers may run the risk of instilling values and ideals that prioritize their needs over the Other.

Whether implicit or overt, researchers’ inherent power accounts for ‘knowledge about formerly colonized and oppressed communities [that] is constructed, and . . . it accumulates into a body of literature that informs future research activities’ (Chilisa, 2012: 14). For instance, this study indicates that the ethical principles of respect for persons and justice continue to remain incongruent to the reported values and ethics of RYP participants.

Mackenzie et al. (2007) indicate that attempting to implement principles of research ethics during research with refugee communities is often a highly abstract process. Perhaps further communication regarding research expectations between researchers and RYP should consider substantiated levels of fluidity, transparency, and interaction. Such efforts may generate more beneficial insight into RYPs’ values in research participation. From the analysis of this study, it can be argued that researchers and RYPs’ divergence of expectations of research is a catalyst for RYP participants labeling researchers as disrespectful, unjust, and inept to provide beneficence.

Informed consent

Although not an aspect of relational ethics, informed consent is worth acknowledging. For instance, researchers are obliged to provide informed consent documents to research participants. Informed consent documents commonly include a section on participant benefits. Only six participants in this study claimed to receive an informed consent document from previous research experiences. Were researchers not prioritizing informed consent documents, specifically those with a benefits section? Or did previous researchers gain oral consent as opposed to written consent documents? Oral consent is recognized in research with refugees (Hugman et al., 2011). Furthermore, perhaps the disconnect in expectations was related to RYP participants’ expectations of research? For instance, research with RYP can intermittently engender experiences where participants may envision unrealistic expectations (Pittaway et al., 2010).

Decolonizing research

Decolonization is ‘the process of revealing and dismantling colonialist powers in all forms . . . includes dismantling the hidden aspects of those institutional and cultural forces that had maintained the colonialist power and that remain even after political independence is achieved’ (Ashcroft, 2013: 52). Tuck and Yang (2012), however, argue that in contemporary discourse, decolonization has become a metaphor that has expanded beyond the boundaries of Indigenous decolonization. Frantz Fanon (1963) suggests that decolonization cannot be interpreted as a magical practice or a friendly understanding but instead a historical process that is nearly impossible to define. As such, this section will indicate components of deconstructing research ethics.

Perhaps of primary importance is an initial acknowledgment of the existing dissonance in respect for persons and justice reported by RYP participants in Kakuma and research ethics protocols. Research institutions (i.e. universities), research ethics boards, and individual researchers must be critically reflexive to interrogate the unexamined, perhaps unconscious, micro and macro biases and agendas in research (Cannella and Lincoln, 2007). It is critical for institutions (the academy), structures (research ethics boards), and individual researchers to consider how inequitable research ethics frameworks with marginalized communities may perpetuate injustice.

Ethical dialogue between researchers and participants should be constant throughout the research agenda. Indeed, an engagement in ethical dialogue between researchers and participants should be the core component of research practices that may assuage inherent power inequities (Cannella and Lincoln, 2007). Aidani (2013) argues that the responsibility for the Other receives scant scholarly attention in the literature regarding the ethics of research with refugee communities. Instead, ethical scholarship commonly pays respect to procedural ethics (e.g. informed consent) (Pittaway et al., 2010). In addition to engaging in a consistent ethical dialogue, Aidani (2013) argues that researchers with refugee communities facilitate regular face-to-face encounters; this practice requires researchers to see their participants with compassion and social and political justice lenses.

Implications for social work

While inherent power inequities in social work research ethics have been previously acknowledged (Hugman et al., 2011), further consideration is needed, particularly between the Global North and Global South. To redress Othering views that embody notions of ‘academic imperialism’ (Chilisa, 2017: 814), social work researchers entering post-conflict and displacement settings must, at the very least, grapple with the following questions. What is the goal of the research? Who will benefit from the research? Will the research results benefit the participants? Beyond ethics review boards, how will relational ethics (a) reflect in this work and (b) resonate with participants? What are the researcher’s expectations for this project? What are the participants’ expectations? How do they align and/or deviate from one another? In what ways will this research harm participants? How are respect and justice understood cross-culturally?

Social work education, specifically in the Global North, should also consider exploring much of mainstream curricula for all education levels. While some institutions require diversity courses, deconstructing oppression and social injustice must be included in all social work classes. This may be particularly relevant for MSW and doctoral research classes. Currently, social work research courses seem to prioritize epistemologies and methodologies from the Global North. These include positivist and Eurocentric paradigms that perpetuate power asymmetries in knowledge creation between the Global North and Global South (Bilotta and Denov, 2018). To redress this, social work research instructors may consider introducing students to various forms of knowledge production and Other ways of knowing (Ngara, 2007). This may include a shift from positivist to more transformative and relational epistemologies, including participatory and community-based research (Chilisa, 2012).

With respect to future research and programming, social work educators and researchers from the Global North should consider collaborating with social work scholars and educators from the Global South. Social work curricula should explore Indigenous forms of social work practice globally, particularly those related to post-conflict settings (Bilotta and Denov, 2018). Indeed, African scholars have drafted research ethics scholarship specific to facilitating research in Africa (Chilisa, 2012; Chuwa, 2014; Kruger et al., 2014). In such documents, there is a call to prioritize African-centric research frameworks that embrace collectivist, culturally-specific, and relational aspects to research with African communities (Chilisa, 2012; Chuwa, 2014).

Afro-centric and Indigenous social work theories, which confirm the need for locality and culture sensitivity (Rankopo and Osei-Hwedie, 2011), should also be prioritized in social work research. One particular ideology that may be relevant for social work researchers in Kakuma refugee camp is the concept of Ubuntu. The sub-Saharan philosophy embraces the notion of collectivity and prioritizes the community over the individual (Mbigi, 2005). Concerning Ubuntu, Turaki (2006) claims, ‘People are not individuals, living in a state of independence, but part of a community, living in relationships and interdependence’ (p. 36). Such a philosophy may explain why participants in Kakuma understood research as disrespectful. For instance, by not engaging in a reciprocal research process with participants, researchers were seen as exploitative and individualistic in nature. From the perspectives of research participants in Kakuma, researchers were less concerned with the community’s well-being but instead their individual needs and desires. Indeed, recent scholarship in Public Health claims that the Ubuntu philosophy in sub-Saharan Africa shifts the moral reasoning and ethics of decision-making from a worldview shaped by the Global North to the common values, cultures, and perspectives of those in sub-Saharan Africa (Sambala et al., 2020). Future collaborative research between social workers in the Global North and Global South is necessary to gain further insight into how research ethics concepts (e.g. respect, justice, do no harm) are understood in cross-cultural contexts.

Conclusion

Respect for persons and justice are core values of social work as well as research ethics. Although based solely on one research project, the association between an Othering approach to research ethics in Kakuma refugee camp suggests important implications for social work researchers, particularly those working or researching in post-conflict settings. Despite scholarship assessing the relevance of deconstructing colonial methodologies, researchers’ reflexivity, social justice/advocacy frameworks, and employing appropriate research ethics with young people in refugee contexts, further progress is necessary. As this study illustrates, a sizable gap exists between the appreciation of research ethics for researchers and RYP participants in Kakuma refugee camp. RYPs’ reported feelings of disrespect and exploitation contradict the basic ideology of the social work discipline. Moreover, it warrants a process whereby social work researchers must genuinely and humbly reflect upon their fundamental rationalization for undertaking such work. Social work collaboration between the Global North and Global South is necessary to advance the profession’s priorities, including social justice and inclusivity.