Negotiating the ethical-political dimensions of research methods: a key competency in mixed methods, inter- and transdisciplinary, and co-production research

The paper challenges the view of research methods as neutral tools and argues that methods embody contestable ontological, epistemological, and axiological assumptions. In mixed methods, inter- and transdisciplinary, and co-production research, these assumptions can clash, creating ethical and political dilemmas that affect both research practice and societal outcomes. The authors propose that a key competency for researchers working across methods is the ability to recognize and negotiate the ethical-political dimensions of methods. Drawing on their sustainability science project combining photovoice and controlled behavioural experiments, they aim to demonstrate why this competency matters, how methodological assumptions shape interactions with participants, and how different approaches enact different social realities. The study’s purpose is to surface these dimensions, provide practical strategies for navigating them, and offer pointers for evaluating ethical-political rigour, especially in contexts addressing complex societal challenges and work with Indigenous communities.

The authors review methodological debates emphasizing that research methods are grounded in philosophical assumptions about reality (ontology), knowledge (epistemology), and values (axiology). They contrast interpretive and behavioural/positivist traditions (e.g., differing stances on reality, enquiry, design, aims, researcher positioning, and preferred methods), noting that these traditions generate divergent ethical standards for researcher–participant relations. They draw on performativity literature to argue that methods do not merely describe realities but help enact them, thus making methodological choices inherently ethical-political. The manuscript references the rise of mixed methods to address complexity, the challenges of integrating divergent approaches, and the need for competencies such as epistemological agility and co-productive agility. The puzzle analogy is used to show a shift from viewing methods as complementary descriptions of one reality to recognizing multiple, sometimes incommensurable realities that research helps to create.

Design and context: The authors reflect on the “New Normal” transdisciplinary sustainability project exploring human responses to abrupt environmental change. They combined photovoice (interpretive, participatory) with controlled behavioural experiments (behavioural/positivist), intending for photovoice to inform experimental design to ensure contextual relevance and ethical responsiveness. Ethics applications across institutions surfaced dilemmas that forced explicit negotiation of ethical-political dimensions. Core methodological dilemmas: - A priori vs. responsive design: Experiments require pre-specified variables and procedures for objectivity and risk assessment, whereas photovoice is iterative and co-designed with participants, making precise procedures indeterminate in advance. This created tensions in satisfying ethics review requirements while honouring participatory commitments. - Anonymity vs. credit for knowledge: Experiments typically guarantee anonymity to avoid bias and protect participants, while photovoice often aims to publicly credit participants’ knowledge contributions to support recognition and change. Integrating methods complicated promises of anonymity when linking post-experimental interviews to participants’ identities. Practices to surface and negotiate dimensions: The team instituted structured practices—reading groups in philosophy, ethics, and STS; personal video diaries to elicit reflexive insights; and facilitated group dialogues led by a communications expert—to make tacit assumptions explicit, support difficult conversations, and document deliberations. They also established a local Steering Committee to strengthen accountability to Iñupiat elders. Skills developed: Through these practices they cultivated reflexivity and accountability (critical self-examination and clarity about to whom they are accountable), deliberation (good-faith engagement across differences to find common ground), and practical wisdom (context-sensitive judgement to act under competing values and constraints). Provisional resolutions prior to fieldwork: For the design dilemma, they emphasized a responsive design, explaining in ethics submissions that specific experimental parameters would be co-developed with the community, while outlining broad experiment types. For the anonymity/credit dilemma, they chose anonymous experimental data collection and credited post-experimental interviews without linking interviews to specific experimental decisions, deferring final decisions to discussions with the Steering Committee once design specifics were clearer.

- Key competency: The ability to recognize and negotiate the ethical-political dimensions of research methods is essential for mixed methods, inter- and transdisciplinary, and co-production research. - Two ethical-political dimensions identified: (1) Different methods generate distinct ethical standards for researcher–participant relations that can conflict; (2) These standards are linked to differing societal effects of methods, making methodological choices political acts that enact particular realities. - Limits of “both-and” pluralism: In integrative designs, tensions between approaches (e.g., interpretive vs. positivist) cannot be fully reconciled by mere coordination; instead, an agonistic-antagonistic stance that surfaces and works through conflicts is needed. - Effective practices and skills: Reading groups, personal video diaries, and facilitated dialogues helped build reflexivity, accountability, deliberation, and practical wisdom—skills that enabled the team to navigate dilemmas and reach provisional, context-sensitive solutions. - Provisional solutions in context: Emphasized responsive design (co-developed with community) while satisfying ethics review by describing experiment types; ensured experimental anonymity and credited interviews without linking identities to experimental choices. - Special salience in Indigenous contexts: Methodological choices carry heightened political stakes given histories of colonialism; respectful, context-specific deliberation with Indigenous partners is necessary. - Evaluation pointers: The paper proposes prompts and process-oriented criteria for assessing ethical-political rigour over a project’s lifespan, focusing on teams’ ability to articulate assumptions, reflect on social effects, and maintain ongoing deliberation.

The findings address the research aim by demonstrating that methodological integration inherently involves ethical and political stakes that shape researcher–participant relations and the realities enacted by research. By moving beyond a simplistic “both-and” pluralism to a reflexive, agonistic-antagonistic approach, the authors show how explicit engagement with tensions can improve collaboration and produce more responsible, context-appropriate designs. The provisional resolutions illustrate how ethical-political considerations guide concrete decisions about design responsiveness and participant recognition versus protection. The work underscores the importance of these competencies when collaborating with Indigenous communities, where methodological choices intersect with histories of colonialism and ongoing struggles for self-determination. The proposed practices and evaluation prompts offer a pathway for teams and institutions to cultivate and assess ethical-political rigour, thereby enhancing the societal relevance and integrity of mixed-methods and co-productive research.

The paper contributes a competency framework emphasizing the recognition and negotiation of the ethical-political dimensions of methods as central to high-quality mixed methods, inter- and transdisciplinary, and co-production research. It articulates two core dimensions where ethical standards and societal effects intersect and provides practical strategies—reading groups, reflexive diaries, facilitated dialogues, and community accountability structures—to build reflexivity, deliberation, and practical wisdom. The authors offer evaluative prompts and process-oriented criteria to assess ethical-political rigour across a project’s lifecycle. Future efforts should institutionalize support for these competencies in project design, graduate training, and research organizations, encourage unconventional practices (e.g., role-plays) to surface assumptions, and maintain ongoing, context-specific deliberation with partners, especially in Indigenous settings.

The authors emphasize that there are no general or easy answers to the ethical-political dilemmas they describe; solutions are context-specific and legitimately contestable. Their resolutions are provisional and tailored to the New Normal project’s setting, especially given work with an Indigenous community. The article is reflective and conceptual, drawing on ongoing project experiences and ethics application processes rather than reporting generalizable empirical results. Ethical-political rigour cannot be reduced to checklists but depends on cultivating sensibilities and practices over time.