CENTRE FOR CRIMINOLOGY FACULTY OF LAW Collecting Understanding

CENTRE FOR CRIMINOLOGY FACULTY OF LAW Collecting, Understanding and Managing Difficult Data in a Post-Genocide Context Dr Julia Viebach The Data Dialogue: When Research Crosses Borders, Oxford 29 September 2016

• Two Interlinked Projects: Memory and Transitional Justice in Rwanda. • Focus: Non-judicial mechanisms such as commemoration and memorials. • Fieldwork (2011 -): With survivors of the Rwandan genocide of 1994 > Work with individuals, not institutions (!). • Question: How do survivors make meaning of the past, present and future through memorialisation and memorial practices? • Interest: Subjective experience (vs. hard data) • Current Project ‘Atrocity’s Archives’: Narrative analysis and comparison of archival documents of the ICTR and the Rwandan Gacaca Courts. Outline of Research

‘What I do know is that they must have been killed in a very horrible way because the Interahamwe [the youth wing of the Hutu extremists, who were extremely violent and led the way in carrying out the genocidal killing] went in the classroom and slashed them with machetes, cutting off limbs and killing them with massues. What is unbearable is the memory of hearing my children (. . . ) and their begging forgiveness even though they had nothing to ask forgiveness for’ (Murambi survivor). Genocide

• 1994: Around 1 million people were killed within 100 days > total destruction of infrastructure and social capital. • Characteristics: 1) Extremely brutal violence; 2) Intimacy of violence. • Legacy: Mass atrocity destroys individual worlds, social bonds, trust in given values and norms and leaves a deeply traumatised population; perpetrators and victims live door to door. • Memory in Rwanda: Approx. 300 memorial sites; display of human remains and entirely preserved dead bodies at some memorials; survivors work at memorials; annual commemoration ceremonies. • 20 Years Plus: Authoritarian regime that however brought stability and security to the country (compared to e. g. Burundi). The Context: Post. Genocide Rwanda

• Trauma: Difficulty to talk about what happened, particularly to an outsider > risk of re-traumatisation. • Ethical Questions: About the representation of violence in our writing and analysis > always a danger to rationalise and objectify suffering and pain. • Authoritarian Context: Risk of not getting research permission; fear of criticising the government which could be interpreted as ‘divisional politics’; selfcensorship; very controlled environment > necessary to know the right people in order to gain access and maintain good relationships. Consequences for the Data Process

• Methods: Participatory observations, visual methods, testimony collection (life-story/oral history), interviews, focus group discussion > ‘victims approach’ • Critical Junction: Who determines the individuals and groups who are considered victims? How does the dependence on a translator influence the production of data through interviews? Selection of research assistant and interpreter can profoundly affect how research data is gathered. Language can also be politicised and can be enmeshed within power structures. • Mixed Methods Key Benefits: 1) adds nuances and context; 2) variation in data collection affords a higher validity and; 3) mitigates limited data availability through use of multiple sources. Data Collection

What is the Nature of this Data? How do we come to understand difficult data?

• Data collected with survivors necessarily relates to trauma, violence, suffering and grief > ‘Difficult Data’ Data • ‘The grief remains. (. . . ) because it, genocide and death, is in our hearts’ (Rosalinde, 14. 09. 2011). • ‘Death means normality, because it is normal to die. But here, it was more than a normal death, because nobody cared [in the way one would take care of sick people]. Death was animalistic‘ (Focus Group Discussion, 20. 09. 2011). • Can we hear the trauma in these accounts? Understanding Difficult Data ?

• Genocide leaves a ‘Crisis of Comprehensiveness’ (Holocaust. Studies: Felman/Laub 1992) • Atrocity as ‘The event without witness’ (Agamben 2002: Homo Sacer III) • ‘The body in pain’: The impossibility to communicate atrocity (Scarry 1987: Body in Pain) • ‘Experience and interpretation are inseparable for perpetrators, victims, and ethnographers alike’ (Robben/Nordstrom 1995: 4). • Challenge to integrate theory into these experiences of violence (Feldman 1991) Understanding Difficult Data?

• Generally: Researchers should adhere to the principles of confidentiality, privacy and informed consent > Ethical approval of research in Oxford, but is this in accordance to what is regarded as ‘ethical’ beyond the borders of Oxford? How do other cultures construct ethical codes? • Visual Methods: How can we ethically justify to take pictures of suffering and the dead? • Data Enterprise: Development of a ‘research industry’ in certain countries such as Rwanda and South Africa. • Data Dissemination: Data can be co-opted by political elites for purpose of power struggles or struggles around legitimacy. Management of Data (? ) And Ethics

ICTR and Gacaca Archival Documents

• Juridical Contexts: Rwanda vs. UK. • Differences: In Ethical standards and guidelines for using date e. g. Universal Declaration of Archives, UN standards and principles (for ICTR) ST/SGB/2012/3 • Questions: Intellectual property rights and rights of dissemination and usage, particularly in case of Gacaca. • Risks: Data can be used for subpoena in trials in the UK or elsewhere. • Challenges: Access to archive that is still in the ‘making’ vs clearly defined UN Access Policy. • Responsibility: Of researcher to handle data ‘with care’; first encounter leaves footprints behind (best practice example). Archival Research Across Borders: ICTR and Gacaca

CENTRE FOR CRIMINOLOGY FACULTY OF LAW Thank You for Your Attention Contact: julia. viebach@crim. ox. ac. uk @Dr. Julia. Viebach The Data Dialogue: When Research Crosses Borders, Oxford, 29 September 2016