Bridging Ethics and Local Realities: A Case for Cultural Sensitivity and Reflexivity in Bangladesh

Introduction

Research on child development in Bangladesh remains dominated by quantitative methods, with few qualitative studies—particularly in parenting—limiting contextually grounded inquiry. An integrative review found that from 2006 to 2018, only three qualitative studies and one book chapter specifically examined parenting, while the rest addressed it tangentially through topics such as nutrition, psychosocial stimulation, and parent-child interaction and play (Jasmine & Nduna, 2022). These studies, largely shaped by the World Health Organization's (WHO) child development agendas, neglected the integration of local cultural values and norms, leaving a limited understanding of contextual parenting practices in Bangladesh. Besides, none of these studies reported methodological or ethical challenges. This scarcity leaves the challenges of adapting international ethical frameworks to local socio-cultural contexts unexamined. Although institutions such as the Bangladesh Medical Research Council (BMRC) oversee ethical standards through the National Ethical Committee (NEC), capacity building and consistent application of ethics remain insufficient in low-income contexts (Islam & Hossain, 2020).

Critical debates on Global North–South collaborations emphasize epistemological concerns, particularly the dominance of Western approaches that marginalize local knowledge systems and historical contexts (Kamruzzaman, 2024; Msoroka & Amundsen, 2018; Santos, 2014). Besides, standard ethics guidelines are built upon Western individualism and undermine the essence of communal culture. A similar experience is reflected by researchers in Global South contexts (Kukeba et al., 2023; Mavhandu-Mudzusi, 2023; Posel & Ross, 2014). These arguments contest the notion that Western frameworks of knowledge production are ‘universal’ and ‘objective’ (Msoroka & Amundsen, 2018; Santos, 2014).

In Bangladesh, challenges include reconciling scientific rigor with cultural sensitivity—an area poorly defined in national guidelines—and navigating the absence of contextually grounded ethical frameworks. These gaps necessitate that researchers engage deeply with local customs, employ reflexivity to remain aware of their positionality, and adapt ethically to situational dynamics (Arifin, 2018; Takyi, 2015; Taquette & Borges da Matta Souza, 2022).

Reflexivity in Qualitative Studies

When research protocols overlook environmental contexts, researchers face challenges in balancing setting-specific demands with ethical integrity and participant well-being (Taquette & Borges da Matta Souza, 2022). Reflexivity and sensitivity are thus crucial for safeguarding ethics, addressing participants’ needs, and enhancing trustworthiness (Muthanna & Alduais, 2023). Reflexivity involves attentiveness to social cues, interactions, and cultural practices during interviews (Reissner, 2018) and requires “interrogating the interrogation” to critically examine the research process (Bourdieu, 2017, p. 28). Sensitivity, though less theorized, is conceptualized as responsiveness to interviewees’ needs, preferences, and interests within ethical boundaries (Muthanna & Alduais, 2023). Distinguishing between contextual and cognitive needs, and reflexively addressing them, is key to generating reliable knowledge. Studies in communal societies underscore this, noting that while researchers must uphold ethical principles, procedures must also align with participants’ contextual realities, often creating dilemmas (Mavhandu-Mudzusi, 2023; Meadows et al., 2003).

Epistemic Challenge in the Global South

Debates on epistemic injustice highlight the exclusion of Indigenous Knowledge and the marginalization of Global South perspectives, subordinating their personhood to Western frameworks. A striking example is covert socio-legal research in Western Sahara, where informed consent and voluntary participation were disregarded under claims of serving the oppressed population (Kaur et al., 2023). Scholarship advocating Indigenous epistemologies challenges such inequities and calls for intercultural ethics. This discourse is especially pertinent to Bangladesh, where Western ethical models similarly constrain context-sensitive research practices.

Challenges for Scholars in Academia in Bangladesh

The Bangladesh Medical Research Council’s (BMRC) ethics guidelines, adapted from Euro-Western biomedical frameworks such as the Nuremberg Code, Helsinki Declaration, the Belmont Report, and CIOMS–WHO standards, focus primarily on physiological and biospecimen research, leaving qualitative and culturally specific contexts inadequately addressed. This gap is particularly problematic in Bangladesh, where socio-cultural realities diverge from Western norms and Indigenous needs are frequently overlooked (Turner et al., 2024). Weak institutional support—evident in the dominance of quantitative methods, limited ethics training, ambiguous definitions of “cultural sensitivity,” and absent best practices—further constrains qualitative inquiry. Donor-driven North–South collaborations also prioritize external agendas over national needs (Van der Veken et al., 2017). Strengthened reflexivity, culturally grounded ethical frameworks, and institutional ethics capacity are essential to advance credible scholarship (Rashid, 2006), alongside clear norms to manage the inherent variability of qualitative research.

Research Aim and Objectives

Drawing on a study of parenting practices in Dhaka, this paper examines fieldwork challenges arising from tensions with standard ethics guidelines and the strategies used to navigate access to research participants and data collection. Thereby, it advocates for the development and application of contextually relevant ethical principles to embrace diverse Bangladeshi contexts, and highlights congruent ethical approaches guided by relational ethics. Besides, it aims to support future researchers by documenting ethical dilemmas and methodological adaptations in participant recruitment, rapport building and data collection that respond to contextual needs and respect participants’ culture, thereby fostering a culture of shared knowledge within this community. This paper contributes to Indigenous Knowledge by reflecting on contextual research challenges, engaging with debates on knowledge production, and highlighting the role of reflexivity in ensuring methodological and ethical appropriateness. More broadly, it advances discussions on culturally sensitive methodologies and the need for context-specific ethics guidelines in Bangladesh.

Theoretical Framework

The third-generation cultural-historical activity theory (CHAT) has been used to frame this study. In the third-generation activity theory, Engeström (2015) emphasizes the centrality of activity. He conceptualized activity as a process in which individuals engage with community members and cultural tools within specific contexts and practices. Social rules, norms, and values shape the roles of individuals while individual participation simultaneously transforms both the outcomes of activity and the participants themselves (Vygotsky, 1987).

In this study, both the researcher and participants functioned as subjects within a complex activity system shaped by social rules and norms (e.g., shared identity, privacy, food practices, blurred personal–professional boundaries, and ethics guidelines) and mediated by cultural tools such as language, food, questionnaires, and methodology. The cultural norms also influenced the Bangladeshi community, with all its hierarchy in it (for example, parents, children, extended family members, younger and older members of the community), and division of labor (subjects’ actions, dual roles, collective participation in food sharing, acts to preserve shared privacy), which further structured the activity. These dynamics ultimately served the objective of generating rich data on parenting and producing scientific knowledge. Consistent with CHAT, such processes are interventionist and transformative (Stetsenko, 2008), driven by contradictions within and across activity systems to meet the needs of the research context. Figure 1 captures the activity system of the CHAT framework, compiling the phenomena of discussion from this study.OPEN IN VIEWER

This study also resonates with Quijano’s (2000) theorization of coloniality, which posits that the coloniality of power continues to shape social relations even in postcolonial contexts. In Bangladesh, this is reflected in ethics frameworks that privilege Euro-Western models while neglecting cultural specificities and contextual variations, thereby reinforcing Eurocentric knowledge systems and marginalizing diverse ontologies of human existence. Addressing this requires developing contextually grounded ethical frameworks, which would mark a step toward decolonizing epistemology through de-Westernization (Mignolo, 2011) and re-indigenization (Mendoza, 2020).

Positioning the Authors’ Interests

The first author’s (UHJ) cultural-historical background is rooted in Bangladesh. Being shaped by their upbringing, socialization, academic and professional experience, this background provided unique insights into cultural sensitivity while researching the parenting experience of Bangladeshi mothers in Mirpur, a middle-class residential area in Dhaka City. The first author’s academic interest in researching intergenerational continuity of parenting practices is grounded both in their scholarly background and native connection to Mirpur. The co-authors’ interest in this study was grounded in their effort to build the Global South knowledge system and ethical standards.

Methodology

The study employed a qualitative methodology with a hermeneutic phenomenological design grounded in social constructivism. Hermeneutic phenomenology provided a reflexive framework suited to examining parenting practices, repurposing Ricoeur’s (1981; 2016) text-focused philosophy to explore lived experience through rigor, reflexivity, and interpretive depth. Since parenting practices are often habitual and culturally variable (Bornstein & Cheah, 2006), this approach offered a contextually appropriate means of investigating both routine practices and underlying beliefs (Gadamer, 1993; Habermas, 1984). One substantial challenge while designing the study was the lack of contextual studies on parenting practices in Bangladesh, which limited the available literature to guide the research design and inform contextually appropriate best practices.

Sampling

The study explored parenting practices across mother–grandmother dyads, with grandmothers (G1) as primary caregivers of mother participants, and mothers (G2) having at least one school-aged child (6–18 years, Grades 1–12). Grandmothers also had to be accessible and consent to participation. Mothers of children with special needs were excluded due to their distinct parenting requirements (Avis & Reardon, 2008; De Geeter et al., 2002). Purposive and snowball sampling were employed, with a target of 15 dyads. However, data saturation (Patton, 2002) was reached after nine dyads (18 interviews). Two additional dyads were interviewed to augment and ensure the completeness of information. Grandmothers’ (G1) ages ranged from 48–69 and Mothers’ (G2) from 28–52 years, reflecting local norms of early marriage compared to the West. The participants’ characteristics are presented in Table 1. Detailed socio-demographic characteristics are available in Jasmine (2025a).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Socio-Demographic Characteristics of Participants

Dyads	Type of participants	Pseudonym	Age	Family type	Interview duration (number of sessions)	Highest education obtained	Occupation	Number of children	Age range of children
Dyad # One	Mother	Panna	42 yrs	Nuclear	1h 33m 40s (2)	Masters	Housewife	1	9 yrs
	Grandmother	Tara	56 yrs	Combined	1h 44s (1)	Below SSC a	Housewife	4	19–34 yrs
Dyad # Two	Mother	Dali	50 yrs	Nuclear	1h 18m 19s (1)	HSC b	Housewife	2	18–29 yrs
	Grandmother	Hena	69 yrs	Nuclear	1h 16m 04s (3)	Grade 5	Housewife	4	33–52 yrs
Dyad # Three	Mother	Shirin	49 yrs	Combined	1h 01m (2)	Masters	Housewife	2	9–18 yrs
	Grandmother	Fatima	68 yrs	Combined	1h 28m 08s (3)	Matric	Housewife	3	40–52 yrs
Dyad # Four	Mother	Tonu	37 yrs	Combined	1h 54m 01s (1)	Masters	Housewife	1	12 yrs
	Grandmother	Mina	62 yrs	Nuclear	1h 04m 04s (1)	Matric	Housewife	3	29–41 yrs
Dyad # Five	Mother	Shoshi	48 yrs	Combined	1h 22m 14s (3)	HSC	Housewife	2	17 yrs (twin)
	Grandmother	Rehana	66 yrs	Combined	2h 15m 18s (2)	Grade 8	Housewife	2	45–48 yrs
Dyad # Six	Mother	Pinky	30 yrs	Combined	3h 02m 35s (1)	Masters	Housewife	2	1–7 yrs
	Grandmother	Jahan	49 yrs	Combined	1h 49m 53s (2)	SSC	Housewife	3	19–30 yrs
Dyad # Seven	Mother	Piu	28 yrs	Nuclear	2h 48m 06s (3)	HSC	Housewife	2	3.5–8.5 yrs
	Grandmother	Amena	48 yrs	Nuclear	2h 04m 41s (3)	Grade 5	Housewife	3	17–28 yrs
Dyad # Eight	Mother	Farida	46 yrs	Combined	3h 58m 05s (1)	Masters	Advocate	2	14–19 yrs
	Grandmother	Jobaida	80 yrs	Combined	1h 11m 48s (4)	Grade 5	Housewife	9	Couldn’t collect
Dyad # Nine	Mother	Charu	48 yrs	Nuclear	2h 02m 25s (2)	Masters	Teacher	2	12–21 yrs
	Grandmother	Khadija	66 yrs	Nuclear	2h 37m 34s (2)	< Grade 5	Housewife	2	32–48 yrs
Dyad # Ten	Mother	Dina	34 yrs	Combined	2h 55m 38s (1)	Masters	Teacher	2	6–12 yrs
	Grandmother	Sharifa	51 yrs	Combined	1h 25m 05s (2)	Below Matric	Housewife	4	22–34 yrs
Dyad # Eleven	Mother	Jhumjhum	36 yrs	Nuclear	3h 14m 47s (3)	Masters	Banker	1	12 yrs
	Grandmother	Kahi	57 yrs	Nuclear	2h 51m 20s (3)	Below Matric	Housewife	5	22–38 yrs

Recruitment

Despite its multicultural diversity, the region retains patriarchal norms such as gendered parenting—seen as women’s responsibilities—and the expectation that newlywed women reside in the husband’s family home (Chen, 1986; Kandiyoti, 2002). These practices complicated the identification of mother–grandmother dyads living nearby. Drawing on the first author’s familiarity with the area, recruitment was facilitated through a women-only cooperative society in Mirpur, a trusted local institution. With the support of Ms. Rabi ¹ , a key member of the cooperative, participant recruitment was successfully achieved, underscoring the importance of local collaboration in field research.

Ethics Compliance

Ethical clearance was granted by the Human Research Ethics Committee (non-medical) of the University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa (Protocol number: H16/06/38) and the Ethical Review Board of the University of Dhaka, Bangladesh (Project number: PH160603). Written informed consent was obtained from all participants except one grandmother participant, who provided verbal consent due to distrust of signing formal documents; this was accommodated in accordance with ethical considerations and cultural context. Her verbal consent was audio-recorded. Pseudonyms were assigned to all participants, and any identifiable information was concealed when reporting the data to maintain confidentiality.

Voluntary Participation

The local resource person, Ms. Rabi, facilitated initial contact by phoning prospective participants and connecting them to the first author (UHJ), who explained the study, addressed questions, clarified voluntary participation that their participation (or non-participation) had no bearing on the affiliation with the cooperative, and assessed eligibility, including grandmother accessibility. Rapport building began at this stage, and interviews were scheduled by phone. In line with cultural norms of chaperoning (Jasmine, 2025b), Ms. Rabi accompanied the first author to referred participants’ homes for initial interviews, while referees in snowball sampling often did the same to facilitate rapport and to ensure UHJ’s safety in participant’s family environment. Missed appointments were considered voluntary withdrawal after three unsuccessful attempts, reflecting local communication practices (Bari et al., 2021). This process underscores the significance of gatekeepers and cultural sensitivity in ethical recruitment and participation in Dhaka.

Research Setting and Data Collection

During the pilot phase, participants declined invitations to a formal interview setting, possibly due to financial and time constraints. Consequently, UHJ conducted home-based interviews, which aligned with cultural expectations of hospitality and enabled participants to balance family duties while engaging in the study.

Data were collected over a one-year period through semi-structured interviews with 22 participants (11 mother–grandmother dyads). Four other dyads were excluded from the study due to participants' availability constraints or health-related considerations. Interviews lasted between 1.5 to 4 hours and were scheduled flexibly, sometimes spanning over multiple days, to accommodate participants’ routines and availability. Participants granted consent for interviews to be recorded, and the interviews were conducted in the native language, Bengali. The semi-structured format allowed exploration of parenting across generations, while acknowledging potential recall limitations, particularly among grandmothers (G1). Sharing language and culture enabled the interviewer to recognize subtle, culturally embedded brief or truncated responses, termed research silences (Hofstede, 1991; Kawabata & Gastaldo, 2015). Field notes documenting interview environment, preliminary hunches, and connections further supported data analysis.

Fieldwork Experience

This reflection elucidates the tensions between the researchers’ ethical obligations and participants’ resistance to the application of universal ethical principles in urban Bangladesh, highlighting how ethical practice was negotiated through relational approaches. Reflexivity played a role in navigating ethical and methodological decisions, particularly in adapting broad ethical provisions to the Bangladeshi contexts, where local norms often conflict with global standards. Flexibility and cultural mindfulness were essential to balance ethical integrity with respect for local customs. The study underscores reflexivity as critical to ensuring research that is both globally accountable and culturally sensitive, while safeguarding participants and researchers.

The Need for Gaining Trust of the Participants’ Family Members

Although the study received ethics approval requiring privacy and confidentiality of interview sessions, participants did not view parenting as a private matter, creating tension with conventional ethical standards. In Bangladesh’s collectivist context, UHJ had to engage with the participants and their family members, unlike Western practices where the interviewer only deals with the participants. During pilot interviews, initial attempts at closed-door sessions caused suspicion—particularly from a mother-in-law, who later declined referral of a potential participant. After the interviews, both the participants and UHJ faced extensive questioning from members of the extended family regarding the interview topics. Therefore, to respect collectivist norms, interviews were conducted with the door half-open, enabling family members to enter freely, a gesture aligned with cultural practices of courtesy and group cohesion. Sometimes, the family members entered the room only to greet the interviewer as their visitor. The interviewer did not restrict them from intruding on the interview session to eavesdrop, offer an opinion, or whisper something to the respondent.

This compromise balanced individual privacy with cultural expectations, preserved rapport, and enabled the collection of rich data. Although the study participants were initially open to having family members present during the interview sessions, 10 (four grandmothers and six mothers) were noticeably hesitant to discuss certain aspects of their experience without privacy. They managed this by briefly suspending discussion or by strategically sending family members out of the interview room. From an ethical consideration, the unanticipated family contributions were not incorporated into the dataset. When the information concerned the participants and parenting, the interviewer engaged the participants in discussion and incorporated their input as data. Following this means, UHJ aspired to an equilibrium in protecting the participants’ and the researcher’s dignity, minimizing elements of harm to the participants’ family relationships, and maximizing public benefit from the advancement of knowledge of contextual parenting practice (Mero-Jaffe, 2011). The approach exemplifies how contextual ethics and reflexivity can reconcile global standards with local realities.

Importance of Gender-Matched Interviews

In Bangladesh, cultural norms regulating interactions between non-related men and women (Jasmine, 2025a; Jasmine et al., 2025) complicate cross-gender interviews. Within this community, parenting is predominantly delegated to women, whose social value is closely tied to perceptions of mothering, rendering the topic particularly sensitive. Gender-matched interviews are thus recommended in such contexts (Jewkes et al., 2006; Nduna et al., 2016). Accordingly, this study employed women-to-women interviews, which fostered a sense of sisterhood, alignment with cultural expectations, and enhanced openness. This approach facilitated honest sharing, thereby enriching the depth of data (Mitchell & Oakley, 1976).

Understanding Participant Consents

None of the participants perceived signing the informed consent as valuable, stating that their verbal agreement was sufficient. Nonetheless, they complied with the interviewer’s request to sign. One participant, who had previously been deceived by her son into signing away her land without her knowledge, refused to sign the consent form but agreed to provide oral consent for audio recording, allowing the interviewer to adhere to research ethics principles. The lack of awareness about the significance of informed consent placed participants in a vulnerable position where their rights might be exploited. Participants raised in a communal social environment were often unfamiliar with individual rights to consent.

Impact of Researcher Positionality on Data Collection

The interviewer’s (UHJ) cultural background, gender, and expectant-mother status shaped field accessibility, rapport, and data generation. Their positionality as both a native and an expectant mother enhanced participant openness, while reflexive engagement and willingness to learn fostered a participatory, non-hierarchical environment conducive to the generation of rich, contextually grounded data.

Commensality in Research

The Latin proverb, “When in Rome, do as the Romans do,” underscores the importance of adhering to local customs. In Bangladesh, hospitality is closely tied to food, and sharing meals symbolizes hospitality and goodwill (Ahmed, 2007; Mookherjee, 2008; Sahlins, 1972). Unlike Western contexts—where bringing wine to a host is a typical gesture and the sharing of meals with a stranger is reserved for designated occasions—commensality in Bangladesh occurs more spontaneously and is deeply embedded in cultural norms (Jönsson et al., 2021). Cultural norms, rules, and traditions shape the research space and interactions among interviewers, participants, and others; disregarding them risks compromising research outcomes.

Initially, UHJ, guided by Westernized local and international ethical protocols, overlooked this practice. Participants would often offer meals, implicitly expecting UHJ to partake due to shared cultural background. This presented a professional dilemma: declining could risk offending participants and making the interview settings unpredictable, while accepting blurred boundary between researcher and guest, and complicating adherence to ethical research standards. At the beginning of the research process, UHJ had not anticipated how much of a role food would play.

After a few interviews during the pilot phase, UHJ embraced this local custom, reciprocating with token offerings of traditional Bangladeshi snacks (worth BDT 100–150, equivalent to USD 1.18-1.76). While a deviation from the original protocol, this gesture facilitated meaningful engagement, respected local norms, and posed minimal risk of undue influence given its modest value (Bangladesh Medical Research Council, 2020; Jewkes et al., 2012). The gesture was a way of improving the sense of mutual respect and recognizing a local custom. The experience raises questions about whether earlier interactions, when the custom was not observed, may have created any antagonism and affected participants’ openness.

Discussion

This paper analyzes fieldwork experiences from a parenting study in Dhaka, Bangladesh, highlighting the challenges of conducting contextually grounded research. It engages with debates on ethical and methodological appropriateness, emphasizing the need for culturally sensitive research methodology and ethics guidelines. Key challenges included navigating dual researcher roles, maintaining interview privacy, and accommodating collective participation in local cultural practices.

Ethical Conundrum Around Privacy

Privacy is a core principle of human dignity (Mero-Jaffe, 2011) and a central ethical concern in research, yet full privacy is often unattainable in qualitative studies (Allmark et al., 2009). In communal societies, local norms shape research methodology by informing permission for conducting research, participant interactions, and responses, sometimes conflicting with universal ethical guidelines (Mavhandu-Mudzusi, 2023). The research field expectations might also lead to a change of study settings and/or topics (Mavhandu-Mudzusi, 2023). Flexible, context-sensitive ethics are therefore essential, particularly in Bangladesh, where adherence to strict privacy is culturally inappropriate. This approach aligns with the Belmont Report’s principles of respect and beneficence and the Declaration of Helsinki’s principles of non-maleficence and justice, illustrating how familial beneficence can supersede strict privacy.

Universalist assumptions about interview privacy fail to account for culturally contingent practices; the extent to which individuals seek and are afforded privacy is contingent upon cultural and historical contexts (Rothe, 2022). While prior research addresses privacy of data sharing, data preservation, and reporting (for example, Allmark et al., 2009; Mero-Jaffe, 2011; Viberg Johansson et al., 2022), little examines privacy challenges from surrounding actors. This limits the conversation about the need for technical and ethically compliant data collection solutions.

By reporting the challenges of granting complete privacy of the interview space from surrounding actors, this study points to the need to adapt research methodology and ethical standards according to the cultural and historical background of the research sites and the research population. Participants’ implicit negotiation in sharing their lived experiences challenges colonial assumptions of privacy and power. Similar dynamics have been reported in India and Johannesburg, where interviews involved family presence, reflecting communal values (Manyatshe & Nduna, 2014; Sivakami & Rai, 2019). These findings underscore the importance of integrating indigenous philosophies of interrelationship, collective norms, and local traditions into ethical research practices, ensuring both respect and contextual appropriateness.

Ethics of the Dual-Role

Ethical debates in qualitative research frequently highlight the dilemma of researchers assuming multiple roles, particularly those of scientist and therapist (Allmark et al., 2009; Taquette & Borges da Matta Souza, 2022). Building rapport fosters honest disclosure, yet this trust can prompt participants to share personal issues beyond the study’s scope, positioning the researcher as confidant or therapist. During fieldwork, UHJ's dual role as a researcher and psychologist arose when participants sought guidance on their children's behavioral issues.

Global North guidelines prescribe referral and strict maintenance of researcher–participant boundaries (Murray, 2003, cited in Taquette & Borges da Matta Souza, 2022). By contrast, communal contexts emphasize reciprocity and mutual sharing of resources (Burgard, 2013; Taquette & Borges da Matta Souza, 2022). In this case, UHJ’s professional expertise was perceived as a community resource, which could be expected to be shared as part of reciprocity and mutual sharing when UHJ was also sharing participants’ experience as a community resource. In cases, where participants’ concerns were minor, UHJ provided interim relief strategies, an ethically debatable but supported practice in the literature that suggests accepting deferring advice after the interview (Corbin & Morse, 2003; Eide & Kahn, 2008; Sivell et al., 2015). Such reciprocity aligns with the principle of beneficence (Meara & Schmidt, 1991) and helps to avoid perceptions of exploitation (Gervais et al., 2018; Gottlieb, 1993; Oakley, 1981).

During an exceptional moment of participant distress, UHJ administered psychological first aid (Canadian Red Cross, 2019) and empathetic listening to personal stories, although beyond the study’s scope. Although dual roles (as a psychological first aider and as a fieldworker) are generally discouraged, based on long-standing arguments and sensitizing about contextual factors requiring multiple relationships, American Psychological Association (APA) guidelines allow them if they do not compromise objectivity or cause harm (American Psychological Association, 2017). In this case, intervention appeared urgent and ethically defensible (Taquette & Borges da Matta Souza, 2022). Yet, despite longstanding debates and available decision-making models (Bourdeau, 2000; Gottlieb, 1993; Matocha, 1992; Mfecane, 2014; Posel, 2014), Bangladeshi ethics guidelines remain silent on dual or multiple researcher–participant relationships, underscoring the need for culturally sensitive frameworks.

Inadequacies of Current Ethical Guidelines

Beyond safeguarding participants’ rights, dignity, and well-being, regulatory bodies such as the BMRC exercise influence over research design through ethical oversight. Nevertheless, its 89-page guidelines provide no explicit framework for conceptualizing cultural sensitivity in the Bangladeshi context regarding informed consent, privacy, and researcher-participant relationships, leaving its interpretation and application largely to individual researchers. Although global standards emphasize the necessity of ethical protocols for the protection of participants, such guidelines often remain overly broad and generic, offering limited practical guidance for implementation in real-world research settings (Arifin, 2018). Especially in the case of informed consent to protect participants, contextualized ethical frameworks should emphasize educating participants about their consent rights, the implications of violating these rights, and the actions available when such breaches occur. Framing these ethical challenges through the lenses of CHAT and decolonial theory underscores the epistemic value of Indigenous Knowledge systems and the importance of incorporating them in regionalizing ethical regulations.

Directionality from CHAT Framework

Western epistemologies often position researchers’ dominance over the participants, imposing strict boundaries that prohibit personal sharing, and thereby undermine trust, and rapport with the participants’ community in collectivist cultures. In contrast, collectivist norms cancel distanciation and emphasize reciprocity - I will speak about us if you speak about yourself. CHAT underscores that interviews are social situations shaped by collective participation, requiring researcher sensitivity and reflexivity.

CHAT highlights parenting and interviewing as social activities that require collective participation within the community. To respect this, UHJ kept doors semi-open during interviews to balance participants’ privacy with family inclusion. Besides, UHJ obliged to the cultural norms of bringing food to the participant’s home, honored them as hosts, and accepted their hospitality from the role of a guest. UHJ did these as part of the collective participation and division of labor where they prepared and offered UHJ food, and UHJ put the effort of buying and bringing food to the participant’s home. These practices functioned as psychological and technical tools, transforming initial distance into trust and rapport that enabled meaningful knowledge co-construction.

Analyzing UHJ’s fieldwork experience in the CHAT framework directs us to four contradictions (represented with bolt signs in Figure 2): (1) Between research tools (ethics guidelines) and cultural norms, (2) Research tools (ethics guidelines) and division of labor/ dual role of researcher, (3) Research tools (ethics guidelines) and outcome (scientific knowledge construction around parenting activity system), (4) Outcome of researcher-activity system (scientific knowledge construction) and outcome of participant-activity system (living a harmonious life). These contradictions illustrate tensions between universalist ethics, which privilege rigid boundaries, and collectivist expectations of reciprocity and relational care. Flexibility and adaptation proved necessary to preserve rapport and avoid superficial data.OPEN IN VIEWER

Through Bourdieusian reflexivity, researchers engaged in “interrogating the interrogation” (Bourdieu, 2017, p. 28), examining how their professional identity, cultural embeddedness, and motherhood intersected with participants’ expectations. This reflexive stance illuminated how such positionalities shaped interactions, as researchers negotiated consent and relational spaces where knowledge was co-constructed through reciprocity, shared meanings, and ethical sensitivity.

Conclusion and Recommendation

Analysis of fieldwork through the CHAT framework and decolonial lens calls for transforming Westernized ethical principles into regionally grounded frameworks that balance universal ethical principles and research methods with cultural norms, values, practices, and traditions. Future research should build on this attempt by documenting ethical dilemmas encountered in the field, critically examining their dynamics, and further exploring the cultural dimensions of transference, countertransference, informed consent, rapport building, dual or multiple relationships, and issues of privacy and confidentiality. Cultural adaptation of ethics would promote epistemic decolonization by challenging universalist claims embedded in Western ethical frameworks and foster global citizenship rooted in ethical sensitivity. After analyzing the contradictions between activity systems, Global South literature, and debates on epistemic injustice, we conclude by posing a critical question: Should researchers strictly adhere to Western-informed ethical standards at the cost of data quality, when beneficence and non-maleficence could still be preserved through regionally grounded guidelines that integrate local traditions and cultural values?