EPISTEMIC UNCERTAINTY AND ETHICAL DILEMMAS IN CROSS-CULTURAL RESEARCH
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.55877/cc.vol31.512Keywords:
trust, cultural studies, inconsistency, trustworthiness, ethical dilemmasAbstract
This study explores the epistemic and ethical complexities of examining migrants’ trust in public services through qualitative cultural inquiry. Trust is addressed not only as the central subject of investigation but also as a condition underpinning the credibility of research findings. Drawing on implicit findings, such as unexpectedly low participation and inconsistencies in participant narratives, which introduced layers of uncertainty in the findings. The study points to indications of self-censorship, social desirability, and cultural bias, which raise concerns about the trustworthiness of the findings. These complexities present researchers with interpretive dilemmas, where their roles in decision-making regarding the trustworthiness of narrative authenticity and participant autonomy may conflict with established ethical principles. Rather than merely dismissing these patterns as mere limitations, this analysis interprets inconsistencies in implicit findings as meaningful indicators of how trust is negotiated and constrained in sensitive institutional contexts. These insights reveal deeper uncertainty in how trust is measured, narrated, and understood, and raise ethical and methodological dilemmas for researchers. This study contributes to ongoing debates about the fragility of trust-related data in vulnerable populations. It highlights the need for critical reflection when interpreting implicit findings of meaning in qualitative research.
Downloads
References
Adikaram, A.S. (2018). Being sensitive to the culture: Challenges in researching sensitive topics in an Asian culture. Qualitative Research Journal, 18(2), 125–137. https://doi.org/10.1108/QRJ-D-17-00044
Ahmad, M. (2022). Care and Migration: A Reflexive Account of a Researcher with a Migration Background. The Qualitative Report, 27(7), 1341–1358. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2022.5398
Alexander, S., Pillay, R., & Smith, B. (2018). A systematic review of the experiences of vulnerable people participating in research on sensitive topics. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 88, 85–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2018.08.013
Antin, J., & Shaw, A. (2012). Social desirability bias and self-reports of motivation. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Available: https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/2207676.2208699 (viewed 31.10.2025.)
Antin, T.M.J., Constantine, N.A., & Hunt, G. (2015). Conflicting discourses in qualitative research: The search for divergent data within cases. Field Methods, 27(3), 211–222. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X14549926
Bar-Tal, D. (2017). Self-censorship as a socio-political-psychological phenomenon: Conception and research. Political Psychology, 38, 37–65. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12391
Bellovary, A., Armenta, A.D., & Reyna, C. (2020). Stereotypes of immigrants and immigration in the United States. Stereotypes: The incidence and impacts of bias, 146–173. https://doi.org/10.5040/9798216018902.ch-008
Bos, J. (2020). Confidentiality. In: Research Ethics for Students in the Social Sciences. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-48415-6_7
Brutāne, L., & Petkeviča, K. (2022). Artistic freedom, censorship and self-censorship in the film industry of Latvia. Culture Crossroads, 21, 21–32. https://doi.org/10.55877/cc.vol21.268
Carian, E.K., & Hill, J.D. (2021). Using frameworks of social desirability to teach subjectivity in interviews. Teaching Sociology. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0092055X211017195
Chen, C.C., Chen, X.P., & Meindl, J.R. (1998). How can cooperation be fostered? The cultural effects of individualism–collectivism. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 285–304. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1998.533227
Colnerud, G. (2015). Ethical dilemmas in research in relation to ethical review: An empirical study. Research Ethics, 10(4), 238–253. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747016114552339
Creswell, J.W., & Creswell, J.D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Das, T.K., & Teng, B.S. (2004). The risk-based view of trust: A conceptual framework. Journal of Business and Psychology, 19, 85–116. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JOBU.0000040274.23551.1b
Delhey, J., & Newton, K. (2005). Predicting cross-national levels of social trust: global pattern or Nordic exceptionalism? European Sociological Review, 21(4), 311–327. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jci022
Dubie, E.Z. (2021). Presenting an admirable self: Moral evaluation within the interview. Ecclesial Practices, 8(1), 43–59. Available: https://brill.com/view/journals/ep/8/1/article-p43_43.xml (viewed 31.10.2025.)
Ellis, C. (2017). Compassionate Research: Interviewing and Storytelling from a Relational Ethics of Care. In: Goodson, I. (ed.) The Routledge International Handbook on Narrative and Life History (pp. 431–445), London: Routledge.
Essex, R., Kalocsányiová, E., & Rumyantseva, N. (2022). Trust amongst refugees in resettlement settings: A systematic scoping review and thematic analysis of the literature. Journal of International Migration and Integration, 23(2), 439–460. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12134-021-00850-0
Fujii, L.A. (2012). Research ethics 101: Dilemmas and responsibilities. PS: Political Science & Politics, 45(4), 717–723. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096512000819
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Sage.
Kuran, T. (1998). Private truths, public lies: The social consequences of preference falsification. Harvard University Press. Available: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2729412 (viewed 31.10.2025.)
Lee, M.C.Y. (2015). Finding cultural harmony in interviewing: the wisdom of the middle way. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 39(1), 38–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/1743727X.2015.1019455
Lenette, C. (2015). Mistrust and refugee women who are lone parents in resettlement contexts. Qualitative Social Work, 14(1), 119–134. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325013517924
Liamputtong, P. (2011). Cross-cultural research and qualitative inquiry: Methodological and ethical issues. In: Liamputtong, P. (ed.) Researching the vulnerable: A guide to sensitive research methods (pp. 3–20). SAGE Publications.
Mackenzie, C., McDowell, C., & Pittaway, E. (2007). Beyond ‘Do No Harm’: The challenge of constructing ethical relationships in refugee research. Journal of Refugee Studies, 20(2), 299–319. https://doi.org/10.1093/jrs/fem008
Markova, E. (2009). The ‘insider’ position: ethical dilemmas and methodological concerns in researching undocumented migrants with the same ethnic background. The ethics of migration research Methodology: Dealing with vulnerable immigrants, 141–154.
McMillan, J.H., and Schumacher, S. (2006). Research in Education: Evidence-based Inquiry (6th ed.). Cape Town: Pearson.
Ngozwana, N. (2018). Ethical Dilemmas in Qualitative Research Methodology: Researcher’s Reflections. International Journal of Educational Methodology, 4(1), 19–28. https://doi.org/10.12973/ijem.4.1.19
Nkirote, A. (2024). The Pragmatics of Politeness in Cross-Cultural Communication. European Journal of Linguistics, 3(3), 27–39. Available: https://ideas.repec.org/a/bhx/ojtejl/v3y2024i3p27-39id2052.html (viewed 31.10.2025.)
Odendaal, A. (2015). Cross-cultural differences in social desirability scales: Influence of cognitive ability. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 41(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajip.v41i1.1259
Quaranta, M. (2024). The formation of institutional trust among immigrants: what is the role of democracy? Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 51(1), 346–365. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2024.2320715
Rallis, S.F., Rossman, G.B., & Gajda, R. (2007). Trustworthiness in evaluation practice: An emphasis on the relational. Evaluation and Program Planning, 30(4), 404–409. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2007.06.006
Rodríguez-Dorans, E. (2018): Reflexivity and Ethical Research Practice while Interviewing on Sexual Topics. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 21(6), 747–760. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2018.1490980
Rothstein, B., & Stolle, D. (2003). Social capital, impartiality and the welfare state: An institutional approach. In: Generational changes in trust and social capital. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781403979544_10
Roulston, K., & Shelton, S.A. (2015). Reconceptualizing bias in teaching qualitative research methods. Qualitative Inquiry, 21(4), 332–342 . https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800414563803
Shah, R. (2024). Conducting Qualitative Interviews Online and In-person: Issues of Rapport Building and Trust. International Quarterly for Asian Studies, 55(4), 537–558. https://doi.org/10.11588/iqas.2024.4.24580
Sølvberg, L.M.B., & Jarness, V. (2019). Assessing contradictions: Methodological challenges when mapping symbolic boundaries. Cultural Sociology, 13(1), 84–100. https://doi.org/10.1177/1749975518819907
Sosnowska-Buxton, P. (2015). Taboo in qualitative interviewing. In: Roulston, S. (ed.) Cross-Cultural Interviewing (pp. 187–198). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315693972-15
Squires, A. (2009). Methodological challenges in cross-language qualitative research: A research review. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 46(2), 277–287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2008.08.006
Sultan, A., Anwar, S., Aysha, S., Ahmad, S., & Sajidl, M.K.M. (2024). The Pragmatics of Politeness in Cross-Cultural Communication: A Comparative Study of English and Pakistani Interactional Norms. Jahan-e-Tahqeeq, 7(1), 384–392. https://doi.org/10.61866/jt.v7i1.1147
Swain, M.P. (2025). Ethical Dilemmas in Research: A Systematic Review. AG Volumes, 23–30.
Tannenberg, M. (2021). The autocratic bias: self-censorship of regime support. Democratization, 29(4), 591–610. https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2021.1981867
Taquette, S.R., & Borges da Matta Souza, L.M. (2022). Ethical Dilemmas in Qualitative Research: A Critical Literature Review. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 21, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069221078731
Teh, W.L., Abdin, E., PV Nair, A., Devi, F., Siva Kumar, F. D., Roystonn, K., Wang, P., ... & Subramaniam, M. (2023). Measuring social desirability bias in a multi-ethnic cohort sample: Its relationship with self-reported physical activity, dietary habits, and factor structure. BMC Public Health, 23(1), 415. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-023-15309-3
Turner, S. (2013). Red stamps and green tea: Fieldwork negotiations and dilemmas in the Sino-Vietnamese borderlands. Area, 45(4), 396–402. https://doi.org/10.1111/area.12017
United Nations. (2021, August). Trust in public institutions: A conceptual framework and insights for improved governance programming. UNDP Oslo Governance Centre. Available: https://www.undp.org/sites/g/files/zskgke326/files/migration/oslo_governance_centre/Trust-in-Public-Institutions-Policy-Brief_FINAL.pdf (viewed 31.10.2025.)
Väliverronen, E., & Saikkonen, S. (2021). Freedom of expression challenged: Scientists’ perspectives on hidden forms of suppression and self-censorship. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 46(6), 1172–1200. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243920978303
Van Liempt, I., & Bilger, V. (2012). 21 Ethical challenges in research with vulnerable migrants. Handbook of research methods in migration, 451. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781781005231.00031
Watson, S., & Moran, A. (eds.) (2005). Trust, risk, and uncertainty. Palgrave Macmillan. Yamagishi, T., & Yamagishi, M. (1994). Trust and commitment in the United States and Japan. Motivation and Emotion, 18(2), 129–166. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02249397
Yeasmin, N., Hasanat, M.W., & Ojwang, F. (2021). Understanding Social Justice Towards Immigrants: Finnish Perspective. Culture Crossroads, 19, 243–264. https://doi.org/10.55877/cc.vol19.26
Yeh, D., & Barber, T. (2024). Reframing focus groups as deep collective and (sometimes) collaborative conversations: Biographical vulnerabilities, anti-racist East and Southeast Asian solidarities and protective silences. In: Nurse, L., O’Neill, M., & Moran, L. (eds.) Biographical research and new social architectures: Challenges and opportunities for creative applications across Europe (pp. 141–161). Bristol, UK: Policy Press. Available: https://openaccess.city.ac.uk/id/eprint/33669/ (viewed 31.10.2025.)
Zabihzadeh, A., Mazaheri, M.A., Hatami, J., Nikfarjam, M.R., Panaghi, L., & Davoodi, T. (2019). Cultural differences in conceptual representation of “Privacy”: A comparison between Iran and the United States. The Journal of Social Psychology, 159(4), 357–370. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2018.1493676
Zabko, O. (2024). Revising the researcher’s ‘borders’: The narrator demands expansion of the researcher’s ‘presence’ in storytelling. In: Nurse, L., O’Neill, M., & Moran, L. (eds.) Biographical research and new social architectures: Challenges and opportunities for creative applications across Europe (pp. 162–179). Bristol, UK: Policy Press.https://doi.org/10.51952/9781447368922.ch009
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Culture Crossroads
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
