Are you a spy? On the inconveniences of conventional methodology in terror wrap ethnography

The purpose of this paper is to explain the significance of contextually localized strategies and to engage researchers in critical reflection about the ethical dilemmas of researching in volatile situations.

Based on 14 months of research experience, the paper reflects on the challenges and difficulties in qualitative data collection through conventional methodology in dangerous fields.

The paper argues that conventional methodology and the established codes of ethics and their guidelines certainly provide a useful starting point but each dangerous setting requires different localized approaches whereas ethics need to be considered as a process approach.

This paper not only suggests the significance of “intermittent interview method” and its effectivity but also the importance of “respondent pyramiding” and “mutual confidentiality” in a dangerous field.

The paper reflects on the original 14 months of ethnographic accounts which will add value to the existing literature on qualitative research in dangerously hazardous fields.