Human Rights Watch’s LGBT Rights Program

Outline

  1. Introduction 219

  2. 1.Deciding to conduct research 220
  3. 2.The spectrum of sexual and gender minority experiences 221

      • Case study 1: Where are the lesbians? 222

  4. 3.Interview process and selection 223

    • Part 1: Interview design 223

      • Case study 2: Syria: supporting interviewees during research on sexual violence against men, boys, and trans people 225

    • Part 2: Interview outreach 226

    • Part 3: Interview encounter 228

      • Case study 3: Iraq: remote interviewing and security guidelines 230

  5. 4.Context-specific security planning 232

      • Case study 4: Aceh: leaving a hostile environment to improve safety 234

  6. 5.Trauma-informed research techniques 235

      • Case study 5: Saint Vincent and the Grenadines: engaging trauma on interviewees’ terms 236

  7. Conclusion 239

Introduction

Sexual and gender minority (or LGBT) populations in contexts affected by political violence, conflict, and other crises—which we refer to as ‘highly sensitive contexts’—face a range of safety, security, and retraumatization risks that researchers should consider and address at all stages of the research process: in training, design, implementation, and review. This guide draws on the experience of the authors, who are Human Rights Watch (HRW) researchers, in conducting investigations with LGBT populations in different situations around the world. It makes recommendations based on HRW’s core standards and protocols1 for human rights investigations, including in highly sensitive contexts.

The guide is not meant to be exhaustive or comprehensive; instead, it intends to offer insights into key considerations researchers should undertake when working with sexual and gender minority populations in highly sensitive contexts. The subjectivity of trauma can overlap with the subjectivity of queerness in particular ways, some of which this guide attempts to unpack in examples researchers have encountered. Adopting ethical good practices in engaging with LGBT people in such situations is particularly important given the levels of trauma they experience as queer people that are further exacerbated during crises.

The core methodologies discussed are grounded in general HRW standards, which have been developed over 40 years of practice documenting human rights abuses in virtually every context around the world. For this guide, we translate the general standards, principles, and practices in HRW’s research guidance, which has been used to train researchers for several years, to focus on issues of sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression as they relate to research participants’ identities and experiences of abuses that may or may not be based on their sexual orientation or gender identity. In other words, our discussion is applicable to conducting research with queer and trans people whether or not the research is specifically focused on queer or trans experiences.

This guide begins by addressing the importance of analysing how sexual orientation and gender identity occur in unique contexts, and will provide guidance on factors to consider when doing this analysis, such as understanding the interaction between pre- and post-crisis contexts, the shifting individual and communal priorities, and the dynamics of survival, resilience, and informality. The guide then suggests steps to take in designing interview projects, including tips on how to reach out to potential research participants, anticipate criticisms from perpetrators or sceptics, take account of biases in ‘snowballing sampling’, and other methodological concerns. Lastly, the guide delves into planning for security issues that impact researchers, participants, and third parties such as interpreters, and shares guidance on conducting research with a trauma-informed approach grounded in the ‘do no harm’ principle. The guide is interspersed with case studies of HRW research projects to illustrate the tips and guidance shared.

HRW works for LGBT peoples’ rights, and with activists representing a multiplicity of identities and issues.2 We document and expose abuses based on sexual orientation and gender identity worldwide, including torture and other ill-treatment, killing and extrajudicial executions, arbitrary arrests, unequal treatment, censorship, medical abuses, discrimination in health and jobs and housing, domestic violence, abuses against children, and denial of family rights and recognition. We advocate for laws and policies that will protect everyone’s dignity.

1. Deciding to conduct research

The visibility that HRW investigations bring to violations against LGBT people is both a critical tool that can be utilized by local activists leading struggles for rights and justice, and a potential risk that could result in retribution. While this guide focuses on mitigating these risks, an equally important analysis for each potential project is whether to embark on the research. The decision to pursue an investigation with LGBT communities should centre their own assessment on both the benefits and risks associated with visibility. The decision-making process should include:

  • An honest exchange about the power dynamics at play (for instance, between an international non-governmental organization (NGO) and a local human rights organization), and a plan to mitigate these dynamics should the local organization wish to pause, cancel, or withdraw from the project at any stage.

  • A thorough risk assessment.

  • A comprehensive advocacy strategy that maps the rationale and feasibility of a project.

At the same time, LGBT rights defenders have raised concern that international NGOs often deem visibility for local queer activists ‘too dangerous’ in a particular context, including when visibility is being explicitly sought by the activists as part of their advocacy and security strategy. In 2022, for example, several lesbian, bisexual, and queer (LBQ+) rights defenders interviewed as part of a global scoping on the rights of queer women told HRW they faced rejection by international NGOs who declined to feature them in reports and campaigns for liability concerns, overriding the activists’ own risk assessment and desire to make visible their work. This denial of visibility thwarted the queer women activists’ ability to secure funding and strategic partnerships, making their movements less secure, sustainable, and resilient in the long run. The analysis and expertise of local LGBT activists is central not only to how to conduct research, but also whether to conduct it at all.

2. The spectrum of sexual and gender minority experiences

It is critical that researchers analyse how sexual orientation and gender identity, as facets of individual and communal lives, interact with social, political, and material contexts. This is particularly important as situations shift from ordinary and ‘stable’ to extraordinary and violent. Individuals, and even whole communities, do not have static priorities; instead, their priorities shift in line with resilience and survival strategies for specific circumstances. In this calculus, when discrimination and violence is heightened, and social structures that provided a modicum of safety and security are disrupted and eroded, queer and trans people may be forced to conceal their sexuality and gender or alter their gender expression in order to survive.3

With this framework in mind, researchers seeking to engage networks of sexual and gender minority populations in knowledge production should strive to unpack the nuances of ‘political violence’ or ‘conflict’. Political violence can build very quickly or over time. At times, the antecedents of acute sensitivity or fragility were part of daily life long before the circumstances garnered broader attention. As a marginalized group in many contexts, sexual and gender minority populations often experience discrimination and unequal access to services and opportunities regardless of—though certainly partially determined by—broader political circumstances. Paying careful attention to not only the ‘extraordinary’ context, but also the ‘ordinary’ pre-crisis one, will help the researcher determine the additional effects of political violence or conflict to LGBT people. For example, armed conflict or humanitarian crises put LGBT people at heightened risk; however, these risks often exacerbate pre-existing ordinary risks due to colonial-era criminalization and ongoing political homophobia (HRW, 2008).

It is also very important to acknowledge survival, resilience, and informality. Research necessarily assumes a certain level of formality. While design and preparedness are critical to ethically undertaking research, fluid sexual and gender minority experiences in highly sensitive contexts may clash with the rigidity of structured questionnaires or evidentiary hierarchies inherent in research endeavours. Instead, researchers should provide research participants the space to share stories of how they creatively navigated anti-LGBT political violence and resilience that rigid methodologies may obscure. Researchers should consider less restrictive methodologies in their research design, which may be crucial to informing security protocols, behaviours, and even research outcomes.

Case study 1: Where are the lesbians?

In 2022, HRW undertook its first global investigation on violence and discrimination against lesbian, bisexual, and queer (LBQ+) women. The research was motivated by the severe lack of LBQ+ data in most human rights areas, and the urgent need for documentation and recommendations specific to their experiences. The research demonstrated how existing LGBT research has typically poorly captured the human rights abuses most affecting LBQ+ women and non-binary people. Key takeaways included:

  • LBQ+ women are not safer than other queer people. The report found that despite immense physical, sexual, and economic violence, there is a ‘persisting myth’ in the human rights field that LBQ+ women and girls have ‘more space, safety, and freedom in society than queer men and boys, including to explore their sexuality’ (Human Rights Watch, 2023). This stems, in part, from the fact that many anti-sodomy laws do not explicitly criminalize same-sex conduct between women. But the idea that LBQ+ women are somehow safer for being ignored discounts how sexist and patriarchal violence impacts every aspect of their lives.

More than two-thirds of our LBQ+ interviewees referenced and critiqued that myth, noting that these alleged freedoms stem from the devaluation of women, their sexuality, and their intimacies. Legal regimes around the world deny women full personhood; in fact, the lack of explicit criminalization of queer women’s sexual conduct proves this point. LBQ+ sex decenters the traditional prominence of men, so it is delegitimized to the extent of not qualifying as sex at all. It falls outside the knowable bounds of criminalization in many homophobic contexts, not because LBQ+ women are accepted, but because they are radically devalued. Colloquially, this implies that LBQ+ lives are somehow ‘easier’ for being neither visible nor legitimate enough to criminalize or regulate. (Human Rights Watch, 2023)

  • LBQ+ women and non-binary people face unique forms of violence and discrimination. Very few interviewees raised the criminalization of same-sex conduct, gender affirmation laws, or same-sex marriage. Instead, across 66 interviews in LBQ+ activists, human rights defenders, lawyers, and community leaders in 26 countries, some of the most common themes were: forced and coerced marriage; women’s land and property rights; violence by security forces against masculine-presenting women, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity; and the need to visibilize and protect LBQ+ human rights defenders.

  • Interviewees are the experts. Victim and survivor testimonies should dictate, not merely inform, researchers’ framing, analysis, and key findings. Given adequate space, interviewees can teach you how to frame your research. The research for this report would have looked radically different if HRW researchers had approached interviews with a pre-set list of LGBT topics in mind, and simply asked about how lesbians experience those violations. Women’s property rights and sexist inheritance practices, for example, would likely not have been included.

  • LBQ+ activism comes in many forms. It may not match what you think you’re looking for. LBQ+ activists are leaders in a wide range of environmental, economic, gender, political, minority rights, Indigenous, and racial justice movements. Many of the names or stated objectives of LBQ+ organizations are outside the bounds of what is typically conceptualized of as ‘LGBT rights’ work. A bisexual woman in Indonesia told HRW that her collective focuses on minority rights, and building solidarity between queer, Indigenous, and ethnic minority groups. It is not safe or strategic to market this work as ‘LGBT rights’, but is fundamentally queer in its approach. In conflict zones, LBQ+ women are often found on the front lines of humanitarian support, but do not advertise themselves as LGBT activists.

  • Structural barriers prevent LBQ+ organizations from registering. LBQ+ organizations are unlikely to be formally registered with their governments, due not only to discriminatory legal restrictions or security concerns faced by all LGBT people, but also because women often have less access to formal education, legal support, and funding needed to register an NGO. LGBT rights researchers can help close this gap by ensuring that formal registration with the government is not a prerequisite for partnership.

3. Interview process and selection

This section describes good practices gleaned from HRW’s approach to designing the interview, soliciting participants, and conducting the interview itself.

Part 1: Interview design

Constructing an interview requires accounting for information about the highly sensitive context, methodological and ethical requirements, and security concerns. To that end, the researcher should:

  1. A.Create a list of interview topics and a questionnaire. While most HRW interviews are semi-structured and flexible, a questionnaire helps ensure consistency across interviews to establish patterns of experiences or abuses or to corroborate an event. Discuss and vet these questions with your relevant colleagues and partners.
  2. B.Translation. Translate the interview questionnaire into the local language(s) where the interviews will be conducted and ensure that terms related to sexual orientation and gender identity reflect the nuances of the local language(s).
  3. C.Anticipate criticisms from perpetrators or sceptics. Where feasible from a methodological and security perspective, seek information from perpetrators and sceptics to include in the data set. Include questions that will provide you with relevant information to respond.
  4. D.Leave no one behind. Include perspectives of all people, and design questions to uncover a range of experiences and intersectional identities. Security permitting, contact local LGBT leaders, activists, or networks ahead of the research project to learn how the crisis is affecting their communities. This will help researchers know what to look for, without demanding disclosures from interviewees that may be dangerous, intrusive, or traumatic.

    Examples include:

    • When interviewing forcibly displaced women, consider how to frame questions that capture their unique experiences or relevant protection gaps without requiring an interviewee to disclose their sexual orientation or gender identity.

    • Ask whom they travelled with. Try to ascertain if they are travelling without a male partner, as this exposes them to additional risks. Do not assume that a particular marital status indicates sexuality, or vice versa.

    • If they have children, ask what their main concerns about their children’s futures are. Try to ascertain what their legal relationship to their children might be.

    • Ask questions about care responsibilities. Understanding the guilt, shame, and societal pressures a woman is under regarding leaving her family is critical to unpacking her experience of displacement.

  5. E.Conduct mock interviews with a colleague. This is a good way to get constructive feedback on your ability to address sensitive, complex, or painful topics while helping you become more comfortable with conducting such interviews. If you are working with an interpreter, do the mock interviews with your interpreter so they are equally prepared. Do these mock interviews until you are comfortable discussing and receiving information about the topic.
  6. F.Adopt a trauma-informed approach. You may be interviewing someone who is revealing an abusive episode or other distressing information for the first time. The process of participating in the interview may be distressing to the interviewee.

    To reduce the risk of harm and retraumatization, you should:

    • Adequately prepare and plan for the interview, including by assessing risks (noting that sometimes it may be unethical to interview an individual due to the risks) and preparing a referral list.

    • Ensure the interviewee has a sense of control over the interview, including when to take a break or stop.

    • Avoid probing into graphic or specific details unless critical for the research and the survivor is willing to discuss them.

    • End the interview in a ‘safe space’ and the present moment, including by asking about their hobbies, children, or plans after the interview.

    • Provide a referral list.

  7. G.Create a referral list. As a researcher, you are likely unable to provide direct assistance to interviewees. However, you can—and should—share a referral list of service providers and details (such as location and contact information), translated into the interviewees’ local language(s), and connect interviewees to services if they wish. It is thus essential to build time into your preparation to identify service providers and into the research phase to explain the referral list and provide contact details to interviewees. The list should include, at minimum, well-regarded service providers of psychosocial and medical healthcare, legal aid, housing or shelters, children’s services, and advocacy groups.

    Other factors to keep in mind when preparing and sharing the referral list:

    • The availability of informal services. Include community-based support groups.

    • The accessibility (physically and economically) and quality of services. Avoid making referrals to services that are far away, costly, or have a reputation for being discriminatory or insensitive.

    • The appropriateness of services. For example, if LGBT NGOs are primarily run by men, consider whether their services are appropriate and non-discriminatory for LBTQ people and what alternative services may be necessary.

    • Safety and appropriateness of leaving a referral list with the participant. If it is unsafe or inappropriate to leave the list, explore other options, such as designating a local contact (often an NGO or activist) who can provide this information as needed. In some situations, it may be appropriate to ask participants for their permission so you can refer their case to a trusted NGO worker or counsellor.

  8. H.Follow up with the interviewee after the interview to provide additional referrals as necessary. If the interviewee indicates a specific, unforeseen need that the services on your list are unable to address, we believe researchers have an ethical obligation to explore potential services for those unforeseen needs afterwards and provide additional referrals in a safe and secure manner through a local contact or secure messaging.

Case study 2: Syria: supporting interviewees during research on sexual violence against men, boys, and trans people

In 2018 and 2019, HRW researched sexual violence against men and boys in the Syrian armed conflict (Human Rights Watch, 2020). The interview part of the project, which occurred almost exclusively in Lebanon, was inherently complex and sensitive at every stage.

During the initial outreach, researchers encountered difficulties gaining the trust of potential interviewees. Given these challenges, researchers took extra steps to ensure the comfort and safety of interviewees and also shared a referral list that had been prepared beforehand.4

Three lessons learned:

  1. 1.Understanding and acknowledging that, due to various sensitivities for men and boys in disclosing experiences of sexual violence,5 outreach and interviewee recruitment would face limitations. Specifically, it became clear that contacting cisgender heterosexual men would be more challenging than contacting gay and bisexual men, trans women, or non-binary people. We believe this is because existing civil society infrastructure, via LGBT NGOs, allowed for more expeditious and safer contact with these communities than for straight men, some of whom were involved in torture survivor groups but were by and large unwilling to participate in this type of research.
  2. 2.Allowing interviewees to request the presence of a social worker they knew during the interview. This added level of comfort and control was critical given the subject matter.
  3. 3.Arranging for a psychologist on retainer for interviewees and mentioning this service during the informed consent process. This decision was taken after a careful assessment of service availability in Lebanon, which was limited, and barriers to services, which were primarily financial.

Part 2: Interview outreach

Research outreach approaches vary across methodologies, and in fragile contexts, they may be heavily determined by pragmatic considerations such as feasibility and security. For example, survey methods that include formal ‘snowballing’ utilize ticketing systems that generate respondent-driven interviewee samples. Such ‘snowballing’ informs HRW’s outreach, which largely relies on networks of contacts mediated through NGOs, individual activists, lawyers, allied reporters, and academic researchers.

Because COVID-19 movement restrictions altered the way HRW conducted investigations in general, the organization has moved towards using more remote, online strategies for recruiting. In one project, researchers used an online survey to recruit interviewees by allowing them to answer a series of questions in order to familiarize themselves with the research topic and then share their contact information at the end if they wish to participate in an oral semi-structured interview (Human Rights Watch, 2016). This approach is becoming increasingly common because it reduces the burden on NGO interlocutors or ‘fixers’, and may increase the number of respondents who prefer the survey format to meeting an unknown researcher, or have access to an online survey but not a space or network run by an NGO.

The communications method you choose will impact your ability to reach LGBT people of different genders, social groups, and ages. Consider how to best access four specific communities of people:

  1. 1.People who are older or are living in rural areas and may not have consistent access to email or the internet to read emailed requests or participate in online surveys. Be sure to work with activists who know the phone numbers, home addresses, or social gathering spaces of older, rural community members.
  2. 2.People who live in countries with low rates of literacy, as relying only on written communication to arrange interviews would limit participation. Security permitting and accounting for privacy concerns, consider individual or group sessions where participants can hear the text of the study read aloud and provide their consent to participate orally.
  3. 3.People who are linguistic minorities. Be sure to work with an interpreter who speaks not only the official language of the country, but also local languages, to facilitate the participation of queer Indigenous people.
  4. 4.People who are LBQ+. Be sure to work with LBQ+, trans, and non-binary activists to ensure representation from these particularly marginalized communities.

In designing outreach strategies that account for literacy and language, local LGBT organizations can assist you in developing tactics to effectively and safely contact potential research participants. As illustrated, there are different outreach and recruitment methods. However, regardless of which approach is chosen, you should follow the same nine core principles apply to engaging with intermediaries and potential participants:

  1. 1.Explain in plain language who you are, what your research team or organization does and does not do, and what you will do with the information provided by the interviewee.
  2. 2.Explain clearly to intermediaries what your research project covers and what you are seeking so intermediaries do not arrange interviews with individuals who do not have relevant information.
  3. 3.Emphasize the voluntary nature of the interview and convey to potential interviewees that, in the case of HRW, we are only gathering information and cannot provide assistance, services, or compensation.
  4. 4.Do not pressure anyone who is reluctant to participate.
  5. 5.Explain and emphasize the confidential nature of the interviews.
  6. 6.Explain to intermediaries that they are bound to respect confidentiality.
  7. 7.Explain that we want to avoid retraumatization, which can occur when trauma survivors tell, or retell, their story. Inform intermediaries and potential participants if any researchers on your team have undergone trauma-informed interview technique training and apply their skills to the interview process.
  8. 8.Discuss any security risks.
  9. 9.Agree with intermediaries on mitigation measures relevant to their partnership with you and to any liaising work they are performing.

Part 3: Interview encounter

HRW uses interviews to document first-hand and witness accounts of human rights abuses as well as to obtain other forms of evidence, such as photographs, videos, medical records, court documents, and the names of other people to interview. During the interview, bear in mind the necessary security considerations for requesting and reviewing documentation. When requesting other relevant documentation, such as legal or medical records, consider whether you have the expertise and time to sufficiently analyse them in the moment or whether you will need to photograph or copy them to take with you for analysis. Both processes require a re-engagement on the terms of consent as the document reveals private information about an interviewee, some of which may not be relevant to your interview topic. If you need to copy documents, you also need to explain how you will securely copy, store, and use your records of the file.

At the same time, you must be aware of security and bias considerations in your snowball sampling. Requesting that interviewees suggest other people to interview can be a fruitful and meaningful way to ‘snowball’ interviewees—especially since drawing on social networks among sexual and gender minority populations is often critical to undertaking research—requires security considerations. As a non-random sampling technique, it also introduces self-selection biases. First, consider whether it is safe to have an interviewee initiate a conversation with their contacts to explain the research and ask their contacts to share, for example, their email or phone number with a researcher. Second, consider digital security concerns in your outreach method. Use end-to-end encrypted platforms for outreach. Do not include identifying information about the interviewee during outreach. Instruct the interviewee not to share information about the interview, the interviewer, or research team with others without the research team’s permission.

As snowballing introduces self-selection biases, consider how to structure the interview to account for potential biases inherent to snowball sampling. For example, if the police detained and mistreated Interviewee A, Interviewee A may suggest Interviewee B as a witness to the human rights violations against Interviewee A. While interviewing Interviewee B, you should not only gather details of the Interviewee A’s experience (location, date/time, specific actions and words, attributes of perpetrator, and so on) to corroborate their account, but you should also ask Interviewee B about other information that may be unrelated to this incident but relevant to your research. It is also important to consider gaps that may result from snowballing. Because many LGBT networks are historically led by gay men, the first contact may lead to a contact pool in which LBQ+ people and trans men are underrepresented. In that case, specifically ask for contacts who are LBQ+ women and transgender men. Interviewees are often able to suggest contacts of different sexualities and genders if the researcher expresses a clear desire to document a range of experiences.

The possibility of remote interviews opens important opportunities for research. Remote interviews allow the researcher to reach interviewees in different parts of a country who would not necessarily be included in an in-person mission because travelling around a highly sensitive context may be prohibitively dangerous for either the researcher or interviewee. The remote option also helps some survivors struggling with stigma and shame to feel more comfortable sharing their stories, as they are not physically with the interviewer. In addition, interviewing by phone or other remote means provides the best mode of contact from the interviewee’s perspective, since it can be the only accessible, safe, or comfortable mode for interviewees with limited mobility.

At the same time, remote interviews pose distinct challenges in terms of information accuracy, information security, and the safety and well-being of interviewees during and after the interview. During remote interviews, researchers could not perceive contextual or non-verbal cues that are often perceptible when meeting in person. This lack of physical proximity and signs also renders it more difficult to assess the interviewee’s credibility and feelings, including whether they were in distress and would be safe after the interview. Location is no longer shared between researcher and interviewee, so researchers need to ensure that the interviewee is not in the presence of others who might intimidate or otherwise inhibit them from speaking freely. In general, it is more difficult to establish rapport and trust with an interviewee when communicating remotely, so researcher should anticipate greater difficulties in raising sensitive topics. While remote interviews expand research opportunities hindered by the lack of ability or capacity to travel and conduct interviews, they also pose distinct challenges in terms of information accuracy, information security, and the safety and well-being of interviewees during and after the interview.

For remote interviews, we recommend researchers:

  1. 1.Partner with an institution or organization with in-depth contextual knowledge and contacts with LGBT people in the target research location(s).
  2. 2.Conduct a risk assessment before each interview to determine possible risks and a mitigation strategy regarding each interviewee.
  3. 3.Securely approach interviewees through trusted individuals who could verify their identity.
  4. 4.Build trust with interviewees by communicating at least twice before the interview itself to introduce yourself, your organization, and your project; obtain informed consent; explain the content of the interview; and assess the potential for retraumatization.
  5. 5.Provide a referral list, including to psychosocial services, at the end of the interview.
  6. 6.Provide a secure and accessible way for interviewees to contact your institution or organization with any feedback, concerns, and complaints or any additional information related to the research.

Case study 3: Iraq: remote interviewing and security guidelines

In 2021, HRW conducted entirely remote interviews on the killings, abductions, torture, and sexual violence of LGBT people by armed groups in Iraq (Human Rights Watch, 2022). The research involved numerous complexities, including an inherently high-risk context where violence against LGBT people is ongoing, difficulties in accessing affected individuals and corroborating evidence of abuses, and increased digital security needs given the remote nature of the interviews.

Risk mitigation strategy

The researcher conducted extensive internal and external consultations to determine the viability of doing remote interviews. In partnership with an Iraqi LGBT rights organization, HRW conducted a risk assessment before each interview to determine possible risks and a mitigation strategy. All interviewees were approached securely through trusted individuals who could verify their identity.

For many interviewees, this was the first time they had ever spoken about the abuses they had experienced. To establish trust, the researcher spoke to most interviewees twice, on separate occasions, before the interview itself. In the first call, the researcher introduced the organization, the people involved, and the project and obtained informed consent. In the second, the researcher familiarized the individuals with the content of the interview and determined what level of retraumatization might result from the interview. The final and third call was the interview itself, during which the researcher reminded individuals that they could take a break or stop the interview at any time.

To circumvent interference, most interviews were conducted late at night to accommodate interviewees who could only speak when their family members were sleeping. The researcher and each interviewee decided on a safe word that the interviewee would use if they were interrupted, could no longer speak freely, or had to immediately stop the interview.

The researcher provided each interviewee with a list of referrals to available services, including psychosocial support, at the end of the interview. The researcher also provided individuals with a secure and accessible way to contact HRW to report any consequences from their participation in the interview, make complaints regarding the interview, including any negative consequences of being interviewed, or provide any other feedback or information.

Surveillance risks and mitigation strategies

There are several threats that may increase the risk to the research participant, and it is important to understand each and how to respond.

Actor-based threats use physical access to the people involved in the remote interview to identify, intercept, or disrupt the integrity of the interview. For example, a family member or partner in the room during a call poses a threat.

Mitigation strategies: If the interview was done via audio only, interviewers made sure to verify the identity of the interviewee by asking for a five-second video to see the interviewee’s face and confirmed that they were the same person throughout the interview phases. Interviewees were instructed to take the call from a private location.

Logistic-based threats use access to information about the interview, short of observing the interview itself, to identify the interview’s existence or topic or the people involved in the interview. For example, if the interview is done using a traditional phone call, other people may have access to the call history, either on the phone itself or on a phone bill.

Mitigation strategies: Interviewers did not share locations, full names, or other identifying information or locators with interviewees so that interviewers could not be physically located. Interviewers deleted any record of interview calls and notes from their devices. Disappearing messages were enabled on mediums of communication. Interviewees were instructed to delete any record of the call from their devices afterwards.

Device-based threats use physical or digital access to the device of any of the people involved in the remote interview to identify, intercept, or disrupt the interview. They can be used to target the content of a remote interview or the operational information around it. For example, sensitive information about who participated in a call, a phone number or username, or the length or timing of a call.

Mitigation strategy: Interviewees were cautioned against sharing information about their interview with others.

Account-based threats use access to the online accounts, such as email or social media, of any of the people involved in the remote interview to identify, intercept, or disrupt the interview. For example, a partner who coerces access to online accounts or an external attacker who gains access to their attacks through phishing. These threats can target operational information by looking at contacts, calendar events, or call logs. They may also target the remote interview itself by accessing the account to intercept or disrupt the interview.

Mitigation strategies: All online accounts used for communication before, during, and after the interviews were secured with a strong password and multi-factor authentication. The researchers implemented security protocols throughout the research process to avoid entrapment of interviewers and interviewees. This was particularly important in the Iraqi context, where LGBT activists had been entrapped by bad actors on online dating sites.

Service-based threats use access to the services, such as social media platforms or phones, being used for the remote interview to identify, intercept, or disrupt the interview. These threats are most commonly used by law enforcement and intelligence services.

Mitigation strategy: Only end-to-end encrypted communication channels (Signal, WhatsApp, Wire, JitsiMeet) were used to conduct interviews.

Connection-based threats use access to the connection used during the interview to identify, intercept, or disrupt the interview. Threats to connections can occur at a variety of levels. At the most basic level, an attacker may simply call into a conference call and listen to a remote interview. For example, law enforcement may require local network operators or service providers to intercept calls from and to a specific actor’s numbers and accounts.

Mitigation strategy: Staff used VPNs throughout the research phase. A VPN—or Virtual Private Network—is a mechanism that can be used on a computer or smartphone to create a secure connection between two users for communications. There are free VPNs available for download, and they offer an added layer of protection for communications; they are highly recommended for activists and researchers of all types.

4. Context-specific security planning

It is critical to robustly unpack the sensitivities of the context, especially since situations of political violence, conflict, and other crisis have both overlapping and different risks attached. Ask yourself: Does the political situation create a climate of fear, persecution, and abuse with impunity for LGBT people? Are your planned activities likely to contribute to the already heightened risks faced by LGBT people?

HRW’s guidelines for working with LGBT communities instruct as follows. Given the systemic, often politicized nature of violence against LGBT people, researchers should intimately understand the context in which violence occurs. Researchers should:

  1. 1.Evaluate how their research institution is perceived in the field site (by the general population and by LGBT people more specifically) and accompanying security considerations.
  2. 2.Understand that sexuality and gender are rooted in time, place, and culture and are not universal. Researchers should educate themselves about social and cultural norms, vocabularies, and potentially contested identity categories.
  3. 3.Understand the difference between sexual practice and identity, and do not impose identity categories based on practice. For example, some men may not identify as gay but routinely have sex with other men. Many LBQ+ women are married to and have children with men due to societal expectations, norms, and pressures. Quantitative research methods have considered this phenomenon and how to distinguish between identity, practice, and attraction when asking questions (Badgett et al, 2009). In the research preparation phase, the researcher should ask LGBT activists and organizations about language, sexual practice, and signals of sexual identity. For example, some women may publicly identify as a lesbian while other women who have sex with women identify as heterosexual because they are married to a man.
  4. 4.Be aware of barriers that might prevent individuals from reporting violence and be prepared to give appropriate advice about remedial courses of action that may not involve reporting to authorities. In countries where same-sex conduct is illegal, the risks of reporting a homophobic crime are high because it effectively exposes the individual as gay. This is also true of other non-SOGI-specific incidents due to LGBT people’s lack of trust in the authorities and vulnerability to secondary victimization, including from inappropriate questioning.
  5. 5.Proactively establish connections with LGBT organizations, including those focusing on LBQ+ and trans people, or LGBT-friendly NGOs that may be able to provide assistance to survivors of violence, which will help you create an appropriate referral list. Consider the sexualities and genders of the leadership of the organizations you speak with, particularly how this may skew the representation of sexuality and gender in your research.
  6. 6.Create a safe and comfortable environment for interviews or other data collection experiences to promote disclosure. Part of this involves understanding that there are often tensions among groups and individuals and how they might impact your research and your participants’ experiences. Be sensitive to the fact that even where same-sex conduct is legal, individuals may fear social stigma and keep silent about abuses.
  7. 7.Learn the lingo in the context you are researching. Understand what it means to be lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender—and that none of those terms may be liked or used, including consistently, in a particular context. Understand, for example, if ‘butch’ and ‘stud’ are terms used exclusively by lesbians or if they are also used by trans men, as failing to understand these terms could lead to misgendering someone. This is important for background knowledge and to signal your understanding and knowledge, which are pivotal to creating a safe environment and building a rapport based on trust.
  8. 8.Work with interpreters who understand the concerns and issues of the LGBT community you are working with. The ‘LGBT community’ is not a monolith. Women interviewees may still be uncomfortable sharing some details with researchers and interpreters who are men; transgender interviewees may feel unable to fully communicate their experience with a cisgender research team, even if they are all queer. If you cannot hire interpreters who are endorsed by LGBT organizations, search for interpreters within feminist networks that have close ties to the queer community and may be qualified to interpret. Regardless of who is hired, budget time to discuss stigma, stereotypes, social norms, terminology, and ethical interviewing techniques with your interpreters. Bear in mind that your interviewees will consider every member of your team, including interpreters, as a representative of you, your institution, or your organization.

Case study 4: Aceh: leaving a hostile environment to improve safety

Aceh is the only province in Indonesia that has been allowed to develop its provincial laws in accordance with sharia (Islamic law). Due to a peace agreement ending a decades-long armed conflict that granted Aceh semi-autonomous status, its local government has unique laws and law enforcement methods, including a sharia police that, in cooperation with other security forces, has targeted minority populations, including LGBT people, for violating sharia.

In early 2016, HRW researchers were invited by Acehnese activist groups to interview LGBT people in the province and document anti-LGBT incidents as well as the atmosphere created by sharia ordinances that specifically allowed for up to 100 lashes in public as a sentence for those convicted of same-sex behaviour. HRW had on staff two non-Acehnese researchers who had experience working in Aceh. Their visible outsider status was a critical security factor in this highly sensitive context because interviewees observed to be engaging with outsiders were at higher risk of surveillance and violations.

HRW’s security and feasibility assessment determined that it was neither safe nor ethical to undertake in-person research in Aceh, but that it was possible to safely conduct interviews in a remote location to which participants travelled for the interviews. HRW identified a safe city outside Aceh with available hotels, relatively simple and affordable transportation, and a local LGBT activist group to provide additional support.

Four lessons learned:

  1. 1.Outreach to affected individuals should be discrete and may need to happen through several layers of interlocutors who should be reimbursed for their reasonable out-of-pocket expenses. HRW contacted various individuals, including Acehnese activists who were aware of incidents and could learn specific details through their social networks. Partners inside Aceh were instructed to speak obliquely about the project and, as much as possible, have in-person conversations to avoid introducing security risks from phone surveillance. HRW reimbursed activists willing to undertake such outreach for their fuel expenses related to this extra travel, which sometimes required several hours on motorcycles.
  2. 2.Be mindful of potential hurdles related to the need for legal names and legal genders for travel purposes. Some participants gave names to staff that were not their legal names; consequently, their airplane tickets were booked under their chosen name, not the name reflected on their travel documents. In some cases, this also occurred with gender markers on ID documents. Indonesia has no formal procedure for legal gender recognition, but the courts have approved some gender recognition cases, so the researchers could not assume that any particular person had or did not have documents reflecting their gender identity. As a result, the staff needed to sensitively and safely re-contact participants to get their legal names and legal genders to adjust the bookings and avoid security incidents at the airport. All these logistical hurdles were weighed against the security risks that would have been introduced by wiring money to individuals inside Aceh so they could book their own tickets.
  3. 3.Have a reasonable cover story for participants. Once the logistical arrangements, including flights and hotels, were in place, the staff and partners in Aceh developed a cover story for the 16 people who were travelling so they did not arouse suspicion in their own communities when departing or at the airport. It was decided that, based on recent history, it would be reasonable for participants to say they were travelling to the nearby non-Acehnese city for either a ‘workshop’ or shopping related to their businesses. Partners in Aceh communicated this strategy to participants, some of whom raised concerns regarding the sheer numbers in the group. As a result, half of the group was re-booked on a different flight, and participants’ seats were deliberately purchased apart from each other to reduce any suspicion or attention while travelling.
  4. 4.Provide participants with autonomy in coordinating all or parts of their travel. Some participants raised concerns about the lodging HRW had selected in the destination city and wanted to stay at a place where they felt more comfortable. HRW agreed, cancelled the hotel bookings, and obtained cash equivalent to the cost of the cancelled bookings in appropriate denominations (an effort that took two days due to bank limitations) to give to participants when they arrived. After the research was completed, the partners in Aceh told HRW that allowing participants to coordinate their own journey to an extent made them feel safer and that the process was more genuine. It is important to note that this level of freedom was possible because the security situation for participants was stable outside Aceh. Interviews were conducted over four days, in the researcher’s hotel room or an empty hotel restaurant, depending on each interviewee’s comfort level.

5. Trauma-informed research techniques

A traumatic event is an event or series of events that causes an individual a lot of stress.6

Trauma-informed research methods are critical to working with sexual and gender minority populations, particularly in contexts of heightened sensitivity where experiences of traumatic events may be higher. The research encounter, while important for knowledge creation, advocacy, and other goals, should be guided by ‘do no harm’ principles as much as possible.

A thorough discussion of trauma-informed research techniques is beyond the scope of this resource guide. However, we have provided tips and resources to help you create a trauma-informed research protocol and establish relevant practices.7

Case study 5: Saint Vincent and the Grenadines: engaging trauma on interviewees’ terms

HRW researchers investigated the hostile environment that the laws criminalizing consensual same-sex conduct create in Saint Vincent and the Grenadines for LGBT people. Researchers documented cases of physical violence, harassment, sexual violence, and other forms of discrimination. Interviewees were contacted through local human rights organizations. As part of this project, researchers interviewed a 22-year-old gay man whose story illustrates the importance of engaging with interviewees on their own terms regarding the documentation of traumatic events.

All the LGBT people that researchers had interviewed before meeting the gay man had recounted multiple incidents of violence or discrimination and had expressed that Saint Vincent and the Grenadines is deeply homo- and transphobic. However, when researchers asked the interviewee if he had ever experienced direct or indirect homophobia, he said he had not. Researchers politely asked the question in different ways, but the interviewee gave the impression that the situation for LGBT was not at all difficult in the country, which contradicted other interviewees’ accounts. The interviewee had a similar socio-economic and racial background as the other interviewees and resided in the same area.

After asking all the relevant questions, researchers began to close the interview, considering that this person’s experience was an outlier in the pool of interviewees. At the end, researchers enquired about the interviewee’s future, aspirations, and whether he was happy in his country. The tone of the conversation changed dramatically after that point. He began to express a belief that conditions for LGBT people are better elsewhere, and that his ability to live ‘comfortably’ in Saint Vincent and the Grenadines was limited. When asked if he would leave the country, he responded affirmatively because abroad he ‘could get to do more’.

The interviewee never explicitly shared information about what discrimination he or others suffered, but his later comments made clear that the situation for LGBT people in the country was not positive. There could be a host of reasons why he did not offer clearer information and researchers prying could have had a negative impact, such as retraumatization. However, phrasing questions in a more positive manner by discussing his dreams and desires, and thereby engaging with the interviewee on his own terms, led to some insights into what the reality is for LGBT people in the country.

Ultimately, this interview prompted researchers to consistently ask about interviewees’ futures and desires for emigration, which revealed a consistent practice on the part of all interviews to envision their futures outside the country and never therein. This was an important finding of the research, highlighting the dire situation of discrimination against LGBT populations.

Three key takeaways:

  1. 1.Be aware that traumatic incidents and experiences are highly subjective. Some interviewees will not want to share details of these difficult moments, even if they want to support the research.
  2. 2.Respect the boundaries that the interviewee is setting. While it is good to reformulate questions to make sure you are being clear, do not pry excessively or belabour a particular point.
  3. 3.Do not make assumptions about what is ‘useful’ testimony during a research encounter. It may be helpful to explore what interviewees do want to speak about, even if it may not at first appear relevant for the research, to learn more about people’s lived realities. This could lead to new insights while centring interviewees’ wishes and dignity.

HRW believes a guiding principle to ethical research engagement and trauma-informed techniques is a thorough, consistent, and comprehensible informed consent process. The following 12-step process is adapted from the HRW Interview Manual:

  1. 1.Choose an appropriate location. Ask the interviewee ahead of time where the safest, most comfortable place to meet is. Consider if the person’s partner or family members will be home. Do not make assumptions about who the interviewee wants in the room during the interview or about what ‘privacy’ looks and feels like to a queer person in this context. For example, a married LBQ+ interviewee may not be out to her husband and may thus want to meet outside her home. At the same time, she may wish to hold her infant child during the interview. Consider your own clothing, transport method, and time of day of the interview, and ask in advance how each of these will impact the interviewee’s security.
  2. 2.Introduce yourself (and anyone else present). Explain what you do, explain what you are doing in this research project, give examples of your work (physical copies in relevant languages are ideal), and ask participants if they have questions. Also explain what you do not do—for example, tell participants if you cannot provide legal advice or other services—especially if participants may be concerned about the material or personal benefits of participating in your project.
  3. 3.Explain the scope and purpose of the interview. Explain the topic(s) to be covered in the interview and the aims in collecting the information. Provide an estimate of how long the interview will take.
  4. 4.If you want to record, ask the interviewee for permission to do so. If you plan to record audio or video, show the interviewee which devices you would use, discuss which portions of their body you can record, and how you would record. Recognize that even if the interviewee consents, it may affect what they say in the interview. Consider how particular devices may be retraumatizing to survivors. Some hand-held audio recorders, for example, appear similar to tasers (stun guns), which may be retraumatizing to survivors of police violence.
  5. 5.Describe how you will disseminate the information gathered. If you can anonymize the information, explain anonymization, but be realistic and transparent about risks even with anonymization.
  6. 6.Emphasize the voluntary nature of the interview, that participants can stop the interview at any time, and that they can withdraw their testimony at any point. In some cases, it may help to explicitly describe an example of when another one of your interviewees stopped an interview in order to stress that you were not personally offended and that you will not pressure any participant into continuing their involvement.
  7. 7.Clarify compensation (or the lack thereof) for participation. HRW researchers clearly state that we do not provide compensation for participation in an interview. If you are operating in a situation where you will reimburse travel expenses, you should emphasize that the interviewee will be reimbursed regardless of how much of the interview they complete.
  8. 8.Discuss potential risks, including any weaknesses in anonymity protection. For example, if you are interviewing LGBT refugees who live in a refugee camp, clarify whether your publication will name the camp and explain risks that come with that. Show participants how you are recording their names; we recommend using codes for each unique interview and recording real names in a separate document that you store securely apart from your interview notes. If the interview may touch on traumatizing material, mention risks of retraumatization.
  9. 9.Agree on safety measures to mitigate risks, including those to protect identity. Discuss cover stories (see Aceh case study). Consider asking participants to choose their own pseudonym because this grants a greater sense of control and often helps ensure pseudonyms are culturally appropriate. At the same time, you should ask them why they chose a name (in case they choose a name that introduces security risks of its own, such as a sibling’s name). It may help to show examples of other publications where you have protected identities in photos or with pseudonyms. Discuss how you will record information during the interview (for example, notes, audio recording, and so on).
  10. 10.Discuss referrals. Have a list of referrals to service providers ready, and mention this as part of the consent process. If it is unsafe or inappropriate to give them the list, explore other safer options (see the relevant point under ‘Part 1: interview design’).
  11. 11.Provide opportunities for questions and revisit consent. Both at the outset and again at the end of the interview, ask questions to gauge whether a participant understands the basics of the interview; namely, that it is voluntary, they can withdraw their testimony, and you will protect their identity in certain agreed upon ways.
  12. 12.Record consent. Your interview notes should explicitly mention that the person gave consent to be interviewed. HRW does not require written consent for all interviews, but we do for some that come with heightened risk, such as recorded video interviews.

Conclusion

Engaging in research with sexual and gender minority populations in highly sensitive contexts requires attention to the overall situation, potential individual trauma, and security risks and mitigation strategies. Researchers should ensure their research projects account for security risks and are safely implemented in all phases of the research. Carefully designed research acknowledges risks (which always exist), benefits participants (who are better protected) and researchers (who are acting ethically), and allows knowledge production to occur attentive to and minimizing risks of retraumatization or other harm.

We hope this guide, based on our experiences and drawing off of principles that have been developed based on the work of hundreds of HRW researchers, can provide some grounding. It is also critical that researchers working on difficult topics and in difficult contexts protect themselves from vicarious trauma (see Resource Guide II) and other mental health impacts of doing this kind of work. While it is beyond the scope of this guide to discuss effective methodologies, we strongly recommend research institutions and supervisors invest in supporting researchers’ mental health.

Notes

1

Many of the research standards and practices discussed in this guide were consolidated in internal guidance documents for HRW staff by Sagaree Jain and Nisha Varia in 2019. That guidance is not publicly available but reflected here in part.

2

For a full running list of our publications on LGBT rights, visit: www.hrw.org/lgbt

3

For example, in research conducted by CARE and UN Women, some queer participants described how their desire for survival took precedence over their desire for free expression of their sexual orientation and gender identity. One interviewee said: “Based on my personal experience of communicating with friends and acquaintances, I would say that at the moment, the question of survival is still higher than any personal preferences regarding one’s way of life or sexual orientation. This is a temporary dynamic that needs to be addressed in peacetime” (CARE and UN Women, 2022).

4

For more on trauma-informed interview techniques, see the ‘Trauma-informed research techniques’ section later in this resource guide and Resource Guide II in this volume.

5

Conflict-related sexual violence against men and boys is often recorded in surveys, studies, and legal proceedings only as torture or other forms of violence, thereby obscuring the degree to which they experience it and hindering provision of appropriate and specialized services linked to the sexual nature of the crime. Researchers have written extensively on how these cases have been obscured, and how methodologies are now attempting to gather information on this type of sexual violence in a more nuanced way.

6

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Mass Trauma Fact Sheet, www.cdc.gov/masstrauma/factsheets/public/coping.pdf, p 1.

7

Further resources that provide important starting points for developing a trauma-informed research protocol—one that should integrate a nuanced and context-specific understanding of sexual orientation and gender identity—include: Stanford University’s Center for Human Rights and International Justice: Human Rights in Trauma Mental Health Program (Stanford University); UNITAD’s Trauma-Informed Investigations Field Guide (UNITAD); Bellevue/NYU Program for Survivors of Torture (Center for Survivors of Torture).

Acknowledgements

This resource guide benefited immensely from reviews by Anji Manivannan and Graeme Reid.

Bibliography