In reality, as Dusanee was living in the community and building up a trust relationship with people for quite a long time, they accepted her as part of their group and their community member. Almost all participants seemed not interested in the details included in those forms. Rather, they were willing to share their viewpoints because they had more understanding of her positive purposes and they trusted that this study would not create any harm but their participation would have a benefit to all Thai people. They were proud of themselves when they provided her with useful information. Some did not want to waste their time reading the long formal document, but wanted to start opening theirstories and share experiences. Many groups show signs of approval when Dusanee asked them to sign their name in this form. This indicated that written informed consent could have negative effect on trust relationship which is a more important matter than formal documents if doing ethnographic study (Murphy and Dingwall, 2007). Local people are mostly not familiar with reading and signing a written informed consent. Some are illiterate and many are in advanced aged. Signing their name was likely to make them uncomfortable. Dusanee also had an internal conflict because she was worried that they might only see her as a researcher with a hidden motive (Liamputtong, 2010). Trusting relationship could be jeopardized and she might have to re-build it again. Hence, formal informed consent could be the barrier of ethnographic study. As Liamputtong (2010) suggests, working with native people and in cross-cultural research, verbal consent could work better and it was certainly more suited to the participants in our study.