Multiples Ethical Dialogues in Domestic Abuse-Related Deaths and Perpetrator Studies: Attending to Complexity

Ethical considerations in qualitative research have increasingly been framed as an ongoing and reflective process, challenging the traditional view of ethics as a rigid set of prescriptive regulations. Nonetheless, challenges in ethical thinking and interactions with formal mechanisms are often still viewed as bureaucratic hurdles. Drawing on our research experience in both the Global North and South, we examine how ethical challenges arise throughout research, particularly in relation to our work and fieldwork within domestic abuse-related deaths and perpetrator studies. Using the Bakhtinian notion of dialogues as a heuristic device, we explore how ethical issues are not only addressed in formal review processes but also in the iterative decision-making that occurs throughout research. We identify five archetypal types of dialogues – silenced, unspoken, backstage, unidirectional, and incomplete – that shape ethical decision-making and reflect the complexities of researching violence and abuse. Ethics should not be treated as a one-time procedural requirement, but rather as a dynamic and evolving process embedded throughout all stages of research, shaped by context, relationships, and experience. Ethical decisions often emerge outside formal mechanisms, especially in research involving violence and abuse, where access, power dynamics, and vulnerability complicate ethical concerns. We offer several broad recommendations for more robust ethical practices: fostering ethical dialogue by creating frank and non-judgemental spaces for discussing ethical dilemmas; reconfiguring the role of research ethics committees; embracing ethics as a relational and iterative process; foregrounding positionality and power; fostering interdisciplinary and cross-cultural dialogue; and recognising emotional labour. Our discussion emphasises the importance of vulnerability, context, and power asymmetries in shaping ethical research practices, particularly in violent or marginalised settings. Ultimately, we advocate for a more adaptive, responsive, and collaborative approach to research ethics – one that acknowledges the imperfect nature of ethical dialogue while fostering integrity in real-world research environments.