Learning Objectives
By the end of this section, you will be able to:
- Critically evaluate the epistemic power associated with knowledge production
- Consider the ethical implications associated with publishing one’s research
Given the differences in the way qualitative and quantitative scholars tend to approach political research, what constitutes ethical practice may seem to operate differently as well. For example, due to the reliance on statistics, many students of political science may mistakenly believe that the quantitative method is always transparent, objective and, therefore, ethical as opposed to the qualitative method where the reliance on human communications and interactions is thought to always be subjective. The quantification of political data involves human processes where there are plenty of opportunities for the product (i.e., dataset) to be biased, especially when such a process is not transparent. Conversely, a series of interviews for the purpose of data collection for qualitative scholars can be conducted in such a way to reduce potential biases in the processes. These claims about whether qualitative or qualitative approaches are better suited for minimizing biases and upholding the standard of objectivity may be rooted in the idea that the primary, and for some, only, purpose of political research is to make inferences about the political world.
Smith (Smith and Renwick Monroe 2005) notes that part of the reason why there is this type of methodological dispute is because political scientists have not agreed on what makes good political science research. He argues that while inference testing is essential to political science research, such an endeavor requires substantively interesting questions and hypotheses about the political world. As such, political science, as a discipline, needs to reconsider the notion that both qualitative and quantitative approaches are essential, for the formation of substantively interesting hypotheses and questions and the improvement of our analytical technique are both critical in the advancement of the field. Because of the differences in the nature of both approaches, it is essential to approach the discussion on the standard of ethical practice accordingly as well. In other words, some ethical standards can be more or less relevant to each approach because of the differences in how data are collected and analyzed.
As noted in the previous chapter, findings from political science research often become a basis for political and social changes that have serious real-life implications. Unless the practitioners of political research, whether they are qualitatively or quantitatively oriented, conduct their research in an ethical manner, the integrity of the discipline as well as policies being produced based on our research, for example, could face serious challenges. Because political scientists are thought to be experts on political and social problems to some extent, we have some perceived authority on these issues. As a result, when we make some claims about political and social issues in the public sphere, it may carry some weight than an individual’s opinion, for example, on various political issues.
Academics have and reproduce what Audie Klutz and Cecelia Lynch (Klotz and Lynch 2007) refer to as “epistemic power,” through the knowledge we generate as researches and disseminate through writing and lecturing. Consequently, we can never be entirely value-neutral or eliminate our personal biases as we replicate or challenge the assumptions of our discipline through our scholarship and our individual methodological choices (Klotz and Lynch 2007). From using translators in the field to employing professional services to transcribe interviews, we must take great pains to consider the potential for bias to creep into our analysis, to not misrepresent our study’s participants, and to always consider their wellbeing.
Therefore, when one begins to analyze what they have learned in the field and prepare to share their findings, it is important to offer reflections on instances where one’s fieldwork resulted in dissonance with their initial theoretical framework and where our interviewees challenged and/or enriched the initial line of inquiry (Yanow and Schwartz-Shea 2011). For example, the reflexive approach mentioned in the previous section is also useful when the researcher is analyzing their data. This includes strategies such as “member checking,” in which findings are discussed with those studied in the field. This does not deny or undermine the researcher’s epistemological role, but rather acts as a strategy for addressing the dynamics associated with a researcher’s subjectivities (i.e. confirmation bias). Ultimately this is your study, and it would be unwise to let your participants editorialize your findings. However, if a quote or the like might make them uncomfortable, misrepresent their meaning, or worse, we must take this under consideration.
Lastly, when it comes to publication, it is argued that qualitative researchers in particular have an ethical reasonability to consider how this research will be used, given the trust, intimacy, and potential for human impact this chapter has addressed (Gibbs 2008). In this final stage of research, it is ethically important to reflect on how this information may impact those that made the researcher’s study possible in the first place. Indeed, many research agendas pertaining to sensitive topics that might put the researcher and/or their participants in danger. Therefore, many interviews and surveys must not only be conducted on the basis of anonymity, the original data stored in a secure location, but also evaluated now that all the pieces of the puzzle have come together and are almost ready for publication.
For instance, publishing and sharing one’s findings may entail information and/or quotations for which the research is ethically unable to provide full citations based on confidential interviews, field, and participant observations. As subsequent researchers may therefore be unable to replicate our findings, effectively using quotes and accounts from anonymous subjects is often dependent on such data being shared by more than one person or sources. Another way to bolster the credibility of anonymous sources is triangulating their accounts and linking them in the analyses with contextual information (e.g. “according to several soldiers involved in the conflict”). Once again, being transparent as possible entails a delicate balance between protecting our human subjects and the integrity of our research.
Congratulations, your study is published and the colleagues who cite your work continue to grow in number! Nevertheless, it is unlikely that the study’s participants that made your accolades possible subscribe to the American Journal of Political Science. Indeed, researchers are routinely criticized for failing to bring the study’s findings back to the individuals/community under investigation, if not providing it in such a way that they can understand, use, or verify. Ethically, we should avoid being parasitic with our work and strive to bring something of value back to the community and/or persons that made your study possible. This may seem like an onerous last step with little instrumental reward, but as this chapter as endeavored to point out, when you conduct and report your research ethically, “you join a community in search for some common good...you discover that research focused on the best interest of others is also your own” (Booth, Colomb, and Williams 2008).
