This analysis reveals ethical navigations in qualitative research with vulnerable populations, highlighting performativity and socioeconomic disparities in fieldwork.
This study examines the ethics of qualitative research with vulnerable populations by shifting from procedural compliance to an intersectional performativity approach that integrates intersectionality and performativity. Traditional ethical frameworks, largely shaped by Global North institutions, prioritize standardized and procedural protocols that may overlook local contexts and the fluid positionalities of researchers. Drawing on collective reflexivity from three ethnographic projects with lower-socioeconomic-status (SES) children and families in China, this study investigates two questions: (a) How do we perform as researchers in relation to the intersectional identities of ourselves and the participants? and (b) How do we as researchers navigate ethical issues in our performative acts during fieldwork? Findings show that researchers’ identities are continually enacted and negotiated within specific, context-bound interactions. Researchers often adopted a “tutor” role, simplifying language and downplaying educational credentials to minimize social distance from lower-SES children. They also engaged in culturally embedded practices of courtesy, including modest gift-giving and reciprocal favors, to establish trust and maintain research access. In addition, to navigate socioeconomic disparities, researchers consciously muted elite markers by avoiding expensive clothing or references to privileged experiences. Gendered self-monitoring further shaped fieldwork, as female researchers adjusted their behavior and attire in response to local gender norms. These performances were co-constructed, with participants sometimes subtly challenging researchers’ assumed roles. The study thus proposes an Intersectional Performativity Framework with reflective questions to help researchers examine how identities are performed, what assumptions underlie these performances, and how ethical considerations surface in research encounters.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mei et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: