This dialogue explores methodological inclusion in qualitative research, highlighting responsibility and justice for diverse scholars.
As a collective of critical, minoritized, feminist, queer, and decolonial scholars who hold multiple identities simultaneously, this manuscript advances an argument for methodological inclusion grounded in axio-onto-epistemological responsibility. Writing in a dangerous sociopolitical moment marked by intensified attacks on diversity, equity, inclusion, and justice, the authors refuse epistemic neutrality and instead approach qualitative inquiry through decolonial and reparative orientations that center lived realities as sites of legitimate knowledge production. Rather than seeking permission to exist within dominant methodological paradigms, the scholars engage research unapologetically from their situated perspectives, affirming that integrity, accountability, and relationality are foundational—not ancillary—to rigorous inquiry. The manuscript is organized as a dialogic essay composed of five interrelated dialogues, which may be read consecutively or non-linearly, reflecting the authors’ commitment to methodological openness and epistemic plurality. Ultimately, this work offers conceptual provocations and mentoring insights for emerging and established qualitative researchers alike, inviting the field to reimagine what counts as data, rigor, and responsibility. In doing so, the manuscript contributes to ongoing efforts to cultivate qualitative inquiry that is responsive, accountable, and generative of more just possibilities in these dangerous times.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Pasque et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 2 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: