Reflections on the Researcher-Participant Relationship and the Ethics of Dialogue

Abstract

Research concerned with human beings is always an interference of some kind, thus posing ethical dilemmas that need justification of procedures and methodologies. It is especially true in social work when facing mostly sensitive populations and sensitive issues. In the process of conducting a research on the emotional life histories of Israeli men who batter their partners, some serious ethical questions were evoked such as (a) Did the participants really give their consent? (b) What are the limits of the researcher-participants relationship and who decides them? (c) For whom is the study beneficial? and (d) To what degree did the methodology fit with the participants? In this article, I discuss the Socratic idea of truth revealed through dialogue and the idea of reciprocity that was developed in Buber's (1949) ethics of dialogue and Habermas' (1990) communicative ethics. The 3 essential conclusions drawn from the ethical questions raised and the discussion of the thinkers that are mentioned previously are (a) dialogical methodology is ethically justified; (b) dynamic interactions give a more holistic perspective of the human nature, thus enriching the field; and (c) through dialogical methodology both researcher and participant profit from growth of knowledge, which is a key for empowerment and change.

“Only if she is sexy”

“…The relationship is no less influenced by the female researcher's perception of the place of the participants, her research partners, and, of course, their personality. The participant's socioeconomic background, his worldview, his objectives, his motives for participating in the research, and his perception of the female researcher's place vis-à -vis his own place in the relationship, all influence the relationship formed between the female researcher and the participants (Yassour- Borochowitz, 2004;Karnielli-Miller et al, 2009).…”

Principles, virtues and care: ethical dilemmas in research with male sex offenders

“…However, the epistemological assumptions and methodological practises of this approach to social science research have been subject to sustained critique, particularly from feminist (Code, 2006;Harding, 1991Harding, , 1998Harding, , 2006Lennon & Whitford, 1994) and postmodern (Burr, 1995;Gergen, 1985Gergen, , 2000Lather, 1992;Shotter, 1993Shotter, ,1995 philosophers and social scientists. A key part of the critique has focused on the nature of objectivity and consequences this has for the personal conduct of qualitative research and in particular recognition of the dialogical processes in data collection (Yassour-Borochowitz, 2004).…”

How Close Is Too Close? Balancing Closeness And Detachment In Qualitative Research

“…Researchers have helped research participants enter therapy (Yassour-Borochowitz 2004), obtain employment (Marquart 2003), purchased groceries for research participants (Taylor 1991), paid their bills (Fleisher 1998), provided child care to respondents' children, loaned their car or phone when asked, and allowed respondents to live with them (Adler and Adler 1991), or even sent books and money to an incarcerated research participant (Vanderstaay 2005).…”