Abstract
Participatory research is a co-production by researchers and co-researchers working as equal partners. In practice, open and concealed power imbalances within the research team may obstruct the realisation of that ideal. The concept of ‘care-full research’ is based on the ideas of care ethics, and enables researchers to reflect on their actions in order to avoid such problems. Care-full research builds on the elements of care defined by Joan Tronto: attentiveness, responsibility, competence, responsiveness and solidarity. This contribution examines a participatory research project in a care home in Germany (2017–2020). It explores the significance of care-full research in participatory research practice, seeking to promote ethical reflexivity among the researchers. A brief sequence of interactions at a meeting of the research team is analysed from the perspective of the academic researcher, on the basis of an audio transcript. Sequential analysis is employed to evaluate the speech acts before reflecting on issues of power in the scope of an ethical co-laboratory. The perspective of ‘researching with care’ permits the author to identify and to reflect on ethical challenges. The contribution describes key insights into the academic researcher’s special responsibility for ensuring that interactions within the group do not lead to abuse of power. Attentiveness of and respect for the needs of the co-researchers is central for realising that competently. The article demonstrates the importance of analysing micro-processes for (self-)critical ethical reflection by researchers and lays out the potential offered by Tronto’s framework.
Keywords
Introduction
Participatory research is a specific approach whose object is not merely to understand social reality, but to change it through action and empowerment (Ospina et al., 2021). The participatory research paradigm encompasses various methodologies, including participatory action research, community-based participatory research, appreciative inquiry and cooperative inquiry. Whatever the methodological differences between them, they are all based on co-production by all involved (Higginbottom & Liamputtong, 2015). Participatory research seeks to treat those whose lives and/or work are investigated not as objects of study, but as co-researchers in a collaborative research process (Abma et al., 2019). That is particularly true in relation to participation by vulnerable groups, such as disabled people or the extremely old (Urbaniak & Wanka, 2024). What all the different modes of co-production share in common is the idea that cooperation between academic researchers and non-academic co-researchers – in all phases and aspects of the research process – should be between equal partners, with continuous critical reflection of the power relations between those involved (ICPHR, 2013).
This epistemological and methodological paradigm shift (Bromley et al., 2015) has consequences for our understanding of research ethics (Kwan & Walsh, 2018; Wilson et al., 2018). We have to reinterpret the classical ethical principles – such as respect for autonomy, beneficience, non-maleficience and justice – and develop new ones specifically tailored to participatory research (Bussu et al., 2021; Cross et al., 2015; Hoekstra et al., 2020; Mikesell et al., 2013). This is an area where the participatory research community has made great progress in recent years (Banks & Brydon-Miller, 2019b; Groot & Abma, 2021; ICPHR, 2022a).
(Un)equal Power Sharing in Participatory Research Relationships
Although the ideal of equal partnership in the relationship between the academic researcher(s) and their co-researchers is central to the ethics of participatory research, reports from such research projects indicate very clearly the great challenges involved. Almost all researchers report power imbalances within the research team being detrimental (Arnold et al., 2022; Call-Cummings et al., 2019; Dodson et al., 2007; Lenette et al., 2019). Power and the possibility of its sharing is thus a central aspect of the participatory relationship (Muhammad et al., 2015; Smith et al., 2010). Herr and Andersen speak of the politics of participatory research, referring to the negotiation of power and interests on the micro and macro levels (Herr & Anderson, 2015).
Researchers need to recognise and address these power constellations and dynamics in their everyday practice: what Banks calls everyday ethics (Banks & Brydon-Miller, 2019a; Banks et al., 2013). Given that participatory research is open-minded, open-ended and often ‘messy’ (Cook, 1998, 2009), this demands ethical awareness and sensitivity. Ethical reflection is always an ongoing process (von Unger et al., 2022).
Care-full Research
Various authors have connected the participatory research ethic – both theoretically and empirically – with the concept of care (Abma & Baur, 2015; Bussu et al., 2021; Groot et al., 2020; Groot et al., 2019; Tayebi et al., 2023; von Köppen, 2025; Ward & Barnes, 2016). The work of Brannelly and Barnes is central here (Brannelly, 2016, 2018; Brannelly & Barnes, 2022; Brannelly & Boulton, 2017). Building on insights from care ethics, they develop an ethical framework that supports reflection on power relationships and can help to concretise the responsibility of researchers for fostering equality and partnership.
The idea that caring is essential to human life is common to all currents of care ethics. People cannot thrive without care relationships (Held, 2006). That does not apply only in specific life phases – childhood and incapacity being the obvious examples. It is always the case: ‘There is no beginning or endpoint in caring, because it is part of what it means to be alive’ (Abma et al., 2020, p. 134). In other words, the ‘vulnerability of the human’ (Laugier, 2020, p. 125) is a central and structural aspect of human life. The focus is not the person’s individual autonomy, but their affective relatedness, and thus their everyday dealings with others and their surroundings (Barnes et al., 2015). An ethic of care argues that we need to focus on the particularities of day to day interactions and understand the need for care to be given and received in particular circumstances in order to enable human flourishing. (Barnes, 2012, p. 17)
For such a praxis of care we need a solid empirical understanding of vulnerability, dependency and responsibility (Vosman, 2016). The goal is to understand the interpersonal processes through which people negotiate their expectations, wishes and demands (Visse, 2016).
Tronto (1993), in collaboration with Fisher) describes the process of caring as four complementary phases, each of which is associated with different ethical elements of care:
‘Caring about’ means recognising that care is needed, which presupposes attentiveness.
‘Taking care of’ means assuming responsibility for identified needs and deciding how to respond.
‘Care-giving’ describes the actual activities conducted to satisfy needs; this requires competence.
‘Care-receiving’ reminds us that the perspective of the care recipients must also be considered. It is their responsiveness that tells us whether the needs have been satisfied.
Tronto (2013) later added a fifth element:
‘Caring with’ requires ‘that caring needs and the ways in which they are met need to be consistent with democratic commitments to justice, equality, and freedom for all’ (Tronto, 2013, p. 23). This requires solidarity.
Brannelly and Barnes (2022) apply this relational ontology to the praxis of participatory research, honing in on the relational aspect of co-production of knowledge. To them, the starting point for research under the participatory paradigm is the question of how we research together with others and what research relationships we need if our research is to promote the objectives of justice and wellbeing. The point of what they call ‘care-full research’ (2022, p. 10) is not to ‘apply’ the principles of attentiveness, responsibility, competence, responsiveness and solidarity as if they were immutable abstract rules defining good research relationships, to which practice must merely be subsumed. The point is to employ ethical reflection to discover – through confrontation with concrete empirical practice – what care-full research means to the participants.
Background: Project PaStA
The proportion of the population requiring nursing care is increasing in Germany, as in other European countries. We know from health research that possibilities for participation have a positive influence on health and quality of life (Marent et al., 2012). However, many persons in need of care worry that moving into residential care means relinquishing autonomy and losing influence over their living conditions (Moilanen et al., 2021; Schweighart et al., 2022). Between 2017 and 2020, the participatory research project ‘Partizipation in der stationären Altenpflege’ (PaStA) investigated residents’ opportunities for participation in three selected care homes in Germany and sought to identify possibilities for improvement (von Köppen et al., 2020; von Köppen, Hahn, & Kümpers, 2022; von Köppen & Kümpers, 2023; von Köppen, Kümpers, & Hahn, 2022). The study received prior approval from the ethics committee at the University of Applied Sciences Fulda, focussing on data protection, informed consent participants’ safety.
The care home described in the present contribution was run by a private provider. Between ten and twelve residents lived in each of the fifteen households (apartments with a small single room for each resident, a shared kitchen and a common room). The residents had no possibility to choose a household when they entered the home, and the occupancy changed frequently on account of deaths.
The research process began with a three-month on-site observation phase. As the academic field researcher, I conducted informal discussions about life in the home with residents, staff and volunteers This process led to the establishment of a research team, which was composed of seven members of the residents’ committee, two other residents, one outside volunteer, two members of staff, and myself as the academic researcher. The participants had various physical disabilities but no significant cognitive impairments. The research team met ten times over the course of a year. The meetings were held in a meeting room in the home.
The research itself was explicitly participatory. At the beginning I tried to create a shared understanding within the research team about the significance of participatory research. This proved difficult because the co-researchers had no prior experience with the world of research. Their motivation was above all to make concrete improvements in the home. They gradually grasped the idea of participation through the experience of being involved in all the group’s decisions. At least initially, therefore, I was responsible for creating a safe and suitable context for participation.
The project’s concrete research questions and methodological approach were developed in a collaborative process with the co-researchers. The process began by identifying the relevant everyday issues. Early in the research process we learned that residents often felt lonely. While there was lively contact between residents within some of the households (for example in the form of conversation at mealtimes), others saw very little interaction (for example on account of cognitive restrictions or personal antipathies). This problem was exacerbated by the limited nature of contact between the households. Residents of different households generally did not know each other, and hesitated to visit other apartments.
In order to overcome the isolation and facilitate contact, the research team came up with the idea of organising ‘excursions’ within the home. Residents were invited to join organised visits between households. In the course of the year the co-researchers increasingly assumed responsibility for the excursions and developed significant aspects themselves (for example providing drinks and snacks or arranging to view specific residents’ rooms). The project ended with a round of reflection, in which the research team shared its findings on opportunities for participation with the home’s leadership.
Aim
The present contribution describes a specific ‘ethically important moment’ (Guillemin & Gillam, 2004) that occurred during the aforementioned research project. Using a brief interaction sequence I analyse the micro-processes within the research team from my perspective as academic researcher in order to reveal the open and concealed power constellations and dynamics. In the process I will reflect on the associated ethical challenges from the perspectives of care ethics, in light of the elements of care described by Tronto. The purpose of the article is to explore the significance of care-full research – as laid out by Brannelly and Barnes – for integrating the dimension of care into the relationship between the academic researcher(s) and their co-researchers, and promote ethical reflexivity in participatory research.
Methodology and Methods
Design
In line with the author’s specific research interests, the present contribution is a qualitative study about a participatory project. The co-researchers showed little interest in a meta-reflection on the relationships within the research team. They were motivated principally to generate knowledge for action, for concrete improvements in their living situation. As one co-researcher put it: ‘not too much talk’. From the academic researcher’s perspective, on the other hand, it is important to reflect on aspects of power in her role in the research process, in the interests of improving power-sharing in participatory projects. An academic interest in topics that extend beyond the participatory project itself is legitimate and important (see for example (Mayan & Daum, 2016; Muhammad et al., 2015; Postholm & Skrøvset, 2013; Smith & Phillipson, 2021)). As long as the academic researcher is clear that she is describing her own subjective views and not speaking for her co-researchers, there is no contradiction with the paradigm of participatory co-production.
Data
The interaction sequence analysed below occurred during the research team’s seventh meeting, which lasted about an hour. The specific extract of 8 minutes was selected because it represents a discussion during which the research team made a decision of significance for the course of the research project as a whole. This aspect of concentration allows us to examine the power dynamics at the granular level.
The analysis and reflection is based on the audio transcript of the project meetings. The transcript records the spoken interactions between the research partners. Unlike interviews and focus groups, it represents a direct record of the collaboration as practised in the research team. In other words, it is ‘naturally occuring data’ (Peräkylä & Ruusuvuori, 2018). For the purposes of this contribution the extracts from the transcripts were translated into English.
Participants in the Seventh Meeting of the Research Team
Data Analysis
The data was analysed in two stages. The first step was sequential analysis of the transcript. Sequential analysis is employed in various qualitative research styles in German sociology (conversational analysis, objective hermeneutics, hermeneutic sociology of knowledge) (Maiwald, 2005; Sammet & Erhard, 2018; Wernet, 2014) to uncover latent meaning by interpreting texts statement by statement.
There is, first of all, the maxim that meaning structures should be discovered following the line of the actual interaction process. This means not only proceeding ‘line-by-line’, to use a phrase well-known from grounded theory—i.e. following only the temporal structure of interactions—but to discover the way the actions and reactions are selectively ‘linked together’ (Maiwald, 2005).
The objective of this granular analysis of the interactions was to understand the complex power dynamics shaping the situation and to reveal the participants’ positions and assumptions. In order to verify the quality of the interpretations, they were validated by three external researchers with experience in analysing qualitative data (intersubjectivity). That was particularly relevant in this case because the data confronted me with my own actions and statements.
In order to identify aspects of particular relevance to the ethics of participatory research, I then discussed the situation and sequential analysis of the power relationships with several researchers who themselves conduct participatory research (covering the disciplines health science, education science, sociology, ergotherapy, psychology). This approach was based on the method of ethical case reflection described by Eiperle et al. (Eiperle et al., 2023), which has eight steps: 1. Enquiries about the case; 2. First spontaneous remarks/reactions/questions/comments; 3. Problem definition; 4. Description of the problem; 5. Impacts and alternatives; 6. Normative considerations; 7. Evaluation of the case; 8. Meta-level reflections (for details see also ICPHR, 2022b). This method enabled a shared process of reflection and learning, in the sense of what Banks calls an ‘ethics co-laboratory’ (in von Köppen et al., 2025). The objective was not to reach a consensus but to deepen understanding through multiperspectivity and polyphony. The following power analysis presents the findings of the analysis.
Power Analysis: Playing ‘Excursion to Egypt’
The central protagonist in the extract analysed here is Frau Bock, a resident and co-researcher. She is 87 years old, rather deaf and very soft-spoken. Frau Bock had been with the research team from the beginning, but had taken little part in the discussions. The other actors (besides the author) are Frau Kluge (activity worker), and Frau Müller (81 years old) and Frau Schmidt (80 years old), who are both residents. While Frau Müller and Frau Schmidt both have impaired mobility, their mobility scooters permit them to move largely independently around the home. Three further research team members were present but took no part in the discussion. All the participants were native speakers of German. None had cognitive impairments.
At the previous meeting Frau Bock had made a suggestion for the next event: Res_BOCK: Well, I’d have an idea about what one could offer, for an event, in the common room really. I’ve got a lot of … I’ve made a lot of figures of ancient Egyptians. And I’ve got them all at home [i.e. in her room]. And you know I could tell a story about each of them, a little story, about Hatshepsut, about Echnaton. R_MVK: Oh yes! Res_BOCK: For anyone who’s interested then. Well you know I’ve sometimes mentioned this kind of thing to the young nurses, and I noticed they were interested. So it doesn’t have to be a big thing.
The project group had shown great interest in the proposal but postponed further action. At the seventh meeting the idea of an Egypt event initially seemed to have been forgotten completely. Frau Bock did not mention it herself. But then Frau Kluge, the activity worker, brought it up: Act_KLUGE: We had been talking about taking up Frau BOCK’s idea about Egypt.
In the following I analyse the power dynamics in the ensuing discussion. As in a strategy game, the players set out their positions and pursue their interests in changing coalitions. I describe the interactions in six ‘moves’.
Move 1: Frau Kluge’s Starts the Game
Act_KLUGE: We had been talking about taking up Frau BOCK’s idea about Egypt. Res_MÜLLER: Yes. Act_KLUGE: Well the thing is … Frau BOCK’s room isn’t very suitable for … for having visitors is it? Res_SCHMITT: Yes, that won’t work. Act_KLUGE: And there we were thinking, we’ve got that display case out there [in the common room] – Frau MÜLLER, that’s the one where you put your things on show – and one could put [the] figures in it. See here, I’ve brought some photos, just so as to … well, that’s a photograph here, but there’s also a figure isn’t there? R_MVK: Yeah, nice!
Frau Kluge, the activity worker, makes the opening move. She recalls the prior discussion about an Egypt-themed event. In fact, she presents a concrete proposal, suggesting that the figures made by Frau Bock should be presented in a display case. This sequence reveals the complex role played by Frau Kluge. As an activity worker she has a responsibility towards all the residents. But at a personal level she is particularly close to Frau Bock. Until this point she had said little in the project meetings. But now she is speaking on behalf of Frau Bock. As often happens, she starts off speaking about Frau Bock as if she was not present. Then she switches to ‘we’ (‘And there we were thinking’), plainly referring to herself and Frau Bock. Frau Kluge’s initiative can be interpreted as advocacy for Frau Bock. Normally an advocate would have a mandate from the client, defining the form and scope of their representation. In the present case we do not know whether Frau Bock has authorised Frau Kluge to speak in her name. But, as the subsequent exchanges demonstrate, Frau Kluge has made Frau Bock’s interests her own. In the context of the research team, Frau Kluge operates as Frau Bock’s ally.
Move 2: Frau Müller Appropriates the Idea
After a couple of exchanges, Frau Müller makes the next move: Res_MÜLLER: Well I’d say we need to proceed as follows. If we’re going to … well then we’re going to have to say a little bit about Egypt, if we’re going to offer this kind of thing at all. Then I’m going to have to empty all my mandalas out of my display case, and she displays something from Egypt. You’ll have to make a poster, about Egypt, and then we’ll all have to gather around, and well someone will have to read something about Egypt won’t they. So that the people know what it’s all about. Res_BOCK: Well I think I could probably say something. Res_MÜLLER: And then we’ll have to … R_MVK: Yes, Frau BOCK … Res_MÜLLER: Then we’ll do Egypt and then somebody has a clever book and …
Here Frau Müller asserts her authority and presumes to speak for the collective. This reflects a shift in my own role as leader and organiser as the project progressed. Over the previous months Frau Müller in particular had assumed that function. She lends weight to her opinion by opening with an expression reminiscent of formal written language (‘proceed as follows’), with a normative tinge (‘need to’). Rather than extending an invitation (such as ‘we could do the following’) she is stating a necessity that brooks no contradiction. This attitude recurs several times in the sequence (‘Then we’ll have to … won’t we’; ‘Then we’ll …’)
Frau Müller’s response to Frau Bock’s idea is revealing. The way she adds ‘to offer this kind of thing at all’ sounds dismissive. It rather sounds as if Frau Müller rejects the idea but feels she has to go along with it. In that case her contribution would be an expression of resignation. A more conciliatory interpretation would be that Frau Müller is implicitly conceding that a start has been made. In either case, we are seeing a potential conflict between Frau Müller and Frau Bock/Frau Kluge.
Frau Müller goes on to lay out all the things that will have to be done if the Egypt event is to be realised. She will have to remove her mandalas from ‘her’ display case. ‘Ownership’ of the glass display case is an interesting issue here. It stands in a common space used by all the households. The function of a display case is to exhibit objects, to present them in the best possible light: rings and necklaces at the jeweller’s, cups and medals at the sports club, the best china in the drawing room. The display case serves to protect the exhibits; they are to be admired but not touched. Especially in the domestic context the display case is a (middle class) means of displaying affluence and culture. It is telling that Frau Müller speaks of ‘my display case’ as if it were her personal property. Apparently there is no arrangement for taking turns with the display case. It is Frau Müller’s personal preserve. This resonates in her complaint: ‘Then I’m going to have to empty all my mandalas out of my display case.’ The question of who is entitled to use the display case can be read as a tussle over attention, recognition and prestige.
The display case is the central feature in Frau Müller’s suggestion for the Egypt event. The group will gather round it, while someone reads something out loud. This is remniscent of a guided tour in a museum, where the group gathers around a particular exhibit to listen to an explanation. Other ideas about how the Egypt event could be arranged are not discussed; the other participants tacitly accept the predetermined concept.
Frau Müller goes on to give further instructions. Frau Bock should make a poster for the event. But when it comes to the question of who should play the prominent role of the ‘museum guide’, she is explicitly vague (‘someone’, ‘somebody’). Frau Bock puts herself forward: ‘Well I think I could probably say something.’ But Frau Müller ignores this and continues: ‘Then we’ll do Egypt and then somebody has a clever book and ….’ Frau Müller’s use of ‘somebody’ makes it clear that she does not have Frau Bock in mind, even though it was Frau Bock who had proposed the topic. Her allusion to a ‘clever’ book also indicates that Frau Müller plainly assumes that a good book would be sufficient to make the event a success.
Move 3: Frau Kluge Objects
Now Frau Kluge intervenes again: Act_KLUGE: Frau BOCK doesn’t need a clever book. Frau BOCK knows about Egypt, so she has something to say about every figure, don’t you?
Here Frau Kluge again intervenes as Frau Bock’s advocate. She deflects Frau Müller’s mockery and emphasises that Frau Bock does not need a ‘clever book’. Instead, she says, Frau Bock has ‘knows about’ Egypt. The formulation implies that she has learned about the topic and understands it well. So Frau Bock has no need to read from a book; she ‘has something to say’ herself. A specific cultural understanding of education lurks in the background here: superficial reading from a book versus deeper knowledge. This is interesting in connection with Frau Müller, who is typically educated middle class. At the first event in the home she read to the group from a Baedecker guidebook. Frau Bock is largely self-educated, having left school aged fourteen. As such Frau Kluge’s intervention is an implicit provocation to Frau Müller. Here again we see the latent conflict potential of the situation.
At this point I intervene to avert an escalation: R_MVK: Frau BOCK, I think that’s a lovely idea. I think it’s a really really lovely idea.
I direct this comment directly to Frau Bock, seeking to defuse the situation. Yet although the comment appears simply supportive, power is in play. Rather than directing a question to Frau Bock (‘what do you think about that?’), I clearly indicate which outcome I would prefer. The repetition ‘really really lovely’ underlines my position.
Move 4: Frau Schmitt Assigns Tasks
Without waiting for Frau Bock’s response, Frau Schmitt addresses Frau Bock: Res_SCHMITT: Well I would put that in your hands. Res_MÜLLER: Exactly, the Egyptian theme … Res_SCHMITT: Exactly …
Here Frau Schmitt makes her appearance. Rather than simply expressing her agreement, she positions herself as someone who has the authority to assign tasks (‘I would put that in your hands’). The statement sounds weighty and official. It marks the beginning of an assignment, a mission. It is notable that this is not the outcome of a democratic process. Following directly on my expression of approval at the end of the third move, Frau Schmitt essentially takes the decision. Although her use of the conjunctive indicates a degree of caution, she is not asking the others for their opinions or moving to a formal vote. Her formulation also makes it clear that the details are not to be decided by the group collectively. If the mission is placed in Frau Bock’s hands, she is authorised to act as she sees fit. Frau Bock has the freedom to organise the event just as she pleases – but she also bears sole responsibility for success or failure.
At this juncture the other participants can only agree or object. Frau Müller, who has led the proceedings until this point, chooses the former (‘Exactly, the Egyptian theme …’). This implicitly acknowledges Frau Schmitt’s right to decide. One explanation for this concession may lie in the relationship between Frau Müller (secretary of the residents’ committee) and Frau Schmitt (her deputy), which was characterised throughout by a silent power struggle in which both avoided direct confrontation. Because Frau Schmitt immediately interrupts Frau Müller, we are left not knowing whether she might have wanted to add a restriction or condition. R_MVK: I think you should present the topic just as you please. Res_MÜLLER: Exactly. R_MVK: They are your creations. Res_MÜLLER: Maybe she went to Egypt sometime? Res_BOCK: I went to Turin, that’s where the biggest Egyptian museum is. It is so full. Not very nicely presented, all the little figures just jumbled into the cabinets. They have bought an incredible number of figures. The Italians. [the others start talking among themselves]
I also affirm Frau Schmitt’s assignment of responsibility to Frau Bock and tell Frau Bock to present the topic just how she wants to. My expression ‘present the topic’ remains within the educated middle class paradigm of the informative lecture. In doing so, I exclude other concepts and close down the space for creativity, where I could have taken up the aspect of storytelling. I tell Frau Bock to do as she wished, but the framework has already been defined. There is a latent expectation about what Frau Bock should do. Despite my encouraging formulation, I am also making a demand. Indeed, her lack of explicit agreement suggests that she may have felt pressurised into a particular form of participation.
My observation that ‘They are your creations’ alludes to the reason for Frau Bock’s special role. On the one hand, she has been given this role by Frau Schmitt with support of Frau Müller and myself. But I automatically assume that Frau Bock has the right and responsibility to decide about the Egypt event because the figures are hers. This makes her the central figure, so to speak. Frau Müller follows the same thought. She also seeks a justification for Frau Bock’s prominence and wonders whether she might even have visited Egypt. Frau Bock is given a unique role as the artist and expert. No attempt is made to involve the other participants. Nobody asks whether others are interested in the ancient world. So the collective project turns into an event showcasing a single individual.
Now Frau Bock speaks again, to describe her visit to the museum in Turin. She criticises the museum’s presentation and poor presentation of the smaller figures, which were ‘jumbled into the cabinets’. Here she affirms her personal expertise. But she does not explicitly say whether she is accepting the task assigned to her. All we know is that she is not explicitly turning it down. While Frau Bock is speaking, the others start talking among themselves, suggesting that they are not terribly interested in what she has to say. Perhaps they have become bored of watching the power game.
Move 5: Project Management by Frau Müller, Frau Schmitt and the Academic Researcher
In order to get the meeting back on topic, I interrupt Frau Bock’s attempt to talk about her experiences and direct the discussion to practical matters: R_MVK: The question is, whether we maybe want to do something with a microphone or whatever. I’m a little bit worried that your/her voice won’t be loud enough, you know? Maybe we can think about that? I’m just saying, maybe it would be good if Frau BOCK had some kind of microphone or something like that, you know?
Here I raise a question that had been on my mind ever since I first met Frau Bock: her hearing impairment, which is probably the reason why she speaks so quietly. My uppermost concern is not whether Frau Bock might benefit from assistance but to identify her quiet voice as a potential problem for the others. Nor is it clear whether I am actually addressing her directly at all. In my question – ‘I’m a little bit worried that your/her voice won’t be loud enough, you know?’ it is linguistically unclear whether I am speaking to Frau Bock or about her. In this instance German uses the same word for ‘you’ and ‘her’. Similarly my ‘you know’ could be addressed to Frau Bock or to the others. It is probably the latter, as I go on to repeat my doubts about audibility in a context where I am clearly speaking about Frau Bock rather than with her. Frau Müller and Frau Schmitt respond accordingly: Res_MÜLLER: We can get hold of one. Res_SCHMITT: We’ve got one here. R_MVK: Do you have it? Res_MÜLLER: It’s downstairs. R_MVK: Ah, wonderful. ’cos I think it would be good to have one, because Frau BOCK really speaks rather quietly. Res_MÜLLER: Quiet. R_MVK: And then everyone will be able to … exactly, so that’s fine. Res_SCHMITT: Yes that’s sorted. R_MVK: And then so that the listeners can understand everything properly and don’t get impatient or anything because she … Res_BOCK: Well most of them have trouble hearing anyway. R_MVK: Yes exactly, so then I think it might be rather a good idea. So yes, if we could maybe arrange to have a microphone, that would be great. Res_MÜLLER: And then it’s switched on at the bottom and turned …
Without waiting for Frau Bock to respond to the ‘problem’ of her quiet voice, Frau Müller, Frau Schmitt and I set about negotiating the details of my solution. Frau Bock is not asked whether she would like to use a microphone. Instead a chain of causality is imagined, starting with her disability and ending with impatient listeners, and responsibility for ensuring that that this not happen is assigned to Frau Bock. However, Frau Bock rejects this one-sided attribution of fault and counters: ‘most of them have trouble hearing anyway’ I accept this interjection, but reinterpret is as support for my argument that a microphone is needed. Other possibilities for accommodating the audience’s hearing difficulties – rather than concentrating on Frau Bock’s quiet voice – are not discussed.
The role of the other group members is worth considering here. Only the leading trio of Frau Müller, Frau Schmitt and myself are involved in the discussion at this point. Not only are we talking about Frau Bock as if she was not present, we are also organising the project without involving the other members of the group. That also applies to Frau Kluge, who now objects.
Move 6: Frau Kluge Objects
Act_KLUGE: Well that’s because, well if someone else says something about it it just won’t come over the same. I know that because Frau BOCK has already told me so much about her figures and that was always very interesting, very informative, wasn’t it? And I think that’s why it would also be better if she does it herself then.
Frau Kluge’s intervention is superfluous at this point. It has already been agreed Frau Bock will play the central role. Frau Kluge’s insistence that Frau Bock is uniquely and comprehensively suited to the task strongly implies that the role of the rest of group is marginal. Frau Kluge vouches for the quality of her protegée’s presentation. The adjectives ‘interesting’ and ‘informative’ are the standard words of praise for a good talk. It is now clear that Frau Bock should show and tell: ‘if someone else says something about it it just won’t come over the same’. This gives Frau Bock a monopoly on the topic, and any thought of developing it collectively is dismissed. The others are not asked if they have anything to contribute. The collective aspect is restricted solely to certain practicalities of the event, which will offer a stage for the star turn – Frau Bock. Res_BOCK: Well if I’m going to do all that too … I_MVK: What do they drink in Egypt then?
Here Frau Bock tries to gain a hearing again. ‘If I’m going to do … that’ implies reluctant agreement. But I immediately interrupt, so we never learn what she wanted to say. ‘All that’ could refer to all her knowledge and information, or to her figures, or to the event as a whole. It remains unclear what exactly she is agreeing to. I am stuck in organising mode, and turn to the question of food and drink. As far as I am concerned, Frau Bock’s role has been discussed quite enough.
Ethical Reflection from the Perspective of Care-full Research
In the following I reflect on various aspects identified in the sequential analysis. Specifically, I explore the concrete significance of Tronto’s ethical elements of care – attentiveness, responsibility, competence, responsiveness and solidarity – for the interactions between the participants.
Attentiveness: Formulating and Satisfying Needs
My first observation is that Frau Bock hardly got a word in edgeways, even though she was to play the central role in the planned event. Her hearing disability also hindered her participation. The others almost always spoke of her in the third person, making her a passive figure rather than an active player.
This raises the question of who is entitled to articulate needs. It is easy to jump to conclusions about the existence of particular needs, without these actually being expressed by those affected. We observe that here. Frau Bock was given no opportunity to express her own ideas about how she wanted to present her figures to her fellow residents. Instead the other participants agreed on a concept and assumed her consent. It remained unclear whether this was how Frau Bock actually wanted to exhibit her figures and talk about them. Such presumptions are paternalistic and contradict the idea of participatory research.
Listening
Care ethics emphasises attentive listening as a precondition for care (Bourgault, 2016). As Noddings observes: ‘In listening, we may move away from assumed needs toward expressed needs’ (Noddings, 2015, p. 77). Giving people a voice is a central trope in participatory discourse, especially in connection with so-called marginalised groups (Wright & Kongats, 2018). However, as Bourgault points out, caring is not only about giving a voice. Everyone already has a voice. What is really needed, Bourgault argues, is to listen to them: expressing care needs is pointless if no-one is listening. She calls for a radical shift from a ‘politics of voice’ to a ‘politics of attentive listening’ (Bourgault, 2016, p. 313).
In the analysed situation, the actors were plainly not using their power to encourage listening. In the first move Frau Kluge acted as Frau Bock’s advocate and ensured that the Egypt excursion was put on the agenda. Her intervention sought to give a voice to Frau Bock in a research team that was dominated by a small number of assertive women. That corresponds to a politics of voice. But this did not lead to Frau Bock participating as an equal in the discussion. Instead all her attempts to contribute – and perhaps to speak about her interest in ancient Egyptian culture – were ignored. She was not listened to.
Stopping and Thinking
One reason for this was the great dynamism of the discussion. The actors rapidly agreed the entire organisation of the event – from idea to practicalities – in just a few speech acts. But attentive listening requires conscious pauses. Bourgault cites the French philosopher Simone Weil, who ‘insisted that for meaningful listening to take place, one needed to stop and to wait’ (Bourgault, 2016, p. 333). Gallagher (2020) formulates the vision of ‘slow ethics’. Deliberately slowing processes down is especially important for time-pressed researchers, who often seek to abridge phases of contemplation and exploration. Efficiency-driven project management has little time for contemplation. One clear example of this was my efforts to get the Egypt event ‘wrapped up’ at that meeting, because I was aware that it would be difficult to arrange another one. That led me to cut Frau Bock off in the sixth move, when she was trying to express her thoughts. But listening means being open to the other and their situation, and initially putting one’s own thoughts, plans and goals to one side (Tronto, 1993).
Responsibility: Role of the Academic Researcher
Another important aspect revealed by the analysis is the question of my role and responsibilities as the academic researcher. Under the participatory paradigm, responsibility for the research process should not lie solely with the academic researcher(s). Ideally all the participants should participate comprehensively and democratically, thus also sharing responsibility for the research relationships (Banks et al., 2019). But there is always also a danger of romanticising, especially where power imbalances are neglected (Phillips et al., 2018). As the analysis shows, the dangers of exclusion, repression and marginalisation lurk not only in the relationships between the academic researcher and their co-researchers, but also in those among the co-researchers.
Frau Müller in particular was very dominant throughout the project, and left little room for others to take the initiative. Frau Kluge challenged this with her intervention in the first move – but solely to advocate for Frau Bock rather than to press for all the co-researchers to participate actively. I concentrated on organisational details rather than reflecting on and challenging the power constellations. In practical terms, I abandoned my responsibility for realising a partnership of equals and left my co-researchers to their own devices.
Avoid Privileged Irresponsibility
Tronto notes the danger of ‘privileged irresponsibility’ (Tronto, 1993, pp. 120–122). Privilege may lead people to overlook the needs and disadvantages of others, and to fail to take responsibility. Academic researchers are privileged, in the sense that they possess the necessary symbolic and (often) economic capital to initiate research (Brannelly & Barnes, 2022). While community-initiated projects do exist, participatory research is mostly driven by academic researchers (as in this case).
So if the academic researcher makes her co-researchers responsible for realising the partnership of equals – on the basis that the project is participatory – she is abrogating the responsibility inherent to the research privilege. An academic researcher who thinks they can just be an ordinary team member is an example of privileged irresponsibility. In reality, the academic researcher bears a special responsibility for the power dynamics within the research team, and for ensuring that the interactions within the group are as open and nonviolent as possible. In other words, I should have assumed the (additional) role of facilitator to ensure that the research setting enabled people with disabilities to participate as fully as possible. That would have meant collectively clarifying roles and responsibilities within the research team right at the beginning of the project. Not having done so left me uncertain whether I could play such a morderating role, and how. Instead I largely held back, in order not to discourage the co-researchers from assuming responsibility (in other words, not to obstruct the empowerment process). As a result, I failed to pay adequate attention to the power dynamics between the co-researchers.
Competence: Skills Required to Realise Equality and Partnership
It is not enough to simply assume the role of facilitator, however. The role must be exercised competently. This is the third element of care, care-giving (Tronto, 1993). In the case at hand, this would have meant ensuring that people spoke comprehensibly and that underlying conflicts were addressed constructively.
Acquiring Methodological and Ethical Skills
The concept of care-full research emphasises the importance of a proper understanding of the methodological and ethical issues (Brannelly, 2018; Brannelly & Barnes, 2022). Inexperience or ineptitude can prevent participation (von Köppen, Kümpers, & Hahn, 2022). This certainly applies to the skill and ability of the academic researchers in moderating and facilitating dialogue processes – their knowledge about how to initiate and lead meaningful and constructive co-production (Cebrián, 2020; Platteel et al., 2010). But it is important to remember that the co-researchers also contribute skills to the research process (Barnes et al., 2018). The point is to foster caring relationships within the research team in order to collectively develop good research practice (Brannelly & Barnes, 2022).
Understanding the Lifeworld
Competence in care-full research also requires researchers to take the specific context into consideration (Groot et al., 2019). It is important that researchers develop an understanding of the specific lifeworld they enter with their research project. In the case presented here, I, as the academic researcher, must pay adequate account to both the specific conditions of life in a care home and the specific vulnerabilities of people with disabilities and care needs.
Responsiveness: Judging the Contribution of Actions to Empowerment
Another critical question raised by my analysis of open and hidden power dynamics is whether the actions contribute to empowerment (as one of the goals of participatory research). When writing up the research, I initially framed Frau Bock’s opportunity to present her craftwork and knowledge as a story of empowerment: the project had enabled an initially very reticent co-researcher to express herself (von Köppen et al., 2025). After analysing the interactions, that now appears to be an oversimplification. Although Frau Bock did not say anything about how she experienced the situation, it is quite possible that the manner in which the other group members discussed her proposal and made her responsible for the event was more intimidating than empowering. The same also applies to the co-researchers who remained silent. Their silence may indicate that they experienced the discussion as uninclusive or even stressful.
Care-receiving is the counterpart to care-giving. Only if the perspective of the care recipient is considered can we know whether the care needs have actually been satisfied (Tronto, 1993). This touches on the aspect of responsiveness, which serves as an ethical corrective. If we are to judge the quality of care – and be sensitive to the possibilities of abuse of power, which always exist in any unequal relationship – we must also consider the perspectives of the care recipients (Engster, 2007; Tronto, 1993).
Collective Reflection of the Research Experience
The actions of researchers can only be care-full if there is a safe space for responsiveness. This requires collective reflection processes to illuminate ethically critical aspects of the research relationships (Groot et al., 2020). Especially in institutional contexts, people often find it hard to share their experience of the research process with others. This applies all the more to those who may have learned not to express their feelings or been told that their views do not count. Past experience of not being listened to may simply be reproduced. It is the task of researchers to prevent such speechlessness and encourage collective reflection on the emotional and cognitive experiences (Brannelly & Barnes, 2022).
Fostering Trust
If experiences are to be shared, trust is a vital precondition (Schues, 2020). The care ethic sensitises us to the combination of rationality and emotion that is required for trust to emerge at all. We trust others not only because we think that they are trustworthy, but also because we feel it. In other words, the rational and the emotional are interdependent (Brugère, 2020).
Solidarity: Possibilities to Promote Solidarity in the Research Team
Finally, participatory research seeks to bring about real change in the real lifeworld. The aims of project PaStA included reducing the loneliness and disconnectedness of the care home residents. Such engagement for the needs of others is an expression of care. According to the last element of care, caring with, this should be based collective solidarity (Tronto, 2013).
Yet the planning of the event described above had everything revolving around Frau Bock. Apart from emptying the display case and procuring the microphone, none of the other research team members had any part to play. The problematic aspect of this lack of participation became clear later, when criticisms of the event arose and Frau Bock was held solely responsible. Unlike the other events organised by the project group, this one was not understood as a collective venture for which the group was collectively responsible. This led to a lack of solidarity, whose origins can be traced back to the interactions analysed above.
Enable Diverse Roles
That is not to say that solidarity among the participants necessitates everyone having to decide everything together and do everything together. Indeed, solidarity often emerges precisely where certain participants only feel comfortable with particular tasks and prefer not to be involved in others (Brannelly & Barnes, 2022). Research projects should therefore work to maximise the diversity of opportunities to participate.
Develop Shared Understanding of Goals, Commitments and Values
Shared goals, commitments and values represent the foundation of solidarity. Such a shared understanding cannot be taken for granted: researchers must work actively to promote it. That means paying close attention to personal and collective attitudes throughout the research project (again underlining the significance of attentive listening). As the analysed interactions demonstrate, it is not enough just to agree to principles like personal respect and democratic decision-making at the beginning of a project. The research team must develop an ongoing practice of collaboration that is capable of coping with conflicts of interest and power games.
Conclusions
The analysis presented above builds on the work of Brannelly and Barnes and others, who apply care ethics to participatory research and call for care-full research. It identifies ethically problematic dynamics in the micro-processes of participatory research. Of course the interaction sequence represents only a miniscule excerpt from the group’s work: just 8 minutes from a year of research. This permits me to examine in great detail the behaviour of the members of the research team and their relationships to one another. The situation illustrates very well how simply sharing decision-making with co-researchers is not enough to guarantee genuine participation. Instead, as the analysis shows, participatory research projects may struggle to realise the ideal of equal partnership. In that sense the scene represents a negative example: how not to deal with power dynamics. And as such, it highly suited to sharpen our ethical reflexivity.
The concept of care-full research offers a twofold contribution to the ethical perspective, which is relevant to all methodological approaches within the participatory paradigm. The first insight relates to the methods and methodology of ethical reflection. Care ethics requires that ethical questions be negotiated in everyday situations, interactions and relationships. So researchers develop their ethical reflexivity not through abstract dilemmas and principles but through confrontation with the real (Edwards & Mauthner, 2012). This emphasises the necessity of directing attention to the respective interaction praxis in research projects. Reflection must be grounded in the observation of ethically critical moments within the concrete research setting – for which the kind of granular analysis of interaction sequences presented here has been demonstrated to be suitable and productive. In this case that was possible, because a verbatim transcript of the interaction was available. That represents a particular strength of the present analysis, which sets it apart from other approaches to ethical reflection of research processes.
The second contribution of care-full research relates to concretisation of the requirements for making the research relationship a partnership of equals. Applying Tronto’s elements of care – attentiveness, responsibility, competence, responsiveness und solidarity – to the field of research allows us to consider the quality of the researchers’ relationships from new perspectives. Especially when working with vulnerable groups, the idea that relationships among academic researchers and co-researchers should be characterised by care and caring supplies useful guidance for dealing with the inevitable power differentials. In that sense, the care principles can be employed as monitoring criteria. That means subjecting our research practice to (self-)critical scrutiny, asking the questions suggested by the concept of care-full research: (1) Caring about/attentiveness): What needs are on the table? Who defines the needs? Who is speaking for whom? In which role/s? (2) Taking care of/responsibility: Who has responsibility for whom in the research process? What roles and tasks does this imply? (3) Care-giving/competence: What ethical, methodological and practical research skills are needed in the situation? Are the specific logics and structures of the investigated lifeworld taken into account? (4) Care-receiving/responsiveness: Are the perspectives of the participating researchers reflected in concrete action? Is a safe space available for critical reflection? (5) Caring with/solidarity: How is solidarity fostered in the research team? Are there different possibilities to contribute to the collective goals? Are the different interests negotiated democratically? Is the research team developing a shared understanding of the ethical positions and challenges?
More research will be needed to demonstrate how such monitoring of power dynamics can be realised. Ethics committees are not (yet) suitable partners for this endeavour. Although efforts to institute reforms are in the works, German ethics committees are still largely concerned with data protection, informed consent and participants’ safety (Crawford et al., 2024). Negotiating ground rules for power-sharing is therefore a matter for each research team.
Collective discussion of ethical issues can provide useful input. Reflecting a challenging situation from the subjective perspective of one of the participants can promote and stimulate ethical reflexivity among other particiatory researchers and co-researchers. It permits us to see things from the other person’s perspective and encourages deeper comprehension of their motives, actions and values (Banks & Brydon-Miller, 2019a). Ethical co-laboratories can provide a safe space for this and therefore represent a component of care-full research. A concept for ethical co-laboratories is currently being prepared and trialled by the ethics working group of the International Collaboration of Participatory Health Research (ICPHR) (of which the author is a member). Further research is needed to identify the preconditions for non-academic participants to participate productively in ethical co-laboratories. One possibilty would certainly be to make greater use of arts-based methods, such as participatory theatre, dance and creative writing.
Future research should also investigate the influence of institutional and structural logics and conditions on the practice of interactions. The present contribution focusses on the micro-processes, the interactions and power dynamics within the research team, and thus does not consider the macro-level and the ‘social ecology of power’ (Roura, 2021, p. 779). Yet the ethics of care, which Tronto (2013) and other care ethicists (for example Held, 2006; Sevenhuijsen, 1998) have expanded into a political ethics (Vosman, 2016), can also provide input for reflection over and above the level of individual relationships. But that demands that these aspects be transposed into the field of research ethics. Adele Clarke’s situational analysis (Clarke, 2016; Clarke et al., 2018), with its concept of social worlds and arenas, could offer productive starting points.
Footnotes
Acknowledgments
I am very grateful to the members of PartGroup (working group in PartNet/Germany) who discussed and reflected the ethical challenges of the case with me. I would like to thank Meredith Dale for his invaluable help in translating this paper.
Ethical Consideration
The study was approved by the relevant ethics committee of University of Applied Sciences Fulda, Germany on March/03/2017.
Consent to Participate
All participants provided written informed consent prior to participating.
Funding
The author disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The research project “Partizipation in der stationären Altenpflege (PaStA)” was funded by the German Ministry of Education and Research. I acknowledge support by the Open Access Publishing Fund of Hochschule Fulda – University of Applied Sciences.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Data Availability Statement
All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article.