CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 27Qualitative Research Methods and EthicsAcademic and Historical Perspectives in PsychologyFeminist Epistemology and Gender Studies

Relational ethics and epistemology: The case for complementary first principles in psychology

Hopner, Veronica, Liu, James H.·2021·Theory & Psychology
DOI 10.1177/0959354320974103
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

In psychology, where a natural science epistemology holds sway, relationships between the researcher and the researched are usually hierarchical and transactional, bound in procedural and legal ethics. This limited view of ethics fails to account for issues of power and privilege, as well as inequalities in economic and sociocultural structures. We argue for a more complete philosophy of science (and practice) consisting of complementary first principles—relational ethics and epistemology. Valuing relational ethics as a first principle means that how knowledge is produced and acted on is complementary in importance with what knowledge is produced. Collaborative relationships grounded in sincerity, reciprocity, and shared purpose become the basis for how psychological knowledge is produced, disseminated, and acted upon. We present two case studies to show how taking action in an ethical manner through relationships formed in the process of doing psychology deepens our conception and practice of psychology as human science.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0959354320974103

Cites

61 of 61 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

  • Cahill's PAR project with young undocumented students in the USA highlights intensely complex ethical issues of representation that will face many related projects.

    “Reflecting on the ethics of her PAR project with young undocumented students in the USA, Cahill 58 highlights some of the intensely complex ethical issues of representation that arose, and that will face many related projects.”

    From Participatory action research (2023) · cites this paper as [58]

  • PAR ethics include standard research ethics considerations (avoidance of harm, anonymity, confidentiality, voluntary informed consent), though these issues may become more complex in a PAR framework.

    “They include standard research ethics considerations traditionally addressed by Research Ethics Committees or Institutional Review Boards (IRBs), including key principles of avoidance of harm, anonymity and confidentiality, and voluntary informed consent, though these issues may become much more complex than traditionally presented, when working within a PAR framework 58 .”

    From Participatory action research (2023) · cites this paper as [58]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Hopner, V., & Liu, J. H.
Affiliations
Massey University (NZ)
ORCID
Venue
Theory & Psychology
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2020-12-14
Volume
31
Issue
2
Pages
179-198
ISSN
  • 0959-3543 (ISSN-L)
  • 1461-7447
DOI
10.1177/0959354320974103
OpenAlex
W3111343095
Cited by
27
References
61
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 3
FWCI
6.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
Theory & Psychology (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Qualitative Research Methods and Ethics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › General Psychology › Academic and Historical Perspectives in Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Feminist Epistemology and Gender Studies
Keywords
relational ethics, epistemology, first principles, researcher-subject relationship, power and privilege, collaborative relationships, reciprocity, human sciences, philosophy of psychology, knowledge production

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