Christian Chiza Kashurha

“When will we get a report on your findings?”: reflections on researcher accountability from DRC


Christian Chiza Kashurha is a teaching assistant at the Department of History  of ISP-Idjwi and researcher at  GEC-SH, Bukavu, DRC. This piece is part of the new “Bukavu Series” blog posts by the GIC Network.

Throughout the Global South, in countries such as the Democratic Republic of the Congo, research projects of researchers in the North are increasingly carried out either by, or with the involvement of, Southern researchers working in their own home settings. Nevertheless, project designs rarely take into account these researchers’ responsibilities toward the communities in which they operate. And those projects that do address this dimension often limit their considerations to superficial forms of accountability. Such a lack of accountability is an ethical problem in itself; but it also undermines local researcher assitant’s credibility and security in relation to their own communities.

What is the point of research? The standard response to this question – often automatically delivered – is as follows: To produce knowledge. Yet very rarely do we ask ourselves for whom this knowledge is intended, and to whom it should be made available.

Regardless of the type of research – be it academic or NGO-driven – this observation holds. In a great many cases, the populations that participate in studies have very limited access to the resulting knowledge. In academia, texts tend to be extremely technical and, in many cases, accessible only through a paywall.  In the NGO world, knowledge is often generated in the service of practical objectives that align exclusively with the activities of a given NGO.

“Frequently, our ‘target populations’ were excited to see us conducting this research. Unfortunately though, once we had obtained our data, we’d disappear as though we’d never been in the community at all.”

During the past few years, I worked as a research consultant for an international NGO. My colleagues and I were often dispatched to gather data in the area where the NGO operated. Frequently, our “target populations” were excited to see us conducting this research. Unfortunately though, once we had obtained our data, we’d disappear as though we’d never been in the community at all.

One day, I was passing back through one such community when suddenly I came across two of our former respondents. After some greetings, their words grew blunt: “Manake mulikuyaka tu tupondeya muda na kukamata maoni yetu nanjo muka poteya! Ju mpaka sai hatuya onaka mutu ana kuya tuambiya bili ishiaka wapi.” (“So basically, you just came here to waste our time collecting our opinions – and then that’s that: you disappeared! Because since then, we’ve never had anyone come back to tell us the outcome or results of what you were doing here.”) One of the two was very blunt indeed: “Si mulishaka kula zenu, basi muna weza tu kumbuka siye benye tulitumaka muna pata hizo makuta.” (“Now that you’ve gotten your food [i.e. been paid for your research], couldn’t you at least remember those of us who made that possible for you?”)

Epistemic extractivism: “So basically, you just came here to waste our time collecting our opinions?”
Photo: Ollivier Girard/CIFOR

The same concerns arise in academic research. For almost two years now, I have been involved in an academic study on land for a university in the Global North. The research aims to understand the role that household incomes play in securing plots of land in urban and peri-urban settings around Bukavu. Many of my interlocutors have signaled a desire to see a summary of our findings. Unfortunately, my coordinator informed me that the project design had not included a provision for this, and that he would have to think about finding extra room in the budget. The request seems to have been dead on arrival.

Now and then, I’ll get phone calls from people who at some point, participating in one study or another, granted me both their time and their trust. The question they ask is always the same: “When will we get a report on your findings?” For lack of a better response, I tell them (dying a little inside), “Hold on; we’re still thinking it through.” Deep down, though, I know no report is coming. And this weighs on me.

Occasionally, talking amongst themselves, researchers will break the omertà around this subject. One evening, a colleague told a group of us how once, on Idjwi Island, a confrontation with a village chairman over this issue left her tongue-tied. “Where does all the data you collect here go?” he asked. “Because there’ve been others like you, who came through, collected data, and then never returned…. What about your findings? Knowing them could help us, as local leaders, to sensitize our constituents on various issues that affect the life of our community.” Flustered, my colleague responded – in all honesty – that these sorts of decision were not up to her.  Outside of data collection, she had little room for manoeuver.

Nutrition survey in the village of Bafwaboli, near Kisangani – DRC.
Photo: Axel Fassio/CIFOR

The night that she shared her experience, some among us laughed. Others, however unconsciously, mocked her for not knowing the right answer to give. Yet after discussing a few more experiences of the sort, we found we weren’t laughing anymore. We realized that the imbalance of power within which we as local researchers operate drastically limits our range of motion when it comes to reporting the findings of our research. And nevertheless, we must handle the consequences alone. For it is the local researcher who later remains in the area, viewed as a representative of various research teams. This exclusion can even impact a person’s integrity, as one sees oneself constantly challenged. One has to live with a sense of guilt, a feeling of work left unfinished, an awareness of not having lived up to the community’s expectations. It becomes a heavy burden to bear. The community, meanwhile, risks losing trust – making access more difficult for the next set of researchers.

“The communities in which we carry out research projects must be informed of our findings; they must be given a stake in the research results. Otherwise, what is the point of research?”

Moreover, we realized that this lack of accountability also creates a lost opportunity for the projects in question. Local views on researchers’ findings could add something to subsequent analyses. The communities in which we carry out research projects must be informed of our findings; they must be given a stake in the research results. Otherwise, what is the point of research? To make findings available only to elites? So that they in turn can use their knowledge and claim to be able to speak for the poor…? It is a question that bears asking.


Top featured image: Nutrition survey in the village of Bafwaboli, near Kisangani – DRC. Photo: Axel Fassio/CIFOR

Subscribe to our Newsletter

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. For information about our privacy practices, please see our Privacy Policy.

We use MailChimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to MailChimp for processing. Learn more about MailChimp's privacy practices here.

Comments

6 Responses to ““When will we get a report on your findings?”: reflections on researcher accountability from DRC”
  1. Priyanthi Fernando

    At the Centre for Poverty Analysis, Colombo, where I was Director, and in other jobs peviously we tried, wherever possible to feedback the research analysis to the respondents or at least if not to each and everyone of them, feedback in a community meeting. I have not been in the research field for about four years, but I would have thought that this would be an accepted methodology in research by now. If it isn’t it should be. ANd it should be funded by the research grant itself.

  2. This is a very timely and important post for us at BathSDR where we conduct a lot of in-depth, long qualitative interviews with generous respondents. However, as hired flunkies we lose control over the data once the report leaves our inboxes. We always recommend that results are fed back to respondents by commissioners and local project teams, indeed so much more can be learned if you get further input from communities post-analysis, but only a tiny proportion of commissioners ever do this (full respect must go to Tearfund here, who ALWAYS do). Should we, can we (as a minnow in the sector), insist on it and make it a contractual obligation? Most commissioners balk at the additional cost and time for their staff to do this, but this should be considered part of the cost (and benefits!) of research, not an optional extra. I was trained by Priyanthi at CEPA in Colombo (see above!) so fidelity to the respondents is deeply ingrained in me! Thanks for the post.

  3. Heather Marquette

    I spoke to a team at the University of Ghana who have started setting up WhatsApp groups with research participants in order to share research findings. They do this with ‘elite’ participants, such as government officials, which helps to boost the uptake of research findings, as well as community participants who can then provide feedback & use the research in their own work. So simple, really, and yet just brilliant, assuming all the usual research ethics/data protection rules are applied.

  4. Kim Koffel

    having been in many small villages in developing countries – I have found the people and the traditional authorities I have worked with often much more astute than NGO’s tend to give them credit for – they care – and their questions are always the ones you pose … Thank you for your views – they are more than accurate …

  5. Isabelle

    This is a really important issue and there are good options for sharing back the findings – ideally BEFORE the final report. Budget for a trip back firstly, to share the preliminary results with the local team with the chance to discuss and question the findings openly. Secondly to the respondents, at a location where people who want to find out the results can gather. We often used large hand drawn charts or picture (very simple ones) displayed on walls or what ever is available. Share the big headline results and let people respond or ask questions. This enriches the knowledge for both the communities AND creates higher quality results, and can help overcome any misinterpretation of the findings by external researchers, and help us to understand underlying issues better. Its not very costly to do. People have a right to the data and reports produced about them!

  6. While recognizing the quality and good intentions of much of the research that is conducted, most of it seems at odds with the intention of helping those who are the subject of the research to bring about change. Those being studied remain the passive subjects of the research rather than being placed – as they could and should be – as the active agents of the change that they – rather than outsiders – are seeking to bring about. The experience of the Community Score Card Consulting Group, based in Malawi but operating as a social enterprise internationally, is that by asking not only what is and isn’t working but also then “and what should be done about it?” and following that up by involving those same people in co-creating, with service providers and the authorities, solutions to the problems that they have prioritized, one ends up with a) the research findings you need and b) the active engagement of citizens in bringing about the changes that they have helped design. It is citizens who learn about the political economy that they have to master to bring about the changes they want instead of academics of project managers extracting information and undermining rather than supporting the development of active citizenship.

Leave a Reply

Your e-mail address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.