448 • Identifying the Stateless in the United Kingdom 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 During preparation of the interviews, I tried to anticipate issues that might arise during the meeting. For example, if an interviewee showed an unwillingness to talk or was distressed about a crime committed in the UK, I would instead gather data from the immigration file. d’Alessandra and others (n 31) 99. The semi-structured interviews with stateless persons focused on three main areas: (1) assessment of statelessness (ie, place of origin, their nationality and that of their parents, ethnic group of belonging (if any), journey to the UK, immigration history, available identity documents and, if none, efforts made to obtain them); (2) experience with the law, immigration officials, and embassies of the country of origin; (3) reasons, times, length of and experience with immigration detention; whether alternatives to detention had been used; awareness of rights. See eg Tina Miller and Mary Boulton, ‘Changing Constructions of Informed Consent: Qualitative Research and Complex Social Worlds’ (2007) 65 Social Science and Medicine 2199; Elizabeth Murphy and Robert Dingwall, ‘Informed Consent, Anticipatory Regulation and Ethnographic Practice’ (2007) 65 Social Science and Medicine 2223. The term ‘vulnerability’ can be defined ‘as indicating a condition whereby an individual is affected or can potentially be affected by physical or emotional harm. Vulnerability, in other words, signifies actual or potential exposure to harm’. Ingrid Nifosi-Sutton, The Protection of Vulnerable Groups under International Human Rights Law (Routledge 2017) 4. ibid 141. The inequalities between study participants and researchers has been recognized in previous research. See eg Mary Bosworth and Blerina Kellezi, ‘Doing Research in Immigration Removal Centres: Ethics, Emotions and Impact’ (2017) 17 Criminology and Criminal Justice 121, 125; Franck Düvell, Anna Triandafyllidou, and Bastian Vollmer, ‘Ethical Issues in Irregular Migration Research’ (European Commission 2008) 18. Christina Clark-Kazak, ‘Developing Ethical Guidelines for Research’ (2019) 61 Forced Migration Review 12, 14. The principle of doing no harm entails ‘preventing and minimizing any unintended negative effects of activities that can increase people’s vulnerability to physical and psychosocial risks’. d’Alessandra and others (n 31) 22. ibid 21. For instance, Stateless Person 11 said indirectly that he was a victim of child abuse. Thus, I did not ask for any details. Interview with Stateless Person 11 (Immigration Detention Centre, 6 May 2016). Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijrl/article/32/3/440/6065591 by guest on 04 July 2025 libraries and community centres, to ensure the privacy and safety of the interviewees.32 As a former immigration solicitor, and having read the relevant literature on empirical research methods,33 I was prepared for the possible ethical and practical issues that might arise in carrying out interviews with vulnerable subjects.34 The vulnerability of stateless persons stems, among other things, from their having no legal representation and no legal status,35 experiencing mental health problems, being destitute, and lacking family or community support. To mitigate the effect of the inevitably unequal power relations with the research participants,36 which was exacerbated by the immigration detention context,37 I followed key ethical principles for collecting information, including the principles of doing no harm,38 informed consent, referrals, and confidentiality.39 Adhering to the principle of doing no harm, which meant always keeping the safety of the participants in mind, I watched for signs of emotional distress, avoided topics that the interviewees had indicated they did not want to talk about,40 and at times offered the option of pausing or stopping the interview altogether. Observing the principle