Ethical Dilemmas in Feminist Research: The Politics of Location, Interpretation and Publication
In chapter 2 of her book Ethical Dilemmas in Feminist Research: The Politics of Location, Interpretation and Publication, Gesa E. Kirsch examines the moments and instances of ethical dilemmas in researcher-participants relations and offers some suggestions to resolve or reduce them. She discusses the complexities and stakes involved in the interpretation and representation of research data (primarily the interview responses) in chapter 3.
Some such dilemmas that arise as a result of treating research participants as collaborators/co-researchers are:
The feminist research methodology encourages researchers to maintain a close relation with research participants but at the same time also demands critical scrutiny of participants’ interviews. Sometimes, researcher’s offering of critique and reflection might turn the existing intimacy and collaboration into “disappointment, alienation, and exploitation of participants” (26).
Ethical dilemma also arises when the participants reveal confidential information but do not want the researchers to publicize it. It could be hard for the researchers to decide whether to respect the participants’ request or break the trust and be loyal to the research project by covering the crucial information thus disclosed.
At times, researchers might realize that the participants are not being honest and providing correct information. Dilemma in such cases is whether to stick to participants’ views or act otherwise.
The feeling of being manipulated or exploited might come to researchers as well when they are dealing with the participants from culturally/economically privileged positions. In such a situation, the researcher might not feel the obligation of treating the participants ethically, rather might want to critique them.
Similar dilemma plagues researchers when they find the participants engaged in some problematic behaviors.
Kirsch also brings forth strategies to come to terms with such ethical dilemmas. First in order is to develop realistic and perhaps limited expectations about collaborating with participants while designing qualitative research (36). Readiness on both participants and researchers’ ends to critical feedback; granting participants the right to co-interpretation; simultaneous presentation of participants’ interpretation’; researcher bearing the responsibility of interpretation could be other ways of handling dilemmas. Yet another could be renegotiating the consent of participants in case the research focus or direction changes.
In chapter 3, Kirsch mostly discusses the interpretive conflicts between the researcher and participants which “range from disagreements between researchers and participants about the meaning of research data, such as interview, narratives and observations, to conflict in values and ideology” (45). She elaborates on the complexity involved in making participants the co-interpreters of research data.
Since the participants and researchers come up with different interpretive frameworks while analyzing data, the resulting conflict could have serious consequences. Deciding whose interpretation is valid could be tougher. Representation through researchers’ interpretations alone could be misrepresentation and their empowering intentions could have silencing effects on the participants.
Kirsch sees no way but negotiation, dialogue and granting participants the space in research report to reduce dilemmas or conflicts. But I have some questions and concerns with her recommendation too.
Regarding the suggestion to put participants’ interpretation side by side with researchers’, or produce “multi-vocal” research reports, my concern is that not all research participants would be capable of interpreting their experiences/stories or information. Depending on who the participants and where they are from, at times their interpretations might appear politically naïve and even ignorant. Putting their interpretation side by side with researchers’ could have ironic effect.
Kirsch is constantly emphasizing on researchers’ ethical obligations to participants, research communities, institutions and/or other stakeholders. But my sense is that at times, researchers confront hostilities or threats. My take is that researchers should choose to encounter whatever comes on the way be it hostility or threat. Some of the sensational researchers have been threatened or shot dead for their disclosure of all wrongdoings of oppressive institutions like military or totalitarian government.
1 comment:
Your last question made me think a lot about who research is for and what the consequences are--
What happens when your research or investigating is life-threatening process?. We often hear of journalists being imprisoned, taken hostage, or shot for expressing view unpopular to a regime or for going into conflict zones. Many totalitarian governments take out their intellectuals systematically--shooting them or imprisoning them, effectively taking them out of circulation--so they won't speak or write or research or critique. All research has consequences, and some more than others when it involves critiquing or taking on an established power structure.
I also was interested in your point about participants having the ability to get in there and co-interpret results. It seems in Cushman's situation that this worked fine as there was collaboration going on the whole way through, to some extent. But not in all the examples in Kirsch. I was even wondering about the assumption embedded in co-interpretation that people can read academic writing. What about language difference, too? What if one is researching a community with multi-languages or a language very different from the one the researcher is writing in? How would the translation process work?
Post a Comment