Ethics, Informed Consent & Emotions

While some 1.5GUY are no longer afraid to share their stories with a researcher or their ULS with the public, attention to research ethics and informed, voluntary consent is necessary. Of undocumented research, Duvell et al (2008) have argued that “a researcher should seek informed consent where possible to secure the trust and confidence of those involved and make sure they have understood the nature of the research” (p. 18). However, these processes are neither straightforward in principal, nor in practice (e.g. Richardson & McMullen, 2007; Sin, 2005; Wiles, Heath, Crow & Charles, 2005), as it is nearly impossible to communicate all potentially relevant information to an individual (O’Neill,

89

2006). Further, my research base in Denmark and my research site in the U.S. alerted me to a challenge many scholars likely face in international research: which consent process to I follow?

Unlike the U.S., there is no Institutional Review Board in Denmark and I was advised by my university there was no standardized consent form. I have followed the ethical rules of my university and country of residency and employment, but nonetheless took caution. As argued by Kvale (1996), “even when not a formal requirement, the advance preparation of an ethical protocol will allow the investigator to consider ethical and moral issues, and to have them in mind during the designing of the study” (p. 112).

Accordingly, I tailor-made a seven-page “cooperative agreement,”²³ entitled to emphasize the

cooperative dimension of the interview process. The form outlined in detail how the interview would proceed, what types of questions I would ask, that an individual could decline any question at any time, how I would deal with anonymity and confidentiality, and that participation was voluntary.

At every interview except two,²⁴ I personally and verbally went over the form in detail, allowing youth to ask questions along the way. Instead of reading word-for-word, I pointed to each topic as I

interjected information, gave examples, and shared my personal experience. The purposes of the cooperative agreement were to address ethical issues, as well as practicalities youth may have been curious about, but perhaps not have asked about due to lack of experience with interviews or discomfort. The cooperative agreement also allowed me to set the tone of the interview and self-disclose information about my background and immigration story for the purposes of building rapport.

As long as there were no objections, individuals signed the last two pages of the form denoting their voluntary participation, whether I could tape the conversation for the purposes of transcription, if they wanted a copy of the transcript, and if I could contact them in the future—though they were under no obligation. I told youth they could sign, initial, or mark an X on the line; I did not need their full or even real name, but rather an action that indicated their acknowledgement of the voluntary nature of the interview and their willingness to participate. For the few individuals under age eighteen, I obtained

23 See Appendix 2 for Cooperative Agreement

24One interview was conducted with four individuals who were given the form in advance by their teacher, who went over it; before beginning, I asked if there were any questions. Another interviewee preferred to read the form herself.

90

both parental and interviewee consent. I signed the form to signify I am a Ph.D. researcher and intend to uphold my considerations. Finally, both the interviewee and interviewer kept a signed original.²⁵ 4.5.2.1 Transcribing Coproduction

All youth agreed to let me record the interview for the purposes of transcription; all audio files have since been deleted. I view transcripts, like interviews, as co-productions: “the interviewee’s statements are not collected—they are coauthored by the interviewer” (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2009:192).

Accordingly, I let youth know that they could request a copy of the transcript and further, that they could add, change, or delete information as they felt necessary. Half of the thirty-eight interviewees requested a copy and a few asked me to omit certain details, to which I obliged. For example, one youth stressed the importance of keeping the university name out of her narrative. I view this as one illustration of the fear that conditions youth’s lives, including those who were open enough to meet with me, but still very secretive about particular ULS. This furthermore indicates that not all youth represented in this dissertation are the most open, daring, or outgoing. While transcripts are written documentation of a particular in-person, oral interaction, they are also living conversations—hybrids between a face-to-face, lived experience and written texts, and the means through which to interpret statements in an interview (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2009). To supplement my audio recording, I wrote field notes on non-verbal cues, for example if an individual was laughing, sighing, pausing, etc. or if we were interrupted; when I transcribed word-for-word, I was able to add these details to the text to help add the emotional context as well. I have returned to both my notes and transcriptions multiple times over the last few years while in the field and after, before and after deciding upon my theoretical perspective, and after deciding on my research question. The written texts are dynamic and have helped illuminate different points of interest, perspective, and analysis.

4.5.2.2 Anonymity & Confidentiality

Some interviewees said that I could use their real names, as they have already been identified as undocumented locally or nationally. However, I maintained that I would always use pseudonyms and may alter minor details to protect anonymity and confidentiality. Brunovskis and Bjerkan (2008)

25 On the form is also a space for individuals to indicate if they would like their name to appear in the acknowledgement section of my dissertation. After careful consideration, I have decided not to include names in partial or full. While this is regrettable, I believe it is in the best interests of the individuals, especially as there still have been no positive, fundamental changes in immigration policy since our interviews in 2012.

91

argued that “ensuring anonymity goes beyond mere names or details, and can sometimes be less

straightforward” (p. 31). Richardson and McMullen (2007) stressed that “the meaning and significance of information depends on what is already known by those receiving it. This should ring alarm bells for researchers who believe that data can be rendered anonymous simply by removing or changing name”

(p. 1117). O’Neill’s (2006) lecture on informed consent illustrates this point. She referred to a priest celebrating the 50^th anniversary of his ordination amongst friends. In his speech, he reflects upon his journey and the difficult start he had: his first confession was a murder, to which he did not know how to react. Shortly after, a friend arrives late, apologizes, and introduces himself as the priest’s first confession. Translating this to my research reveals a particular paradox: I obtained rich details about individuals, their families, immigration stories, and everyday lives, which speaks to the level of

openness, if not rapport and trust, I have established in albeit brief encounters I had with youth. At the same time, I acknowledge that including particular details about individuals and their circumstances, such as the city or country of origin, current city, age at migration, current age, school or university name, or method of entry may expose their identity and therefore compromise anonymity. Thus, I seek to strike a balance between necessary and interesting information, and considerations of anonymity and confidentiality. Due to my exploratory, rather than comparative approach, I have at times made small alterations to details such as current age, age at migration, length of residency, or country of origin with the intent to protect interviewees.

4.5.2.3 Researching Emotions

Another balance that is at times difficult to maintain occurs when researching emotions, as Anderson and Hatton wrote (2000): “research questions often probe and bring up emotionally laden memories,”

some of which may have “long since been pushed to the recesses of the participant’s mind” (p. 247).

The authors continued: “valuing the stories told by the participants interviewed and respect for the storytellers are important aspects of research with vulnerable populations” and further asserted that it is important that interviewees can “express their own perceptions of their life experiences in a context where those perceptions could be validated” (p. 247). In order to foster validation, I tried to convey my genuine interest and was conscious of interrupting, cutting off, or redirecting an individual. While this is my subjective perception of a nuance of validation, I tried to supplement this by being attentive to an individual’s non-verbal cues to gauge comfort. For example, one youth became teary-eyed; I asked if

92

she was okay and wanted to take a break, which she declined. However, I decided to pause briefly so as to relieve some of the intensity.

When communicating with organizations for potential access, I included a one-page abstract²⁶ about my research plan, as well as some brief and personal information about myself, including personal interests. I did this in anticipation of questions, but also as a means of establishing trust via information given beforehand (e.g. Thomsen, 2012). To transition out of the interview, I asked interviewees if they had additional comments, suggestions, questions for me, and why they agreed to meet with me—an unknown Ph.D. student in Denmark researching undocumented immigration. One youth replied, referencing the abstract: “well, I read it and all of your interests and everything. You connect with people like that.” This statement validated my aim to gain access and rapport through self-disclosure.

Other youth mentioned they wanted to share their story, raise awareness, add to research, and that the process helped them. A youth said it is “so refreshing to be able to talk to someone who does have an idea of what is going on who is not in my family, or close to my family. It is therapeutic for me even, you know?” Another echoed this sentiment: “It does two things. It makes my story known…and sharing my story, it relieved some stress, some pain. It just took some weight off my shoulders, because I can say it out loud.” A third stated tearfully: “it helps me because I don’t really talk to people about ULS. How can I explain this perfectly? The questions you ask me are not the questions a friend would ask me. It’s helpful, because you get to talk about it.”

While seemingly positive, these points also raise ethical concerns about sensitivity amongst vulnerable populations. While some scholars have advised against researching potentially “traumatized”

individuals and causing further distress (e.g. Hundeide, 1995; Knudsen, 1992), others have contended that being the focus of interest and being taken seriously can be a positive, therapeutic, enriching, and empowering experience (e.g. Dyregrov & Dyregrov, 1999; Dyregrov, Dyregrov, & Raundalen, 2000;

Hawton, Appleby, Platt, Foster, Cooper, Malmberg,& Simkin, 1998). I neither directly nor indirectly asked or began discussions about mental health issues, but there were times when youth brought up feelings of anxiety, depression, or suicidal thoughts on their own. For youth who mentioned being depressed, but did not explicitly say they had or were receiving help, I inquired if they had sought

26 See Appendix 3 for 1 page abstract.

93

professional assistance and/or still had these thoughts. For youth who had not sought professional help, they assured me that they no longer felt this way due to various circumstances in their lives, especially due to their social movement participation which had replaced feelings of loneliness or depression with solidarity and empowerment.

That youth brought these issues up on their own illustrates the inextricable connection between ULS and mental health issues. I am not a mental health professional and neither can nor did attempt to make psychological assessments. While I took caution, at times suggested interview pauses, inquired if an experience was too painful to discuss, and asked if a youth was still experiencing negative feelings, just as any other non-professional, I could not leave the interview with a guarantee that youth were not still psychologically affected. The current understanding and advice regarding research ethics in a field where researchers can and often do encounter highly sensitive information—including mental health issues even when not specifically researching these topics—needs to be advanced to address current realities, and likely requires interdisciplinary approaches from researchers across disciplinary fields.