Besides, working in conflict zones may also challenge conventional con-
ceptions of research ethics as presupposed by institutional ethics and review
boards. Not only are such guidelines informed by neoliberal Western
notions of rights and obligations that are not necessarily shared by some
protagonists (Leuenberger, 2013a; Merry, 2006; Rana, 2007), but also,
traditional research strategies and ethics are based on the assumption that
ethnographers are in positions of control and power. However, in conflict
situations this is often reversed. There is frequently a dramatic shift of
power in which researchers are more likely to rely on local knowledge and
the protection of their welfare by locals. In such situations, protecting
against harm is not in the power of researchers, but becomes a collective
responsibility amongst actors in the field. Therefore rather than assuming
idealized ethics as to whom has power over whom and who will protect
and safeguard whom,Kovats-Bernat (2002)calls for a “localized ethics”
(p. 218) which, in his case, was informed by trusting relationships he devel-
oped with his informants and his acceptance into the local community. The
locals, more so than researchers, tend to know what information is impor-
tant, and what is risky or too dangerous. Moreover, he stresses that in
situations of conflict, full disclosure of the researchers’ identity, work, and
institutional affiliation may at times have to be weighed against safeguard-
ing their own and interviewee’s well-being, safety, and access. Generally,
therefore, in risky situations:
informal strategies, tactics, and techniques that are sensitive to the emergence of danger
can facilitate an adaptive approach to data collection and ethnographers survival in hos-
tile fields. Sharing the responsibilities of security with informants, selective deceptions,
and a variety of techniques for low-profile data collection can effectively empower the
ethnographer coping with danger in the field. (Kovats-Bernat, 2002,p. 210)Seasoned ethnographers thus are well aware that the rules and guidelines
stipulated by ethics board and conventional ethnographic methodology
have toon occasionbe readjusted to safeguard themselves and their
informants in precarious circumstances.
When working in risky environments, researchers have further pointed
out that the role of trusted insiders, that serve as “local mentors”
(Goldsmith, 2003,p. 114), is invaluable. They are decisive for securing
access and attaining relevant information concerning security issues as well
as local expertise. Indeed shortly before the ceasefire of the 2012 November
war between Israel and Hamas, long-time war veteran, Omar, called me, a
war novice, on my cell phone: “Where are you? Go home immediately.
Before every ceasefire you have to expect an escalation of violence.”
Knowledge-Making and its Politics in Conflict Regions 29