1. Researching internationalising practices through expanded research conversations: By Mark Powell

2. Re-framing the project; viewing afresh ethical and moral dilemmas embedded in trans-national social work research In this presentation we discuss ongoing ESRC funded research that considers the internationalising practices of an institution, Durham University, and a professional association, the IASSW, who responded to the 2004 post-tsunami disaster in Sri Lanka. The research, much like the disaster work undertaken by members of Durham University and IASSW, was designed to be socially inclusive and empowering to all who participated, whether they be ‘local’ to Sri Lanka or from ‘outside’. In this paper we leave aside the disaster responses and focus instead on our ongoing research endeavour; considering if our adopted research method has delivered the desired ‘partnership’ style of working. In answering this question, we reframe the area under research; moving focus from research activities in Sri Lanka to those of the larger trans-national research project itself. Adopting this reflexive approach allows a successful breach of the traditional ‘them’ and ‘us’ divide, undermining a characteristic dimension to both research and social work that bridges cultural borders. Instead, the paper presents both ‘us’ and our Sri Lankan research participants as co-joined and contained by a single culturally complex set of research relationships. In defining all international participants as ‘insiders’ to this trans-national research endeavour, we argue that power dimensions reveal themselves clearly as an embedded aspect of de-territorialised research cultures. This approach exposes a collection of ethical and moral dilemmas that appear problematic to the worthy intentions of empowerment and social inclusion. However, by way of a tentative conclusion, we argue that undermining discrimination in research is achievable, but only by recognising research itself as a culturally creative process. We demonstrate, through examples from our ongoing research, how certain forms of research engagement appear to provide socially empowering and inclusive ways of working, and perhaps, successfully address concerns of discrimination and exclusion.

3. Research Methodology The project’s research methodology centres on revealing ‘internationalising practices’ by examining the interconnections of members of a professional body, academic institution and others living across nation-state boundaries. Considering the ethics of such interactions means engaging with power as part of these social interactions. This interest in power exists not merely in our research into internationalising practices, but as a recurring consideration of the models under revue and has resulted in various ethical dilemmas for our research. Where, for example, is ‘the community’ to be studied and who claims the right to define it as such? Who do we identify as ‘other’ when we speak of working in partnership? How do we consider the moral and ethical implications of introducing ‘change’ to other peoples lives, and who decides what needs to change and on the legitimacy of such a demand? How do we evaluate whether the activities of Durham University and IASSW have been successfully ‘internationalising’, ‘empowering’ and ‘socially inclusive’ in content? How can we ensure that local biases and prejudice are overcome in international research that takes place in various geographical locations? How do we think about and define what constitutes ‘knowledge’? And most importantly, where is the legitimacy for us, as outsiders to the local, to comment on our concerns regarding certain research practices? What do these research issues tell us about our own assumptions and taken-for-granted notions of what constitutes ‘power’ and ‘socially inclusive’ research? Seeking an ethical approach to research work involves thinking in general terms about actions that may be viewed as good or bad, as right or wrong, or regarded as just or unfair. These subjective perspectives bring dilemmas, for what is regarded as ethical behaviour in one local context may not be so in another. How do we engage with culturally relativist dimensions to our research? How is ethical behaviour defined in different cultural contexts and what viewpoint do we as researchers regard as more legitimate than another?

4. A schedule of research activity With regard to Durham University's ‘Durham Project Sri Lanka’ and associates of the International Association of Schools of Social Work (IASSW) Undertaking: Ethnographic fieldwork in tsunami-affected villages Semi-structured conversations in tsunami affected villages Investigating ‘capacity building’ activities of Durham University and associates of IASSW

5. Estrella and Gaventa 1998: 31 Diagram on the learning cycle