Qualitative research explores the barriers faced by immigrant entrepreneurs, highlighting ethical and methodological implications.
This article discusses the methodological and ethical challenges involved in conducting qualitative research with immigrant entrepreneurs, based on an autoethnography carried out between 2022 and 2025 across three distinct contexts: Portugal, the United States, and the Nordic countries. Drawing from field notes and the researcher's reflections, the study analyzes the main barriers encountered during qualitative data collection in settings shaped by migratory flows and complex entrepreneurial dynamics. Among the obstacles identified is the difficulty of gaining access to the field, often marked by initial mistrust from participants—frequently driven by experiences of exclusion, fear of exposure, or the informality of their business activities. Added to this is the limited availability of entrepreneurs, whose intense routines make scheduling difficult and require significant flexibility from the researcher. The study also highlights the frequent emergence of sensitive topics during interviews, such as discrimination, precarity, migratory status, and family pressures, which demand emotional preparedness and ethical listening. Additionally, subtle cultural differences were observed, even among Brazilians, affecting how respondents narrate their experiences and requiring attention to language, regionalisms, and diverse lifestyles. Another relevant point was the need for constant methodological adjustments, as interview scripts had to be adapted to the specificities of each context. The findings show that qualitative research with immigrants demands more than technical expertise: it requires cultural sensitivity, relational ethics, and openness to uncertainty. Despite the challenges, fieldwork offers a rich and contextualized understanding of the entrepreneurial strategies of migrants, significantly contributing to theoretical advancement and the development of more effective public policies. The article also offers practical insights for early-career researchers intending to work in this field of study.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Falcão et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: