CALL FOR PAPERS: Responsibility to the Story: Testimony and Ethics in Human Rights Research and Narratives
Conference to launch the Journal of Human Rights Practice, hosted by the Centre for Applied Human Rights, University of York (UK), and Oxford University Press, in collaboration with Amnesty International, the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture, and Panos.
14-15 May 2009 – one day conference (14 May), followed by small working group of practitioners and academics to plan a special issue of the Journal (15 May). Submissions for papers, short position statements to generate debate, poster displays for a ‘market place’ setting etc., are invited for both events.
This conference will bring together academics, practitioners and artists to explore ethical concerns surrounding the use of testimony. Human rights research has grown exponentially in the academy over the past decade in a range of disciplines (law, politics, anthropology, literature). Cultural output ranging from child soldier autobiographies to documentary films about transitional justice is similarly prominent. Practitioner research has had to adapt to its own forms of expansion (growing interest in social, economic and cultural rights; use of new media such as the internet). Both the use and the study of testimony have been a driving force behind these developments. But the ethical implications of the rise of testimony and testimonial research, particularly in the global media age, are under-explored.
In this context, the aims of this event are to investigate what responsibility researchers, practitioners and artists have to the stories they use, and to disseminate best ethical practice. Under the rubric of ‘responsibility to the story’ the conference will be structured around the life cycle of the story: obtaining the story, shaping the story, presenting the story, and the consequences of the story.
Submissions are sought which engage with the following questions.
1) Obtaining the story: How are participants selected? What interviewing skills are required, especially in relation to vulnerable groups? What differences exist between open-ended life story interviewing and gathering testimony as evidence of human rights violations? How is genuinely informed consent secured, particularly over time and for evolving patterns of distribution? Are there occasions where consent is not needed or can be over-ridden? Are ethical considerations informed at the outset by the identity of the testifier (victim, perpetrator), the category of right being addressed, or the particular testimonial site (court room, blog, documentary film)?
2) Shaping the story: How is testimony modified in the research process? How does the wider story of a report or monograph or novel build on individual stories, but also other data (from observation to autopsies)? Should interviewees be involved in shaping this wider story? How are clashes dealt with between validating the victim (the catharsis of telling, recognition) and validating the story (through corroboration and questioning)? Should the testimony of perpetrators be treated differently from that of victims? What particular ethical concerns are raised by the manner in which qualitative and quantitative methods shape the story?
3) Presenting the story: What degree of control should the testifier have over the presentation of his or her story? As testimony appears in diverse research products, or beyond research in campaigning and fundraising materials, what ethical issues emerge? What are the ethical implications of the different objectives of human rights materials (education, recognition, acknowledgement, mobilisation)? What innovative strategies have emerged to combine ethical practice with innovative representation?
4) Consequences of the story: What effect does giving (and re-giving) testimony have on individuals? How do interviewees respond to the way they are represented (in print, on the internet)? Should interviewees benefit from research, and if so how? What balance should be sought between individual benefits and broader impacts? Is there a clash between ethics and effectiveness or impact?
Abstracts of no more than 500 words, and other ideas and suggestions, on these themes should be sent to Paul Gready or Brian Philips by 31 March 2009.