Political Research Is Always Ethically and Politically Suspect |
The contention that our attempts to explain and understand politics will always remain ethically or politically suspect in some way is correct, but it requires clarification of what “suspect” truly means. For the purposes of this essay, “suspect” will be understood as questionable or deserving suspicion. Importantly, this does not mean research is invalid, but rather that it raises legitimate questions about power and values. This essay will argue that research is always suspect in both elements. It begins by examining the ethical problems in research, specifically the inherent power imbalances between researchers and those researched, drawing on Wood’s (2006) analysis of power asymmetries and Fujii’s (2012) work on compromised consent to highlight the structural problems that persist. Then, drawing on various scholars (Kuhn 1996; Wacquant 2002; Biruk 2018), it shows that political commitments are embedded at every stage of research through paradigm choice, category construction, and positioned interpretation. The essay then considers the counterargument that randomized controlled trials (RCTs) constitute a methodological “gold standard” that avoids these problems (Dunning 2008), before demonstrating that even RCTs remain ethically and politically suspect (Noble et al. 2025). Together, these arguments will prove that our attempts to explain and understand politics will always remain ethically and politically suspect. Acknowledging suspicion strengthens rather than weakens political research.
Power Asymmetries, Unpredictable Harms, and Compromised Consent
Research relationships inherently involve power asymmetries, create unpredictable harms, and compromise consent. These exist as structural features of the research process, rather than individual researcher failures. Fujii (2012, p. 718) identifies “the power imbalance between researcher and researched” as “one of the major sources of ethical dilemmas”. While not immediately apparent, researchers are supported by institutional resources and mobility and are entrusted with representing participants, whereas those researched do not possess such advantages. Fujii (2012, p. 719) notes that “people may consent not only because of social pressure, but also because they believe that establishing a relationship with the researcher will be beneficial in and of itself.”
Researchers are granted unique mobility and power during the research process that is not replicable for those they observe. Plainly, consent is shaped by the very power imbalance it supposedly mitigates; participants may agree not from genuine voluntary choice but in part because they need or want something from the researcher. This dynamic persists even when researchers aim to limit it. Pachirat’s (2009) work in an industrial slaughterhouse demonstrates this perfectly; despite technically working undercover as a “low-level” employee, he remained in “networks of power” (p. 144) possessing an education, mobility, and most importantly, the choice to leave, one his coworkers (and subjects) lacked. As he concludes in his work, “neutrality in fieldwork is an illusion” (Pachirat 2009, p. 143). Pachirat’s work reveals that power imbalances cannot be mitigated by individual researchers but are built into the structure of research itself.
Beyond power imbalances, research also creates unpredictable harms that researchers cannot predict. Despite their intentions, researchers can inflict harm in any number of ways, with their mere presence playing a vital role in power dynamics. Published research can leave subjects exposed, interviews can bring back traumatic memories, and basic contact can lead to physical consequences. As Fujii (2012) explains, social scientists can cause psychological, physical, and social harm to study participants.
Elisabeth Wood’s (2006, p.373) work interviewing civilians in conflict zones demonstrates these risks starkly, where “the ethical imperative of research (‘do no harm’) is intensified… by political polarization, the presence of armed actors, and the precarious security of most residents”. By simply talking to Wood, civilians could risk their lives by being marked as informants, exposing them to retaliation from armed groups. Unlike Wood, her subjects are unable to appeal to international bodies or institutions for protection the way she is. Even if researchers are in positions to protect their subjects, they often have minimal understanding of the risks in comparison to the local residents they interview. As Wood (2006, p. 380) notes: “Rural residents… had a more highly developed sense of evolving risks… than I did.” Regardless of experience or resources, researchers lack the local knowledge necessary to fully understand the dangers their presence creates. If researchers cannot prevent harm that they also cannot predict, the question becomes whether participants can at least give meaningful consent to these unknown risks.
Informed consent is structurally unattainable in research because participants can never be fully informed about uncertain outcomes, future uses of data, or the power relations shaping their agreement. Consent then functions not as a safeguard, but as an ethically suspect foundation for research itself. As Fujii (2012,........