Pub Date : 2026-02-11DOI: 10.1016/j.metip.2026.100235
Katie Graham
In this critical commentary I reflect on and explore the practice of anonymising research participants. This commentary is grounded in a quote from a participant within my research who expressed a specific wish to be known. Using this quote, I explore the complexities related to participant anonymity within research, including considerations of paternalism, acknowledgment of contributions, risks of abuse, and understanding of research outputs. I present participant anonymity as neither good nor bad, but as complex. I call for a shift in practice related to participant anonymity, from an assumed norm to a considered research practice. I conclude this commentary with some reflective prompts to facilitate this consideration.
{"title":"“It's important to me to be known”: A critical commentary calling for anonymity to be a considered research practice","authors":"Katie Graham","doi":"10.1016/j.metip.2026.100235","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.metip.2026.100235","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>In this critical commentary I reflect on and explore the practice of anonymising research participants. This commentary is grounded in a quote from a participant within my research who expressed a specific wish to be known. Using this quote, I explore the complexities related to participant anonymity within research, including considerations of paternalism, acknowledgment of contributions, risks of abuse, and understanding of research outputs. I present participant anonymity as neither good nor bad, but as complex. I call for a shift in practice related to participant anonymity, from an assumed norm to a considered research practice. I conclude this commentary with some reflective prompts to facilitate this consideration.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":93338,"journal":{"name":"Methods in Psychology (Online)","volume":"14 ","pages":"Article 100235"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2026-02-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146189138","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2026-02-02DOI: 10.1016/j.metip.2026.100233
Trut Thuy Pham , Thanh Thao Le
Why read this, and what do you get? This manifesto names Writing-With as a stance for scholarly writing that treats analysis and writing as co-moving, less a sequence than a recursive relation. We argue that staying with texts through returns can slow the rush to finality, soften mastery, and cultivate relational accountability in how we read, cite, and craft claims. Grounded in our collaborative work with university teachers in Vietnamese higher education, we offer four refusals (of speed, separation, fixity, and seamless mastery) and four offerings (depth without distance, co-thinking, saturation-as-opening, and writing-as-relation).
{"title":"Writing-With: A manifesto for reflective entanglement","authors":"Trut Thuy Pham , Thanh Thao Le","doi":"10.1016/j.metip.2026.100233","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.metip.2026.100233","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Why read this, and what do you get? This manifesto names <em>Writing-With</em> as a stance for scholarly writing that treats analysis and writing as co-moving, less a sequence than a recursive relation. We argue that staying with texts through returns can slow the rush to finality, soften mastery, and cultivate relational accountability in how we read, cite, and craft claims. Grounded in our collaborative work with university teachers in Vietnamese higher education, we offer four refusals (of speed, separation, fixity, and seamless mastery) and four offerings (depth without distance, co-thinking, saturation-as-opening, and writing-as-relation).</div></div>","PeriodicalId":93338,"journal":{"name":"Methods in Psychology (Online)","volume":"14 ","pages":"Article 100233"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2026-02-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146189135","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2026-01-28DOI: 10.1016/j.metip.2026.100232
Kyra Göbel , Annette Kluge
Research on intentional forgetting is relevant for a wide range of applied contexts such as clinical psychology, work and organizational psychology and in everyday live as well. In view of the increasing amount of digital data and information overload, staying focused and working effectively are growing problems in the world of work. These issues are assumed to be mitigated by mechanisms of intentional forgetting. The present paper presents a collection and overview of methods used and results achieved in the priority programme Intentional Forgetting in Organizations funded by the DFG (SPP1921) and its subprojects. We start with addressing the research questions of the individual tandems involved, clustering and sketching their various methods for capturing intentional forgetting. In the next step, the different methodological approaches are differentiated from each other, and specific, context-related advantages and disadvantages are elaborated (method differentiation). Based on this, recommendations for action are developed to facilitate the choice of the appropriate method for future, thematically similar research projects (method recommendation). The paper also intends to provide a collection of materials, such as newly developed experiments, questionnaires, and stimulus materials.
{"title":"Comparing Methods to Study Intentional Forgetting in the Lab and in the Field: Insights and Recommendations","authors":"Kyra Göbel , Annette Kluge","doi":"10.1016/j.metip.2026.100232","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.metip.2026.100232","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Research on intentional forgetting is relevant for a wide range of applied contexts such as clinical psychology, work and organizational psychology and in everyday live as well. In view of the increasing amount of digital data and information overload, staying focused and working effectively are growing problems in the world of work. These issues are assumed to be mitigated by mechanisms of intentional forgetting. The present paper presents a collection and overview of methods used and results achieved in the priority programme <em>Intentional Forgetting in Organizations</em> funded by the DFG (SPP1921) and its subprojects. We start with addressing the research questions of the individual tandems involved, clustering and sketching their various methods for capturing intentional forgetting. In the next step, the different methodological approaches are differentiated from each other, and specific, context-related advantages and disadvantages are elaborated (method differentiation). Based on this, recommendations for action are developed to facilitate the choice of the appropriate method for future, thematically similar research projects (method recommendation). The paper also intends to provide a collection of materials, such as newly developed experiments, questionnaires, and stimulus materials.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":93338,"journal":{"name":"Methods in Psychology (Online)","volume":"14 ","pages":"Article 100232"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2026-01-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146189136","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2026-01-28DOI: 10.1016/j.metip.2026.100234
Zoë Boden-Stuart , Rose Thompson
Contributing to arguments about the impact of research on researchers, we reconsider three key ethical concepts – protection from harm, informed consent, and the right to withdraw. We ask how can protection from harm be equally applied to all? How might researchers be given the opportunity to think seriously about what they are consenting to? What might ethical endings look like for researchers who wish to withdraw from their research? In asking these questions, we interrogate what it means to be ‘professional’ in qualitative research, and support calls for a ‘cultures of care’ approach and dynamic, process-oriented ethical procedures.
{"title":"Ethical research for all: Protection from harm, informed consent and the right to withdraw for qualitative researchers","authors":"Zoë Boden-Stuart , Rose Thompson","doi":"10.1016/j.metip.2026.100234","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.metip.2026.100234","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Contributing to arguments about the impact of research on researchers, we reconsider three key ethical concepts – protection from harm, informed consent, and the right to withdraw. We ask how can protection from harm be equally applied to all? How might researchers be given the opportunity to think seriously about what they are consenting to? What might ethical endings look like for researchers who wish to withdraw from their research? In asking these questions, we interrogate what it means to be ‘professional’ in qualitative research, and support calls for a ‘cultures of care’ approach and dynamic, process-oriented ethical procedures.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":93338,"journal":{"name":"Methods in Psychology (Online)","volume":"14 ","pages":"Article 100234"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2026-01-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146189139","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2026-01-22DOI: 10.1016/j.metip.2026.100231
Peyton D. Perduyn, Yan Zhang, Qi Chen
Although multilevel modeling is widely used, clear guidance on probing higher-order interactions remains scarce. This paper offers a concise, practitioner-friendly walkthrough of post-hoc probing of three-way cross-level interactions in longitudinal three-level MLMs across five leading statistical packages (R, HLM 8, SAS, Stata, and Mplus). Using the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study 2011 dataset (∼17,000 students nested within 1900 schools across nine waves), we show, step-by-step, how to compute simple slopes and six slope-difference contrasts for the Time ∗ Approaches-to-Learning ∗ School-Sector interaction in each program. All platforms yield virtually identical estimates; minor deviations in standard errors do not alter statistical conclusions. By collating syntax and interpretation in one place, the paper equips applied researchers to replicate and report rigorous three-way interaction probes irrespective of software choice.
{"title":"Slope-difference testing of three-way interactions in longitudinal multilevel models across five statistical packages","authors":"Peyton D. Perduyn, Yan Zhang, Qi Chen","doi":"10.1016/j.metip.2026.100231","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.metip.2026.100231","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Although multilevel modeling is widely used, clear guidance on probing higher-order interactions remains scarce. This paper offers a concise, practitioner-friendly walkthrough of post-hoc probing of three-way cross-level interactions in longitudinal three-level MLMs across five leading statistical packages (R, HLM 8, SAS, Stata, and M<em>plus</em>). Using the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study 2011 dataset (∼17,000 students nested within 1900 schools across nine waves), we show, step-by-step, how to compute simple slopes and six slope-difference contrasts for the Time ∗ Approaches-to-Learning ∗ School-Sector interaction in each program. All platforms yield virtually identical estimates; minor deviations in standard errors do not alter statistical conclusions. By collating syntax and interpretation in one place, the paper equips applied researchers to replicate and report rigorous three-way interaction probes irrespective of software choice.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":93338,"journal":{"name":"Methods in Psychology (Online)","volume":"14 ","pages":"Article 100231"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2026-01-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146189140","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2026-01-21DOI: 10.1016/j.metip.2026.100230
Julia Doornbos , Bettina van Hoven
Various scholars have discussed how ‘sensitive research’ or working with ‘vulnerable populations’ raises significant ethical considerations. While a feminist ethics of care can ensure a more respectful approach to scientific inquiry, it may also disempower participants through paternalistic research practices. Illustrated by actual research situations, we explore specific instances of practising care in our participatory research with people with disabilities in the Netherlands. By drawing on our personal reflections and those of the co-researchers with disabilities, we aim to contribute to rethinking ethics of care in participatory research and in working with people with disabilities or other ‘vulnerable populations’. We argue that similar research with both vulnerabilities and opportunities for enabling research practices requires care-full and slow methodologies. Within such slow research, a collective interdependence and responsibility can be attended to, surpassing solely procedural forms of research ethics and neoliberal logics.
{"title":"“Research is temporary, our experiences are forever”: rethinking ethics of care in participatory research with people with disabilities","authors":"Julia Doornbos , Bettina van Hoven","doi":"10.1016/j.metip.2026.100230","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.metip.2026.100230","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Various scholars have discussed how ‘sensitive research’ or working with ‘vulnerable populations’ raises significant ethical considerations. While a feminist ethics of care can ensure a more respectful approach to scientific inquiry, it may also disempower participants through paternalistic research practices. Illustrated by actual research situations, we explore specific instances of practising care in our participatory research with people with disabilities in the Netherlands. By drawing on our personal reflections and those of the co-researchers with disabilities, we aim to contribute to rethinking ethics of care in participatory research and in working with people with disabilities or other ‘vulnerable populations’. We argue that similar research with both vulnerabilities and opportunities for enabling research practices requires care-full and slow methodologies. Within such slow research, a collective interdependence and responsibility can be attended to, surpassing solely procedural forms of research ethics and neoliberal logics.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":93338,"journal":{"name":"Methods in Psychology (Online)","volume":"14 ","pages":"Article 100230"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2026-01-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146189137","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2026-01-20DOI: 10.1016/j.metip.2026.100229
Marta Prandelli
This article examines the ethical complexities of conducting qualitative research in highly medicalised settings involved in the healthcare of people with innate variations of sex characteristics (VSC). Drawing on a series of qualitative studies conducted across different European clinical contexts, I show how institutional norms, epistemic hierarchies, and researcher positionality shape the terrain of ethical practice in environments historically structured by pathologisation, epistemic injustice, and institutional opacity. While procedures such as informed consent and ethical review remain essential, they are insufficient for navigating the relational and affective tensions that characterise VSC-related research.
Integrating insights from feminist science studies, agential realism, epistemic injustice theory, and critical intersex scholarship, I develop response-ability as a situated ethical orientation. Rather than an individualised stance, response-ability foregrounds how researchers and research worlds emerge through intra-action, and how ethical obligations take shape within shifting configurations of credibility, trust, and institutional power.
The analysis is structured around three interconnected vignettes: (1) Rethinking responsibility, which illustrates how ethical authority is negotiated within clinical hierarchies; (2) Consent beyond the form, which explores how participation is shaped by affective trust, institutional risk, and professional vulnerability; and (3) Researcher role and institutional belonging, which traces how legitimacy and access are continually reconfigured across disciplinary, linguistic, and cultural boundaries. Together, these reflections argue for an ethics of situated accountability: one that is relational, temporal, and attentive to the uneven distribution of interpretive authority in VSC-related healthcare. The article concludes with a set of practical considerations for researchers working in this field and in other sensitive clinical contexts.
{"title":"Ethics beyond the form: Response-ability in intersex healthcare research","authors":"Marta Prandelli","doi":"10.1016/j.metip.2026.100229","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.metip.2026.100229","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>This article examines the ethical complexities of conducting qualitative research in highly medicalised settings involved in the healthcare of people with innate variations of sex characteristics (VSC). Drawing on a series of qualitative studies conducted across different European clinical contexts, I show how institutional norms, epistemic hierarchies, and researcher positionality shape the terrain of ethical practice in environments historically structured by pathologisation, epistemic injustice, and institutional opacity. While procedures such as informed consent and ethical review remain essential, they are insufficient for navigating the relational and affective tensions that characterise VSC-related research.</div><div>Integrating insights from feminist science studies, agential realism, epistemic injustice theory, and critical intersex scholarship, I develop response-ability as a situated ethical orientation. Rather than an individualised stance, response-ability foregrounds how researchers and research worlds emerge through intra-action, and how ethical obligations take shape within shifting configurations of credibility, trust, and institutional power.</div><div>The analysis is structured around three interconnected vignettes: (1) <em>Rethinking responsibility,</em> which illustrates how ethical authority is negotiated within clinical hierarchies; (2) <em>Consent beyond the form</em>, which explores how participation is shaped by affective trust, institutional risk, and professional vulnerability; and (3) <em>Researcher role and institutional belonging</em>, which traces how legitimacy and access are continually reconfigured across disciplinary, linguistic, and cultural boundaries. Together, these reflections argue for an ethics of situated accountability: one that is relational, temporal, and attentive to the uneven distribution of interpretive authority in VSC-related healthcare. The article concludes with a set of practical considerations for researchers working in this field and in other sensitive clinical contexts.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":93338,"journal":{"name":"Methods in Psychology (Online)","volume":"14 ","pages":"Article 100229"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2026-01-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146037732","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2026-01-19DOI: 10.1016/j.metip.2026.100228
Laura Ibrayeva , Manat Sergazina , Anara Burambayeva , Aiida Kulsary , Daniel Hernández-Torrano
This collaborative ethnographic study explores the dynamics of conducting research with young children focusing on data collection at kindergartens, where working with vulnerable populations requires distinct ethical and methodological adaptations. It addresses the adjustments necessary to maintain research integrity while adapting to practical obstacles and cultural contexts. Drawing on insights from a study examining young children's positive experiences and well-being in Kazakhstan, the article presents data gathered from (1) individual reflections, (2) collaborative face-to-face reflection session, (3) autoethnographic individual journal entries capturing co-author-coparticipants’ emotions and feelings related to data collection, and (4) informal WhatsApp discussions among researchers after data collection sessions. Adopting Gibbs' (1988) reflective writing model, this study captures the research team's evolving process, the challenges they confronted, and the lessons they learned. Our main focus is on synthesizing our experiences to offer valuable insights and practical guidance to researchers entering similar contexts where empirical research involving human participants, particularly young children, is relatively new and emerging. The study examines how the researchers describe their experiences in early childhood educational settings and emphasizes the importance of culturally sensitive approaches to enhance data collection and ethics practices. These insights contribute to early childhood research and offer broader guidance for culturally responsive research practices involving human participants in similar emerging contexts.
{"title":"How to conduct ethical research with young children: Insights from a reflexive collaborative autoethnography","authors":"Laura Ibrayeva , Manat Sergazina , Anara Burambayeva , Aiida Kulsary , Daniel Hernández-Torrano","doi":"10.1016/j.metip.2026.100228","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.metip.2026.100228","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>This collaborative ethnographic study explores the dynamics of conducting research with young children focusing on data collection at kindergartens, where working with vulnerable populations requires distinct ethical and methodological adaptations. It addresses the adjustments necessary to maintain research integrity while adapting to practical obstacles and cultural contexts. Drawing on insights from a study examining young children's positive experiences and well-being in Kazakhstan, the article presents data gathered from (1) individual reflections, (2) collaborative face-to-face reflection session, (3) autoethnographic individual journal entries capturing co-author-coparticipants’ emotions and feelings related to data collection, and (4) informal WhatsApp discussions among researchers after data collection sessions. Adopting Gibbs' (1988) reflective writing model, this study captures the research team's evolving process, the challenges they confronted, and the lessons they learned. Our main focus is on synthesizing our experiences to offer valuable insights and practical guidance to researchers entering similar contexts where empirical research involving human participants, particularly young children, is relatively new and emerging. The study examines how the researchers describe their experiences in early childhood educational settings and emphasizes the importance of culturally sensitive approaches to enhance data collection and ethics practices. These insights contribute to early childhood research and offer broader guidance for culturally responsive research practices involving human participants in similar emerging contexts.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":93338,"journal":{"name":"Methods in Psychology (Online)","volume":"14 ","pages":"Article 100228"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2026-01-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146078117","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Despite the growing call for inclusivity in developmental psychology, there remains a scarcity of methodological guidance. We address this gap through a reflexive case study based on our qualitative research in South African autism schools. The paper explores an educational context, recognising schools as key sites for applying core ideas in developmental psychology (an area significantly neglected in Global South research). By elucidating our research approach within a study focusing on the experiences of predominantly Black participants, we illuminate the importance of ethical research considerations at the intersectionality of autism and race. We ask: How can qualitative approaches be harnessed to ethically represent local knowledge? Through reflecting upon our research that entailed deep immersion in 12 South African pre-school classrooms in three public autism schools, we put forward four principles of inclusive research practices: 1) Making visible positionality in Southern-led collective scholarship, 2) Nourishing respectful collaborative partnerships with Southern organisations, 3) Building trusting relationships, and 4) Engaging in research as co-creation and dialogue. Through this, we explore experiences and tensions with ethics committees across the South African and British contexts. We also address working with historically vulnerable and underrepresented communities, ensuring the sharing of knowledge and materials in a collaborative and culturally sensitive manner. These principles provide a framework to help researchers navigate similar studies in Global South contexts.
{"title":"Qualitative approaches to developmental psychology: negotiating power, ethics, and geographies when researching in South African schools for autistic children","authors":"Stephanie Katharina Nowack , Nidhi Singal , Jenny Louise Gibson , John-Joe Dawson-Squibb","doi":"10.1016/j.metip.2026.100226","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.metip.2026.100226","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Despite the growing call for inclusivity in developmental psychology, there remains a scarcity of methodological guidance. We address this gap through a reflexive case study based on our qualitative research in South African autism schools. The paper explores an educational context, recognising schools as key sites for applying core ideas in developmental psychology (an area significantly neglected in Global South research). By elucidating our research approach within a study focusing on the experiences of predominantly Black participants, we illuminate the importance of ethical research considerations at the intersectionality of autism and race. We ask: How can qualitative approaches be harnessed to ethically represent local knowledge? Through reflecting upon our research that entailed deep immersion in 12 South African pre-school classrooms in three public autism schools, we put forward four principles of inclusive research practices: 1) Making visible positionality in Southern-led collective scholarship, 2) Nourishing respectful collaborative partnerships with Southern organisations, 3) Building trusting relationships, and 4) Engaging in research as co-creation and dialogue. Through this, we explore experiences and tensions with ethics committees across the South African and British contexts. We also address working with historically vulnerable and underrepresented communities, ensuring the sharing of knowledge and materials in a collaborative and culturally sensitive manner. These principles provide a framework to help researchers navigate similar studies in Global South contexts.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":93338,"journal":{"name":"Methods in Psychology (Online)","volume":"14 ","pages":"Article 100226"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2026-01-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146078116","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2026-01-14DOI: 10.1016/j.metip.2026.100227
Carolyn Heward, Wendy Wen Li
Qualitative research with military populations presents distinctive ethical challenges that existing bioethics frameworks inadequately address. Military personnel exist within institutional hierarchies where obedience, loyalty, and collective values systematically constrain individual autonomy, creating conditions where traditional concepts of informed consent and voluntary participation become problematic. This paper examines these ethical complexities through reflexive analysis of conducting research within the Australian Defence Force, drawing on fieldwork experiences and sustained clinical engagement with military populations.
Military culture often creates voluntold participation dynamics where formal consent occurs under implicit institutional pressure, making genuine refusal practically impossible despite legal rights to decline. Military socialisation embeds values that prioritise collective benefit over individual choice, complicating interpretations of autonomous decision-making. Institutional gatekeeping introduces layers of approval that may compromise research independence while creating systematic barriers to accessing diverse participant voices. Confidentiality protections are weakened by mandatory reporting requirements and organisational oversight structures. Researcher positionality becomes particularly complex in navigating insider-outsider dynamics within highly structured institutional environments.
These challenges cannot be resolved through simple adaptation of civilian bioethics principles. Instead, military research ethics requires fundamental reconceptualisation that acknowledges structural constraints on autonomy while maintaining meaningful participant protections. This analysis argues for development of military-specific ethical frameworks emphasising cultural competence, trauma-informed approaches, and sustained reflexivity. Rather than relying on procedural compliance, ethical practice in military contexts demands contextual sensitivity, recognition of institutional power dynamics, and ongoing critical engagement with the contradictions inherent in researching populations trained to suppress vulnerability and prioritise collective aims over individual needs.
{"title":"Ethical considerations in qualitative health/psychology research with military populations: Navigating power, vulnerability, and cultural complexity","authors":"Carolyn Heward, Wendy Wen Li","doi":"10.1016/j.metip.2026.100227","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.metip.2026.100227","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Qualitative research with military populations presents distinctive ethical challenges that existing bioethics frameworks inadequately address. Military personnel exist within institutional hierarchies where obedience, loyalty, and collective values systematically constrain individual autonomy, creating conditions where traditional concepts of informed consent and voluntary participation become problematic. This paper examines these ethical complexities through reflexive analysis of conducting research within the Australian Defence Force, drawing on fieldwork experiences and sustained clinical engagement with military populations.</div><div>Military culture often creates voluntold participation dynamics where formal consent occurs under implicit institutional pressure, making genuine refusal practically impossible despite legal rights to decline. Military socialisation embeds values that prioritise collective benefit over individual choice, complicating interpretations of autonomous decision-making. Institutional gatekeeping introduces layers of approval that may compromise research independence while creating systematic barriers to accessing diverse participant voices. Confidentiality protections are weakened by mandatory reporting requirements and organisational oversight structures. Researcher positionality becomes particularly complex in navigating insider-outsider dynamics within highly structured institutional environments.</div><div>These challenges cannot be resolved through simple adaptation of civilian bioethics principles. Instead, military research ethics requires fundamental reconceptualisation that acknowledges structural constraints on autonomy while maintaining meaningful participant protections. This analysis argues for development of military-specific ethical frameworks emphasising cultural competence, trauma-informed approaches, and sustained reflexivity. Rather than relying on procedural compliance, ethical practice in military contexts demands contextual sensitivity, recognition of institutional power dynamics, and ongoing critical engagement with the contradictions inherent in researching populations trained to suppress vulnerability and prioritise collective aims over individual needs.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":93338,"journal":{"name":"Methods in Psychology (Online)","volume":"14 ","pages":"Article 100227"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2026-01-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146037733","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号