CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 7Qualitative Research Methods and EthicsQualitative Research Methods and ApplicationsPosthumanist Ethics and Activism

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 25 of the 25 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Power Dynamics between Researcher and Subject

Ayrton, Rachel·2024·Doing Good Qualitative Research
DOI 10.1093/oso/9780197633137.003.0012
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

In qualitative research, the researcher and the relationships they develop with research subjects are an integral part of generating knowledge about the social world. These relationships are imbued with power, influencing the findings of research. This chapter presents a case for “power-conscious” research, which recognizes power as an inevitable facet of social relationships. This approach seeks to understand and observe the microdynamics of power in research relationships and to create reciprocal spaces where both researchers and research subjects can exercise power and negotiate the terms of their involvement. Understanding how power operates in the process of research contributes significantly to the knowledge generated and can work toward cultivation of more just power relations in wider society.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/oso/9780197633137.003.0012

Cites

25 of 25 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 15

  1. 2004, Empowerment and Community Planning.
  2. 1978, The History of Sexuality, Volume 1
  3. 2012, Power Relations and Reciprocity: Dialectics of Knowledge Construction., Qualitative Health Research
  4. 2012, Putting Her Life in Their Hands: A Methodological and Substantive Exploration of Factors Affecting South Sudanese Mothers’ Trust in Medical Professionals Responsible for Their Family’s Care
  5. 2012, Power Relations and Reciprocity: Dialectics of Knowledge Construction., Qualitative Health Research
  6. 1989, Social Space and Symbolic Power., Sociological Theory
  7. 2001, The Wretched of the Earth
  8. 1978, The History of Sexuality, Volume 1
  9. 2017, Pedagogy of the Oppressed
  10. 2019, Multilingua
  11. 1998, De-facing Power., Polity
  12. 2018, ‘Bringing Your Whole Self to Research’: The Power of the Researcher’s Body, Emotions, and Identities in Ethnography., International Journal of Qualitative Methods
  13. 2009, Power Relations in Qualitative Research., Qualitative Health Research
  14. 2004, Empowerment and Community Planning.
  15. 144Spivak, G. C. “Can the Subaltern Speak?” In Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture, edited by N. Carry and L. Grossberg, 271–313. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1988.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 7

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Ayrton, R.
Corresponding author
Ayrton, Rachel
ORCID
Ayrton, Rachel
Venue
Doing Good Qualitative Research
Publisher
Oxford University PressNew York
Published
2024-03-26
Pages
132-144
DOI
10.1093/oso/9780197633137.003.0012
OpenAlex
W4396521705
Cited by
7
References
25
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 3
FWCI
25.11
Type
book chapter
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
University of Birmingham Research Portal (University of Birmingham) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Qualitative Research Methods and Ethics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Qualitative Research Methods and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Cultural Studies › Posthumanist Ethics and Activism
Keywords
power relations, researcher-subject relationship, qualitative research ethics, reciprocity, social justice

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review