Paper short abstract:

This study shows that there is a need to reconceptualise notions of power and vulnerability not as fixed qualities inherent to the researcher or the research participant, but rather as dynamic and relational. It also shows that ethical conduct needs to be managed and negotiated in an ongoing manner.

Paper long abstract:

As homeless people are generally positioned to some degree as vulnerable, a need to transform research from a ‘top-down’ researcher-led encounter to a ‘bottom-up’ participant-led encounter (Aldridge 2014) has been acknowledged. Nevertheless, researcher positionalities and research locations can have an impact on power dynamics where binary constructions of researched/powerless and researcher/powerful need to be reconceptualised. Drawing on research experiences in a joint comparative research project (CSRP) on homelessness, this study rethinks and redesigns ethnographic research practices along more inclusive, collaborative lines that sometimes require case-by-case qualitative methodological approaches based on reflective and responsible judgements. To ensure non-hierarchical research relationships, our research participants are treated as knowledgeable experts and a two-way research relationship through an element of self-disclosure is also encouraged. Further, rather than just relying on procedural ethics, this research also shows the need for ethics in practice or relational ethics to help researchers deal with the unpredictable, often subtle yet ethically important moments that arise in the field while recognising mutual respect and connectedness between researcher and researched (Ellis 2007). This work shows that there is a need to reconceptualise notions of power and vulnerability not as fixed qualities inherent to the researcher or the research participant, but rather as dynamic and relational. While ethical conduct needs to be managed and negotiated in an ongoing manner, research processes also need to be flexible, with ‘knowledge’ negotiated through honest interactions between researchers and research participants and with the acceptance of potential vulnerability, anxiety or disharmony from either side.