Voices from People to the Peace Negotiation Table: Lessons and experiences of sustainable peace building in the southern border provinces 2022-2025

In addition, in the course of conversations, one topic can be connected with other topics in a natural way. Group discussions are suitable for learning about perspectives in various agendas under the same topic, for gathering in-depth data from different perspectives. Apart from that, group discussions must be carefully planned for creating a conducive atmosphere so that participants feel comfortable, not hindered in expressing their opinions. Thus, gestures of the moderator are crucial in determining the orientation of the conversation in order to obtain a wide range of data. Advantages of group discussions 1. Allowing informants to speak freely: Group discussions enable informants express their thoughts freely, with no restrictions on their answers, unlike qualitative researches with limited answers. 2. New ideas: Outcomes of group conversations might lead to new ideas that can help decision making. Therefore, focus group discussions are popular in business circles to develop and extend their businesses. 3. Flexibility in data gathering: Data gathering in group discussions is not fixed and can be flexible. The moderator of a group discussion can modify types of conversation according to the situation in order to gather various and comprehensive data. 4. Observing gestures and feelings: Gestures and expressions of informants can help researchers understand their real feelings and perspectives. This is different from telephone interviews or qualitative surveys in which observation of informants’ behaviours or moods are not possible. Challenges of group discussions1. Flexible personality: Everyone should not stick to their own ideas. Questions do not have to be asked directly, but can be modified. They also have to be flexible in their thoughts and do not prevent others, free from bias or taking 49

sides. However, in reality we might agree with someone, but in practice we need to be neutral. For instance, we need allocate the same length of time to speak for everyone. 2. Moderator: Moderators must understand topics or agendas of the questions. The participants might ask why they must be interested in certain topics, we need to be able to explain why, or how these topics are important, or what is the importance of the data gathering. 3. Language used in conversations: Everyone preferably should use the same language. The moderator should be able to speak fluently, and talks through interpreters are not desirable. 4. Experiences in group discussions: Moderators with experiences in group discussions are advantaged because they can manage dialogues smoothly, including self-introducing, creating relaxing atmospheres and time management for the dialogues. In general a group discussion should continue for 45 minutes to 1 hour and 30 minutes. If it is longer than this, a break is needed. 5. Management of speakers: Moderators must be able to manage those who speak too much so as not to let them dominate the conversation. At the same time there should be some techniques to encourage those who do not have many chances to express their opinions. If moderators know the backgrounds of the informants, they can let those who have abilities or experiences on certain topics speak about these topics. 6. Documentation: Documentation must be conducted systematically, not just jotting down speeches. Those who are in charge must know when to summarise by understanding question topics in detail so that they can grasp important parts and summarise data correctly. 7. Revising: Revising is beneficial for gathering clear data, by reviewing the answers or clarifying unclear points. This is done in order to obtain additional explanations or clarify the answers. 50

Dividing tasks among the data gathering team is crucially important for efficiency and completeness. The following is tasks to be performed together. 1. Dialogue moderator: A dialogue moderator must have an assistant in conducting a group discussion smoothly. In some occasions the moderator might miss the point or forget to listen to important data because the participants speak simultaneously. An assistant can facilitate a smoother conversation. 2. Note taker: A note taker must have skills in spotting important points. They must be able pick up points in the conversation and write down data that will efficient data analysis. 3. Board writer: A board writer must be able to write down things clearly on a paper board or whiteboard, easy to read. Things written on the board must be visible to each participant so that the discussion has the same direction all the time. The board help the participants to spot important points during the conversation. This also helps the participants to notice what they are talking about, or for which direction the discussion is heading, which is helpful for mutual understanding. 4. Observer of participants’ moods and gestures: This person observes facial expressions and gestures of participants for evaluating their moods and feelings. This role is especially important in conflict areas where there are many sensitive issues. Participants might not voice up, but their facial expressions and gestures can indicate some important feelings. 51

In any case, if the number of the working team members is small, each person need to perform multiple tasks simultaneously. For instance, the note taker might have to observe feelings of the participants. This can help us to understand the situation at that moment, and this in turn will be useful in analyzing in-depth data more comprehensively. Asst. Prof. Abdulkholik ArrohimiOther important skills to moderate group discussions Listening: A moderator of a meeting must have good and detailed listening skills. Even if they have good understanding about the topics and thus want to express their opinions, but they must gather data from the participants. Active listening and capturing important point are important because if moderators begin to speak and express their opinion in excess, the participants might regard think that they “already know”. This could cause reluctance among the participants to speak, because they do not want to repeat the same things or interrupt someone talking. Creating conducive atmospheres: Including people who are conflicting with each other in the same group is not suitable. Such arrangements might cause some people reluctant to speak frankly. For instance, if soldiers and villagers are in the same group, villagers will not dare to express their opinion fully. Or, if a village headman is in the group, villagers are afraid of revealing certain things. If a village headman and the villagers must be in the same group, we can allow the villagers to write down their thoughts on a piece of paper without stating their names in order to avoid uncomfortableness in expressing their opinions in public. This arrangement will help everyone feel safe in expressing their thoughts without having to worry about consequences. Moreover, data taken from observations are equally important. The working team can observe participants’ moods, gestures or changes in them. These might indicate some interesting points or some problems in the group. For this reason these information also can be used as data for analysis. 52

The resource person related her experience in a research for her master degree about “Red Tank”. In these incidents, villagers who were suspected as communists were arrested by the authorities and then burnt alive in 200-littere drums. When she conducted her field work in villages that had had these incidents, the villagers were reluctant to talk about that. During the interviews, even though the main topics were not touched, some related data could be acquired and analysed. These data could related feelings and moods in the thesis about these incidents. To sum up, there are some advantages in focus group discussions. 1) Less cost: The costs are lower than other research methodologies such as in-depth interviews, because there is no need to spend a long time or a lot of resources. 2) Flexibility: Topics and questions can be adjusted according to the circumstances and reactions of the participants, and 3) Exchange of ideas: It encourages exchanges of different opinions that might lead to new ideas or thoughts.Limitations of focus groups discussions 1) Data quality: In some cases participants might not be willing to express opinions due to emotional factors. As a consequence the data might not be in accordance with the research questions or not complete, and the researchers might have to check the data from different sources. 2) Different backgrounds: Participants from different backgrounds or statuses, such as gender or roles in the society might cause some people reluctant to express their opinions or feel dominated by others. Thus management of such differences is important. Participants might be divided into different groups according to gender or status. However, we must be careful with data about behaviours because dialogues on sensitive issues might cause the participants feel uneasy or be reluctant to talk about the facts. For this reason, proper agenda setting is crucial in effective data collecting. Moderators must have high skills and experiences to 53

control the situation and encourage the participants to feel safe and be ready to express their opinions. Experiences help to explicit more data. Apart from that, regular trainings on group discussions and in-depth interviews will enhance the skills and moderators can adopt themselves in the circumstances and personalities of the participants better. Principles of dialogues with vulnerable groups Obstacles or challenges during conducting focus group discussions are that in some conversation groups, participants do not speak or keep silence, leaving the moderators in a circumstances where they have to speak alone. Accordingly the data are not complete according to the target. In order to solve this problem, some technics must be used to encourage more participation of the participants, especially in action researches that requires participation of informants or conversation partners. Focus group discussions are data gathering from conversations in small groups in order to survey opinions or other topics related with our research. For instance, if we are conducting a research about vulnerable groups, we can ask about consequences these groups have to face in various aspects, such as income, or living circumstances in order to acquire useful and in-depth data. Moderators of group discussions must use facials expressions and gestures that express eagerness to know in order to encourage the participants feel comfortable and be ready to share their opinions. Expression of curiosity in what they say will make the conversations more interesting. This turns the discussion group into a safe space and data from such groups are deeper and more complete. In addition, the atmosphere should not be too serious in order that the participants feel that they can express their opinions fully without being judged or prevented from speaking. Talking with vulnerable groups must be conducted very carefully, aware of their sensitivities. We must build trust with the participants so that they feel safe in telling their stories. This is not only about choosing questions and topics 54

for the conversations, but also includes choice of suitable languages and clothes that make them feel safe as well. It is important to study and understand the participants in advance. For instance, is some participants have been bullied, we must ask proper questions with them, and should avoid digging into certain topics that are too sensitive for them. If the participants do not know each other, we should start by asking them to introduce themselves and tell their stories first, for the sake of convenience and comfort of such participants. Active listening and paying attention to what are said by the participants help us to understand them and acquire valuable data. Allowing them to decide when to speak also helps the conversation go smoothly, and the participants do not feel that they are forced to speak. Moderators must set agendas and encourage the participants to speak, but they should not pressure them or force answers, because in some cases the participants might feel uneasy or inconvenient to answer. In such cases, we should express our eagerness to know, showing that we are ready to listen to them. A conversation group should not have a large number of participants, because if there are too many people, not everyone have chances to speak, or their speeches might be interrupted. These would make the participants feel uncomfortable. Observations of the participants’ feelings are also important. If we notice that some participants are no in the mood to speak, or not interested 55

in the conversation, the moderator must try to encourage them to join the conversation again, by asking questions to attract their attentions or encourage them to take part in it again. It is crucially important for moderators to have to have an experiences and experiences in dealing with different situations. Moderators must be able to observe behaviours and feelings of participants. For example, if a participant begins to cry, the moderator must know how to deal with this situation, or change the topic so as not to let the situation worsen. But they also should not interrupt too much to the extent the participants feel that they have not finished their speeches. Moreover, moderators must set clear rules first, such as the time length for a person to speak, or how many times they can speak. These are important so as not to let someone speak too long and the conversation can go on smoothly and in an equal way. Note takers have important roles in writing down important points and checking the recorded voices, so as not to spend too much time or miss important points. Apart from that, we also pay attentions to the backgrounds of the group, such as gender, age, status, and occupations in order to analyise data efficiently. Questions used in the conversation should not be many, just 2-3 questions will do, by setting big agendas with following questions. Data from conversations can be processed by categorizing the contents of the speeches and highlighting important issues so that the data are complete and easy to summarise. Components of a group discussion 1. Moderators: Moderators must have skills in encouraging and managing the conversation so that the participants feel comfortable in sharing their opinions. Moderators also must determine the orientation of the dialogue so that it is in accordance with the research topics. .........56

2. Time duration: The time duration of a group conversation must not exceed three hours so that the participants do not feel bored and exhausted. The session can start with light questions, and gradually dig into much deeper questions so that the group can fully express their opinions. 3. Crating atmosphere: Snacks and drinks such ascoffee should be prepared so that the participants can relax and the conversation will not become too tense. 4. Note takers: Note takers should record clearly what is spoken and by whom so that the note can be referred later. In note taking it is recommended to use pseudonyms so as not to expose identities in the research for the sake of comfort of the participants, especially in conversations about sensitive topics. 5. Venues and equipment: The venue should be a quiet place without too much disturbing noises, with a proper size so which the participants feel comfortable and not stressed. Benefit of group conversations Through group conversations we can learn different opinions and feelings of the interviewees, especially from vulnerable groups such as elderly people, those who are affected by violence or those who are bullied. The conversations with these groups help us understand them much deeper, and acquire important data for developing new solutions and measures. Apart from that, focus group discussions also can clarify obscure or unclear answers, by digging out hidden answers or asking unanswered questions in detail. 57

Steps of group conversations 1. Setting target groups. Selection of target groups must be clear and in accordance with the research topics. If we want to study consequences of violence, we need to choose those who are directly affected, including elderly people, those who have been affected by violence, etc. 2. Coordination. Coordination with the participants is important in focus group discussions. information on the session must be delivered clearly, such as the time, the venue and the discussion topics so that the participants can prepare themselves. Steps for moderators 1. Creation of a relaxing atmosphere: Moderators must create an relaxing atmosphere of conversation, free from pressure, so that the participants feel comfortable in answering questions and telling their experiences. 2. Setting questions: The questions do not have to be straight forward. Moderators can use disguised questions or those that can boost conversations, such as questioning about experiences, or related with their personal opinions. And the last step is: 3. Using assistants for recording: Moderators should have assistants to record important data and observe reactions of the participants. Recordings can help moderators to follow the agenda and feelings arising during the conversation. In conducting focus group discussions, it is important to prepare target groups, create suitable atmosphere, set proper questions and time duration in order that we can obtain data of good quality. On top of that, the rules for each session should be set so that the discussion is not too long, and there will be enough time to see the eyes of each participants. 58

Moderation of group discussions 1. Self-introduction and statement of the objectives: Before starting a session, moderators should introduce themselves and notify objectives of the conversation clearly. This can build trust and the participants realise that they have important roles in providing data. 2. Asking questions step by step: A session can start from easy questions, such as questions about personal experiences or general opinions. Then it can shift to heavier questions, but occasional summary of the conversation are required in order to collect clear data. 3. Setting rules of the conversation: The duration of time for looking at eyes must be suitable so that the participants do not feel uncomfortable. Each participants’ voice should be clear too. Listening to the participants’ opinion must be prioritized. 4. Method of asking questions: Moderators should use technics in asking questions to encourage exchanges, such as questions that do not require direct answers, but give opportunities for the participants to tell their stories or personal opinions. For instance, “who did this happen?” instead of asking just “why?” 6. Managing stagnant situations: If the conversation is stagnant or not smooth, because the participants are reluctant to speak or the target group are not interested in the conversation, moderators can take a break for going to the rest room, or change the topic of the conversation to relax the atmosphere. If the participants feel inconvenient to speak up in a big group, they can be interviewed separately in order to obtain more data. Moderating a focus group discussion thus require careful planning and management, including setting proper questions, controlling the atmosphere of the conversation, and dealing with different situations that might happen in the course of the conversation. After listening to the lectures on the third day, the working team invited the same group of villagers from Bang Pu Village as a sample group for the female researchers to conduct a practice group discussion. 59

Lessons learnt from the experiences of the female researchers about the practice session of group conversations  Our group started with self-introduction of the researchers, and followed by those of the participants.  When we wanted the participants express their opinions, we called their names and those whose names are called spoke. Therefore, calling their names can stimulate the participants to speak effectively.  We asked them to relate their problems in the community and solutions. Everyone took part in the exchange.  our observation is that each person spoke relatively a lot until their speech exceed allocated time. We solved this situation by summarising the points and asked them to speak shortly.  We asked everyone to answer, and told that everyone should speak. Their opinions were also reviewed.  We met a situation where the same person speak and answer every time. It seemed that he realised about that, and we tried to remind him by interrupting politely so that he would not lose his face. When the following question, he asked not to speak.  In our group there were community leaders and the village headman, so villagers did not dare to speak. When asked questions, they followed answers .........given by the village headman. Even though we called the names of participants to answer, but it was not effective because there was imbalance of power.  The resource person stressed that what were provided by the informants were not necessarily true. Thus we need to organise focus group discussions and 60

observe. For example, in someone might dare to argue with the village headman. We need to write these things down.  Behaviours during the conversations such as expression of eyes, eye contacts between the women and the village headman, must be observed too. We can observe that the village headman answered the questions with hesitance, and tried to support the feelings of the villagers.  In our group there were both men and women. The women did not dare to speak a lot.  There were only women in our groups. At first the participants were relatively silent, but after a while they became more relaxed. The difference of ages also could be an obstacle. Even though our group was all women, but there were both adults and youths, and most of the discussions were dominated by the adults.  Because there was no violent incidents in bang Pu Village, we referred to the overall situation in the southern border provinces, and asked about the participants feelings about violence.  The atmosphere of the model discussion was relatively good, because the participants followed the situation closely, and there was not much diversity in the group.  In our group there was a deputy village headman who spoke most of the time. The women in our group accordingly did not dare to speak. But when we talked about the government subsidy cards, the women began to speak effusively.  One problem we experienced was that at first we divided our tasks clearly, but in the actual conversation, we had to swap some roles.  Writing down points of the participants speech makes the participants feel that their information is important, and this in turn encourage their eagerness to take part in the conversation. 61

Ethical principles in researchesBy Asst. Prof. Kusuma Kooyai 4.y Researchers must respect personal rights of research participants. Clear standards must be set so that both researchers and research assistants perform their tasks properly. Data taken from research participants are our rights, and we must make sure that they feel comfortable in providing data without any coercion. y Ethical principles in research is important in order to protect participants’ rights and privacy, prevent human rights violations and maintain confidence and safety of participation in a research. Respect for research ethics helps researchers to collect data properly and transparently. Every research must be examined a research committee in order to evaluate risks, and guarantee proper protection of participants. y The resource person took examples of researches that did not follow ethical principles. In the past, doctors and researchers used homeless people or people with mental illness for testing without obtaining permission. Such practice had been prevailed until recently before there were examinations on ethical principles in such tests and standards for respecting individual rights. y At the beginning of the 19th century, Edward Jenner created the smallpox vaccine by observing smallpox infection of cows, and tested on human. The results was the foundation for developing the smallpox vaccine later. However questions were asked about bringing viruses into bodies of ordinary people, even though this was conducted for the sake of developing immune system. But in t his case, the participants of the test recovered from the disease and had no health consequences. 62

y Two hundred years after that, Louis Pasteur tested the rabies vaccine with a boy called Joseph who had been bitten by a rabid dog. There is a question about suitability of using a boy for this case study. Even though this boy was safe and lad a long life after that, this case caused debates about ethics in research with children. This must be discussed thoroughly, and the answer is not clear like black and white. y During the Second World War, the army of Nazi Germany conducted medical researches by using war prisoners as guinea pigs without asking any consents from them. These researches include poison gas tests, freezing human body or injecting viruses for examining their affects. Most of them died or got severe physical consequences. y After the World War Two, medical experiments of Nazi Germany that had violated human rights were revealed. 23 German scientists were prosecuted and 7 of them were sentenced to death, and the rest were imprisoned in the Doctors' Trial. y The Nuremberg Code set important ethical principles as follows: The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. The experiment subject should be fully informed about the experiment’s benefits that exceeds its harm. There must be risk prevention and the subject is able to withdraw from the test at any time, and any damage received by the subject must be compensated. y The Milgram Experiment (1963) intended to measure the willingness of study participants to obey an authority figure who instructed them to perform acts conflicting with their personal conscience with a threat of physical punishment even though in fact they would not be given that. The study found that 60 percent of the study participants would fully obey the instructions. The result of the experiment arouse a question about ethics, such as distortion of intentions, lack of clear data, and lack of acknowledgement of the participants. This experiment led to revise and development of new ethical frames in psychological experiments. 63

y The Tuskegee Syphilis Study was a study conducted between 1932 and 1972 in African Aerican communities in Alabama to observe the effects of the disease. The researchers did not provide medical treatments to the participants and provide sufficient information about the experiment. The exposed results of the experiment caused strong anger in the society. The US government had to apologise and pay the compensations. This experiment stimulated review of ethics in medical experiments that respect human rights of the participants and protection of vulnerable people who tend to be taken advantage of. y The Camelot research project from American University studied the counter insurgency in Southeast Asia. In a village in the northeast part of Thailand, this research studied political and cultural influences. It was found that the state propaganda that tried to project fiendishness of communist were not successful. But when the propaganda stressed the threat to the state security and the monarchy, the villagers began to accept them. This research indicates importance of understanding cultural understanding and respect to the communities’ values for an effective communication. y In a study of anthropology called “Tearoom Trade: A study of homosexual encounters in public places” in 1960, the researcher disguised as a homosexual in order to study prostitution among homosexual groups. He conducted observation and data gathering without revealing his identity. This was a violation of research ethics because the informants’ consents were not obtained, and they were not aware that he was conducting a research. Not notifying the informants about the consequences of the research toward their rights is a violation their privacy and personal rights. Protection of privacy and safety of the data in a research is very important. 64

In conduction studies, researchers must respect informants’ privacy and rights. Therefore there must be clear standards so that researchers, research assistants and academics perform their tasks properly. Data obtained from research participants are ours, but we also have to respect their decision. In some cases, research participants, especially villagers, might respect researcher too much to the extent they feel that they have to answer questions. But we must remember that data are their rights, and they also have rights to answer the questions or not. There should not be any coercion or use of their status to force t hem to give required answers. Researchers should try to make the participants feel comfortable and confident in the research processes so that they are willing to provide real data without being forced. Ethical principles are crucially important for protecting personal rights and privacy of the informants, as well as preventing human rights violations against the informants. This is in order to maintain confidence and safety of the participants. Thus the researchers must be aware of ethics in gathering data properly and transparently. Carelessness of researchers in conducting their studies might affect the informants. For this reason, each research should be examined by a research committee to evaluate risks that might happen in the course of the research. This research project also has to be examined by a research committee of the university in order to make sure that this research protects informants properly and suitably. When conducting a research, every lecturer and researcher must attend workshops on research ethics in order to understand and conduct according to ethics in data gathering and treatments of informants. Apart from that, questionnaires used in researches must be examined and approved by a research committee in order to protect the informants’ rights and privacy. An important research ethical principle is protection of the informants. They should not be involved in any trouble, and researchers must prioritise safety 65

of the data. They also must obtain clear consents from participants before collecting data. This will help us build trust and conduct the research efficiently and in a fair way. In the past, ethics in researches were not mentioned or prioritized, especially in researches not directly about human body, such as in sociology or economics. Ethics were only stressed in medical or scientific experiments that might affect participants’ body or health, such as in experiments for new drugs that might be dangerous or might even cause death after the experiments. In experiments for new drugs or medical researches, there was not usually enough protection for the participants. Some cases were dangerous for the participants but there was not litigation or demand for responsibility. At present, however, following developments in education and awareness upon human rights, there are litigations demanding responsibility for violations of human rights and research ethics. Ethical principles in researches become important and they must be seriously respected so that researches can be conducted safely and fairly for every participants. In the past, doctors and researchers used homeless people or people with mental disability in experiments without asking consents from the test objects or their family. Moreover, even human bodies after autopsies or stolen bodies from graveyards were used if the relatives did not give consents. These practices were not seriously questioned in the past. Nowadays researchers begin to ask questions about ethics of such deeds,, and began to find standards or measures in experiments that respect human rights so as not to violate dignity of humanity. In the 18th century, a scientist called Edward Jenner found the small pox vaccine by observing a community where a women called Sarah Nelmes, who worked as a milkmaid, infected smallpox from the cows. Milk taken from the cows was consumed by the family. In the family there was a boy who frank milk from the cows infected with smallpox, and he got symptoms similar to smallpox. After that, the boy was brought to an experiment. The virus taken from the boy was tested on other people. As a result, the boy had low immunity, and 66

it was found that immunity built from the virus from cows could resist infection of smallpox. This was a basic discovery that would later lead to the smallpox vaccine. Experiments on human bodies started from asking a question about whether transferring viruses into bodies of ordinary people was possible or not. The experiment mentioned above started with an intention to build immunity, but in this case the experiment objects healed from the disease, and thus there was no negative consequences. Two hundred years later, Louis Pasteur, a French researcher who discovered the rabid vaccine, conducted an experiment with a boy called Joseph who was from a poor family and had been bitten by a rabid dog. Pasteur made a new hypothesis and decided to inject the rabid vaccine to him. This is one case of experiment about which questions were asked about suitability of using a boy in a case study. But Joseph was safe and lived long after that. However, finally he killed himself after chased by the army of Nazi Germany. The experiment on a boy in this case caused debates about whether or not an experiment could be done on a boy. At that time doctors thought that if the boy had not been treated he would have died. Therefore, the treatment was the best option. In this case, ethics cannot be judged from one viewpoint, but it must be considered and judged from various aspects. 67

During the World War Two, the army of Nazi Germany conducted medical researches in order to develop weapons capable of killing a number of people. At that time Germany researchers were advanced in this field, and there was no question about obtaining consents from people or their approval. Those who were used experiment objects were mainly war prisoners who had no rights to speak and choice. They were used as guinea pigs with no rights, and many of them died. There were many examples of experiments, such as using poison gasses to examine if people would die or not, injecting viruses to see the effects, or mixing medicines and forcing the participants to take them to examine if these medicines were dangerous or not. After the World War Two was over, medical experiments conducted by Nazi Germany that involved severe human rights violations were exposed. The case was failed in the international tribute to judge the scientists and officers involved in these experiments. In total 23 German researchers were tried, and the evidences revealed who the commanders were. After the trial, 7 people were sentenced to death because of grave offences, and the rest were imprisoned according to the graveness of their offences. 68

The Nuremberg Code has set important principles as follows: 1. Need to ask for permission/consent from the experimental subject. Before every research the person involved must be entirely and clearly informed about the research, and his consent is required without any element of force. 2. Balance between benefits and damages. Benefits of the research must exceed damages. If there are risks, they must be only temporary disturbance of ordinary life. These rsks must be prevented or reduced as much as possible. 3. The human subject or informant have right to withdraw at any point. Participants of a research can withdraw from the experiment at any time when they decide not to give consent after they are fully informed. If there is any problem or damage from the research, they should be compensated or treated in order to restore their health. These ethical principles are developed for protecting rights and safety of the participants in the research from unfair or dangerous experiments. Researches in sociology are not different from researches in other fields, because they are about status and mind of the participants. Accordingly, sociological researches must respect human rights and human dignities, as well equality of everyone. The research participants have rights to refuse to join it without any element of coercion, deceit or irrational use of motivation, such as giving money or unrealistic promises to attract participants. For instance, a doctor tell the informants that if someone take part in the experiment, they will get free medical treatment for one year. This is improper invitation and should not be used in a research. When a research involves payment of financial reward, this should be rational and research ethics should be reminded all the time. For instance, in a research conducted in class rooms by using a new teaching model to examine if new textbooks and teaching methods would encourage students’ understanding or not, the research committee would consider thoroughly if the technics used to the children follow the ethical principle or not, and if children understand 69

they are taking part in research or not. It is also examined if the rewards for taking part in the research is suitable or not, and whether the children and their guardians do not feel that they are forced or not, and if they will get any damage from taking part in the research or not. In researches in education, the sample groups might be divided in order to compare effectiveness of new learning tools, where one group use new leaning tools whereas the other do not use current tools. In such studies, their achievements could be different, and this reflects inequality in studying learning tools. In order to ensure equality, the researchers must give opportunities for the group that use ordinary learning tools to use the new one too in order to compensate the lack of opportunities and to ensure educational equality. By doing so we can prevent inequality and conduct research by following ethical principles and equality.Researches in sociology or about behaviours of human beings include sensitivity, and we must be aware of stereotypes and careful interpretation. For instance, in a research about eating behaviour of people in Isan, after gathering data, if it was found that many villagers have parasites, and the research summarises in a stereotypical way that “most of people in Isan have parasites”, this is not only scientifically incorrect, but it also causes stigmatisation and damages reputation of the community as well. Another example is a study that states that most of the villages in Isan the villagers sell their daughters for prostitution, that lead to a stereotype about housewives in the villages, even though such practice is only true for only in a very limited number. This is distortion of the whole picture and might cause damages to the community as well. Importantly, researches should avoid stereotypes, and we must be careful in interpreting data so as not to project wrong pictures or give unfair interpretations. Moreover, in publishing research reports we must remind possible negative effects to the communities involved in the research. Names and personal data of people 70

must be used carefully, and their consents are necessary in order to protect their privacies and prevent any damages that might happen due to inappropriate publication of the data. An experiment conducted by Milgram (1963) is a famous psychological research which is often mentioned in research ethics, because it demonstrated propensity of human beings in obeying power without thinking even though the action ordered might damage other people. This is a research conducted by using a model situation to examine social and psychological pressure. In this experiment, there are three parties, i.e. the researcher, the research assistants and the volunteers. The researcher did not tell the volunteers that this experiment is about the reaction to the electric currency, and did not tell that the researcher was just an experiment assistant, but tell them that he is a volunteer in the experiment. The experiment started when the volunteers got an instruction to let the electric currency goes to another person. But in fact the research assistant will not get any harm from the electric currency. However, the volunteers do not now that they are doing harm against the research assistant by adding the voltage of the electric currency when their answers are wrong. The voltage start from 15 volte and is gradually increased. An important question from this experiment is whether or not this experiment violate research ethical principles or not, because the volunteers are not informed fully about it (they did not know that they were doing harm against other people), and no clear consent was given about what would be conducted in the research. Apart from that, there could be psychological effects to the volunteers as they were put under the circumstances where they were pressured to do things what they regard wrong. From the results of the experiment, the researcher could observe that most of the participants (65 percent) were willing to release the electric currency of a dangerous level, even though those who had to receive the electric currency begged for stopping. This indicates power of following instruction and pressures from the power (in this case, the researcher). 71

This experiment arouse questions about ethics in psychological experiments, especially about informing the participants the full information about an experiment, and respect of rights to privacy, especially in the case when the experiments might cause mental or physical damages afterwards. The Milgram experiment (1963) is an important study in psychology about obedience to instruction from the powerful. This demonstrated human behavior that follow orders even though doing so might harm other people. But the main issue is the conflict of ethics in this research. At first, in this research, the research assistant (which was “a fake”) acted as a person who receive the electric currency without in fact receiving any currency, and they demonstrated reactions that indicated pain (acting), when the volunteers released the electric currency. This in turn caused the volunteers feel about “the person who received the electric currency”, and see the picture of themselves doing bodily damages to others due to the increased electric currency. The researcher told the volunteers that “You can add the electric currency”, and “If you do not add the electric currency, it will affect the research”, in order to influence them to follow the instruction, even though they would see the person who would accept the electric currency and express their pain.The research result shows that 60 percent of the volunteers chose to follow the instruction even though they saw the agony of “those who got electric currency”, and some of them were willing to release up to 400 volt, which might cause death, even though some of the volunteers felt highly stressed and worried, and expressed their shocks. Some even laughed out of uneasiness, and some were so scared that they convulsed. The ethical principles about this research are 1) Distortion of the intention. The volunteers in the experiment did not know that this was a psychological experiment about behavior of obeying instruction, but the researchers tried to disguise the experiment as medical one. 2) Lack of access to the proper and clear information. The volunteers were not properly informed about what they 72

were doing during the experiment, and this might have caused stress or metal problems after the experiment. 3) Lack of full consent. Volunteers were forced or pressured by the researcher to follow the instructions even though they actually did not want to do so. This experiment aroused questions about unfair treatments for the research participants, and also about the power of researchers, including use of proper research methods, and to what extent rights of research participants should be respected. This prompted revise and development of psychological research ethics afterwards. However, this research was a famous piece of news, and a piece of research than cannot be referred to. Tuskeegee Syphilis Experiment (1932-1972) was a famous case for violation of ethics in a medical research conducted in Alabama to examine the effects of syphilis. This had been conducted for 40 years in African American communities in Alabama. In 1932 the experiment was started by researchers from the U.S. Public Health Service, in collaboration with local medical offices, by acquiring consents from 620 impoverished people with syphilis. They were told that this study is to find treatment for syphilis, and promised free medical care. However, in this study actual medical treatment were not given to the participants, and they were not notified that they would not be given any medical treatment. Their condition were followed until they died. The actual intention of the research was to study effects of syphilis for those who were not medically treated. In the second phase, the researchers invited 200 participants from coloured people and told them that their blood would be tested and their body would be sent to autopsy. But they were not told about what the research was about, that in fact the researchers studied effects of syphilis for untreated people. Later, participants found that they did not receive any medical treatment as had been promised. The results of this experiments were widely reported by the media and the experiment became infamous. The facts revealed 73

to the public arouse strong anger among the participants and society in general. When this experiment was exposed, the US government had to apologise formally, and pay compensations to the families of those who had died in the course of the experiment. This incident prompted revise of the ethical principles in medical researches, especially in terms of respect for participants’ rights and willing consents, which are important part of research ethics, such as respect of rights and human dignity and taking advantage of social and economic vulnerability of the participants. This incident also reflects human rights violation during that time, especially against those of coloured people who had horrible social and economic status that made them unable to make proper decisions about their own participation in researches. It also indicates importance of research ethical principles in protecting vulnerable people from being taken advantage of. A research in anthropology called Camelot is a research project conducted by American University for studying and understanding political and cultural dimensions in counter-insurgency, especially during the war against communism in Southeast Asia. Thailand is one of the field for this research project. This research was conducted in communities in the northeast part of Thailand called Isan. During that time the conflict between the Thai government and a group of communists led to use of violence. The study aimed at understanding way of life and perspectives of villagers in the region, including their thoughts and beliefs on insurgency and political propagandas. At the beginning of the research, the researchers from the United States found that the state propagandas tried to project pictures of communist as “bad people” or a threat to the national security that should be eliminated. However the villagers in the region did not believe and did not take them seriously. Thus, this way of counter-insurgency against the communists were not as successful as it had been hoped. A series of studies made the researchers realize that the villagers in the region love and believe in the nation and its institutions, especially the monarchy and the national security. Thus, the propaganda strategies were modified, 74

stressing the damages that might be caused by the communist movements to the national security and the monarchy. By doing so the state could build more trust and acknowledgement of the villagers. This research demonstrates the importance of understanding cultural contexts and social dimensions of each community, as well as respects for their values and beliefs so that propagandas should take suitable and effective forms. This study also demonstrates that the researchers were able to apply theories of anthropology in order to understand and analyse political problems in specific contexts. Another anthropological research was conducted to study homosexual prostitutions in pubic toilets. In 1960, called “Tearoom Trade: A Study of Homosexual Intercourse in Public Places”. In this research the researcher disguised himself to study and observe prostitution in homosexual groups by standing by public toilets and recording data about negotiations and number plates of the cars. He followed those who were involved for interviewing. He explained that he was a public health officer who were collecting data from informants without exposing their identities. Finally the data collected by the researcher were leaked. When the police got these data, cases were filed against violations of laws about prostitution. The main problem of this research is that the researchers did not reveal his identity, and the informants did not know that they were studied. Accordingly, this is a research conducted without any consents of the informants, and a violation of important ethical principles in research. Not telling the facts to the informants, including possible benefits and risks of the research is seen as a violation of their personal rights and privacies. Especially in sociological researches, protection of the informants’ safety and privacy is crucially important. Using codes instead of their names or using double codes (like researchers from Timor) is a standard practice for protecting personal information from leaking and provide protections to the informants. This is an ethical principle required in sociological or anthropological researches. 75

For this reason protection of informants’ privacies is important in every research in whatever discipline. Data should be treated carefully and transparently so as not cause damages to the participants of the researches. Summary of ethics in conducting researches 1. Acquirement of illegal data. Researchers should not conduct researches by applying illegal methods, such as disguising or situations where violation of laws happen in order to access data. Researchers are not detectives or police officers, and they must respect rights of people who are involved in the research. 2. Not exposing personal data of research volunteers and not causing physical damages. Data obtained from volunteers must be kept as confidential, and researchers must not expose personal data of the research participants. In addition, researchers must avoid any experiments that cause physical damage or forcing participants to do anything dangerous to their bodies or mental. 3. Not inducing with goods or benefit. Researchers should not use any unfair benefits as an incentive to attract volunteers to join their researches. Providing benefits should be rational and not against research ethical principles. 4. Unfair selection of volunteers. Selection of volunteers in researches must be fair without any discrimination, respecting equality, reminding risks and benefits that the volunteers face by joining the researches. This ethical principle is important in conducting researches to ensure transparent and proper researches while respecting everyone’s rights. Vulnerable groups means people of high risks for being disadvantaged in taking part in research projects, or those who are motivated to take part in research project by hoping for rewards, but they might not have abilities to make their own judgments or forced to take part. They have the following characteristics. 76

1. Those who are illiterate. Those who do not know how to read often cannot understand information or details about research. They might not be able to make informed decision, or they might not have power to give consents to take part in researches. 2. People who are hesitant or scared. Some people do not dare to deny participation in research projects because of fear or too much respects for people with power or high status who invite them to join. They might give consents to join research projects only because they did not want to make those who invite them feel dissatisfied. 3. Presence of those who have power. If there is a person of power or higher status, such as an interview where a village headman or a military commander is present, people from vulnerable groups might not dare to give any real date or express their thought clearly for fear of consequences. 4. Prisoners or detainee. Those who are imprisoned or detained might not have freedom to decide or give data because of the presence of prison guards, which might affect their data or consents to take part in research projects. These groups must be protected ethically, because they might be at risk or not fully benefitted from their participations in the researches. Researches about these groups thus have to be conducted carefully by strictly following ethical principles in order to prevent human rights violation and undue risks. ..................???.........77

Inclusive Peacebuildingin Thailand’s Southern Border Provinces

Inclusive Peacebuilding in Thailand’s Southern Border Provincesy This research aims to explore the meaning of peace among marginalized and vulnerable groups.y In this study, the term “vulnerable groups” refers to ten specific categories: widows; caregivers of orphans; persons with disabilities (PWDs); the elderly; individuals lacking housing security; coastal fishers; youth with potential; persons of diverse sexual orientations and gender identities; religious minorities; and victims of torture.y The findings from the research reveal that the most significant factor for a meaningful life is having one’s own housing. The second most important aspect is access to public services, particularly the availability of clean food and water.y The participants reported having experienced being mocked or laughed at for their identities, as well as being subjected to unfriendly or discriminatory treatment.y When asked who has been most affected by violence, the findings indicate that men are the most affected group, followed by individuals involved in security-related cases, women, youth, and government officials.y The participants felt unsafe when required to criticize those with opposing views or to participate in political demonstrations and expressive activities.y The mean score for acceptance of gender equality was higher than that for acceptance of sexual diversity.y Options for promoting justice within the community include establishing a committee to investigate the truth, ensuring public participation and independence. Secondary measures include providing remedies to affected individuals and facilitating dialogues to reach mutual agreements.y Granting women the right to leadership in social, political, and educational spheres received the lowest mean score, while imposing strict and severe punishments on wrongdoers received the second lowest score.79

Inclusive Peacebuilding in Thailand’s Southern Border ProvincesIntroduction This report is the result of a survey on the opinions of people, particularly those living in the border areas of the conflict-prone provinces in the southern region of Thailand. A team of female researchers surveyed collaboration with local social organizations and academic institutions within the area. The aim was to support and enhance the roles of marginalized people through the lens of intersectionality within the context of persistent political violence in the pursuit of creating inclusive and long-lasting peace. The survey is part of an effort to listen to and reflect on the perspectives of the mentioned people regarding the ongoing conflict situation and the envisioned future. This answers the primary query of how peace is perceived by marginalized or vulnerable groups of people. This survey is an action research project that, on one hand, aims to cultivate and improve research skills for 22 female researchers in the area. This was accomplished through a project that recruited half of its volunteers from SarathataGampontakawa's network of co-creating communities, which has branches over three provinces (Pattani, Narathiwat, and Yala), as well as four districts in Songkhla, the project's focus area. Contrarily, the survey involves randomly selecting a sample of vulnerable people residing on the border in the chosen sub-district where the Sarathata-Gampontakawa network operates. This survey was conducted in late 2023.Vulnerable Groups in the Southern Border Provinces There were 169 participants selected through purposive sampling based on the criteria outlined by vulnerable groups in the context of the southern border provinces. The criteria were organized into ten groups, assuming there might be some overlap and repetition between them. The groups are as follows: 80

1) Widowed women 2) Orphan Caregivers 3) People with health conditions or impairments 4) Elderly individuals 5) Individuals lacking residential stability 6) Fishermen 7) Potential at-risk youth (exposed to violence both personally and within their communities) 8) Individuals with diverse gender identities 9) Minority religious communities 10) Victims of torture. Survey RespondentsThere are more women than men among the 169 survey participants, with 1% of respondents choosing not to provide their gender. Approximately 2 in 5 respondents identified themselves as widowed. The majority of SexMale 30%indicated 1%Female 69%ReligionBuddhism 2%Islam 98%StatusDivorced 7%Separated 2%Married 33%Widowed 41%Single 17%Language usedLocal Malay74%La1InformantsFemale 65%Male 32%Others 3%Level of reliability to the dataOthers 3%Female 50%Male 47%MembershipNot being a member of any group 65%Being a member of some group 35%WoPubChiRemVillVillSecvolOthBuddhism 2%Islam 98%Language used in the familyLocal Malay 74%Central Thai 3%Central Malay 2%Others 2%Southern Thai 1%Southern Thai and Central Thai 1%Local Malayand Thai 17%MembershipNot being a member of any group 65%Being a member of some group 35%Women group and housewife group 9%Public health volunteer 4%Chit-arsa volunteer 4%Remedy group 3%Village or community committee 3%Village cooperatives, savings, funds 2%Security volunteer, village security, civil defense volunteer, other security groups 5%Other organizations 5%SexMale 30%indicated 1%Female 69%StatusMarried 33%Widowed41%Single 17%InformantsFemale 65%Male 32%Others 3%Level of reliability tFemale 50%indicated 1%ReligionBuddhism 2%Islam 98%StatusDivorced 7%Separated 2%Married 33%Widowed 41%Single 17%Language used in the familyLocal Malay 74%Central Thai 3%Central Malay 2%Others 2%Southern Thai 1%Southern Thai and Central Thai 1%Local Malayand Thai 17%Others 3%Level of reliability to the dataOthers 3%Female 50%Male 47%MembershipNot being a member of any group 65%Being a member of some group 35%Women group and housewife group 9%Public health volunteer 4%Chit-arsa volunteer 4%Remedy group 3%Village or community committee 3%Village cooperatives, savings, funds 2%Security volunteer, village security, civil defense volunteer, other security groups 5%Other organizations 5%81

the respondents adhere to the Islamic faith (98%), and about half of them (52%) identify themselves notably as Muslims. The remaining respondents express their identity in terms of ethnicity. Regarding household language, three-fourths of the respondents use the local Malay language. Additionally, 65% of the respondents indicated that they are not members of or do not hold any position in any community group. (item 13) Gathering information heavily relies on close friends as the primary source, followed by information from religious leaders and government officials. The survey results show that newspapers are the least utilized source of information, while Twitter, primarily used by the middle-class urban population and younger individuals, is less commonly used by vulnerable groups. (item 14)The survey results also indicate that for the vulnerable groups, there are differences in information perception based on gender. To clarify, respondents chose to talk to women for information twice as much as men. However, men and women were found to be equally reliable. (items 14.1 and 14.2) Family income after COVID-19The role of earning incomeMale 42%Female 29%Equally important 29%Significantly increased 1%Not changed 29%Slightly increased 14%Lower 37%Significantly lower 19%Key Issues in LifeAccording to survey respondents, basic necessities are the most crucial aspect of leading life in the southern border provinces. The average responses highlight that having one's own residence is the top priority (3.78 out of 4 points). Among the top five priorities, essential public services such as access to clean food and water, healthcare services, and basic infrastructure like roads, 82

electricity, and water supply are predominant. Additionally, addressing substance abuse issues is also considered a top priority.On the contrary, when considering the lowest weighted average scores, the issue of gender equality is the least significant (3.05). This reflects a societal perspective where religious and cultural values continue to exert a clear influence on people. The next least significant issue is addressing influential individuals, suggesting that those in vulnerable positions may consider dependence on and reliance on those relationships crucial for accessing rights and services from the government. Interestingly, public services such as transportation are not highly weighted. This questionnaire indicates that issues related to self-acceptance of identity are not deemed highly significant for sustaining life.Considering the economic status of households, over half of the respondents (56%) mentioned a decrease in household income after the COVID-19 pandemic. From the respondents' perspective, males play the most crucial role in earning income for the household (42%). Meanwhile, 29% believe that both How much these factors important for your life in the southern border provinces (on average)?Having your own house 3.783.733.693.693.653.623.603.593.573.573.553.553.483.433.433.333.213.193.05Clean and suficient food and waterPublic health serviceSolution to drugs problemsUtilities and infrastructure (road, electricity, running water)Economy, income, employmentCompensations and remedies for affected peopleSecurity in daily lifeLandEqual law enforcementRights and freedomHigh quality education suitable for cultureReform of law and the justice systemDecentralizationIdentity acceptancePublic transportationOthersSolution to maffla problemsGender equality83

males and females have equally important roles. Regarding state welfare, the majority of vulnerable groups and family members have fundamental health coverage. Subsequently, state welfare cards and elderly allowances.From the majority of respondents' experiences, most have never encountered events that made them feel oppressed. However, when considering those who acknowledge experiencing such incidents, the most commonly reported occurrences include being aware of mockery or ridicule about their identity. Following this, experiences of unfriendly or disrespectful treatment and instances of being looked down upon are reported. I have heard, seen, or known that people made fun of or laughed at me.I was treated with an unfriendly or vulgar manner for being myself.I was insulted or looked down upon that being myself was bad.I was treated by others as a stupid person because I was who I was.I was asked with provoking and invasive questions.I was threatened or intimidated as a target of violence for being myself.I felt that others feared me for who I was.0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 8% 9% 100%53.3 30.9 12.7 3.062.7 24.7 10.268.1 20.5 9.066.5 25.7 7.272.0 21.4 6.582.1 11.9 6.074.3 21.6 4.22.42.40.6000Money from government welfare (%)81.586.351.829.522.615.713.710.38.65.4OthersUniversal health insurance (Gold Card)Senior citizen allowanceGovernment welfare cardChildbirth support fundSocial securityDisability allowanceCompensation for afiected peopleWelfare of government offcials and government employeesChild fflnancial support from social security fund84

Security and Disturbance Vulnerable groups, 80 percent of survey respondents stated that they had never directly experienced acts of unrest. For those who have had direct experiences, it typically involved their close relatives losing their lives or getting injured due to violent incidents. In situations where they themselves were surrounded, summoned, or detained, when asked to assess whether there have been changes in the local situation, 25 percent of respondents stated that it remained the same. However, nearly half of them noticed improvements (item 16)From the perspective of the vulnerable population, those most affected by violence are males (59.2 percent), followed by victims of security incidents, females, youth, and government officials, respectively. It is evident that different statuses are considered to be impacted by violence.People viewed as being the most afiected by violence (%)MenVictims of national security ofiensesWomenYouthsGovernment offcialsWidowsStateless personsLGBT peopleWomen with disabilitiesBuddhist and Chinese peoplePeople with disabilities59.2%36.1%27.8%27.2%19.5%17.8%13.0%6.5%4.7%4.7%4.1%The situation that feels safe (average)At home3.71Direct experience with political unrestYes 20%No 80%85

In terms of the sense of security, respondents from the vulnerable group feel safest in their own homes, followed by times spent in places of worship, schools, participating in religious activities, and government offices, respectively (top 5). The situations where they feel the least secure are expressing supportive or critical opinions towards the movement for Pattani autonomy, followed by situations participating in protests for demands and expressing political views (Item 22). Some individuals in the vulnerable group also evaluate that family members or relatives are the ones most capable of protecting their safety in daily life, followed by community leaders and religious leaders, respectively.People viewed as being the most afiected by violence (%)MenVictims of national security ofiensesWomenYouthsGovernment offcialsWidowsStateless personsLGBT peopleWomen with disabilitiesBuddhist and Chinese peoplePeople with disabilities59.2%36.1%27.8%27.2%19.5%17.8%13.0%6.5%4.7%4.7%4.1%Guards in daily life (%)Family members and relatives78.1%The situation that feels safe (average)At homeAt religious placesAt schoolAttending religious, festival, and cultural activitiesAt government offcesAttending public lectures, forums, and seminarsAt place of work (farm or offce)Talking with people of difierent religionsVisiting nearby villages and communitiesGovernment offcials visiting at home (civil or administrative)At the marketOffcial screening postLeaving home at nightSpeaking about LGBT rightsMeeting strangersBeing near armed government offcials (soldiers or police offcers)Criticizing the governmentJoining political demonstrationsCriticizing the Patani independence movementsSupporting the Patani independence movements3.713.653.403.303.263.143.083.012.992.942.882.792.682.682.602.632.562.462.412.132.051.771.7086

Relationships in the Community Perceptions regarding interpersonal relationships are reflected in responses to questions about decision-making, such as choosing a school for children, residing in the community, and employment decisions. The survey results indicate that the vulnerable group believes that decisions about marriage are significantly influenced by shared religious and cultural values, while these factors are less crucial when deciding on sending children to school or seeking employment (item 24)When respondents were asked to evaluate relationships and acceptance of values related to diversity, it was found that the acceptance score for the rights of people with disabilities in the community was very high at 8.24. In terms of the closeness or relationships of individuals in the community, the average score is relatively high at 7.79 out of 10. However, the closeness of relationships within their own community compared to neighboring communities slightly decreases to 6.99. It is noteworthy that relationships with communities of different religions are relatively distant, with a score of 5.71Guards in daily life (%)Family members and relativesReligious leaders (imams and monks)PoliceRangers or volunteer corpsMilitary offcersAdministrative offcialsNo oneOthersCSOs members or its networkMembers of the House of RepresentativeCommunity leaders (village or subdistrict headman)78.1%72.8%52.7%22.5%8.9%8.9%5.3%4.1%3.0%2.4%0.0%Criticizing the Patani independence movementsSupporting the Patani independence movements1.771.7087

Regarding perspectives on gender relationships, notable observations are evident. Acceptance scores for gender equality are relatively high at 6.68, while the acceptance score for the rights of individuals with diverse sexual orientations in the community is lower at 5.17. All these findings reflect well on Muslim society. Choosing decisions and relationship with cultureChoosing the school for childrenChoosing the community of the houseChoose workplaceChoosing the spouse0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%53.066.753.690.5 6.542.328.63.6 43.44.84.23.0The same religion and culture as yours Difierent religion and culture from yours Culture and religious are not deciding factorsRelationship and acceptance score (average)Acceptance of the rights of people with disabilities in your communityRelationship (closeness) of people in your communityRelationship (closeness) of your community and neighboring communitiesGender equality in your communityRelationship (closeness) of your community and other communities of difierent religionAcceptance of rights of LGBT people in your community8.245.175.716.686.997.79Justice The central focus of the survey is to attribute meaning or value to what is referred to as the justice of the vulnerable group. The survey results reveal that among various options, respondents attribute the meaning of justice with a strong connection to peace and tranquility, leading a dignified life, and ensuring fairness. These are the top three choices. Interestingly, when considering the option with the lowest average score, it implies that society has gender equality, forgiveness for wrongdoers, and the enforcement of laws and justice.The above points seem to align with another question that asks respondents to consider the appropriateness of methods to create a just society to resolve situations of unrest. The three highest average scores are: 1) There should be an independent and participatory truth-seeking committee 88

in cases of violence, 2) There should be reconciliation assistance for those who have not received justice, and 3) There should be community discussions to find common ground. Interestingly, respondents did not emphasize the criminal justice process and state mechanisms significantly.While the lowest average scores in this question may reflect the complex nature of justice in the perspective of vulnerable individuals, it can be noted that the method with the lowest average score is \"Granting women the right to lead in society, politics, education, and religious affairs.\" This may be influenced by a framework guided by religious principles and could be one of the issues with conflicting explanations from the informants, stating that it is not related to the concept of justice in any way. On the other hand, the second lowest average score is \"Punishing wrongdoers severely and forcefully,\" indicating a lack of confidence in the current criminal justice system. However, even though forgiveness of wrongdoers may not hold a high average score when asked in a scenario where violence occurs to oneself or a family member, two-thirds of the respondents indicate that they would forgive as it is seen as the only way to achieve peace. Will you forgive?Forgive 66%Not forgive 34%Living with dignity 3.50Peace and harmony 3.57Justice is served 3.49Ofienders feel guilty for their wrongful acts 3.45Seeking truth 3.41Punishing ofienders 3.38Ofienders apologize 3.35Investigating ofienders 3.27 Law enforcement and prosecutions 3.20Forgiving ofienders 3.07Gender equality in society 3.01Others 2.71Deffnition of “justice”89

Conclusion The survey results regarding the meaning of justice from the perspective of vulnerable individuals confirm that the criminal justice process or state mechanisms for facilitating justice may not be the primary avenue. Instead, revealing the truth, reconciliation, seeking agreements, or other methods may bring them closer to justice. If peace is a crucial component, justice is indispensable. Framing justice during transitional periods involves enhancing inclusivity and developing the potential of vulnerable individuals. Therefore, alternative approaches, such as transitional justice, should be considered for future consideration..........Means to achieve justiceThere should be an investigation team when an incident occursThere should be remedies for people who do not receive justiceThere should be a talk between communities to conclude an agreementProceedings should be carried out like the normal justice systemThe justice system should be reformedWe should forgive if it is the only way to build peaceGovernment agencies should be reformed if they are part of right violationsPeople involved with violence should be dismissed or disallowed to work for the governmentOthersOfienders should be strictly and severely punishedWomen should be allowed to be leaders3.583.573.553.483.473.393.343.093.002.942.7890

Research Report on the Lives of Vulnerable Groupsfor Peacebuilding in the Southern Border Provincesy The issues of conflict and violence in the southern border areas require creating space for all sectors, including marginalized groups, to participate, as these areas face multidimensional violence.y This research project aims to study aspects of marginalized or vulnerable g r o u p s a n d t o e x p l o r e t h e i r understanding of the meaning of peace.y The participants perceived that the conditions of vulnerable groups have not changed significantly, as there is still a lack of policies capable of driving meaningful change.y Juveniles involved in legal cases were found to come from violent or neglectful family backgrounds, often being cared for by grandparents, and living in poverty. This situation creates obstacles in pursuing their cases due to a lack of resources and funds for transportation.y Patronage is a factor that contributes to social injustice, leading some vulnerable groups to perceive injustice as inevitable or even non-existent.y Women have diverse perspectives regarding their roles and responsibilities within the family, which sometimes results in men neglecting or showing little interest in fulfilling their own duties in various areas.y The main reasons why vulnerable groups continue to face social problems include: (1) community and social leaders lack understanding, acceptance,and opportunities for vulnerable groups to lead a quality life; (2) society and communities do not provide continuous support for vulnerable groups; (3) there is a lack of systematic data on the needs of vulnerable groups; (4) there is insufficient integrated support, with limited participation from all sectors and minimal promotion of volunteerism; and (5) economic and income support for vulnerable groups is lacking.y These factors prevent vulnerable groups from accessing the necessary support for improving their quality of life and limit their opportunities for full personal development within society.91

IntroductionThailand's southern border, including Pattani, Yala, Narathiwat, and the four districts of Songkhla (Chana, Thepha, Nathawi, Saba Yoi), has been a region of conflict and violence for over two decades. According to Deep South Watch, from 2004 to September 2023, there were 22,189 incidents of civil unrest. Such violence resulted in 7,527 deaths and 13,980 injuries (Deep South Watch, 19 October, 2023). The Peace Survey 7 indicates that 49% of respondents agreed that the situation in the southern border provinces remained \"the same\" and another 13.7% viewed it got \"worse\" (Peace Survey 7, 3 October 2023). Although the physical violence situation has decreased, people still feel that the situation in the southern border provinces remains the same. However, local people still have hope for the peace process in the southern border provinces. The findings of the Peace Survey 7 indicated that 33.7% of the people agreed that the peace process had made some progress. More than 70.3% supported peace talks as a way to solve problems, while 42.6% had confidence in the peace talks, and 56.4% still had hope for the peace process (Peace Survey 7, 3 October 2023). Therefore, it is necessary to further open space for all citizens inclusively with participation from all relevant parties, including marginalized and vulnerable groups, by creating a safe space to participate in the public consultation process (Peace Survey 7, 3 October 2023). This is because there are still problems that reflect many dimensions of violence in the area that affect the lives of local people, especially marginalized people and vulnerable people who are excluded from participation in various dimensions, such as policy, social justice, and representative status.As an attempt to engage participation in the peace process by all stakeholders, including local people, the grassroots, national and local leaders, as well as religious leaders, the Inclusive Peacebuilding in Thailand's Southern Border Provinces project was aimed at exploring aspects of marginalized and vulnerable groups using the hybrid approach of peace. In the initial stage, the project will create cross-sectional networks with robust operational strength in 92

choosing conflict solutions at the local level. This involves a network of civil society at the grassroots level through the sub-grading mechanism in building trust and confidence. These civil society networks organize various priorities in the community in negotiating to build confidence and trust. This is because the key to solving problems in the southern border provinces is about building trust between communities that used to have the notion that two sides were in conflict at a small level, which affected the relationships in society and the local economy. Therefore, research initiative is the deployment of existing networks and those being created at the community level.This study is part of the Inclusive Peacebuilding in Thailand's Southern Border Provinces aimed at investigating the relationship between improvement of the quality of life and peacebuilding in Thailand's southern border provinces to explain how peace means to the marginalized and vulnerable people. It focuses on the relationship between the improvement of the quality of life and peacebuilding in Thailand's southern border province through the intersectionality concept to understand a paradigm of biological sex, race, ethnicity, social class, and gender that exclude people from participation in various dimensions and forms of violence (Shepherd, 2008). The study also seeks to explore the concept of positive peace that aims to achieve sustainable peace and the environment for human potential development, evade hatred, improve institutional mechanisms, and decentralize social structures (Galtung,1996).1The target groups of this study were 176 marginalized and vulnerable people from 16 communities,2 including widows, orphans, people with disabilities, senior citizens, people with housing insecurity (people living in the mountains and sea peoples), coastal fishermen, potential youths (at risk of harming themselves and 1 Positive peace is a state in which society is peaceful and free from physical, structural, and cultural violence, such as maintaining justice, equal freedom, respect for the dignity of human beings, having self-esteem, and respect for individual identities.2 16 communities from the four southern border provinces (Pattani, Yala, Narathiwat, and four districts of Songkhla) who work with the Faith Community Building Association - Kampong Takwa93

the community), LGBT people, religious minority groups, and victims of torture. This study is also open to the definition of other vulnerable groups according to the opinions of people in the communities.3 It could be said that these people have not been thoroughly studied in terms of their participation in the peace process. This study is, therefore, action-oriented participatory research by 22 female researchers living in the southern border provinces of Thailand. These female researchers have been trained to conduct action-oriented participatory research in the Inclusive Peacebuilding in Thailand's Southern Border Provinces project by instructors with high research experience in the context of Thailand's southern border provinces from November 2022 to February 2023.Results: In-depth interviews and focus-group discussionsThe results of the study revealed the diverse opinions and information of vulnerable groups, reflecting the situation of marginalized and vulnerable groups in conflict areas in the southern border provinces. According to the in-depth interviews and focus-group discussions, by and large, people have a positive attitude toward \"equality\" in the aspect of help over other dimensions, such as the orphan fund, welfare allowance for elderly and PWDs people, the government welfare card, distributing survival kits with consumer goods, help in times of need, and Zakat (donation in Islam). However, the marginalized and vulnerable groups are still facing discrimination and injustice for a multitude 3 The Vulnerable Group Research Project is a collaboration between Center for Conflict Studies and Cultural Diversity (CSCD), Institute for Peace Studies, and the Faith Community Building Association - Kampong Takwa. Both organizations have discussed the definition of the marginalized and vulnerable groups. In this study, the marginalized and vulnerable groups include 1) widows, 2) people who work to help orphans, 3) people with disabili- ties, 4) senior citizens, 5) people with housing insecurity (people living in the mountains and sea peoples), 6) coastal fishermen, 7) potential youths (at risk of harming themselves and the community), 8) LGBT people, 9) religious minority groups, and 10) torture victims. This study is also open to the definition of other vulnerable groups according to the opinions of people in the communities.94

of reasons. For example, government officials and people in society still have limited attitudes to service vulnerable groups. Assistance efforts are discontinued and not inclusive. The government still lacks a database on the needs of vulnerable groups. These lead to some recommendations from the communities to urge relevant parties to make a difference in 1) enhancing their knowledge, rights, and skills, 2) opening space for political expression and participation, 3) integrated assistance, and 4) economic and income improvement for vulnerable groups. There are also interesting issues on the role of women. Most informants agreed that women played a role at various levels and could act as mediators in the conflict. Nonetheless, vulnerable women, such as PWDs women or widows, have complex social obligations both at home and outside the home. Therefore, their voices should be heard and advocated.Major issues from the perspective of vulnerable groups in the southern border provinces of Thailand1. The livelihood of the vulnerable groups remains unchanged. The informants view that the general living conditions in their communities remains nearly the same. There has been no policy that makes a significant difference, especially when the marginalized and vulnerable groups are still dependent on others. This situation indicates discrimination and deterioration of human dignity, as reflected by a person with disability below.There is not much change today. With amputated hands and feet, I once rode a bicycle and was struck. My bicycle was damaged. I sought help from the subdistrict administrative organization, but I have not received any help. There are no extra jobs for people with low incomes in the village. Villagers still have to help themselves. Each person finds their own food. The drug problem endures. Worse than that, we are frequently threatened by neighbors, and 95

no one can help us. I was often insulted and made fun of, but I had to put up with it. Sometimes, I could not help it but yell back at them. (Interviewee no. 96, 15 November 2022) With the COVID-19 pandemic over the past few years, most of the sample group reflected that this situation has changed people's lifestyles on a large scale. In particular, people who emigrated to Malaysia for work became unemployed and had to return home during the pandemic. This caused a shortage of income. The pandemic even made them unable to find local jobs. When the pandemic situation improved, they needed to find jobs in Malaysia again because the income from jobs in the southern border provinces was not enough to survive.I am glad that the COVID-19 situation has improved and Malaysia has opened its borders again so we can work there. People in our village can make money for spending. It is difficult to work in our area because most resources have been scarce, and in the monsoon season, we cannot fish in the sea (Interviewee no. 5, 14 November 2022). Like people in general who were affected by the COVID-19 pandemics, the sample group in other areas were unable to work and make a living as in normal circumstances, resulting in a shortage of income. When the pandemic situation was relieved, they started to go back to work, but had to face sluggish trade and more expensive products.2. The vulnerable groups are forced to face multi-dimensional problems and negative attitudes.The marginalized and vulnerable groups are not facing a layer of problems. In fact, they are viewed as different from others, resulting in more complicated problems. For instance, informants explained that most children at juvenile detention centers in the southern border provinces were from poor and broken families and had to live with their grandparents. Some of them had experienced domestic violence. As a result, these vulnerable children are highly depressed. Some harmed their parents, and others turned to taking drugs, causing them 96

to be arrested and detained in juvenile detention homes. When it comes to legal proceedings, they need money for transportation costs and lawyer fees (Group Discussion no. 3, 8 February 2023). In cases of children whose fathers are prosecuted for national security offenses or those facing domestic violence and divorced parents, society and some communities do not welcome them. Instead, these children are often name-called as a child whose mother was abandoned or whose father was a thief. As a consequence, such a child does not have the motivation to study or go on with their life (Group Discussion no. 6, 9 February 2023).Similarly, LGBT people do not receive equal opportunities and supportive development from society. For instance, an LGBT person decided to move to a remote area to avoid people, resulting in difficulties in life and depression. One day, he had to return to the community to take care of his mother after the passing of his father. Eventually, he could not conclude to live and get acceptance in the Muslim community, so he decided to commit suicide (Group Discussion no. 7, 9 February 2023). In addition, LGBT people are still marginalized as people who violate religious principles by being sexually deviant. One time, a group of youths were once insulted by a teacher at school and labeled \"pondan\" in Malay (kathoey in Thai or ladyboys in English). They felt so awful that they refused to take that teacher's class (Group Discussion no. 7, 9 February 2023). In addition, youth outside the standard education system are also looked down upon by society. For example, youths who take internships are often regarded as just short-term vocational trainees who do not have as much knowledge as children in the standard education system. They are often bullied or devalued as \"dumb workers\" (Group Discussion no. 2, 7 February 2023).From another corner of society, children of widows in the southern border provinces are accused of being children of thieves because their fathers' faces were on police's wanted signs. These events have caused anguish for widows in the area (Group Discussion no. 6, 9 February 2023). Meanwhile, widows whose husbands are government officials in a village in Narathiwat province are also often mocked for being the wives of military officers.97

When I was a new widow who moved in this area, I was out to buy food and heard a woman saying that all women in the village were wives of military officers (Group Discussion no. 6, 9 February 2023).3. The issue of injustice from the view of the marginalized and vulnerable groups in the southern border provincesApart from unfair discrimination against marginalized and vulnerable groups, injustice is at the heart of the problem. Local people are facing discriminatory treatment by government officials involved with legal proceedings as vulnerable groups are powerless in bargaining in nearly all aspects. One of the informants opined that justice does not exist, as evidenced by the situations that they have experienced in legal treatment, corruption in society, and discrimination.In Thailand, or anywhere, justice does not exist. All powerful and wealthy people always find a way to get away, whereas the poor have no resources of fighting. To work at a government agency or any organization even requires bribery. Poor families would not have money for bribery. All these are the reasons for many police officers or volunteers to be drug addicts (Interviewee no. 96, 15 November 2022)In addition, numerous informants reported that achieving justice in the southern border provinces required power or connection. A young informant reflected that justice does not exist. Justice occurs only to people with power and connections (Interviewee no. 8, 14 November 2022). Aside from connections or the patronage system, there is also an issue with corrupt local leaders who decide to serve their relatives and supporters. In short, when if the government is giving some benefits to the people, the village leaders will choose to give the benefits to their relatives first (Interviewee no. 51, 4 December 2022). Similarly, a carer for bedridden patients and young informants reflected on this issue in the excerpt below.98