Research Reflectivity Series 0012/25: Making Methodological Decisions – Ethics
Reflecting on Ethical Practice in Human-Centred Research Design
Conducting research that involves working with people means methodological decisions are never merely technical. They are intimately bound up with ethical considerations. At the very heart of these decisions lies the principle of care: recognising participants not as mere data points, but as unique individuals with their own perspectives, emotions, and vulnerabilities. In this post, I reflect on how the ethics of care can shape and guide methodological choices in research, drawing on my own experiences, particularly my doctoral project involving parents sharing their views on assessment, special educational needs (SEN), inclusive education and partnership practice (Grey-Elsharif, 2010) as well as insights from the wider literature.
Understanding Ethics in Human Research
Ethics, at its core, concerns the distinction between right and wrong. Professions that engage directly with people are governed by comprehensive codes of ethics. In my doctoral research, I referenced frameworks such as the British Association of Social Workers (BASW) Code of Ethics for Social Work, the British Educational Research Association, and the British Psychological Society. These provide a robust foundation for respectful and fair research. However, ethical deliberations often extend beyond formal codes, requiring ongoing reflexivity and sensitivity to context.
Incorporating the Ethics of Care
While universal ethical codes generally draw on psychological principles, complementary perspectives such as the African-centred humanist approach and the naturalist standpoint articulated by Patricia H. Collins (2000) offer invaluable additional insights. Collins advocates for an ‘Ethics of Caring and Personal Accountability’, emphasising individual uniqueness, emotional connection, and empathy as central to ethical research. This approach encourages researchers to value personal expressiveness, reason, and credibility, weaving together emotion and rationality in the validation of knowledge. Her code of ethics, rooted in African humanism, contrasts with the psychological basis of many universal codes, offering a distinctive worldview for life history work in sociological research. Collins’ studies of Black feminist epistemology, ontology, and the ‘interlocking nature of oppression’ often associated with ‘intersectionality’ inform my own research standpoint, providing a unique ‘outsider within’ status. This approach also calls for narrating one’s own history, considering how people construct and voice emotions differently (Banks 1998b; Grey-Elsharif 2011).
The advantage of the ‘outsider within’ status is its encouragement of natural relationships with participants and the formation of perceived shared alliances, helping move from ‘them’ to ‘us’ to ‘we’ to instil trust and confidence in the research process. Friendship and empathy help to address power dynamics and foster honest, fluid dialogue.
Essential Methodological Considerations: An Ethics of Care Lens
Adopting an ethics of care means continuously asking: How do my methodological choices affect the wellbeing, dignity, and agency of participants?
- Minimising Harm: Ensuring research does not cause physical or psychological distress, especially when working with vulnerable groups such as some children with SEN or educational difficulties, or some Black mothers/parents with disabilities.
- Informed Consent: Establishing clear agreements so all participants understand the research purpose, process, and their rights, including the freedom to withdraw at any time.
- Anonymity and Confidentiality: Protecting identities throughout the research process, from data collection to dissemination, and negotiating ownership of personal stories transparently.
- Empowering Participants: Being mindful of power dynamics and actively including participants, particularly those from marginalised groups, in shaping the research process and outcomes. This may involve adapting communication methods or providing additional support to ensure genuine participation.
- Reciprocity and Trust: Building relationships founded on trust and integrity and being prepared to advocate for participants should ethical dilemmas, such as safeguarding concerns, arise.
Reflecting on Power and Representation
One of the most challenging aspects of methodological decision-making is navigating power relations between researcher and participant. Life history research, for example, asks individuals to share personal experiences that may be deeply emotive and culturally sensitive. Researchers must remain vigilant, ensuring their methods do not inadvertently reinforce inequities or silence participants’ voices.
Ken Plummer (2001) provides a useful framework for considering the ‘paradigm of methodological problems’, including the ‘personal question’ used to explore the impact of the research process and creativity. This leads to ‘reflective self-analysis’ as one observes, communicates with, and writes about participants, facilitating discovery about oneself through emotional responses and meaning making. To ensure a successful interview process, for instance, it is vital to establish mutual rapport and respect, listening and accepting without judgement, however overwhelming the participants’ stories may be. Reflective questions adapted from Plummer’s work can guide ethical practice:
- How do I balance the benefits to participants with the aims of my research?
- Am I staying true to the original intentions and accurately representing participants’ narratives?
- How do power differences shape what is shared and how it is interpreted?
- Are participants’ meanings, emotions, and identities coming through clearly?
- How does my own position influence the process and outcomes?
Transparency and Honesty in Practice
Deception remains a contentious issue in research ethics. While some argue it is occasionally necessary, my practice has always been to avoid any form of deception. In my project involving parents as participants, I was transparent about my role and responsibilities, setting clear expectations and fostering open dialogue. I made it explicit that participation was voluntary and withdrawal would not affect our relationship or the research. This transparency-built trust and respected participants’ autonomy.
A particularly rewarding aspect came at the end of my doctoral research project, when participants reflected on the impact of the process. One participant, Owen whose son Gary, aged 11, was diagnosed with emotional behavioural difficulties described how the interview process, spanning six hours over six months, helped clarify his thoughts and empowered him to take a more proactive role in his son’s education:
“The research process is incredible. I have found that where I was previously unclear about my thoughts and experiences of my son’s education, the questions presented to me have helped to focus my mind and look at things more objectively; for instance, about a situation I want to see more clearly. The interviews have provided me with space to grapple with problems. Not knowing where you are with a problem is difficult. I have used this time given by you to think how to get an angle or grasp the situation shared with you. Also, I recognise my own influence on the problem and the perceived perception of teachers and other people looking in at the situation.
…the manner in which you presented the research was uplifting and supportive with managing my thoughts and understandings of my experiences more clearly. I feel that the research role has very much empowered me into thinking how to manage my son’s education. Previously, I wanted to put things about Gary’s education at the back of my mind. Talking about the experiences has forced me to consider concerns in a way that I really need to think about them in a clearer manner, this included, firming up the problem of concern, seeing Gary’s teachers, talking to Gary’s mother, working with Gary, and attending meetings in his school…
…I have been more proactive recently. I am now thinking and planning what I am going to do next when participating in my children’s education. For example, I do not want Gary to go to the secondary school placement offered, and I am investigating changing his placement. I am now thinking more clearly about my role with Gary’s education and reflecting on actions of concern.”
Owen’s feedback highlighted the value of being listened to during the research process, supported, and encouraged to reflect leading to meaningful change in his approach and outlook.
Furthermore, the post-interviewing process involved sending a thank you letter and handmade card to participants, summarising achievements and outlining the next stages. This update, sent in December and annually thereafter until the project’s completion, reflected my commitment to professionalism and the ethics of care. Keeping participants informed fostered continued engagement and reinforced the value of their contribution.
Conclusion: Making Methodological Decisions with Care and Reflection
Methodological decisions in research are never value neutral. By centring the ethics of care, researchers can navigate complex dilemmas with empathy, accountability, and respect. This approach requires recognising participants lived realities, safeguarding their wellbeing, and sharing power wherever possible. Ultimately, an ethical and caring stance not only enriches the research process but also enhances the quality and relevance of knowledge produced, ensuring our work remains attuned to humanity at its core.
A caring and ethical approach elevates both research and its outcomes. Above all, it keeps us attentive to the humanity within our work. A ‘target-rich research environment’ should be inviting and warm, symbolising empathy, trust, and empowerment the very essence of the ethics of care and a culturally inclusive methodological approach.
It is widely recognised as an important principle of good research practice for researchers to value and build on the knowledge that participants contribute. This suggested to me that the research process should be treated as a ‘self-directed social process’ which consciously addresses the balance of power between researcher and researched. A key aim is to create an empowering research framework in which participants help shape the process with their own input. Research approaches must evidence the heterogeneity and diversity of people’s life histories.
Research in Action: A Reflective Question
As you reflect on your own methodological choices, consider: What steps can you take to genuinely empower your participants and foster equitable, trusting research relationships?
Call to Action
If you would like to find out more, or discuss any of the topics in this article, including your training needs, then do get in touch with Janet via janet@spicesacademicconsultancy.com; www.spicesacademicconsultancy.com; SPICES Academic Consultancy, P.O. Box 16374, B69 9FA, UK.
References
Banks, J. (1998b). The lives and values of researchers: implications for educating citizens in a multicultural society. Educational researchers. 27,7, 4 –17.
British Association of Social Workers. A Code of Ethics for Social Work (1994) Handout University of Central England in Birmingham.
British Psychological Society. Ethical Principles for Conducting Research with Human Participants. Handout (2001). The University of Birmingham.
Collins, P. (2000). Black feminist thought, Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment. Routledge.
Grey-Elsharif, J. (2010). Understanding Parents’ Perspectives on Inclusive Education and Partnership Practice: A Life History Approach. Ph.D. Thesis: University of Birmingham.
Grey-Elsharif, J. (2011). The Invisible Narrator, Turning up the Volume and Telling Parents’ Life Stories, As They Know It. Women in Philosophy of Education Seminar Paper. University of Edinburgh.
Plummer, K. (2001). Documents of life 2: an invitation to a critical humanism, London: Sage.
