experiences. Although the findings of this research project will possibly
benefit children in similar situations in the future, the children participating
did not benefit immediately. I was struggling with the question if conduct-
ing research principally for the pursuit of knowledge is ethically justifiable?
Instead of quitting with my study, which I initially planned, I turned my
research design into a more action research approach. From that time on, I
tried to help the children where possible as described above. For example,
for a young man (18) I paid for glass in his windows and a cement floor in
his bed room (where there used to be a sand floor). This was no luxury: the
wind blew through his house, and after visiting his house I often found flea
bites.
Although by helping the children somehow I felt much better, I was also
aware of the possible negative effects for the children. As discussed in the
introduction, the neighbours of Marc and Janin would visit the children
after I had left to ask for food. By supporting only one household, there is
the risk that neighbours become jealous or support the children less. The
director of UEF also warned me about making the children too dependent
on me because I was leaving. Although the effects on the children were of
first concern, I also had to take account of the effects it would have on the
research. Mostly I was afraid that by assisting these children, they would
feel more obliged to participate in the research. However, some children
clearly indicated they did not wish to continue participating. In addition,
the children that received most support were those that had already been
involved in the study for a number of months. Therefore, it is not likely
that children felt more obliged to participate when receiving material
support from me.
After completing my fieldwork in 2006, I went back to the Netherlands
to analyse the data and write my dissertation. However, I found it really
hard to settle in the Netherlands and particularly difficult to analyse the
interviews. Every time I started reading the material the interviews came
back to me very vividly and at the same time my emotions. Similarly as
during the fieldwork, during the writing of my thesis I was struggling
between the role of an ‘objective’ researcher and someone who stands for
the children. At first, I tried to write my findings without any moral judg-
ments about the lack of support these youngsters were getting. This proved
an impossible mission. My promoter advised me to intertwine my personal
views more with my observations. According to Becker (1967),we can
never avoid taking sides and are therefore left with the question: whose side
are we on? In my study, I have mainly described the youngster’s experi-
ences from their perspectives. To a much lesser extent, I have considered
Mission Impossible 73