As a scholar who has been working with Myanmar communities in Thailand since 2001, I have often reflected on the ethical dilemmas of doing research in this conflict-affected, post-colonial setting. For the past five years, I have been collaborating with TeacherFOCUS Education Consulting, which supports schooling along the border. Min Layi Chan has been doing collaborative research projects and teaching research methods classes for local educators through TeacherFOCUS since 2023. I sat down with him in March to ask for his insights on this work, and I wanted to share our conversation because I believe his insights can guide researchers in greater Southeast Asia as well as locally.

Rose: Tell me about your background. How did you get involved with doing participatory and collaborative research?

Chan: At TeacherFOCUS we apply the participatory approach for our work because we believe it is more relevant and effective in response to community needs. When I joined TeacherFOCUS, I started with a project that involved conducting participatory research with local researchers in Myanmar. After that, I heard a reflection from them that this participatory approach empowered them to conduct their own research.

They also said that after they conducted research, they shared it with their leader and teachers. They told me that if the research is conducted by them in a collaborative way through a participatory approach, it develops a sense of ownership, and increases the potential to implement it or use it for policy changes. Hearing those stories really inspired me. So that also made me want to keep implementing the participatory approach.

Rose: Wonderful. Can you tell me about the trainings you offer on participatory research for educators on the border?

Chan: Because we are working in the education field, I’m working mostly with teacher trainers, sometimes with the teachers as well. They are the experts when it comes to teaching and learning. But on the other hand, they may lack knowledge of research methods. So to fill that gap, we need to provide research capacity building, to equip them with methodologies. We might already have an idea of what kind of research we want to conduct. But we do not make it like a fixed topic. We open it for discussion and revision. So in that way, we can reframe our topic to be more aligned with the needs of our local people. That’s why in our first workshop session, we emphasize co-creating the research questions together. 

Locally-Informed Ethics

Chan: We also have a series of trainings where we focus more on research ethics. We do not overlook international guidelines, they are useful for us to consider, especially if we want to share our research with the wider world. But it is equally important to consider local ethics. Since this group of local researchers come from different backgrounds, we collectively decide what localized practices need to be integrated in our consent form. This process can diminish risks for researchers as well, because security is often a concern. 

If you are conducting research on the Thai-Myanmar border, I strongly encourage you to apply for ethics approval from the Community Ethics Advisory Board (CEAB). They have a lot of experts who have tons of experience in this community. Their role is not to judge the project, but to help you to ensure that your research is effective, relevant, and follows “do no harm.”

Rose: That’s a great suggestion. Do you have an example of how a local practice might differ from international guidelines? For instance, I’ve written about how formalized consent protocols don’t always work well in this context. And I remember an article by Anne Décobert and colleagues about how the requirements of international aid organizations were impractical community-based organizations–it’s hard to keep receipts for five years when you’re moving frequently due to conflict. What are the ways in which funders or researchers or this whole infrastructure that’s working on the border might have expectations for protocols that just don’t make sense in a local context? 

Chan: First, the consent form needs to be translated into the local language and simplified. Second, we need to let people choose written or verbal consent. Sometimes even if I have a trusting relationship with local people, when I ask them, “Can you please sign?” then they start to feel uncomfortable. In that case, or if they don’t know how to write, maybe we just need a verbal agreement. 

Another point I found very useful is explaining patiently about the rights of participants. When we go to the community to have a conversation with teachers, some people feel nervous because they think we have come to assess their teaching. To make them feel relaxed, I always mention that there are no right or wrong answers. I also explain that they don’t have to answer all the questions if they don’t want. Additionally, they have the right to leave this conversation at any time without giving any reason. Every time I say that, I can see that they smile and feel more comfortable. 

Another principle that we use in our research project is giving time to consider if they want to exclude their data from the research project. In our culture, we easily feel “အားနာ” (obligated) if someone asks us to do something. Especially for teachers, because of the power dynamic, they are likely to agree with whatever the school leader asked them to do. Researchers usually do not approach teachers directly, they approach the school principal or organization’s director. If the director agrees, they assign particular teachers to be a part of the research project. We are saying “volunteer,” but they are not really volunteers. 

Rose: They are “voluntold.” 

Chan: This is a part of our culture that we cannot change in a short time. That’s why we came up with another idea, in case we didn’t provide research participants a free space to make a decision regarding their participation. 

We say, “You can take part, and please also note that you have two weeks after this discussion. Please contact the interviewer directly if you want to withdraw your data. You don’t need to let your leader know.” 

Rose: Brilliant. 

Collaborative Research 

Rose: You explained earlier how you consult with local people when developing research questions and methods. How about incorporating local voices in data analysis and writing? 

Chan: Time constraints and priority conflicts can make it almost impossible to analyze all the data together with the local partner. But especially for qualitative data, we choose some sets of data, maybe like three interviews, and analyze it with them. If we are coding, that becomes our codebook.

Rose: Have you experienced that scholars bring in outside theories that explain well the situation on the ground, and have you seen cases where their theory didn’t match the data, or local people would have interpreted it differently? 

Chan: Yeah. Having a theory or framework is really helpful for us to conduct research because they are like glasses, right? It helps you to see something clearly or focus on one thing. But you should not hold it for everything. You should not force yourself to align your findings with the theory. The topic or the theory can be changed at any time, but the real voice should not be replaced. 

Rose: And then, going into the writing process, can you talk about the triangulation work that you do?

Chan: To ensure that the local perspectives have been reflected throughout the process, innovative approaches are needed. Before publicly sharing the findings, a triangulation workshop should be conducted among stakeholders to check the term usage, word choice, cultural appropriateness, conflict sensitivity, and complementarity to local strategies. Because of these processes, the findings are more likely to be used in future implementation. Another common practice that I have witnessed is that the researchers share their research articles or reports after their findings with the wider community. Of course, that is something we strongly encourage to advance our practice towards a more participatory approach. 

Rose: This is a hard follow-up question, but what if the community doesn’t like the findings and tries to suppress the findings because it’s not in their interest somehow?

Chan: Yes. It sometimes can happen. I think, as a researcher, it is good to celebrate the success of the community. But at the same time, you also want to look for improvement. Looking for learning and knowledge that could help design a resilient, inclusive, and effective system. So I think even though it is not something that they want, you still need to present it. But how you are going to present it is what matters most. From my perspective, if we need to discuss sensitive issues, it would be great not to over-generalize findings, and be mindful of the limitations of your study. Reframe it as learning points for future implementation. This is where collaborative research may be a potential solution to handle sensitive topics. If the research was conducted in collaboration with the local community, the transparent process would build trust and promote open discussion. 

Rose: What you’re saying makes me think that a foundation of collaborative research is relationships, and that makes me wonder if there are certain people or groups who we might not do collaborative research with. There’s a distinction often made in anthropology between “researching up” and “researching down.” Anthropologists often research people who have less power in society because they want to elevate their voices. But could you envision doing collaborative research with people who have the power to oppress others? For instance, if you want to research garment factory owners in Mae Sot, and how they relate with the migrant community here. 

Chan: Some changes could not happen from within. It requires an external dynamic. Collaboration does not mean “friendship” or “agreement.” The collaboration with the garment factory owners doesn’t mean that we agree to work together. The inclusion of their voices should not mean that we give them a platform to lie. Instead, it gives them a space to justify their action within the research framework. I personally put the community at the center of our study. Through dialogue and conversation with the local partners, if this approach doesn’t maximize the benefits of the marginalized group of people, such collaboration needs to be reconsidered or dismissed. 

Rose: Yes, people shouldn’t just do collaborative research because it’s a fashionable thing to do. There may be cases where we start a collaborative project, and it becomes clear that it’s not going to work, because our interests are not aligned. Could you talk more about possible pitfalls or difficulties of collaborative research?

Chan: First, I would like to discuss critical reflection on the friction between rigor and data sensitivity. Sometimes, some partners don’t support full transparency to protect the security of research participants. Consequently, the research loses its credibility. Collaborative research is rarely a straight line. It involves constant changes, failed experiments, and pivoting. It requires a high level of flexibility and understanding from each involved partner. Collaboration often brings people from different backgrounds and expertise together. Some partners with less technical knowledge may feel like a “silent partner.” If a partner feels they don’t understand how to conduct research, they might stop caring why this research needs to be conducted. 

Rose: That connects to something else I’ve sometimes felt, which is that collaborative research can be a way for scholars to build their own careers while asking local communities to do a lot of work. I’m curious how we can avoid that dynamic. Obviously paying people is part of it, but I think that’s not sufficient. How can we avoid becoming a burden for the people we’re collaborating with? 

Chan: Yes, it can lead in that direction as well. That is something we need to be mindful of and need open communication with partners. Based on my experience, some partner organizations do not have someone who specializes in research. In most cases, teacher trainers, communication officers, and someone from the advocacy department fulfills this role for collaborative research. Some of my colleagues at partner organizations shared that they had to do all the research tasks during the weekend or outside of office hours. Such evidence leads me to believe that in collaborative research, capacity building opportunities seem insufficient, financial support needs to be integrated in such a research approach. We might need to hire someone who will be working with the partner internally and focusing on the research project to avoid putting another burden on other staff.

Parasitic or Symbiotic Researchers: Mosquitos and Bees

Rose: I’ve heard you compare some researchers who don’t use collaborative methods to mosquitoes. I found this metaphor powerful, partly because it comes from this tropical context where everyone’s familiar with the annoyance and dangers of mosquitoes. Can you say more, and what would be the alternative to being a mosquito researcher?

Chan: Yes. At the 5th Education Everywhere Conference, based on the existing literature, I compared researchers who apply the traditional research methodologies with mosquitoes. This perception may apply especially to foreign researchers. It is not necessarily the case, and I have met a lot of Western researchers who place local needs and local benefits first. On the other hand, some researchers are extractive. Just like mosquitoes. They land on you, take your blood, and fly away without giving you anything in return. Some researchers do the same thing to communities. They come in, collect data and information from local people, then leave and publish their findings. But the community never sees the results, never learns anything from it, and never benefits. To avoid behaving like a mosquito, researchers having bee characteristics could bring benefits for local communities. 

Rose: I love it. 

Chan: If you are a bee, you need nectar. In research, data or knowledge from the locals can be considered as nectar. The researchers need data for their project, but bees don’t come just to take the nectar from the flower, but they come with pollen. I see pollen like funding, technical support, and networks for community development. Researchers having bee characteristics could potentially benefit the community.

Bees don’t suck our blood like mosquitos, instead they are waiting for the flowers to be ready. Researchers with bee characteristics spend months building relationships. They only start the “dialogue” when the community feels ready and safe to share their stories. 

You might also hear of the bee dancing. When a bee finds a great source of nectar, it goes back to the hive to perform a “waggle dance” This dance tells the other bees exactly where to go. The researchers don’t keep their findings a secret. They present their findings back to the community first. Maybe the community looks at the findings and says, “That’s not quite right.” The researchers adjust. It is a continuous loop of checking in, not a one-time interview. 

When the bees leave, the garden grows. The researchers don’t just take the story, they help the community learn how to conduct their own research, or use new technology. Apart from this, the researchers take the community’s brilliant ideas and spread them to places where they can influence change. 

Rose: It’s a powerful metaphor, and I also think about bees making honey. They produce something that’s nourishing and valuable–the scholarly knowledge. But it can only come out of that collaborative, symbiotic relationship. 

Chan: Yeah, symbiotic.

Rose: Instead of parasitic! Do you have other guidance for researchers who have never been to the Thai-Myanmar border? 

Chan: I totally understand, for some researchers who have very limited funding, especially students. They are not doing it because they got a lot of grants. Some students have time limits as well to finish their study. We also need to acknowledge their limitations. But I am not convinced that such limitations could really prevent them from contributing to the local community. With creativity and through consultation with local communities, tangible actions can be implemented. University students can conduct trainings or workshops on the topics that they are specialized in. For example, if you are specialized in teacher education, you may provide trainings for either teacher trainers or school teachers. I believe you can do something for the community. 

Rose: So true. I always tell students I work with that writing a dissertation or thesis involves asking favors from people who don’t owe you anything. So what are you offering? And I think researchers have a responsibility to put those findings in a form that can be understandable to the community. A journal article with a lot of jargon for a scientific audience is not going to be sufficient. So what kind of presentation can you come back and present, in local languages, to make that information accessible?

Chan: If we believe our research findings can be a learning experience for the local community, we need to make sure it is readable. Because of that, I strongly encourage researchers to produce the findings in English and in a local language. For sharing those findings with the community, I recommend using creative methods including graphical abstract, short video, executive summary, and policy brief.  

Rose: Is there anything else you would like to say before we close?

Chan: One of the primary aims of conducting collaborative research is to co-create knowledge with community members. The true co-knowledge production happens where external and internal researchers interpret the data side-by-side. Despite their enthusiasm, some local researchers decide not to co-write the report because they are concerned that their writing won’t be “academic” enough. When we force collaborative research into the “sexy” mold of academic writing, we aren’t just changing the vocabulary; we are often changing the meaning and the power structure of the knowledge itself. Unfortunately, there are choices we may need to make; but we are often making choices without reflecting on their consequences. If we are talking about co-knowledge production, do we really need to make a choice between authentic voice and academic writing?

Rosalie Metro is an Associate Teaching Professor at the University of Missouri-Columbia.

Min Layi Chan works for TeacherFOCUS Education Consulting in Mae Sot, Thailand.