The ‘problem’ of undesigned relationality: Ethnographic fieldwork, dual roles and research ethics

TY - JOUR

T1 - The ‘problem’ of undesigned relationality

T2 - Ethnographic fieldwork, dual roles and research ethics

AU - Bell, Kirsten

PY - 2019/3/1

Y1 - 2019/3/1

N2 - Perhaps the most unique feature of ethnographic fieldwork is the distinctive form of relationality it entails, where the ethnographer's identity as a researcher is not fixed in the way typical of most other forms of research. In this paper, I explore how this 'undesigned relationality' is understood, both in procedural ethics frameworks and by the different disciplines that have come to claim a stake in the 'method' itself. Demonstrating that the ethical issues it entails are primarily conceptualized via the lens of the 'dual role', I use this as a means of exploring the ideal relationship between researcher and subject that procedural ethics frameworks are premised upon. I go on to explore the epistemological differences in ways that ethnographers themselves understand and respond to the multiple forms of relationality that characterize fieldwork and the challenge this poses to the possibility of a pan-disciplinary consensus on ethnographic research ethics.© 2018, SAGE. This is an author produced version of a paper published in ETHNOGRAPHY uploaded in accordance with the publisher’s self- archiving policy. The final published version (version of record) is available online at the link below. Some minor differences between this version and the final published version may remain. We suggest you refer to the final published version should you wish to cite from it.

AB - Perhaps the most unique feature of ethnographic fieldwork is the distinctive form of relationality it entails, where the ethnographer's identity as a researcher is not fixed in the way typical of most other forms of research. In this paper, I explore how this 'undesigned relationality' is understood, both in procedural ethics frameworks and by the different disciplines that have come to claim a stake in the 'method' itself. Demonstrating that the ethical issues it entails are primarily conceptualized via the lens of the 'dual role', I use this as a means of exploring the ideal relationship between researcher and subject that procedural ethics frameworks are premised upon. I go on to explore the epistemological differences in ways that ethnographers themselves understand and respond to the multiple forms of relationality that characterize fieldwork and the challenge this poses to the possibility of a pan-disciplinary consensus on ethnographic research ethics.© 2018, SAGE. This is an author produced version of a paper published in ETHNOGRAPHY uploaded in accordance with the publisher’s self- archiving policy. The final published version (version of record) is available online at the link below. Some minor differences between this version and the final published version may remain. We suggest you refer to the final published version should you wish to cite from it.

KW - Ethnography

KW - dual roles

KW - research ethics

KW - relationality

KW - disciplinarity

U2 - 10.1177/1466138118807236

DO - 10.1177/1466138118807236

M3 - Article

SN - 1466-1381

VL - 20

SP - 8

EP - 26

JO - Ethnography

JF - Ethnography

IS - 1

ER -