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

• Published in: Ethnography Vol. 20; no. 1; pp. 8 - 26
• Main Author: Bell, Kirsten
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: London, England Sage Publications, Ltd 01.03.2019; SAGE Publications; Sage Publications Ltd
• Subjects: Epistemology; Ethics; Ethnography; Field study; Fieldwork; Research ethics; Researcher subject relations; Researchers; relationality; research ethics; disciplinarity; dual roles; ethnography
• ISSN: 1466-1381; 1741-2714
• DOI: 10.1177/1466138118807236

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.