Ethics of not knowing who we are talking to in qualitative research

Journal article

The increasing use of online methods in qualitative research, alongside the growing availability of artificial intelligence tools, has raised concerns about whether researchers can be certain who they are speaking to. These concerns are often framed in terms of 'imposter' or 'fraudulent' participants, with proposed responses focusing on detection and verification. This paper argues that such framing mischaracterises the ethical landscape. It presumes that authenticity can be reliably established in contexts where uncertainty is often unavoidable, risks excluding participants whose circumstances or communication styles do not align with normative expectations and reshapes the research relationship in ways that amplify existing power asymmetries. Drawing on relational ethics, ethics of care and accounts of epistemic injustice, the paper proposes a reframing of these encounters as 'uncertain encounters'. It suggests that, rather than treating uncertainty solely as a threat to data integrity, it can be understood as a feature of contemporary qualitative research that requires careful ethical engagement. The paper develops a proportionate approach in which verification is guided by the potential consequences of inauthentic participation rather than being applied routinely. It argues that uncertain accounts may still hold analytic value, particularly in studies concerned with meanings, narratives and social imaginaries. The paper concludes by outlining practical and institutional implications, including the need for reflexive practice, collective deliberation and greater transparency in reporting.

Authors: Suleman, M; Gogoi, M; Moss, R; Rivas, C; Reilly, H

• Publication status: Published
• Peer review status: Peer reviewed
• Publisher: BMJ Publishing Group
• Journal: Journal of Medical Ethics
• Pages: jme-2026
• Publication date: 2026-07-01
• Acceptance date: 2026-06-08
• DOI: 10.1136/jme-2026-111881
• EISSN: 1473-4257
• ISSN: 0306-6800
• Language: English
• Keywords: Normative; Deliberation; Research ethics; Narrative; Cognitive reframing; Qualitative research; Transparency (behavior); Framing (construction); Reflexivity