Reflections on Life Design Narrative Inquiry as a Methodology for Research With Child Sex Trafficking Survivors

Abstract

At present, there is a dearth of primary data on the experiences of the child survivors of trafficking for sexual exploitation. Qualitative research methodologies are needed to help researchers and practitioners from a variety of disciplines to understand the complex issues associated with child sex trafficking (CST), to gain greater insight into the nature of this problem, and to devise strategies to combat this form of trafficking. In this article, we report on our use of a synthesized methodology, life design narrative inquiry (LDNI), as a way to generate primary data on the experiences of the survivors. This methodology enables researchers to do research with CST survivors to gain a deeper insight into the nature of trafficking to devise strategies in different disciplines to combat this form of trafficking. Reflections on employing LDNI with child trafficking survivors revealed that this methodology is context sensitive, takes on an individualistic perspective, and leads to rich descriptions of CST survivors’ experiences. Reflections on ethical challenges revealed that gaining access to CST survivors is a complex process, protecting both the participants and the researchers against harm is challenging and that keeping confidentiality of participants is extremely important.

Full text

Article
Reflections on Life Design Narrative Inquiry
as a Methodology for Research With Child
Sex Trafficking Survivors
Anja Visser
1
, Petro du Preez
2
, and Shan Simmonds
1
Abstract
At present, there is a dearth of primary data on the experiences of the child survivors of trafficking for sexual exploitation.
Qualitative research methodologies are needed to help researchers and practitioners from a variety of disciplines to understand
the complex issues associated with child sex trafficking (CST), to gain greater insight into the nature of this problem, and to devise
strategies to combat this form of trafficking. In this article, we report on our use of a synthesized methodology, life design
narrative inquiry (LDNI), as a way to generate primary data on the experiences of the survivors. This methodology enables
researchers to do research with CST survivors to gain a deeper insight into the nature of trafficking to devise strategies in
different disciplines to combat this form of trafficking. Reflections on employing LDNI with child trafficking survivors revealed that
this methodology is context sensitive, takes on an individualistic perspective, and leads to rich descriptions of CST survivors’
experiences. Reflections on ethical challenges revealed that gaining access to CST survivors is a complex process, protecting both
the participants and the researchers against harm is challenging and that keeping confidentiality of participants is extremely
important.
Keywords
child trafficking, life design, methodology, narrative inquiry, sex, survivors
Introduction
The crime of human and child trafficking occurs throughout the
world. Internationally, human trafficking is defined by three
elements: act, means, and purpose of trafficking, whereas child
trafficking is defined by two elements: act and purpose of
trafficking (United Nations [UN], 2000). The different pur-
poses of trafficking include “ ...the exploitation of the prosti-
tution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced
labour or services, slavery or practices similar to slavery, ser-
vitude or the removal of organs” (UN, 2000, p. 2). Globally,
child trafficking is defined by the purpose itself and the fact
that children cannot be held accountable if they “decide” to
participate in their exploitation (Sanghera, 2012). In the case of
children, the initiation through different means into the act of
trafficking is irrelevant, but the act toward the purpose is clas-
sified as child trafficking (United Nations Educational Scien-
tific and Cultural Organization, 2007). In this study, the focus is
on trafficking of children for the purpose of sexual exploitation.
Even though the UN’s (2000) definition clearly distin-
guishes between child and human trafficking, qualitative
research on sex trafficking that includes children and adults
generally does not distinguish between the two groups.
Although research has been done on sex trafficking, little of
it has used primary data (Twis & Shelton, 2018; Zhang, 2016).
What is more, child sex trafficking (CST) research focuses only
on survivors’ experiences as children have not been sufficiently
researched (De Sas Kropiwnicki, 2010; Tyldum & Brunovskis,
2005; Twis & Shelton, 2018). U.S. Department of State (2014,
p. 30) argues, “[n]umbers are not always the story”; we need
individual narratives such as those on survival to acquire qua-
litative data on trafficking.
Research on sex trafficking that overlooks the fact that CST
is different from adult sex trafficking presents numerous
1
Research Unit for Education and Human Rights in Diversity, North-West
University, Potchefstroom, South Africa
2
Curriculum Studies, North-West University, Potchefstroom, South Africa
Corresponding Author:
Anja Visser, Department of Education, Research Unit for Education and Human
Rights in Diversity, North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, Internal
Box 539, Private Bag X6001, Potchefstroom 2520, South Africa.
Email: anja.visser@nwu.ac.za
International Journal of Qualitative Methods
Volume 18: 1–12
ªThe Author(s) 2019
DOI: 10.1177/1609406919857553
journals.sagepub.com/home/ijq
Creative Commons CC BY: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License (http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/
by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE
and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).

conceptual challenges related to “the manner in which policies
and programmes are designed to combat trafficking” (De Sas
Kropiwnicki, 2010, p. 7). If rehabilitation programs for CST
survivors are based on research treating adults and children as
equals, then these programs might not be suited for the differ-
ent developmental levels of children. Boyd and Bales (2016)
argue that “[c]urrent trafficking policies and interventions are
notoriously based on faulty or nonexistent data” (p. 185).
Goz
´dziak (2008, p. 904) further complicates the dilemma of
research with children by pointing out that one should be aware
that the concept “child” varies according to “social, cultural,
historical, religious, and rational norms as well as according to
one’s personal circumstances.” Manzo (2005) distinguishes
between children on the basis of gender and age-group, which
affects the purpose and place of trafficking. Age also affects the
children’s developmental levels, so their treatment and needs
are likely to be very different. In Goz
´dziak’s (2008) study, the
children in the case were diverse and because of this they were
treated differently by their traffickers.
To summarize, qualitative research methodologies are
needed. They can aid researchers and practitioners from a vari-
ety of disciplines to understand complex issues associated with
CST and thus gain greater insight into the nature of this prob-
lem and devise strategies to combat this form of trafficking.
The question that this article addresses is “What do reflections
of the use of life design narrative inquiry (LDNI) as a metho-
dology reveal about the possibilities for research with CST
survivors?” Our reflections on this research methodology will
be weaved throughout the explanation of the theory that sup-
ports the use of such a methodology. After the theoretical
background for both life design and narrative inquiry are pre-
sented, LDNI as a synthesized research methodology is dis-
cussed theoretically. The implementation of LDNI is then
documented, giving particular attention to the ethical chal-
lenges involved. We conclude this article with a discussion and
conclusion.
Theoretical Background on Life Design and
Narrative Inquiry
In this section, we provide descriptive accounts on the theore-
tical background for both life design and narrative inquiry.
Both life design and narrative inquiry are established fields;
in this section, we give a brief background on the origin and
then only focused on the elements of these theories that
informed the synthesis of LDNI.
Life Design
Originally, Savickas (2012) coined life design as a new para-
digm to career counseling. Savickas is the one who contributed
most to the conceptualization of this paradigm, and for this
reason, we relied heavily on his work. Career development
methods and models had to be reconceptualized and custo-
mized to meet the self-construction and career design needs
of people in this century (Savickas, 2012). Life design is more
frequently understood as a counseling strategy than a research
methodology. The terms “client” and “counselor” describe
those involved in life design.
Relationship, reflection, sensemaking, and narratives are
central to life design (Savickas, 2015). The relationship
between a client and a counselor should be one between equals;
the counselor works with the client and does not make deci-
sions on behalf of the client (Maree, 2015). Counselors and
clients bring their expertise and experiences to their relation-
ship for reflective purposes (Savickas, 2015). Clients engage in
autobiographical reflections through distancing themselves
from their experiences, and these reflections deepen their
knowledge of themselves (Savickas, 2015). After this time of
reflection, clients move on to making sense of their experi-
ences. First, they narrated an identity narrative and then
engaged in adaptive action to prepare themselves for a life they
want to live (Savickas, 2015). In part, sensemaking partly clari-
fies life’s purpose, encourages commitment to self, and fosters
intentionality for the future (Savickas, 2015). The purpose of
sensemaking is to encourage clients to become powerful agents
in their personal narratives (Cochran, 2007). Life design is
embedded in constructivist and narrative theories (Savickas,
2011). A narrative paradigm is employed as an aid to organiz-
ing client’s biographical narratives (Savickas, 2011). The
informing principle of this paradigm is the importance of mak-
ing connections among experiences, expectations, and expla-
nations of the client’s narratives (Savickas, 2011).
A counselor uses three sessions to guide clients to re-author
their narrative identities and project new possibilities for their
future careers (Cardoso, 2016). The first session starts with the
exploration of a client’s narrative by the counselor, followed by
the second session of self-construction of the narrative by a
client and placing the self-constructed narrative into a larger
narrative and then the final session of the mutual construction
(by the client and counselor) of a future narrative or life project
(Maree & Symington, 2015; Savickas, 2012, 2015).
Working with individuals and their experiences in life
design presents particular challenges regarding the following:
counselor competence, client variables, and counselor and cli-
ent relationship. A counselor needs narrative competence to
facilitate the construction of narratives (Savickas et al.,
2009). This competency requires counselors to enter and enable
clients to be able to narrate and then to understand the client’s
narratives (Savickas et al., 2009). Client variables include the
severity of a problem, the complexity of a problem, and client
resistance. The severity and complexity of the problems of the
clients who come to the life design counseling sessions
vary (Cardoso, 2016). The less capable a client is of facing
the social, occupational, and interpersonal demands of life,
the more severe the problem is and the more challenging it is
to conduct life design counseling (Cardoso, 2016). In these
cases, clients are often prisoners of redundant constructions of
their experiences and cannot use alternative ways to cope
(Cardoso, 2016).
Although life design has its roots in career counseling, the
principles that inform life design could be useful building
2International Journal of Qualitative Methods

blocks for a research methodology. Life design allows a parti-
cipant to become actively involved in the research process. In
the section on LDNI Methodology, we elaborate on how life
design influences LDNI as a qualitative research methodology.
Next, a theoretical background on narrative inquiry is provided.
Narrative Inquiry
Narrative inquiry as a methodology has a long history in social
sciences research (Bamberg, 2006; Bruner, 1990, 2004; Frank,
2002; Gay, Mills, & Airasian, 2011; Squire, Andrews, & Tam-
boukou, 2013). A researcher in narrative inquiry assumes that
people make sense of experiences by imposing narrative struc-
tures on these experiences (Bell, 2002). Researchers aim to
explore how people frame, remember, and report their experi-
ences in the form of narratives (Squire et al., 2013). Pinnegar
and Daynes (2007, p. 4) point our attention to the nature of
narrative inquiry: That it “embraces narrative as both the
method and phenomena of study.”
Traditional research methods did not sufficiently address the
multiplicity of perspectives, complexities, and human cente-
redness. This led to the increased use of narrative inquiry across
disciplines to address these issues (Webster & Mertova, 2007).
Narrative inquiry was informed by structuralist theories, post-
structuralist theories, deconstructionism, feminism, psychoana-
lysis, film theories, historicists, psycholinguistic theories,
postmodernism, and humanist approaches (Pinnegar & Daynes,
2007; Squire et al., 2013; Webster & Mertova, 2007). There-
fore, researchers philosophically position their narrative inqui-
ries in different modernistic and postmodernist discourses
(Webster & Mertova, 2007).
Narrative methodologies could also be positioned according
to the narrative turn researchers take when employing these
methodologies (Pinnegar & Daynes, 2007). The first turn is
based on the change in relationship between the researcher and
participant (Pinnegar & Daynes, 2007). In the second turn, the
researcher moves away from numbers and toward the use of
words as data (Pinnegar & Daynes, 2007). In the third turn, the
researcher focuses locally and specific rather than on the gen-
eral and universal (Pinnegar & Daynes, 2007). The fourth turn
enables the researcher to have a widening in accepting alterna-
tive epistemologies (Pinnegar & Daynes, 2007). In the section
LDNI Methodology, we elaborate on and justify which mod-
ernistic discourses as well as narrative turns underpin the LDNI
methodology.
Narrative inquiry is useful to initiate personal and social
change (Chase, 2011). Some researchers study how narratives
bring about personal and social change and others collect and
analyze narratives to initiate personal and/or social change
(Chase, 2011). The act of narrating a significant life event
could in itself already facilitate positive change for a partici-
pant (Chase, 2011). Participants might have a desire and need
for others to hear their stories so as to initiate social change
(Chase, 2011).
Due to the nature of narrative inquiry, the researcher faces
several challenges when employing this type of methodology,
including the relationship between participant and researcher,
ethics, interpretation and validity, and representation of narra-
tives (Bell, 2002; Chase, 2011; Elliot, 2005; Gay et al., 2011;
Gristy, 2015; Josselson, 2007; Webster and Mertova, 2007).
The relationship between the participant and the researcher. Nego-
tiating a relationship and gaining trust from a participant are
key aspects of narrative inquiry (Gay et al., 2011). The rela-
tionship usually progresses, over a long period of time, from
strangers to an acquaintance, and sometimes to friendship
(Bell, 2002; Elliot, 2005). Regarding the latter, some partici-
pants and researchers might find it difficult to disengage at the
end of a study (Bell, 2002).
Ethics. The ethics surrounding narrative inquiry is vast: Hence,
Josselson (2007) recommends a researcher adopts an ethical
attitude. An ethical attitude requires the researcher to think
through ethical considerations, deciding how to best honor and
protect participants while maintaining standards for responsi-
ble scholarship (Josselson, 2007).
Interpretation and validity. The validity of narrative inquiry is
frequently questioned (Chase, 2011). This is because the
researchers’ interpretation of the narratives is not the only pos-
sibility. When researchers interpret and analyze participants’
narratives, they impose meaning on participants’ experiences
(Bell, 2002). For interpretations to be valid, they need to be
plausible interpretations that are true to the narratives (Chase,
2011).
Representation of narratives. Any form of oral or written data that
involve people necessitate that researchers represent the narra-
tives (Gristy, 2015). This happens when researchers redescribe
original narratives and reconstruct their meaning (Mishler as
quoted in Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). A researcher reorders a
narrative and inevitably generates a new narrative (Byrne,
2017). Therefore, researchers are coauthors of participants’
narratives, either directly during interviews or indirectly when
they represent and reconstruct the narratives (Mishler as quoted
in Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Webster and Mertova (2007)
argue that personal narratives are not meant to be exact records
of events, mirrors of the world, generalized productions of
truths, or descriptions of how things should be.
The challenges described above should not be viewed in
isolation because the borders between these challenges are por-
ous. For example, ethical challenges that emerge during a study
are interlaced with all of the other challenges that manifest
themselves. In the next section, we discuss how narrative
inquiry informs the synthesis of LDNI as a research methodol-
ogy with CST survivors.
LDNI Methodology
Both life design and narrative inquiry are qualitative
approaches, which inform the synthesis of LDNI. In this sec-
tion, we first provide a theoretical discussion of how the LDNI
methodology was synthesized. In the section “Employing
Visser et al. 3

LDNI With CST Survivors,” we provide an account of how this
methodology was employed.
The aim of life design is the construction of a career narra-
tive, whereas narrative inquiry aims to generate narratives in a
research study and could be conducted in a wider variety of
contexts than life design. In life design, a client makes an
appointment with a career counselor, and in narrative inquiry,
a researcher invites someone to participate in a study. LDNI is
informed by narrative discourses such as narrative inquiry,
narrative counseling, and narrative therapy. The nature of
doing research with CST survivors calls to blur the borders
between psychological and sociological narrative forms of
inquiry—this blurring allowed us to generate LDNI as a
research methodology. This research methodology is not
intended as a counseling or therapeutic model.
LDNI is rooted in the elements of life design, namely rela-
tionship, reflection, sensemaking, and narrative. A rapport with
the participant is essential for LDNI to be successful. A
researcher should enter into the participants’ environments and
stay there as long as necessary to build an authentic relationship
and to complete the data generation. This methodology
encourages participants to engage in making sense of their
experiences. They do this through reflection, narration, and
forming future intentions. The researcher encourages them
to reflect by asking guiding questions to deepen the partici-
pant’s knowledge about their own lives. They are encouraged
to interpret their experiences in multiple ways and are pro-
vided with the opportunity to view themselves as powerful
agents in their personal narratives, reflect independently and
continuously on their lives, explore alternative futures, and
design their own lives.
The synthesis of LDNI was informed by critical theory, a
modernistic paradigm. The ontology of critical theory is based
on the assumption that human nature operates in a world based
on a struggle for power (Lincoln, Lynham, & Guba, 2011).
Critical theory views reality as subjective and constructed on
the basis of issues of power (Lather, 2006).
Politics shape multiple beliefs and values, which are socially
constructed: Some views of reality are therefore privileged and
others are underrepresented (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison,
2011). The epistemology of critical theory relates to research
driven by studies on social structures, freedom and oppression,
as well as power and control (Lincoln et al., 2011). In these
studies, events are understood within economic and social con-
texts where ideological critique and praxis are emphasized
(Henning, Van Rensburg, & Smit, 2004). Knowledge is then
constructed through a dialectical process of deconstructing and
reconstructing the world (Henning et al., 2004). Underlying
these studies is the belief that the knowledge produced could
change existing oppressive structures and remove oppression
through empowerment (Lincoln et al., 2011). The methodol-
ogy employed in critical theory seeks greater participation of
the oppressed (Lincoln et al., 2011). A basic assumption is
that produced knowledge can change oppressive structures
and remove oppression through empowerment (Lincoln
et al., 2011). Drawing on critical theory, researchers explore
discourses and how they manifest in participants’ lives
(Henning et al., 2004). This is done to foreground the power
of the discourses that shape the participants’ lives (Henning
et al., 2004).
Critical theory emphasizes the collaboration between a
researcher and participants (Henning et al., 2004, p. 24). Here,
LDNI is also underpinned by principles in the first narrative
turn, where LDNI recognizes that the researcher and partici-
pant in a particular study are in a relationship and that both
parties will learn and change through the study (Pinnegar &
Daynes, 2007). Participants become involved in the research
process as equal partners (Henning et al., 2004). Both the par-
ticipant and researcher are considered experts. The participant
is the expert on their own life narratives and future aspirations,
while the researcher is the expert in conceptualizing a research
problem and conducting empirical research. The participant
and researcher engage in data generation as partners, therefore
their relationship should be characterized by mutual trust, care,
respect, and equality of voice. Only when this relationship is
established, can the participant and researcher venture into the
four LDNI phases (see Figure 1).
In Figure 1, the LDNI phases are illustrated. The four phases
are embedded in the three sessions utilized in life design. The
participatory nature of this methodology empowers partici-
pants to choose the order of the phases, and therefore, these
phases are executed in a dynamic nonlinear personalized way.
In life design counseling, three sessions follow each other but
should be executed in a nonlinear way.
For LDNI, as we have conceptualized it, the narration of
narratives in each phase is crucial, both as a process and as an
outcome. Data are generated throughout the following LDNI
phases.
Phase 1: Contextualization. This phase forms the contextualiza-
tion of the space in which participants generate narratives.
Through contextualization, researchers gain insight into parti-
cipants’ current situation in a particular research environment
Figure 1. Life design narrative inquiry methodology.
4International Journal of Qualitative Methods

(such as a safe house). Data are generated by keeping a
researcher’s journal and conducting semistructured interviews
with important role-players or gatekeepers in the research
environment.
Phase 2: Exploration (life narrative). In this phase, participants
narrate their life narratives. The interview could commence
with the narrative prompt: “What is your life narrative?” After
a participant has finished his or her narration, the researcher
probes the participant’s answers to clarify unclear terms used
during narration. The data generated and analyzed in this phase
enable a researcher to conceptualize participants’ experiences.
This phase provides participants with an opportunity to satisfy
their urgent need to speak and to be heard.
Phase 3: Reconstruction (re-authored narrative). In this phase, par-
ticipants reflect on and make sense of their life narratives
through multiple interpretations of their experiences. A narra-
tive prompt could be “If it was possible, would you change
your life narrative? If you say yes, how? If you say no, why?”.
Other prompts that could be considered are “How would you
interpret your life narrative?” or “What does your life narrative
mean to you?”. Participants are provided with the opportunity
to attach multiple interpretations to their experiences. Through
reflection, they are encouraged to become active agents in their
life narratives and explore their motives for wanting to make
certain changes in their lives and to explain why they would not
want to change any or some of their experiences. Once they are
more aware of their reasons for wanting to change or not want-
ing to change these experiences, they are able to project their
future narratives.
Phase 4: Construction (future narrative). In this phase, participants
are provided with the opportunity to crystalize new anticipa-
tions and possible new perspectives about themselves, which
they might have only vaguely sensed before the study. This
phase could be initiated by a narrative prompt: “Where do you
see yourself in 5 years?” or by the prompt: “What are your
dreams?”. Participants are encouraged to anticipate their future
life narratives. The focus should not be on setting a time frame
or a specific goal but rather on the hope of a future, different
from their past.
A researcher should provide a safe space for possible
personal change and initiate social change through partici-
pants’ narratives. The narration process involves partici-
pants recounting their experiences, reflecting upon these to
make meaning of their experiences, and in so doing, possi-
bly arriving at future narratives depicting their past inten-
tions and future aspirations. When researchers embark on an
LDNI journey, they should identify the topic, the problem,
the purpose, research questions, and compile criteria for
selecting and inviting participants. In the following section,
we give a brief account on how LDNI was employed with
CST survivors.
Employing LDNI With CST Survivors
This study forms part of a larger project where the principal
researcher explored the experiences using LDNI for the first
time. One of its greatest impacts was making a contribution to
methodologies that could be used when working with CST
survivors (Visser, 2018). In 2016, the principal researcher
gained access to a southern African safe house for trafficking
survivors including CST survivors who were adults at the time
of their rescue; she stayed in that safe house for 2 weeks.
During that period, she focused on building a rapport with the
safe house manager, safe house counselor, and survivors of
trafficking. The safe house’s counselor was involved in the
study as none of the researchers were trained as professional
counselors. To substantially reduce the possibility of retrauma-
tization, only survivors who had already dealt with their trau-
matic past were considered as participants. Possible
participants were identified by the safe house counselor and
invited by the safe house manager. Two survivors, Maya (pseu-
donym) and Carla (pseudonym) accepted the invitation.
The principal researcher explained the purpose of the study,
data generation methods, and ethical aspects of the study to the
participants in their mother tongue. Thereafter, the participants
provided the principal researcher with informed consent, and
they set out together on this research journey.
Data were generated by means of a semistructured interview
with the safe house manager (Phase 1), narrative interviews
with Maya and Carla (Phases 2 and 3), and the researcher’s
journal. During Phases 2–4, the safe house manager partici-
pated as a third party to protect the participants from potential
psychological harm and to censor confidential information.
Maya participated through three interviews. Her first inter-
view was 11 min and 9 s. In this interview, she attempted to
engage with the first LDNI phase. She asked for a follow-up
interview. Her second interview was 10 min and 21 s long, and
in it, she decided to engage with the third and fourth LDNI
phases. Her final interview was 24 min and 28 s; in it, she asked
the safe house manager to narrate her life story on her behalf.
She only answered clarification questions during the final
interview.
Carla participated through two interviews. Her first inter-
view was 30 min and 11 s long. In this interview, she engaged
with the fourth and then third LDNI phases. Her second inter-
view was 17 min and 45 s long, and in this interview, she
engaged with the second LDNI phase.
In what follows, we provide the main findings on the con-
tributions the participants made regarding doing research with
the researcher.
Interview space and time. All interviews were conducted in the
safe house. The layout of the safe house meant that there was
little space for private conversation. Anyone speaking could be
heard throughout the safe house. The safe house manager chose
for the interviews to take place in her personal room and before
bedtime. This was problematic for Maya. She felt reluctant to
narrate her story in this space and at this time because she
Visser et al. 5

feared that the other residents in the safe house might overhear
her. She preferred to be in a private space where no one else
would hear her. She said that it was difficult for her to speak to
more than one person at a time and that she would prefer to
have the interviews in a place where no one else would be able
to hear her speak. Unfortunately, it was not possible for the
principal researcher to conduct interviews alone with her
because of ethical concerns mentioned earlier. Carla did not
seem to feel uncomfortable about the venue or that others might
hear her.
Here, we learn that the participants’ need to feel safe during
a narrative interview is of utmost importance. A narrative inter-
view should be taking place where participants feel comforta-
ble and safe (Berg & Lune, 2014). If the participants do not feel
safe, it could inhibit generating thick descriptions of their
experiences.
Initiating social change through narratives. Both participants hoped
that others could learn from their narratives and become alert to
the warning signs of becoming a victim of trafficking. Carla
said: “I hope to help people that went through the same as I did,
that got hurt as I did.” Maya said: “I know that it will make a
difference in other people’s lives so that is the positive thing
that comes of the negative.”
One of the major reasons the principal researcher gained
access to the safe house was the safe house’s vision for social
change. The participants seemed to share in this vision.
Through disclosing their narratives, they aspired to initiate
social change—this is supported by Chase (2011).
LDNI nonlinear, personal approach. LDNI responds to each par-
ticipant’srealitybytakingonanindividualapproach.The
nonlinearity of the methodology enabled participants to be
actively involved in the research process. They reordered the
LDNI phases, so that the principal researcher would be able to
understand their life narratives in the context of their re-
authored and future narratives. Maya said: “The most difficult
is probably to tell your whole story to someone that is why I
chose to do it last. I first told you about my dreams and then
about what I would have wanted to change and then I will tell
you my story, then maybe you would understand.”
The principal researcher first had to build a rapport with the
participants before they trusted her and were willing to engage
with her in LDNI. This need for a rapport shows the importance
of positioning LDNI in the first narrative turn (Pinnegar &
Daynes, 2007).
LDNI is an individualistic approach where the researcher
and the participant have equal roles in the data generation
process. This is supported by the nonlinear nature of this meth-
odology and resonates with critical theory as well as the first
narrative turn in which the researcher and participant are in an
equal partnership (Henning et al., 2004; Lather, 2006; Pinnegar
& Daynes, 2007). Through LDNI, the participants were pro-
vided the opportunity to view themselves as powerful agents in
their personal narratives (Cochran, 2007).
Contextualization phase. During the contextualization phase, the
principal researcher relied on interviews with role-players in
the safe house. These interviews aided in describing the
research environment as the context in which the interviews
took place. Confidentiality and safety measures meant that the
researcher could not report all of the information provided by
the participants and role-players. To maintain confidentiality,
the principal researcher had to carefully select data that would
not cause the safe house and role-players involved to be
identified.
Through employing LDNI, we learned that this methodol-
ogy is strongly influenced by context. The context in which the
principle researcher employed the research, together with ethi-
cal considerations, determined when, how, where, in which
circumstances, and for how long the principle researcher could
conduct narrative interviews. In this study, the contextualiza-
tion phase played the cornerstone for providing the context in
which the narratives were generated (Gay et al., 2011). The
context of narrating played a large role on the generation of
thick descriptions. In the Ethical Challenges subsection, the
implications of access and rules on the generation of thick
descriptions in narratives are explained in more detail.
Exploration phase. The exploration phase was started with the
narrative prompt “what is your life narrative?”. During the
exploration phase, it seemed that Maya consciously suppressed
the moment of beginning her life narrative, and she asked the
safe house manager to do the narration on her behalf. At the age
of 6, she was a CST victim. She listened to her own life narra-
tive and answered clarification questions toward the end of the
interview. Carla was exposed to trafficking from the age of 14.
Although Carla seemed to be readier to narrate her life narra-
tive, she did not commence telling her life narrative. On one
occasion though, Carla enthusiastically narrated her life narra-
tive without being conscious of what she shared. The safe
house manager intervened, “Stop! No, you cannot give that
information.” Shortly after this interruption, Carla ended the
interview and some valuable data were lost.
The safe house manager played a role in both censoring the
narratives that were generated as well as to provide the
researcher with access to the participants. Through censoring
the narratives, the safe house manager influenced the represen-
tation of the narratives. The principal researcher had to further
censor the narratives as well as to represent and redescribe the
original narratives, which results in the reconstruction of the
narratives (Byrne, 2017).
Reconstruction phase. The reconstruction phase commenced
with the narrative prompt: “If it was possible, would you
change your life narrative? If you say yes, how? If you say
no, why?”. During the reconstruction phase, Maya was ambiva-
lent about her experiences. She wanted to be the person she was
and did not want to change her experiences if it meant that she
would no longer be the person she was on the day of the
interview. She said: “There is a lot that I would change ...and
not everything I went through because then I probably would
6International Journal of Qualitative Methods

not have been who I am and I would not have been able to know
what to look out for in life and to know what is wrong.” She
wanted to change her mother’s active involvement in her
becoming a CST victim: “I would want to change my mother’s
decisions when I was smaller because I think then everything
would not have turned out the way it did.” Carla mentioned that
she wondered what would have happened to her if she had had
different experiences. She said: “Maybe I could have been a
who knows what overseas, but it did not happen. I wonder
about it, but it did not happen.” It seemed that to her the reality
of her current situation was more important than changing her
past.
During this phase, the participants were invited to reflect, be
critical, and make sense of their experiences (Savickas, 2015).
Theoretically, it would be more advantageous if the partici-
pants would first engage with the reconstruction phase before
continuing with the construction phase. However, in the case of
this study, Carla first did the construction phase and then the
reconstruction phase, whereas Maya did the reconstruction
phase first and then the construction phase. Maya could iden-
tify some elements in her past that she would want to change,
and Carla found it more important to think about what is than
about what could have been. This in itself is a significant find-
ing, and we will elaborate on this finding more in the construc-
tion phase.
Construction phase. The construction phase initially commenced
with the narrative prompt: “Where do you see yourself in 5
years?”. Participants found narrating their future narratives
challenging in the construction phase. As a result, they and the
principal researcher changed the narrative prompt of this phase
to “What are your future dreams?”. Maya did not dream about
the future. She said that one is always disappointed in one’s
dreams about the future, and so there was no point in creating
high expectations. She said: “At the moment I don’t think so far
ahead. I literally take life day-by-day. I am also the type of
person if I have to think too far ahead then I stress about things
that did not happen yet ...Even when I know I do not have to
stress about something then I stress anyway about it, so I do
not want to think too much ...many times I think more about
the past than about the future.” Nonetheless, she did have
some dreams that she revealed after some prompting by the
principal researcher. She said: “My biggest dream or wish is
not to be like my mother ... ...I think my dream would
always be to work with children or with animals ... ...but
small children. ...”
Carla found it challenging to think about her future. One
reason was connected to her drug addiction and experience of
time. When she was consuming drugs, it felt to her as if a
month went by as fast as snapping her fingers, and it would
be better for her to see how her life was passing her by. When
she began to sober up, it felt as if time was dragging and she
considered life week by week or month by month. This made
her feel overwhelmed, and it could have made her to fall back
into drug addiction. She said: “Especially in my situation, you
lived from day-to-day and now you have to think a month
ahead, it makes you crazy, it makes that you would really just
mess up again, I mean flip it, it sounds too much and it sounds
too hard.” Carla had dreams and ideas about her future but did
not know what to do with these and whether they would be
fulfilled. She was waiting for her Christian God to show her
where to go. She shared dreams to become a hairdresser or a
photographer and said that before the interview, she had not
really considered having a job and studying because she took
everyday as it would come.
As mentioned above, Carla first engages with the construc-
tion phase and then moved on to the reconstruction phase. It
seemed that Carla had some ideas for her future yet could not
think about changing her past and how her past could connect
to an alternative future. The opposite is true for Maya. In
Maya’s reconstruction and construction phase, a common
theme emerged, namely, being a mother. In the reconstruction
phase, she wanted to change her mother’s active involvement
in her becoming a trafficking victim, and in the construction
phase, she wished to not be like her mother.
It seems that both participants engaged with sensemaking of
their lives and the prospects of having an alternative future, as
per Savickas (2015). The construction phase encouraged parti-
cipants to engage with sensemaking so as to enable them to
become more powerful agents of their personal narratives, as
also stated by Cochran (2007).
CST survivors are a high-risk group, and special care needs
to be taken to meet the requirements of ethical research and
developing an ethical attitude. Below are some of the ethical
challenges a researcher might face when employing LDNI with
CST survivors.
Ethical Challenges When Employing LDNI Methodology
With CST Survivors. Conducting research with CST survivors
is a sensitive and complex research area that requires well-
thought-through ethical considerations. Below, we discuss
some of the challenges the principle researcher faced. Although
these challenges are described separately, the boundaries
between the challenges are blurred.
Gatekeepers: Access and rules. CST research environments are
often hidden, and it takes time to identify possible safe houses
and a main obstacle is to gain access to them (Goz
´dziak, 2008).
Access was formally provided to the principal researcher, and
she made regular contact with the government safe houses for a
period of 2 years, yet she had no success in securing interviews
with CST survivors. She then pursued other possibilities and
found another safe house. She built rapport with gatekeepers at
this safe house and was able to show them how her study could
benefit CST survivors as well as future at-risk children (Van
Dyke, 2013). She was provided access to the safe house, con-
ditional on her obeying specific rules while conducting
research with participants. One of these rules was that the safe
house manager censored all the information (especially the
information that could jeopardize participants’ court cases)
provided to the principal researcher. Another rule was that the
Visser et al. 7

safe house manager was present in interviews to ensure that
participants did not experience psychological harm. Although
these rules were an important safety measure, they constrained
the generation of thick uncensored descriptions of participants’
experiences. Here, the principal researcher acted in the best
interest of the participants and obeyed these rules.
Informed consent. Informed consent is an elusive matter relating
to the protection of the participant against harm, as well as
issues of confidentiality. The principal researcher provided
participants with detailed informed consent letters. These let-
ters provided information on the purpose of the study and
addressed issues such as confidentiality, audio recording, stor-
age of data, expectations, voluntary participation, measures in
case of inconvenience, results, and identification of research-
ers. She explained the content of the informed consent letter to
the participants in their mother tongue. They all freely provided
her with an informed consent.
When minor participants are involved, gaining informed
consent is a much more complex process. A researcher first
has to gain permission from relevant authorities and a parent or
guardian to gain access to the minor CST survivor. Thereafter,
the minor may not be coerced to give informed consent (Kelly
& Coy, 2016).
Harm: Protecting the participant. Traditionally, harm in terms of
participants includes physical, emotional, or psychological
aspects (Berg & Lune, 2014). Ethics committees make a judg-
ment in advance on whether a study could harm the partici-
pant(s) (Lewis, 2016). When ethics committees emphasize that
harm of any kind is unacceptable, they often do so without
taking account of wider concepts of distributive justice (Easton
& Matthews, 2016). Zhang (2016) argues that when ethics
committees make a judgment regarding a study, they censor
the data. In addition to censoring data, the hidden message of
this judgment is that participants are vulnerable and in need of
protection, while researchers are superior to the participants
and need to protect them (Zhang, 2016). Research should rather
propose strategies to empower participants rather than the ones
that simply protect them (Zhang, 2016).
A researcher would find it extremely difficult to provide
assurance that no harm is possible (Boyd & Bales, 2016). It
is easier to project research practices where harmful conse-
quences are unintentional (Boyd & Bales, 2016). Researchers
should consider what will provide the greatest benefit to soci-
ety (Easton & Matthews, 2016) and what has the least risk of
unintended harmful consequences for participants. It has to be
acknowledged that outcomes of qualitative research are more
likely to cause harm to them than outcomes of reports that are
less personal, contextualized, or detailed (Richards, 2015).
The arguments above point to the tension between research-
ers who are conducting research in an ethical way and micro-
management by committees that supposedly know what is best
for CST survivors. When an ethics committee denies a
researcher permission to conduct research with CST survivors
based on arguments that a proposed study might be harmful to
participants, they deny potential participants the right to choose
to participate in a study, censor their experiences, and silence
their voices.
In this study, the safe house’s role-players assessed the pos-
sible harm that CST survivors might have faced through LDNI.
Based on this assessment, the CST survivors with the least
chances of experiencing harm were invited to participate in the
research. Participants were explicitly assured that they were in
control of what they narrated and they were not pressurized to
share memories. The study did not cause its participants to
experience harm. Both Maya and Carla seemed to have expe-
rienced emotional discomfort in separate interviews. Upon
noticing the emotional discomfort, the principal researcher
immediately asked the participants whether they would want
to end the interview. These interviews were ended, and the safe
house manager had made sure that the participants had had a
debriefing session after the interviews had been ended.
Harm: Protecting the researcher. Ethics committees often do not
take into consideration the complex moral and ethical dilem-
mas researchers are confronted with throughout their studies,
which must be resolved case by case (Horning & Paladino,
2016; Lewis, 2016). Research ethics generally focus on the
impact of the study on participants rather than the impact of
the study on the researcher (Easton & Matthews, 2016).
A researcher might be affected by vicarious trauma resulting
in them experiencing the same signs and symptoms of trauma
as their participants, such as anxiety, depression, or post-
traumatic stress disorder (Easton & Matthews, 2016). They
could experience countertransference while they would have
their own responses to and defenses against the range of experi-
ences participants share with them (Easton & Matthews, 2016).
Their ongoing and repeated contact with traumatic material
through literature reviews, data generation, transcribing data,
analyzing data, and writing up reports could also prove trau-
matic (Easton & Matthews, 2016).
Researchers’ emotions are important in relation to their ethi-
cal conduct of research on traumatic topics, especially since
their emotional responses can directly affect the outcomes of
their research through influencing data generation, analysis,
and reporting of findings (Easton & Matthews, 2016). When
researchers distance themselves from participants, it could
potentially cause harm because of what may be perceived as
a lack of empathy—but when researchers overidentify with
participants, they might attempt to help them, thus breaching
professional boundaries (Easton & Matthews, 2016). In most
cases, researchers do not have the expertise to rescue or counsel
survivors and should not try to intervene because this could
cause harm to the survivors (De Wildt, 2016). Therefore,
researchers need to find professional emotional support and
to practice reflexivity to protect their participants and them-
selves from harm (Easton & Matthews, 2016).
In this study, the principal researcher experienced vicarious
trauma. She, firstly, identified with the participants’ emotions.
Also, she experienced blurred boundaries and later had to seek
advice from professional persons to remind her of her role as a
8International Journal of Qualitative Methods

researcher. While she was transcribing the data during data
analysis and after analysis, it felt to the primary researcher as
if the participants continued to live in her mind.
Due to the trauma and stress mentioned above that the pri-
mary researcher had undergone, she chose to stay away from
her data analysis for 6 months and to rather focus on the liter-
ature review for the bigger project before continuing with data
analysis. During the data analysis stage of the research project,
she appointed an independent coder to enhance the trustworthi-
ness of the data analysis.
Confidentiality. Confidentiality becomes more contentious in
research on CST (Kelly & Coy, 2016). Informed consent
includes explaining the limits of anonymity and confidentiality
to participants, so that they are clear about when and how their
information might be shared or when their identity might
become known and to whom (Easton & Matthews, 2016). Mat-
ters of confidentiality are complex. In some countries, a
researcher might be legally required to disclose information
participants shared with the researcher (Siegel & De Wildt,
2016). This means that legally the researcher might not have
the ability to ensure confidentiality at all times (Siegel & De
Wildt, 2016). In the country where the study was conducted,
there are strict legal requirements about the access and disclo-
sure of information survivors provide the principal researcher.
If they do not strictly adhere to these instructions, researchers
could be guilty of an offence.
If the participants’ confidentiality is breached, it could place
them at risk of the traffickers becoming aware of their where-
abouts, which could make “them vulnerable to violence, further
exploitation and even re-trafficking” (Easton & Matthews,
2016, p. 28). They might feel anxious at the idea that others
might be able to identify them based on research reports
(Easton & Matthews, 2016). One reason for feeling anxious
about being identified is that they are ashamed of their experi-
ences and fear stigmatization (Easton & Matthews, 2016).
When confidentiality is ensured, it encourages trust between
the participant and researcher, as well as open and honest
accounts (Kelly & Coy, 2016).
In this particular research, the principal researcher used data
cleaning to remove details and elements that might have made
it possible to identify participants’ identities from the data to
ensure confidentiality and avoid potential harm (Berg & Lune,
2014; Sotuku & Duku, 2015). If she had not done the data
cleaning carefully, then accidental deductive disclosure might
have taken place (Sotuku & Duku, 2015). Qualitative research-
ers are more vulnerable to deductive disclosure than quantita-
tive researchers because of the nature of rich descriptions and
the research environment (Sotuku & Duku, 2015).
Discussion
This methodology could be time-consuming, especially where
vulnerable people, such as CST survivors, are involved. It is
thus essential during the proposal stage to consider all the
ethical aspects needed to make the study successful.
After establishing the research problem, gaining access to
participants is one of the first ethical challenges to meet. Estab-
lishing a relationship based on trust with gatekeepers is essen-
tial. Once the trust of gatekeepers has been gained, researchers
need to spend quality time to build a rapport with possible
participants. A researcher should be open and honest with gate-
keepers and participants about the purpose and expectations of
their study.
From Lewis’s (2016) experience, it is vital to clearly explain
all aspects of a study to a participant, before attempting to gain
informed verbal consent to audio record the interview. Before
the interview, the researcher should provide the participant
with a letter that clearly sets out the salient aspects of the
research, including exactly what will be recorded in the inter-
view (Lewis, 2016). This is to ensure that the participants’
decision to give their consent to take part in the research is
fully informed.
There should also be full provision for the participants to
reflect on what they said during the interview and to be able to
redact some of the information they shared during the interview
(Lewis, 2016). Researchers should not compromise partici-
pants’ confidentiality in any way, should stringently ensure that
they meet all of the relevant legal requirements, and should be
meticulous about data cleaning.
When research is well designed and reflexive, it has the
power to minimize harm and to recognize and respond to the
participants’ needs (Easton & Matthews, 2016). Their well-
being should be regarded as more important than the study at
all times. At the commencement of data generation, researchers
should clearly describe their role in the research process and
establish at an early stage that they are not a counselor or
therapist to the participants. It is important to refer them to a
professional person rather than to intervene themselves. A
researcher should create a physically and emotionally safe
space for interviews with participants at a convenient time of
the day (Easton & Matthews, 2016; Lewis, 2016). Interviews
should be spaced out to ensure time for reflection for both
participants and the researcher (Kelly & Coy, 2016). To protect
the participant(s) and researcher from harm, the participant’s
counselor or psychologist could be invited to sit in on the inter-
views, so that they could intervene if needed.
Researchers need to carefully prepare themselves mentally
for employing research on CST. They have to be cognizant of
their own psychological well-being and actively reach out for
and receive psychological care when needed. Siegel (2016)
provides three rules to protect a researcher against harm: to
keep a distance from participants by remaining an outsider;
to know one’s limits and explain these limits to participants;
and never to provide information to anyone, even research out-
puts, that could harm participants. Sessions with a psychologist
before, during, and after data generation and data analysis
would be helpful to minimize psychological harm for a
researcher. The researcher should take some time off after data
generation and before data analysis (Kelly & Coy, 2016).
Each LDNI phase poses its own challenges. It is important
to be realistic about the aims of LDNI studies and realize that it
Visser et al. 9

might be more difficult for traumatized participants to engage
in the process of exploring, reconstructing, and constructing
narratives. They should be encouraged to be reflective and be
given time to process their thoughts. In some cases, a follow-up
interview should be scheduled, and some participants would
need more than one interview for each phase of LDNI. These
types of narratives should not be the only aim of an LDNI
study. It would be an academic fallacy to assume that recon-
struction such as a constructivist enterprise is not impacted by
the real events that led to the participant’s status as a CST
survivor. The possibility that those events can never be recon-
structed beyond a particular point, as they were essentially
damaging and negative. Other aims of LDNI could be to pro-
vide participants with the opportunity to speak, to be heard, to
reflect on their experiences, to become aware of their choices,
and to identify how to change future choices.
A strength of LDNI is the complementary phases of data
generation, which contribute to rich descriptions of CST survi-
vors experiences. Data generated through this methodology
address the need for primary data on the experiences of CST
survivors. This methodology seems to have the potential to
empower participants to be active agents in the research pro-
cess. It opens up new possibilities for CST survivors to recon-
struct their past, to interpret it in different ways, and to
construct future aspirations. LDNI seems to be an effective
means of generating data on the experiences of CST survivors.
It creates an opportunity for participants to make a personal
change and also to initiate social change. Researchers and prac-
titioners from diverse disciplines can apply LDNI to gain a
deeper understanding of CST survivors’ experiences and con-
sequently initiate social change to combat CST.
Conclusion
In this article, we highlighted the possibility of synthesizing life
design with narrative inquiry as a research methodology for
conducting research with CST survivors. Reflections on LDNI
revealed that it was essential to adopt an individual approach in
research with CST survivors. CST survivors who participate
should be provided with a safe space to narrate their narratives
to enable them to be heard by different audiences. Ethical
requirements pose the danger of silencing or censoring their
voices. However, the challenge to innovative researchers is to
find ways of ensuring that as little harm as possible is caused to
participants and to them, so that ethical committees can provide
permission for research with CST survivors. Future researchers
might consider conducting research with survivors who are
already reintegrated back into the society. These type of parti-
cipants might have a lesser need to have their narratives
censored.
Despite the findings, more research is needed on incorpor-
ating complementary methods such as photovoice, collages,
and a memory box during the phases of LDNI with children
as participants to compare data from LDNI of children as par-
ticipants and adults as participants. Other forms of child traf-
ficking should also be researched. LDNI could be employed to
compare the experiences of child survivors of trafficking for
different purposes.
Authors’ Note
The grant holder Professor Cornelia Roux acknowledges that opi-
nions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in any
publication generated by the NRF-supported research are those of the
author(s), as members or collaborators of the project, and that the NRF
accepts no liability whatsoever in this regard.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to
the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for
the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work
is based on a research project supported by the National Research
Foundation (NRF) of South Africa (Unique Grant Numbers: 81785,
105633) 2012–2015.
ORCID iD
Anja Visser https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9636-2326
References
Bamberg, M. (2006). Big or small: Why do we care? Narrative
Inquiry,16, 139–147.
Bell, J. S. (2002). More than just telling stories. Teachers of English to
Speakers of Other Languages,36, 207–213.
Berg, B. L., & Lune, H. (2014). Qualitative research methods for the
social sciences. Harlow, England: Pearson.
Boyd, Z., & Bales, K. (2016). Getting what we want: Experience and
impact in research with survivors of slavery. In D. Siegel (Ed.),
Ethical concerns in research on human trafficking, studies of orga-
nized crime 13 (pp. 173–190). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University.
Bruner, J. (2004). The narrative creation of self. In L. E. Angus & J.
McLeod (Eds.), The handbook of narrative and psychotherapy:
Practice, theory, and research (pp. 3–14). London, England: Sage.
Byrne, G. (2017). Narrative inquiry and the problem of representation:
Giving voice, making meaning. International Journal of Research
and Method in Education,40, 36–52.
Cardoso, P. (2016). Integrating life-design counselling and psy-
chotherapy: Possibilities and practices. The Career Development
Quarterly,64, 49–63.
Chase, S. E. (2011). Narrative inquiry still a field in the making. In K.
D. Norman (Ed.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (4th
ed., pp. 421–434). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Cochran, L. (2007). The promise of narrative career counselling. In K.
Maree (Ed.), Shaping the story: A guide to facilitating narrative
counselling. Pretoria, South Africa: Van Schaik.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2011). Research methods in
education (7th ed.). London, England: Routledge.
De Sas Kropiwnicki, Z. (2010). Wolves in sheep’s skin: A rapid
assessment of human trafficking in Musina, Limpopo Province of
10 International Journal of Qualitative Methods

South Africa. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for
Migration.
De Wildt, R. (2016). Ethnographic research on the sex industry: The
ambivalence of ethical guidelines. In D. Siegel (Ed.), Ethical con-
cerns in research on human trafficking, studies of organized crime
13 (pp. 51–69). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
Easton, H., & Matthews, R. (2016). Getting the balance right: The
ethics of researching women trafficked for commercial sexual
exploitation. In D. Siegel (Ed.), Ethical concerns in research on
human trafficking, studies of organized crime 13 (pp. 11–32).
Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
Elliot, J. (2005). Using narrative in social research qualitative and
quantitative approaches. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Frank, A. (2002). Why study people’s stories? The dialogical ethics of
narrative analysis. International Journal of Qualitative Methods,1,
1–20.
Gay, L. R., Mills, G. E., & Airasian, P. W. (2011). Educational
research: Competencies for analysis and applications (10th ed.).
Boston, MA: Pearson.
Goz
´dziak, E. M. (2008). On challenges, dilemmas, and opportunities
in studying trafficked children. Anthropological Quarterly,81,
903–923.
Gristy, C. (2015). Engaging with and moving on from participatory
research: A personal reflection. International Journal of Research
and Method in Education,38, 371–387.
Henning, E., Van Rensburg, W., & Smit, B. (2004). Finding your way
in qualitative research. Pretoria, South Africa: Van Schaik.
Horning, A., & Paladino, A. (2016). Walking the tightrope: Ethical
dilemmas of doing fieldwork with youth in US sex markets. In D.
Siegel (Ed.), Ethical concerns in research on human trafficking,
studies of organized crime 13 (pp. 205–223). Cham, Switzerland:
Springer.
Josselson, R. (2007). The ethical attitude in narrative research: Prin-
ciples and practicalities. In D. J. Clandinin (Ed.), Handbook of
narrative inquiry: Mapping a methodology (pp. 537–566). Thou-
sand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kelly, L., & Coy, M. (2016). Getting the balance right: The ethics of
researching women trafficked for commercial sexual exploitation.
In D. Siegel (Ed.), Ethical concerns in research on human traffick-
ing, studies of organized crime 13 (pp. 33–50). Cham, Switzerland:
Springer.
Lather, P. (2006). Paradigm proliferation as a good thing to think with:
Teaching research in education as a wild profusion. International
Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education,19, 35–57.
Lewis, H. (2016). Negotiating anonymity, informed consent and
“illegality”: Researching forced labour experiences among refu-
gees and asylum seekers in the UK. In D. Siegel (Ed.), Ethical
concerns in research on human trafficking, studies of organized
crime 13 (pp. 99–116). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
Lincoln, Y. S., Lynham, S. A., & Guba, E. G. (2011). Paradigmatic
controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences, revisited.
In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The sage handbook of
qualitative research (4th ed., pp. 97–128). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Manzo, K. (2005). Exploiting West Africa’s children: Trafficking,
slavery and uneven development. Area,37, 393–401.
Maree, J. G. (2015). Research on life designing in (South) Africa: A
qualitative analysis. South African Journal of Psychology,45,
332–348.
Maree, J. G., & Symington, C. (2015). Life design counselling effects
on the career adaptability of learners in a selective independent
school setting. Journal of Psychology in Africa,25, 262–269.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to
design and implementation (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Pinnegar, S., & Daynes, J. G. (2007). Locating narrative inquiry his-
torically: Thematics in the turn to narrative. In D. J. Clandinin (Ed.),
Handbook of narrative inquiry: Mapping a methodology (pp. 3–34).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Richards, L. (2015). Handling qualitative data: A practical guide (3rd
ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Sanghera, J. (2012). Unpacking the trafficking discourse. In K. Kem-
padoo (Ed.), Trafficking and prostitution reconsidered: New per-
spectives on migration, sex work, and human rights (2nd ed., pp.
3–24). Boulder, CO: Paradigm.
Savickas, M. L. (2011). Career counselling. Washington, DC: Amer-
ican Psychological Association.
Savickas, M. L. (2012). Life design: A paradigm for career interven-
tion in the 21st century. Journal of Counseling and Development,
90, 13–19.
Savickas, M. L. (2015). Life-design counseling manual. Retrieved
from http://vocopher.com/LifeDesign/LifeDesign.pdf
Savickas, M. L, Nota, L., Rossier, J., Dauwalder, J., Duarte, M. E.,
Guichard, J., ...Van Vianen, A. E. M. (2009). Life designing: A
paradigm for career construction in the 21st century. Journal of
Vocational Behaviour,75, 239–250.
Siegel, D. (2016). Ethnicity, crime and sex work: A triple taboo. In D.
Siegel (Ed.), Ethical concerns in research on human trafficking,
studies of organized crime 13 (pp. 71–83). Cham, Switzerland:
Springer.
Siegel, D., & De Wildt, R. (2016). Introduction: The variety of ethical
dilemmas. In D. Siegel (Ed.), Ethical concerns in research on
human trafficking, studies of organized crime 13 (pp. 1–10). Cham,
Switzerland: Springer.
Sotuku, N., & Duku, S. (2015). Ethics in human sciences research. In
C. Okeke (Ed.), Educational research: An African approach (pp.
96–130). Cape Town, South Africa: Oxford.
Squire, C., Andrews, M., & Tamboukou, M. (2013). Introduction:
What is narrative research? In M. Andrews (Ed.), Doing narrative
research (pp. 1–26). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Twis, M. K., & Shelton, B. A. (2018). Systematic review of empiri-
cism and theory in domestic minor sex trafficking research. Jour-
nal of Evidence-Informed Social Work,15, 432–456.
Tyldum, G., & Brunovskis, A. (2005). Describing the unobserved:
Methodological challenges in empirical studies on human traffick-
ing. International Migration,43, 17–34.
United Nations. (2000). Protocol to prevent, suppress and punish
trafficking in persons, especially women and children, supplement-
ing the United Nations Convention against transnational orga-
nized crime. Geneva, Switzerland: Author.
United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization.
(2007). Human trafficking in South Africa: Root causes and rec-
ommendations. Paris, France: Author.
Visser et al. 11

U.S. Department of State. (2014). Trafficking in persons report June
2014. Retrieved from http://www.state.gov/j/tip/rls/tiprpt/
Van Dyke, R. (2013). Investigating human trafficking from the
Andean community to Europe: The role of goodwill in the
researcher–gatekeeper relationship and in negotiating access to
data. International Journal of Social Research Methodology,16,
515–523.
Visser, A. (2018). Narratives of child trafficking survivors in rehabi-
litation: Conceptualisations of freedom for human rights education
(Unpublished doctorate thesis). North-West University,
Potchefstroom, South Africa. Retrieved from https://repository.
nwu.ac.za/bitstream/handle/10394/28066/Visser_A_2018.pdf?
sequence¼1&isAllowed¼y
Webster, L., & Mert ova, P. (2007). Using narrative inquiry as a research
method: An introduction to using critical event narrative analysis in
research on learning and teaching. London, England: Routledge.
Zhang, S. X. (2016). The ethical minefield in human trafficking
research-real and imagined. In D. Siegel (Ed.), Ethical concerns
in research on human trafficking, studies of organized crime 13
(pp. 85–96). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
12 International Journal of Qualitative Methods