Complexities of the Ethical Dilemmas in Qualitative International Relations Research: Research Subjects, Ethical Codes, and Constructing Qualitative Rigor

Abstract

Existing scholarship has not thoroughly explored topics of ethical dilemmas faced by qualitative international relations researchers. Due to the distinctiveness of the study and the need to address ethical concerns with regard to international relations research, this article aims to elucidate the ethical dilemmas in three aspects: ethical dilemmas of research subjects (gatekeepers and vulnerable groups), ethical codes and scientific conduct, and constructing qualitative rigor in international relations. It further attempts to connect to existing opinions of social research studies critical toward the positivist methodological stances of contemporary ethical reviews and echoes the need to reflect on ethical dilemmas on a case-by-case basis.

1. Introduction

The discussion of ethics in the study of social sciences has always been a daunting task for the social science researcher. Throughout the conduct of research, it is pivotal to keep in mind that a researcher must embrace the responsibility of being able to conduct research per ethical practices (Richardson and McMullan 2007). Ethical considerations in research grew due to a growing demand for protection over subjects of research. In the past, horrendous research practices that sought to develop sciences and knowledge took place at the expense of the subjects’ harm. For example, the Tuskegee Syphilis research aimed to observe the damage related to untreated syphilis and focused on hundreds of African Americans (Gray 1998). Even when scientists found a cure for syphilis, the research subjects were deliberately encouraged to take alternative treatments to maintain data quality. In an attempt to comprehend the psychological reasons for the abuse of power, the Milgram experiment intentionally deceived its participants into thinking that the subjects of the research (acting as teachers) were discharging electric shocks to individuals acting as students (who were performing as if they were electrocuted) (Hoover 2020). Another controversial study made by Laud Humphrey in 1969 failed to secure anything close to the formal consent of research subjects to observe their encounters in semi-public spheres (Humphreys 2017). In all of the research practices mentioned, researchers could not attain adequate informed consent from the research subjects, eventually leading to movements by numerous agents to solidify ethical regulations to conduct ethical research.

Ethical codes and ethical reviewing committees aim to deter the possible harm made to research subjects. However, since their inception in the late 20th century, social scientists have been critical of their regulations. Dingwall (2006), for example, provides a compelling argument on the differences in ethics that should be developed between qualitative research and the existing biomedical-inspired ethical regulations. He maintained that preemptive ethics employed in the field of humanities and social sciences had shown divergence. The nature of qualitative research tends to face distinct developments throughout the course of the research, which makes it incompatible with procedural ethics (Guillemin and Gillam 2016). The biomedical and psychological research conducted in the past provides urgency for an agreed ethical standard in research. As several academics asserted, past scientists justified exposing human subjects to live viruses, untested drugs, and psychological harm, all in the name of advancing sciences (Berger 1990; Hagan 2006; Trochim 1999). Approaching the end of the 20th century, scientists were divided into two different schools when viewing this dilemma. Utilitarianism argues that a cost–benefit trade-off must be analyzed. If research has the potential to construct a tremendous benefit to society, it should be justified regardless of the harm associated with the subjects. Meanwhile, non-consequentialists positioned moral values and the importance of allowing only morally viable research (Holden 1979). Whichever school a researcher agrees with, it is without a doubt that ethics consideration should be a primary consideration throughout the conduct of research.

The question of ethics is also inescapable for the qualitative international relations researcher. International relations assess interactions between international actors, meaning state actors, non-state actors, international organizations, etc. Similar to ethnography and behavioral research, the inquiries made in international relations studies tend to have a cross-cultural element. Furthermore, the dynamics encountered are not predictable. When different cultures and communities are assessed, especially on sensitive topics for locals, the question of ethics becomes filled with complexities (Hoover 2020). The research subjects may not be as apparent in the initial phases of the research, and the qualitative rigor may not be as sound as predicted. Social scientists have mainly been critical of informed consent and the complexities inherent in securing it and ensuring that research subjects fully comprehend its meaning. Such a dilemma also exists in the study of international relations, in which informed consent may not be appropriate in particular cultural contexts (Butz 2015). Fieldwork, which is another critical element in many international relations studies, also faces the dilemma of not being compatible with existing ethical regulations that we are obliged to enforce. Ryan’s past research experience in Tanzania showed how locals were against the idea of ‘confidentiality’ and wanted their names to be entirely written in reports and publications of her research (Ryan 2006). International relations fieldwork also faces a similar challenge, in which research toward differing sociopolitical environments tends to be against the existing norms of ethics in research. Sensitive issues, such as terrorism, conflict (also post-conflict), and ethnic cleansing, in which a researcher must delve into the lives of individuals, may have possible repercussions, such as the re-emergence of trauma.

In fact, international relations scholarship has been greatly affected by the research dilemmas that it faces in relation to fieldwork. The challenges coincide with the existing debate between interpretive and positivist research ethics. The positivist approach is based on pre-determined ontological, epistemological, and methodological propositions. Meanwhile, interpretive approaches allow researchers to embrace multiple roles in the conduct of research to gain access and credibility to undergo a study (Jacobson et al. 2016). The proliferation of the international relations study allows for more interpretive approaches to be taken by qualitative researchers. Fieldwork research ethical dilemmas were explored in the field of international relations feminism in the early 21st century, setting guidelines for feminist international relations researchers to navigate around the power-influenced research environment (Ackerly and True 2008). In addition, scholars in the field, such as Clark, continuously raise the challenges of conducting fieldwork for personal subjects in international relations, such as her example of interviewing vulnerable victims of conflict-related sexual violence in post-conflict settings (Clark 2022). Furthermore, discussing ethical dilemmas in a general context for international relations fieldwork, Cronin-Furman contended that existing research ethics in the West does not take into consideration the numerous conflicting roles that a researcher may take in the conduct of research in conflicted areas (Cronin-Furman and Lake 2018). Nevertheless, more studies are needed to raise awareness of the ethical research dilemmas that one may encounter in conducting research in the field of international relations.

As stated by Berg and Lune (2012), the issue of ethics for the social sciences researcher is a matter of protecting research subjects and professional conduct. Having said that, this article does not attempt to merely point out the inapplicability of research ethics to the study of international relations. It tries to analyze three research dilemmas the qualitative international relations researcher faces in order to have a preliminary idea of the dilemmas that could be encountered. The dilemmas include ethical dilemmas regarding the research subject, ethical dilemmas regarding ethical codes and scientific conduct, and ethical dilemmas in constructing qualitative rigor in international relations research. Despite its focus on impacts on international relations research, this article addresses the dilemmas from a general social sciences perspective (including a review of existing literature), then specifies several dilemmas for the study of international relations. In general, the existing literature is inconclusive as to the extent of issues faced by the qualitative international relations researcher concerning ethics. Hoover (2020) provided the most recent account of this topic by arguing the inapplicability of existing research ethics to qualitative inquiries on security studies, big data, and feminist topics.

The topic of inquiry for this article is research ethics in qualitative research of international relations scholarship. Nevertheless, this study acknowledges that there is a significant amount of research in the field of international relations employing quantitative methods (Weng 2019). It is out of the scope of this article to argue the challenges faced in the research ethics of quantitative methods, as the employment of statistical analysis and formal modeling requires divergent research inquiries on the topic of ethics. In addition, in support of Lamont’s suggestions, quantitative research is only well-known in North American international relations and its confinement to a limited geographical reach is due to the advanced mathematical and statistical training that it requires. As a result, quantitative methods tend to be inaccessible in international relations scholarship in other parts of the world (Lamont 2015). Nevertheless, the ethical research dilemmas covered in this article may converge to the research ethic concerns of quantitative inquiries on a case-by-case scenario (for example, in obtaining research clearance for obtaining primary statistical data).

Qualitative research generates unique ethical dilemmas, as is argued in this article. First, having humans as research subjects demands that a researcher avoid unethical practices that may be imposed on those inquired. The issue becomes of greater essence once qualitative research touches on topics related to vulnerable groups, such as refugees and asylum seekers, which is a growing research inquiry in recent international relations scholarship. Second, qualitative research is vulnerable to (unintentionally) violating scientific and research codes due to the nature of fieldwork and the demand to be adaptive to new circumstances. Finally, what makes qualitative research require separate ethical dilemma assessment is its connection to rigor, which in terms of qualitative research, relates to the precision of interpretation that may not be as straightforward as in quantitative research.

2. Ethical Dilemmas of the Research Subject: Revisiting Gatekeepers and Vulnerable Groups

Research in international relations comprises a multitude of actors. Researchers can focus on macro-level topics, such as foreign policy formulation, and micro-level agencies, such as individuals and policymakers. Nevertheless, whoever we choose to be the primary subjects of our international relations inquiry, research ethics should not be separated from the research process. As stated in the introduction, research ethics is a vital topic in research due to medical, biomedical, and psychological research conducted from the wartimes until the end of the 20th century. Research subjects, in those cases, individuals, had to bear the consequences of the research conducted and were not adequately informed of the possible consequences of agreeing to become research subjects. It is even the case that informed consent was utterly absent from several studies in the past (Wexler 1990). In contemporary times, it is difficult to see a scenario in which researchers fail to secure the informed consent of research subjects before conducting research. However, one thing about social sciences that makes it so unique is the evolving inquiries it makes due to globalization and the progress evident within societal contexts. This section elaborates further on the issues of informed consent for social sciences and international relations research. It delves deep into issues related to gatekeepers and vulnerable groups (in this case, refugees, internally displaced persons (IDPs), and asylum seekers).

Conducting research in the social sciences consists of a process of intrusion into personal lives. Social sciences inquire about the lives of people, their habits, their reactions, their perspectives, and many other similar inquiries (Spicker 2007). Specific to the context of international relations, individuals as research subjects have become the focus of understanding cognitive filters in leaders’ decision-making processes (Cheng and Brettle 2019; Goldgeier and Tetlock 2003). In recent years, amid the rising prominence of constructivism in the study of international affairs, there has been an increasing interest in adopting socio-psychological concepts into the study (McDermott 2004; Pursiainen and Forsberg 2021; Gildea 2020). Therefore, individuals are now considered a prominent subject to be asked about in international relations studies. The development of contemporary ethical codes was initially aimed at countering possible psychological and physical harm that research subjects could encounter.

Nevertheless, the idea of having informed consent, especially signed informed consent, has raised concerns over how much information should be given to the research subjects. Suppose a researcher is inquiring about personal life experiences and their effects on the cognitive filter of a state’s political elite. Should the researcher expose the hypothesis and the researcher’s position? A major dilemma faced by the international relations researcher is thus the dilemma of ‘under-sharing’ or ‘over-sharing’ information in securing consent. Under-sharing is the process of not exposing much about the research to the subjects of research, a dilemma mostly faced in ethnographic research; meanwhile, over-sharing is the process of elaborating in-depth on the specifics of the research to the subjects of research (Berg and Lune 2012). Both have their pros and cons in the process of qualitative research. In the case of under-sharing, a researcher risks the possibility of a research subject not knowing the possible harm that the research can cause to the individual. The quality of data attained can easily be questioned for the latter due to the pre-existing perspectives developed after obtaining in-depth information about a study. Thus, the dilemma is to what extent one should expose information to secure informed consent. This issue is further complicated in conflict-prone areas or in the case of researching vulnerable groups as research subjects.

Social scientists in the past have questioned most of the difficulties associated with informed consent. Spicker (2007), for example, argued that most research questions in the social sciences inquire about public behavior. Thus, one does not need to secure informed consent because of the public setting where a research subject is situated. In any possible scenario, a researcher is thus exposed to the risk of research subjects rejecting becoming a research subject due to the presence of informed consent (Wiles et al. 2005). In a psychological study done by Pokorny et al. (2001), they argued that there is a clear link between the variable of information of research and the willingness of a research subject to be inclined to participate. Thus, a qualitative researcher must be aware that simply trying to conform to the ethics of securing informed consent may make research subjects unwilling to participate (Harris and Dyson 2001). As Homan and Bulmer (1982) articulate well in their study, people behave differently once they know that researchers are observing them.

However, how much are research subjects ‘informed’ in informed consent? Social scientists have argued that securing informed consent is purely symbolic and may cause harm to the quality of data obtained. Homan (1991), for example, argued that subjects have difficulty truly understanding what they are consenting to, let alone the possible consequences of agreeing to become a research subject. As international relations studies inquire into a whole range of socio-political questions, Wood’s experience of research on the El Salvador communities should be able to shed light on the complexities of this. Wood attempted to understand the reasons for insurgency-based collective action in El Salvador by asking peasants who associated themselves with the insurgency. The system of having informed consent complicated things, as most of the peasants were illiterate and could not comprehend the consequences of agreeing, despite proper translation (Wood 2006).

Another point mentioned is the inapplicability of a one-off signed informed consent in qualitative research, especially international relations. Past scholars pointed out that researchers should renegotiate informed consent over time due to the unique relations between the researcher and research subjects in qualitative research (Alderson 1993; Reid et al. 2001). If a researcher is inquiring about political elites in a given state, due to unpredictable circumstances (a familiar dynamic in qualitative research), the researcher adds questions to ask. Moreover, in the example, the questions raised are of entirely different discourses. It is then important to consider whether consent must be renegotiated again with research subjects, as the respondents might not have a similar sense of willingness to participate as they did in the previous interviews.

The issue of informed consent in international relations research is a serious concern. However, understanding sociocultural and political differences between communities, demography, and states is also a critical aspect of determining the applicability of research ethics in international relations. Take, for example, the issue of patriarchal societies. In international relations research, especially in feminist research agendas, one might inquire about women’s perspectives in a given society. The case becomes further complex in the case of patriarchal societies, as argued by Hoover (2020). In patriarchal societies, women and their perspectives are represented by their husbands. Kass and Hyder (2001) also noted in their study that the notion of consent is sometimes ‘culturally insensitive,’ but a standard that the researcher must fulfill due to standards imposed by government and funding agencies. Ackerly, Stern, and True also mentioned the challenges posed by power politics in relation to the critical feminist international relations inquiry of comprehending social structures (Ackerly et al. 2006). The dilemma of research ethics becomes further complicated when discussing vulnerable groups and the issue of gatekeepers that the researcher may encounter.

The presence of gatekeepers has always impeded the research process for qualitative researchers in the social sciences. Research inquiring about children, for example, has often faced the complexity of going through the gatekeepers of parents and schools before access to children can be obtained by researchers. Such a dilemma has been a major concern because the process of having to go through gatekeepers affects the quality of the data due to the pre-filtered explanations and conditions set by gatekeepers (Qvortrup 1994; David et al. 2001). In the case of children, social science research conducted in school settings, for example, has been assessed as a form of ‘homework,’ leading to a more coerced action to have students participate in a study (Pole et al. 2010; James 1993). Wiles et al. (2005) concluded this complexity relatively well by stating that researchers face the issue of not having direct access to several research subjects, in which a negotiation with gatekeepers is eventually needed. The problem becomes a more significant dilemma for the social science researcher in the research subject of refugees, IDPs, and asylum seekers, in which the leaders of the tribe/community, international organizations, or humanitarian organizations usually act as gatekeepers. In the existing international relations literature, gatekeepers pose strenuous challenges in obtaining data. Glasius is among those scholars that contended that besides the risk of conducting research in authoritarian settings, the presence of information gatekeepers also poses questions regarding the reliability of the data obtained (Glasius et al. 2017). Other studies also argued that international relations research is difficult to undergo in closed contexts, as there is no true way of ensuring that the information attained is credible (de Guevara and Boas 2021).

Inquiry into vulnerable groups, such as refugees, has been a central component of international relations scholarship. Those identifying themselves as constructivists focused on the discourses related to identity and agency-level resolve to humanitarian concerns, including that of refugees. In another aspect, feminist literature delved inside refugee camps to better understand the needs and perspectives of women and mothers with unique needs. Nevertheless, the research dilemma in unique settings such as that of refugees should not be taken lightly by researchers. Several past studies highlighted the ethical incompatibility in the field of working with refugees (Hugman et al. 2011; Mackenzie et al. 2007; Pittaway et al. 2010). In one of those studies, they mentioned that research in refugee camps in Bangladesh led research subjects to be threatened by criminal elements operating within the camp. The issue of non-traditional security and the research ethics concerned was raised in several past studies. Dauphinee, for example, conducting research in a post-conflict setting in Bosnia, analyzed the difficulties in engaging with traumatized societies (Dauphinee 2007). Challenges to researching vulnerable groups were also mentioned in a 1995 study by Nordstrom and Robben, explaining the dynamics and constant pressures faced in examining perpetrators and victims of violence (Nordstrom and Robben 1996).

As researchers, our primary aim should be to prevent our research subjects from attaining psychological and physical harm from our research. Beauchamp and Childress (2001) mentioned that we need to be highly wary of the possible treatment of our research subjects as a consequence of agreeing to become our research subjects. Hugman (2005) provided a convincing way out of this dilemma by directing researchers not to view research subjects simply as a source of data but to the need to add value to their lives. However, the ethical dilemmas concerning refugees do not stop there. The issue of informed consent can become complexified in such a setting due to their inability to understand the long-term consequences of becoming a research subject to one’s research. Research subjects with financial difficulties, or in this case, life difficulties, such as refugees, tend to embrace this perspective that researchers came as fact-finding stakeholders aimed to better their lives. Due to their enormous humanitarian expectations, they hardly say no (Ryan 2006). As seen in the study case of Bangladesh, informants hardly ever know the consequences of their decision, which raises a robust ethical dilemma for the qualitative international relations researcher. As Clark-Kazak (2021) critiqued in his article, informed consent does not mean much in a setting where no proper interpreters are present.

The dilemma, thus, is how to ensure the protection and safety of research subjects in such puzzling environments when inquiring about refugees. If unethical research occurs in vulnerable groups, the risk of retraumatization and distrust of the research is evident (Pittaway et al. 2010). Thus, the dilemma becomes more complex in the other challenging settings in the international relations study, including in environments of conflict and post-conflict zones, non-democratic states, and divergent ethnic groups. Furthermore, the variety of research subjects, which may, in some cases, include terrorists, political elites, and insurgents, can easily blur the lines of protection for both the research subjects and the researcher. Therefore, not only does an international relations qualitative researcher need to be wary of the general challenges associated with international relations research, but one must also be aware that securing informed consent can be challenging in many ways.

3. Ethical Dilemmas of Ethical Codes and Scientific Conduct

The conduct of any research, including that in the field of international relations, requires specific standards to be fulfilled. A researcher is expected to morally weigh the feasibility of conducting research through an analysis of the benefits and risks associated with the research. Furthermore, it is usually expected for a researcher to retrieve ethical clearance from relevant institutions before conducting a research project. In the process of conducting research, one needs to be wary of several considerations, including honesty, uniqueness in the ethics of fieldwork, and even to issues of developing relations. Existing international scholarship has started to argue on the point of how personal challenges faced in the conduct of research have led qualitative researchers to find it difficult to truly detach personal feelings and emotions from the research (D’Aoust 2012; Thomson et al. 2013). Meanwhile, after conducting research, a researcher must consider the importance of confidentiality and privacy for the research subjects, as well as adequately consider whether further consent is needed after the study to publish research results in a certain form. In addition to the dilemmas related to the research subjects, this section will provide a general overview of possible ethical dilemmas that can be faced by the qualitative international relations researcher in the context of ethical codes and scientific conduct.

From the outset, it is pivotal to answer how much damage should be allowed in the conduct of research. As Holden (1979) concluded in his article, researchers are divided into two schools regarding this concern. One may take the position of justifying a research project due to the possible benefits it can provide to the general public (regardless of the potential harm that research subjects can incur) or they can take the non-consequentialist stance of prioritizing norms in the decision. One possible explanation to explain this dilemma is understanding the differences in perception of harms and risks associated with stakeholders related to research (Christians 2008). How researchers view the risks and liabilities related to research will never be the same as how research subjects view them. Such differences have led to past research, such as that conducted by Humphrey and the Milgram experiment, being challenging to comprehend for the general public. In many circumstances, researchers tend to focus on their intention to develop sciences and knowledge, which may come at the expense of research subjects and violate research ethics. In this debate about the benefit–risk trade-offs, it is easier for international relations research agendas to argue the benefits of research projects rather than their risks. Besides topics that require direct fieldwork, in this case, narrative and discourse analysis, understanding political elites, the effectiveness of international organizations, and foreign policy formulation, the risk usually falls to the broader organization related to the research topic.

One of the early steps to ensure that our research fulfills ethical standards is through institutional review boards. Such committees usually determine whether the research project that is planned to be undertaken satisfies the ethical threshold. This has become one of the most substantial critiques for social sciences, as existing ethical reviews are usually based on a positivist methodological stance. When the research subjects are humans, unique relations between the researcher and research subjects are expected to occur, leading to the inability to pre-emptively predict what will happen throughout the research (Gray 2016; Berg and Lune 2012).

It has been viewed in the social sciences that ethical clearances have been acting as a strangle to academic freedom, highly impeding the flexibility of designing a research project based on a researcher’s initial plans. However, Hammersley (2010) convincingly argued how the UK ethics review system is starting to be ‘creeping’ into research projects. He explained how mandates given to review boards have extended to the intensification and extension of their role in ensuring research integrity. Researchers will not only need to secure ethics clearance but they will also be checked by reviewing committees to ensure that research integrity is maintained throughout the conduct of one’s research (especially in topics of more significant novelty). As argued in the previous section of this article, the issue of informed consent is problematic for the social science qualitative researcher. There are instances where we might need to renegotiate informed consent, and there is the question of how much harm one understands relating to involvement as research subjects.

Nevertheless, the main aim of ethical reviews is the protection of research subjects, which is something that has become a sensitive issue in this discourse since the late 20th century. However, social sciences will need to be aware of this dilemma, in which securing ethical approval may require changes to the research trajectory. This can easily impede researchers from exploring new novelties and sticking to discourses that usually have ethical clearance. Not only is this a problem for social sciences but also academics in international relations, as this situation impedes our ability to attain new insights on revealing new interpretations of world affairs.

In conducting research, a qualitative international relations study must be wary of possible ethical issues in fieldwork. Many topics of inquiry still require a researcher to conduct fieldwork, which could, in many instances, be in unconducive situations and environments. In this context, Ryan (2006) clarified that ethical issues commonly appear regarding fieldwork. She further considered the presence of this dilemma and argued that such could only be resolved situationally, going against pre-existing notions of positivist ethical positions. Besides sensitive issues, it has been improbable for an individual to reject becoming a research subject, especially in a North and South research context. The primary aim of protecting research subjects from possible harm should remain. To this extent, fieldwork in international relations will need to steer clear of possibilities of deception. A classical case of this is the deception of research subjects in the 1970 Tearoom Trade, a study on homosexual encounters in semi-public places. This example also opens the discussion on covert research, which is not openly announced to research subjects. Many have argued that if research subjects are unaware that they are being examined, this falls under the category of unethical and should never be allowed (Esterberg 2002; Engel and Schutt 2015).

Ethical codes and scientific conduct before and during research are essential elements to consider in qualitative international relations research. The last part of this section includes dilemmas that may arise after the completion of data retrieval. In writing up one’s research results or attempting to publish the results, one needs to consider several ethical considerations. Examples include confidentiality, privacy, and securing data. Regarding the latter point, data retrieved, especially from interviews, should be stored safely. Not only should it be the primary responsibility of the head researcher, but members of the research team will also need to agree not to disclose the information at their disposal (Berg and Lune 2012). This is a primary concern for international relations inquiries, specifically about political elites. If one is to interview a country’s political elites or foreign policy-making elites, raw data from interview transcripts should be stored safely by researchers. For example, the risk of several data being accessible online can easily be picked up by the local media and interpreted differently from what the data was initially gathered for. Consent in this matter is another critical element in ethics, especially on the re-use of data. If an interviewee consents to use data for thorough research, we cannot perceive this as permission to use the same data on other research or publications.

A debate in social science ethics is about how important confidentiality and privacy are. Standard research ethics argues that research subjects should always keep their identities secret, as disclosure of such personal information may lead to harmful consequences (Morse and Richards 2002). However, the debate here lies in the uniqueness of qualitative inquiries, in which, in many circumstances, research subjects want their names and details to be made public. Let us take the example of Ryan (2006), in which Tanzanian research subjects deliberately wanted their identities to be revealed, and failure to do so would be perceived as arrogance. In another research on HIV test counseling, Silverman also argued that his research subjects consented to be revealed, as having their names published in such research would help them advance their careers (Silverman 2021). The different circumstances one might encounter raise ethical dilemmas for the qualitative researcher in international relations.

Nevertheless, it is always crucial to prioritize confidentiality and protect one’s research subjects. In 1993, Scarce decided not to cooperate with local enforcers in revealing the names of animal activists whom he had researched in the past. Such a decision led him to be imprisoned for 159 days, which immediately raised social scientists’ concerns about confidentiality (Babbie 2007; Kaiser 2009). The situation faced by Scarce is not common, but it does not mean that the dilemma is one we will not meet throughout our research. More discussions on ethics and scientific conduct after data collection can be seen in the following section.

4. Ethical Dilemmas in Constructing Qualitative Rigor in International Relations

Qualitative rigor is not a straightforward concept. Several academics have interpreted rigor in the context of research as producing something exact and with precision (Cypress 2017). Other scholars have concluded that concerns over rigor fall under the category of ethical issues (Camfield 2014). There has not been much consensus on the specific elements that contribute to the discourse of rigor in research. Different studies showed that other variables can be significant in the matter. Camfield, for example, revisited his previous work on qualitative rigor and emphasized the importance of interpretation, and whether one’s research falls under the category of rigor or not would depend on this factor. To have trust and confidence in the qualitative research that is undergone, precision is thus one of the critical elements in the process. Ensuring that we collect the data correctly and provide proper interpretations would also help to ensure that we fall under the category of rigorous qualitative research. This paper argues that we can further explore this concept of qualitative rigor via attention to several vital variables: credibility, external validity, reliability, and confirmability. In international relations, qualitative rigor poses a distinct challenge, as researchers must ensure the validity of the obtained data and that none of the data are misinterpreted.

On the first point of credibility, several concerns regarding qualitative rigor include the importance of proper interpretation. Data obtained from, for example, interviews will remain as data that cannot speak for itself. This is the importance of the researcher’s interpretation to shed light on the meanings that can be revealed from the data obtained during fieldwork. Therefore, understanding the importance of performance also leads us to confirm the importance of reflexivity. Interpretations, especially in the study of international relations, are highly dependent upon the pre-conceived understandings that an author embraces throughout the research. As Taylor argued years ago, the study of social sciences is the study of interpretation. Therefore, we must acknowledge that we can easily be trapped in a hermeneutical circle because of it (Taylor 1971).

Nevertheless, it should be clear to all academic scholars in international relations that this study is a field with different possibilities for interpretation. There is not a single truth that could be uncovered in this study, as academics compete with one another to provide the most convincing argument to explain certain international phenomena. Regarding what was apparent in the great debates a century ago, international relations academics tend to provide interpretations based on their cognitive filters.

If we want to link the uniqueness of international relations studies to qualitative rigor, we might encounter a slight dilemma. On the one hand, it is not an issue for us to embrace reflexivity and provide specific interpretations of the data we obtain in the field. However, on the other hand, we face the dilemma of determining how credible the findings are. There is no consensus on what makes one’s findings more reasonable than the other, primarily if the research fulfills ethical standards. However, having credible interpretations in this study usually depends on the epistemic communities’ acceptance of one’s proposal or interpretation. Researchers can also voice their opinions in high-impact publications, in which international scholars can attain valuable reviews on the credibility of the interpretations made. As Taylor argued, it is impossible to conclude a correct interpretation. New interpretations will surface with time, and we do not have the proper tools to falsify interpretations.

Nevertheless, the credibility of the findings can be re-checked through the primary data we obtain. As Camfield asserts in both his works, we can return to our original research subjects to ensure whether the quotations are correct or pieces are missing (Camfield 2014, 2018). Peer control can also be a valuable tool in ensuring the credibility of our findings, as it helps to provide an alternative view free from the subjective opinions of those directly involved in the research. A study in the past showed that researchers can easily provide misinterpretations of research findings (Orb et al. 2001). Specific to the context of international relations qualitative research, this article stands against this assumption. Interpretations in the study of international relations usually work in a ‘hermeneutical circle,’ meaning that interpretations are made concerning past interpretations. What eventually exists is the development of interpretations to ensure that the process of rigor can be achieved in the research. Smyth (2004) also suggested that a solution that we can seek to ensure credibility is to consult back to research subjects to ensure satisfaction from the way we represent them in the findings. In the context of international relations scholarship, qualitative rigor is faced in interpreting and writing about those that were interviewed. Daigle, for example, contended that in international politics, re-telling the story of others is a daunting task and respondents find it difficult to rely on (Daigle 2016). Doty also exposed the possibility of international relations scholars misrepresenting stories due to differences in identity (Doty 2010).

Another dilemma that should be a concern of the international relations qualitative researcher is the prospect of external validity. In short, external validity is generalizable knowledge and an assurance that the research can be applied in the real world (Leung 2015). As can be seen, it is difficult to draw precise definitions and parameters for this. In a sense, external validity can be equal to the context of dependability, in which other researchers can follow the processes defined in the research we undergo (Forero et al. 2018). In achieving generalizable knowledge, in the context of international relations research, we should be able to explain where our study is situated in the study of international relations. The development of international relations scholarship is growing incredibly quickly due to the development and opening of international study programs worldwide. Generalizability can be achieved better if we position what novelty we are trying to cover in our research within the larger international relations literature, which can help other forthcoming academics make their own stance on the matter.

As a final element of producing rigor qualitative research, we return to the concept introduced by Thomas and Magilvy (2011) on reflectivity for confirmability. At this point, one is aware of the personal biases that may occur throughout the process of interpretation. The study of international relations does not view this as a critical issue. The study has accepted that having personal biases and how certain variables are better represented in a study is an integral part of international relations scholarship. When Alexander Wendt introduced the concept of a socially constructed world using the case of the social construction of anarchy, self-help, and interests, he decided to connect core concepts in social psychology and sociology into the study of international relations (Wendt 1992). Therefore, we should have an understanding by now that personal biases are not something that can be easily filtered away.

A bias may emerge if we interpret an interview transcript in a cherry-picking way, focusing on crucial statements that can help to verify our hypothesis. Moreover, this issue of cherry-picking is not a rare occurrence in international relations. Facing critiques from other international relations schools, Gideon Rose abandoned the purely structuralist determinants of international relations behaviors to establish neoclassical realism. This position focuses on systematic and domestic determinants of foreign policy (Rose 1998). In the following years, however, academics have been critical when viewing neoclassical realism as an attempt to choose certain aspects of the conduct of foreign policy to support the construction of the new theory.

One should resort back to the respondents to alleviate the possibilities of personal biases. Starting from the analyses that one is preparing to construct, to solve the ethical dilemma of personal biases, it would be ideal for conducting respondent validations, as it is not always the case that the respondents will agree with our way of analyzing and interpreting the results of an interview (Birt et al. 2016). Silverman (2021) also proposed the need for process consent, in which we should seek further permission from our research subjects before we publish specific research. Smyth (2004) caught this dynamic relatively well by arguing that consent should be employed in the data collection process and throughout the reporting and publication process. Ensuring qualitative rigor in an international relations inquiry can be a daunting task. International investigations are unique due to the questions and the scopes that they consist of. The international relations scholar should consider the critical aspects of rigor, which tends to emphasize precision and cautiousness in interpretation.

Despite employing multiple risk-offsetting measures to ensure qualitative rigor, future studies can benefit from using the checklists and measures employed in quantitative studies. Topics on producing rigor in quantitative studies varied throughout the years. Academics voiced the importance of ensuring both the reliability and validity of measurements as basic measures to ensure quality (Claydon 2015; Heale and Twycross 2015). Claydon further addressed the importance of asking the proper questions to ensure accuracy in interpretations (Claydon 2015). Other academics, such as Laher, emphasized the urgency of reviewing the research samples used to ensure quantitative rigor, for example, through justifying representation in samples, using bigger sample sizes, and measures to avoid bias (Laher 2016). On the other hand, scholars, such as Marquart, emphasized the importance of data analysis in establishing rigor, specifically through the employment of objective scores (Marquart 2017). Advancing qualitative rigor is a difficult inquiry, but by considering the importance of validity and reliability in quantitative research, qualitative research can benefit by ensuring rigorous results.

5. Conclusions

With the development of international relations programs worldwide, surprisingly, discussions on ethics are few. Existing ethical standards that apply to the general fields of social sciences caused many debates within academia regarding their applicability in qualitative research. International relations research also faces the same issue and leads to ethical dilemmas that students and academics embarking on their social sciences research need to consider. This article argues that ethical dilemmas faced by the qualitative international relations researcher are threefold: ethical dilemmas of research subjects (revisiting gatekeepers and vulnerable groups), ethical codes and scientific conduct, and constructing qualitative rigor in international relations. As can be seen in the discussions, the challenges faced are indeed pressing, but certainly, nothing that could not be anticipated.

Qualitative researchers in social sciences have always been critical of ethical standards that apply in research. Social sciences demand a more flexible approach to the regulations, considering the inconsistencies of situations that may arise throughout the course of research. However, researchers still have to be careful not to treat academic freedom as the license to conduct research that harms subjects. Further challenges will need to be addressed. In many instances, it was difficult to align the interests of research to the demands of funders and administration (Mcareavey and Muir 2011). The premise of a positivist epistemology in ethical reviews also makes it difficult for qualitative researchers in social sciences. Research in social sciences, specifically in international relations studies, need to understand the uncertainty inherent in most of the research (Hoggett et al. 1994).

However, the dilemmas that will be faced by the international relations qualitative researcher do not stop at aspects of the research subject, rigor, and ethical codes. Recent topics of inquiry touched on issues that have unclear research ethical guidelines. For example, the use of big data and online data sets is a concern voiced by Hoover (2020). The abundance of data that companies obtain about our daily lives, including that from social media, is gathered after industries attain consent in the form of a ticked box (representing the informed consent concern). Again, it raises the same question of whether respondents genuinely understand the harm associated with agreeing to specific research terms. It is expected that in future discourses, especially with the use of big data in security studies, more work will be required by academics to understand the limitations of ethics in covering broad topics, such as online data. The ever-growing use of big data in international relations scholarship may tap into other unexplored aspects of research ethics, especially research informed by quantitative methods. This should be the topic of future research.

Due to the complexities of undergoing international relations research, this article argues that any international relations researcher should be aware of the possible dilemmas they could face. Thus, this research is primarily concerned with raising awareness and the need to cautiously engage in the conduct of research. Nevertheless, the following suggestions can help to address several of the aforementioned concerns: (1) institutional review boards should be adaptive and not adopt a positivist approach to scientific codes for qualitative research due to the evolving nature of fieldwork in international relations; (2) written consent should not be a one-off system to ensure the protection of research subjects, where informed consent should continuously be reviewed to ensure that it truly protects the privacy of those inquired; and (3) to secure data after being retrieved, researchers should re-negotiate with the subjects quoted if the research material is re-used for future publications (or for other means besides those agreed upon in the initial review).