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. Keywords ethnography, research ethics, dual roles, disciplinarity, relationality 'In this approach [ethnography], there is a profound acknowledgement of the relationality of the human subject. Furthermore, to talk of the "field" is to talk of an entity which is itself relational and not merely spatial' ~ Bob Simpson (2011) 'Ethnographic knowledge is always relational, the product of multiple crosscutting conversations across diverse contexts' ~ Huon Wardle and Paloma Gay y Blasco (2011)