On Sensitivity and Secrecy: How Foreign Researchers and their Local Contacts in Myanmar Deal with Risk under Authoritarian Rule

Toward the end of my first year as a PhD student, I participated in a graduate conference on research ethics and dilemmas that anthropologists encounter in the field. My intended field research, covering aspects of human rights, democratization, and social activism in Myanmar, had yet to take place.¹ There was limited published academic guidance on how to conduct such research, and the few available ethnographic studies on politics and human rights in Myanmar came under such gloomy titles as “living silence” (Fink 2009) and “the politics of fear” (Skidmore 2004). I decided to use the conference as an opportunity to present some of the difficulties I thought I might experience in the field. While most of the topics raised during the conference led to interesting debates on how ethical dilemmas had been or could have been tackled, my presentation resulted in very critical remarks, and even the accusation that I was being unethical. It was suggested that my intended research would put local people in danger, and that I should conduct my research with Burmese people in a neighboring country instead. These responses were a reminder of some important considerations one needs to take into account when doing research in “difficult situations” (Sriram et al. 2009): the unequal power relationship between the foreign researcher and those living on the ground, and the responsibilities this brings about to find an acceptable trade-off between the potential risks and benefits of conducting research.

The concerns expressed by this particular audience were understandable in light of the international association of Myanmar with danger and repression at the start of my research. Yet while we must certainly think through and take responsibility for the consequences of our research activities, we should not automatically assume that a potentially vulnerable population would prefer to be ignored. Sriram (2009: 58) discusses the dilemma between protecting local participants and giving them a platform:

Because local interlocutors are likely to be less mobile than internationals, they may need extra protection. However, such interlocutors should not be treated paternalistically — most are well aware of the risks they face in their daily work as politicians, human rights advocates, and civil society leaders, or for their status as members of the opposition, ex-combatants, and so on. They are also aware of any risks in voicing their opinions, particularly opposition to a local elite or status quo, and choose to do so precisely because they want to draw attention to a situation they perceive as unjust.

Likewise, I argue that decisions about acceptable levels of risk should be made in consultation with one’s prospective participants, rather than in their absence. As local research participants are often more at risk than foreign visitors, the researcher should take ultimate responsibility for the safe gathering, treatment, and reporting of data. Yet the researcher also carries a different type of responsibility, if one takes into account what Gallaher (2009: 140) refers to as “the power of representation”: researchers’ ability “to shape how research subjects are presented and as a result policies that address their needs and concerns” (Gallaher 2009: 133). I therefore argue that ignoring large sections of a population without a detailed analysis of the risks and possibilities denies them the opportunity to take part in such debates.

This article discusses the challenges of working in risky environments that are unfamiliar to many Western researchers. Drawing on my personal experiences, I argue for a caseby-case assessment based on consultation with a variety of people with experience in and an understanding of local circumstances. Local contacts and other experts can provide guidance to researchers, and can help them decide how to proceed. At the same time, it is important to keep in mind that the researcher remains ultimately responsible for the consequences of field research. This entails both responsibility for one’s actions in the field, and accountability for the potentially negative consequences of one’s research activities and publications. Naturally, the emphasis should be on preventive action, as it is impossible for a foreigner...