was ensured that a wide range of households, a number of which had not been directly
affected by HIV/AIDS, participated in the wider research programme. However, I was
acutely aware of the potential sensitivities of the diary keeping, and asked diary
keepers and HBC workers to inform me as soon as possible if they felt that
participation in the research was impacting adversely upon them. During informal
discussions with participants, it was in fact found that as well as relieving boredom,
the diary keeping process was found by some to be therapeutic and that involvement
in the research had made them feel that their opinions were valid. On reflection, a
greater understanding of what role, if any, the diary keeping played in enabling
diarists to unburden any feelings of guilt, regret or sadness that they had been unable
to talk about with relatives or friends would also have been interesting, and would
have added greater depth to understanding the process of diary keeping.
One key advantage of the diaries was that they gave authorial control to the
diarist, enabling them to set their own agenda and reveal information as they wished.
While it is recognised that information could also be concealed (a problem faced
equally through interview methods), the diaries gave informants time to think through,
define and prioritise the issues and experiences that they felt were most important to
them and to raise them as and when they wished. Rather than taking up significant
chunks of their time as would have been the case with interviews, informants were
able to write as little or as much as they liked at times that suited them. This was
deemed an important consideration when these households already faced serious
pressures upon their time and resources.
The time and emotional costs of the diary keeping raises questions about how,
if at all, it was best to provide short and long term support to participants. All of the
households concerned were engaged in subsistence-based livelihoods, and time spent
16