Dialogical Research Design: Practising Ethical, Useful and Safe(r) Research

ABSTRACT

This article explores the potential merits of a dialogical research design and practice, and how this might alleviate the harmful effects of doing research in vulnerable contexts. A dialogical approach suggests that the study of social phenomena should follow the logic of co-being, the understanding of radical interdependency and empathetic relationships when it comes to onto-epistemological commitments but also during the practical research steps. This article studies how dialogue is translated into theoretical and practical steps that allows for research that is integrally ethical, useful and safe(r). First, the dialogical research design helps prevent and/or minimise potential psychological challenges for the researcher as it aims from the start to ensure that the research project would have a positive impact. Positive impact translates into contextually negotiated ideas of what the research should achieve and ‘give back’ to the researched. The conceptual work done by a dialogical research design enables us to envisage more empathetic encounters with the researched and leave room for their perspectives. Next, the article discusses two practical steps – assembling a local project board and talking to a psychologist – that help reimagine our research process. The article concludes with a reflection on how a holistic dialogical approach, combining the conceptual with the practical, makes research less harmful for both parties to research.

KEYWORDS:

• Dialogical research design
• local project board
• (self-)care
• fieldwork chats

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1. This work takes inspiration from the august body of work in relational sociology (esp. Selg 2018; Go 2018) and also finds energy from Vastapuu’s concept of curious contrapuntalism that shows enthusiasm for ‘multi-layered world atlas of plots, narratives and perspectives that does not aim to simplify and generalise, but rather make visible (the complex reality)’ (2018, 10; cf. Ling 2014).

2. In a very practical way, Vastapuu, practising feminist research, demonstrates how to cultivate more equitable ways of seeing (see her contribution in Wibben et al. 2018; Vastapuu 2018; see also Kappler and Lemay-Hébert 2019).

3. Epistemic violence/injustice entails the logic of speaking on behalf of rather than speaking to/with. This means that knowledge claims are confined to certain actors deemed worthy and important whereas some actors’ (e.g. the subaltern) claims are dismissed, distorted and/or muted (see Spivak 1988).

4. It is continually emphasised that doing research safely and ethically should not be seen as an individual exercise, rather it is a shared activity. For instance, organisational factors, such as education and preparation, workloads, support and effective supervision, are crucial in laying the groundwork for both ethical and safe research (e.g. Coles and Mudaly 2010).

5. Vocal, yet to the point, Fine critiques knowledge production that does not query the sinewy relations at the heart of it: ‘epistemological masturbation can cause blindness; self-pleasuring with one’s own canon of knowledge/research can blind us to the colonial histories, structures and the perverse consequences of seemingly neutral policies’ (2016a, 357).

6. The complexities and messiness of the relationship between researcher-researched in its various phases (from negotiating access to interpretation), is thoughtfully tackled in Kurowska (2019).

7. Fujii argues for a more humanist approach (as opposed instrumentalist) toward fieldwork. As she puts it, ‘a humanist stance would encourage the researcher to see others (as well as herself) as human beings deserving of respect and dignity’ (2016, 1151).

8. There is a certain power imbalance between researcher-researched and even though this is not a static relationship, it needs to be negotiated and made visible (Kappler 2013; Ackerly and True 2008). In my research I was not able to include research participants from the design phase and therefore the scaffold of the research has been tilted towards my interpretations. From the start I have been aware of my privileged and outsiders’ lens, which has affected whom I have been able to speak with (the access to Syrian interlocutors/contextual material has been limited, inter alia, due to my language skills). Acknowledging this, I have tried to negotiate (in an ongoing process) these power imbalances by adopting a more collaborative knowledge production strategy (e.g. starting from diverse local (conflict) knowledges when seeking contextual nuance on Syria, employing interview techniques and a research frame that leaves space for the research participants’ interpretations; if and when feasible going back to the researched to check and discuss interpretations and offer space for alternative readings, e.g. I have tentatively agreed that I will co-produce an analysis of Syrian protest-art together with a Syrian artist/activist). For further details on how to interrogate the power dynamics within the research process, consult e.g. Linabary and Hamel (2017); Temple and Moran (2011).

9. For similar approaches see Nagar (2014), Močnik (2018), and see Torre et al. (2018).

10. See Fujii for ways in which one can practice relational research (2018) but see also Yanow and Schwartz-Shea (2015); Sylvester (1994); Ackerley and True (2008); Wibben et al. (2018).

11. If I initiated this format together with a colleague, I am now very glad to see that it has become a truly co-owned experiment, while in its early stages still, it is infused with collaborative spirit and care.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Estonian Research Council grant [PUTJD760].

Notes on contributors

Birgit Poopuu

Birgit Poopuu is currently a post-doctoral researcher at the University of Tartu and Aberystwyth University (1 September 2018 to 1 September 2020), where she is working on her research project titled: ‘The Politics of Peace and Conflict Knowledge: Syria and the Diverse Landscape of Local Knowledge/Experience.’ She holds a PhD from the University of Tartu and has published and lectured on EU’s peacebuilding. Birgit has just published her book titled The European Union’s Brand of Peacebuilding: Acting is Everything (Palgrave Macmillan’s Rethinking Peace and Conflict Studies Series).