Ethics, power, and responsibility in qualitative psychology: a duo-ethnographic inquiry

This paper emerges from a collaborative duo-ethnographic inquiry into the lived and contested dimensions of ethics in qualitative psychological research. Grounded in our diverse positionalities as researchers situated across disciplinary, institutional, and geopolitical contexts we reflect on the persistent dissonance between institutionalized procedural ethics and the ethical complexities encountered in practice. Through reflexive and collaborative analysis, we identify four interwoven tensions that structure our inquiry: the mismatch between institutional ethics and ethical responsibility; informed consent as a point of ethical and political tension; the challenges of navigating the tensions and paradoxes within ethical practice; and the entanglement of ethics with political structures and power dynamics. Rather than offering prescriptive solutions, we dwell within these tensions–inhabiting the discomfort, contradiction, and uncertainty that define ethical research as an ongoing, situated struggle.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Qualitative Research in Psychology
Published
2025-11-11
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2025.2587744
Primary Topic
Qualitative Research Methods and Ethics
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Ethics, power, and responsibility in qualitative psychology: a duo-ethnographic inquiry

Ashraf Kagee, Desmond Painter, Guido Veronese, Chiara Fiscone
Qualitative Research in Psychology
Qualitative Research Methods and Ethics
article

Ethics, power, and responsibility in qualitative psychology: a duo-ethnographic inquiry

Ashraf Kagee, Desmond Painter, Guido Veronese, Chiara Fiscone
article en

Abstract

This paper emerges from a collaborative duo-ethnographic inquiry into the lived and contested dimensions of ethics in qualitative psychological research. Grounded in our diverse positionalities as researchers situated across disciplinary, institutional, and geopolitical contexts we reflect on the persistent dissonance between institutionalized procedural ethics and the ethical complexities encountered in practice. Through reflexive and collaborative analysis, we identify four interwoven tensions that structure our inquiry: the mismatch between institutional ethics and ethical responsibility; informed consent as a point of ethical and political tension; the challenges of navigating the tensions and paradoxes within ethical practice; and the entanglement of ethics with political structures and power dynamics. Rather than offering prescriptive solutions, we dwell within these tensions–inhabiting the discomfort, contradiction, and uncertainty that define ethical research as an ongoing, situated struggle.

Qualitative Research in PsychologyVol. 23(2)
Stellenbosch University (ZA), University of Milano-Bicocca (IT), University of Genoa (IT)
Openalex Percentile: Top 56%
Qualitative Research Methods and Ethics
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.