Defensiveness, Distrust, and Ethics in Return and Reintegration Research in Nigeria
Nigeria’s GAPs Researcher Poses with some participants at the WGRRR Meeting in Kano, Nigeria. Courtesy: Ngozi Uzomah (2023)
by: Ngozi Louis Uzomah | University of Nigeria
Introduction
The burgeoning field of return and reintegration in Nigeria, a critical area for addressing the complex realities of migration, is unfortunately riddled with a deeply ingrained culture of defensiveness, distrust, and even outright rivalry among its key stakeholders. This pervasive atmosphere not only presents significant methodological hurdles for researchers striving to understand the nuances of this intricate process but also plunges them into a precarious ethical landscape. Navigating these morally ambiguous situations is paramount, as the outcomes ultimately impact the very individuals – return migrants – whom the sector aims to assist. This blog post sheds light on these often-overlooked challenges, advocating for a more transparent and critical examination of the intricacies involved in return research. By emphasizing the crucial need for initiatives like the GAPs project to investigate weaknesses in return governance within this difficult environment, we underscore that cultivating authentic collaboration and trust is indispensable for generating reliable and ethical findings that truly improve the lives of returnees in Nigeria.
The Pervasive Culture of Distrust
One of the most pressing issues researchers face is the entrenched lack of trust from key organizations. This institutional skepticism acts as a significant impediment to accessing vital information and building collaborative relationships. Promises of access and collaboration from officials at the International Organization for Migration (IOM) and the European Union (EU) delegation in Abuja, often made with an air of commitment, frequently dissolve into last-minute cancellations, citing the convenient excuses of unavoidable transfers or vague, yet pressing, "emergencies." Even the German Agency for International Cooperation (GIZ), while initially presenting a welcoming facade and expressing enthusiasm for showcasing their activities, often becomes conspicuously unavailable and unresponsive when researchers seek concrete evidence of their impact on the ground and tangible outcomes. This inherent reluctance to engage openly and transparently creates a climate of suspicion and hinders the development of a comprehensive understanding of the sector's effectiveness.
Adding to this challenging environment are the deeply ingrained and often damaging societal perceptions of returnees. Far too often, these individuals, who have often endured significant hardship and vulnerability during their migration journeys, are unfairly stigmatized within their own communities as criminals, failures who couldn't "make it abroad," or even as individuals who squandered valuable opportunities. Simultaneously, a disconcerting trend exists among some international donors and local Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) who, rather than adopting a posture of empathy and unwavering support, view returnees with suspicion, sometimes labeling them with broad and negative generalizations such as "aggressive" or "uncooperative." This deeply ingrained negative framing not only exacerbates the already considerable challenges faced by returnees in their arduous reintegration journey but also creates a climate where open and honest engagement with researchers, who seek to understand their experiences and needs, becomes fraught with apprehension and reluctance. Ironically, as a poignant defense mechanism against this pervasive external discrimination, some returnees develop a paradoxical form of self-stigma, further complicating the researcher-participant dynamic and hindering the establishment of genuine rapport.
Stakeholders deliberate at the Technical Working Group Meeting in Abuja, Nigeria. Courtesy: Ngozi Uzomah (2023)
The intricate and often fraught relationships among government agencies, Civil Society Organizations (CSOs), and researchers are frequently characterized by a counterproductive rivalry rather than the desired spirit of collaboration. Government officials, often protective of their perceived authority and resource allocation, frequently perceive CSOs as competitors vying for scarce international funding, viewing their independent activities with suspicion and concern over potential influence. Conversely, CSOs, often operating with a more direct understanding of the realities on the ground, frequently view government agencies as bureaucratic, inefficient, and lacking the genuine capacity to effectively address the complex and multifaceted needs of returnees. Researchers, in this intricate and often hostile ecosystem, find themselves caught in the crossfire, frequently viewed with suspicion by both government agencies and CSOs. Furthermore, within platforms like the Working Group on Return, Readmission and Reintegration (WGRRR) and Technical Working Group (TWG) meetings, expressing critical views or challenging prevailing narratives can lead to researchers and scholars being excluded from future invitations, effectively turning them into silent enemies and persona non grata within these crucial spaces. CSOs, particularly those with established funding streams and direct access to returnee populations, may perceive researchers as potential rivals who could gain the trust of returnees and, by extension, access to future funding opportunities and influence within the sector. This underlying fear of competition often translates into a tangible reluctance to cooperate, share valuable information, or even grant researchers access to their operational spaces and beneficiaries.
The Ethical Minefield of Return Data Collection
Faced with this pervasive environment of mistrust, obstruction, and thinly veiled hostility, researchers often find themselves navigating a precarious ethical tightrope in their pursuit of accurate and nuanced data. The common practice of "tipping" or offering incentives – be it small cash payments, transportation allowances, or invitations to lavish hotel meetings accompanied by generous meals – to often under-resourced government officials and CSO staff becomes a seemingly necessary evil, a pragmatic, albeit ethically questionable, tool to gain access to information and perspectives that would otherwise be stubbornly withheld. This practice, while potentially yielding short-term results in terms of access, directly clashes with the fundamental ethical guidelines of many research funders who explicitly advise against collecting data through third-party inducements, recognizing the inherent risks of bias and coercion. The very act of incentivizing participation can raise serious questions about the integrity of the data collected, potentially skewing responses, encouraging the fabrication of information, and ultimately undermining the credibility and validity of the research findings.
Adding to this ethical quagmire is the uncomfortable feeling among researchers that they are, in a way, "milking" information from already vulnerable returnees. This sense of unease is often compounded by the incessant phone calls from returnees, desperately demanding money for basic needs like food and reintegration support, needs that the researchers, operating independently, are ill-equipped to meet. This constant barrage of requests, while understandable given the returnees' precarious circumstances, can become overwhelming and professionally challenging for researchers who are not direct service providers. Furthermore, returnees often harbor the suspicion that researchers are aligned with government officials, whom they perceive as deliberately withholding the support that is rightfully theirs. This perception of bias further strains the researcher-participant relationship and can impede the collection of honest and unbiased accounts.
Beyond the logistical and ethical challenges of data collection, researchers often grapple with the significant emotional toll of their work. Hearing the deeply personal and often traumatic narratives of returnees, particularly in sympathetic cases involving deported minors or heavily sick individuals, can be emotionally draining. This emotional burden is further complicated by the researchers' ethical obligation to report potential human rights violations to relevant authorities. However, fulfilling this duty can be fraught with difficulty, often leading to conflict with government officials, international organizations, or other stakeholders who may prefer such issues to remain unaddressed. This leaves the researcher in a profound ethical dilemma, truly caught between the devil and the deep blue sea: to report potential abuses and risk alienating key actors crucial for future research and potentially jeopardizing their safety, or to remain silent and bear the moral weight of inaction.
Furthermore, the cultivation and leveraging of personal relationships and networks becomes a critical, yet often ethically uncomfortable, strategy for navigating this complex and often opaque landscape. Local researchers, in particular, frequently find that leveraging connections to European colleagues, who may have pre-existing and trusted networks within African institutions and organizations, can significantly ease access to information and key informants that would otherwise be stubbornly denied or gatekept. This reliance on external validation, while undeniably pragmatic in a challenging research environment, subtly highlights the inherent biases and power dynamics that often exist within the research environment, suggesting that local expertise is sometimes valued less than external connections. The stark reality is that the time, effort, and emotional toll required for local researchers to achieve the same level of access and build the same level of trust as their European counterparts can be exponentially greater, often due to deeply ingrained skepticism and bureaucratic hurdles that seem designed to impede local inquiry.
The ethical challenges are further compounded by the overt and often unspoken expectations of some junior civil servants and local NGO staff who may explicitly demand a share of any perceived research funding or project resources in exchange for their cooperation and the provision of information. Simultaneously, senior government officials and influential figures within the sector, often acutely aware of potential political repercussions and the sensitive nature of the information they possess, may be particularly hesitant to share critical insights, further obstructing the research process and limiting the scope of inquiry.
Conclusion: Towards a Future of Ethical Collaboration and Genuine Understanding
The deeply entrenched culture of defensiveness, distrust, and self-serving rivalries within Nigeria's return and reintegration industry poses not only significant methodological obstacles for researchers seeking to generate accurate and reliable knowledge but also profound ethical challenges that demand urgent and sustained attention from all stakeholders. These corrosive dynamics actively hinder the collection of credible data, impede the development of genuine collaboration among the diverse actors involved, and ultimately undermine the very efforts aimed at supporting the vulnerable individuals navigating the complexities of return and reintegration. To foster a more ethical and productive research environment, a fundamental and sustained shift in attitudes, practices, and power dynamics is required. This necessitates a conscious and committed effort from all stakeholders – international organizations, government agencies at all levels, CSOs, and researchers themselves – to prioritize transparency in their operations, actively build genuine trust through consistent, reliable, and respectful engagement, and proactively dismantle the self-serving rivalries and territorial mindsets that currently dominate the landscape. Only through fostering a culture of genuine collaboration, mutual respect for diverse expertise, unwavering adherence to the highest ethical standards, and a deep commitment to the well-being and rights of returnees can we hope to generate the robust and reliable research needed to inform effective, evidence-based policies and ultimately create a truly supportive, just, and equitable environment for the reintegration of returnees in Nigeria. The current "mistrust minefield" serves only to perpetuate a damaging cycle of suspicion, hindering progress and ultimately failing those most in need of understanding and support.
This blog post illuminates the deeply entrenched challenges faced by researchers in Nigeria's return and reintegration sector, characterized by pervasive defensiveness, distrust, and self-serving rivalries among stakeholders. It highlights the significant methodological hurdles and ethical dilemmas encountered in data collection, ranging from institutional obstruction and negative societal perceptions of returnees to the uncomfortable reliance on incentives and the emotional toll on researchers. By exposing these often-unacknowledged realities, the blog post contributes to a more honest and critical discussion about the complexities of return research, suggesting that projects like the GAPs project, aiming to scrutinize gaps and shortcomings in the governance of return including reintegration support, must actively navigate this toxic terrain and foster genuine collaboration and trust to ensure their findings are robust, ethical, and ultimately beneficial to returnees.
Contact:
Ngozi Louis Uzomah | University of Nigeria, Nsukka | ngozilouisuzomah@gmail.com