| Abstract: | The article addresses three questions concerning violent conflicts in Sri Lanka, Burma and southern Thailand: How is it possible to investigate questions of war and conflict in the field, especially concerning access and exit options? Access was gained in different ways in all three areas depending on the respective situations; special conditions and restrictions influenced the type and quality of data to be collected. The second question concerns the ethics and permissibility of research and data collection in conflict zones. What are the dangers or risks for both researcher and the local informants? What will be the quality of data so gathered? Third is a related question of ethics, that of impartiality: this is less a question of whether it is possible than of whether it is permissible for the researcher to stay ‘neutral’ in violent conflicts. This also has to be determined individually and in a different manner for each conflict zone. It is obvious that all researchers violate the ideal of ‘objectivity’ implicitly or explicitly from the start, yet this need not invalidate their findings. The paper concludes that research in conflict zones is mandatory, despite all doubts and qualifications. Only making such zones public can shape perceptions, give voice to the voiceless and so prevent these conflicts becoming invisible—‘war without witness’. |
