Political research is inherently ethically and politically suspect, raising legitimate questions about power and values rather than being invalid. Research relationships feature structural power asymmetries, unpredictable harms, and compromised consent. Fujii (2012) highlights the power imbalance between researcher and researched, where consent is influenced by social pressure or perceived benefits, and Pachirat (2009) shows neutrality is an illusion.
Unpredictable harms, like exposing civilians in conflict zones to retaliation (Wood 2006), make truly informed consent unattainable, as participants cannot be fully informed about uncertain outcomes. Political commitments are also embedded throughout research via paradigm choice (Kuhn 1996), category construction (Wacquant 2002, Biruk 2018), and positioned interpretation, shaping legitimate questions. Even randomized controlled trials (RCTs), despite claims of methodological neutrality and strong causal inference (Dunning 2008), remain suspect. Noble et al.’s (2025) study on cash transfers to vulnerable mothers exemplifies this, as participants' consent is compromised by their desperate need, and the control group experiences deprivation by design.
No comments:
Post a Comment