Página

Ethics does not end with consent forms. As the INSPIRE research and discussions suggest, the grammars of research and facilitation themselves can reproduce discrimination. Titaś Biswas, a researcher within INSPIRE, has argued that even inclusive ethnographic approaches can remain shaped by Eurocentric and colonial traditions of knowledge-making that present themselves as neutral or objective science. These traditions influence what is documented, what is anonymised, and what is ultimately rendered visible or invisible in research processes. In a similar vein, Parry and Curato (2024) develop the notion of “deliberative integrity” to show how integrity risks arise before, during, and after mini‑publics, through agenda‑setting, commissioning pressures, design orthodoxy, and ambiguous impact, all of which structure whose perspectives are recognised and whose are sidelined. From this perspective, privilege and discrimination are not external factors to be “controlled for” but are embedded in research epistemologies, data practices, governance arrangements, and modes of representation (Parry & Curato, 2024).

Facilitators and researchers must decide what happens to the recordings, transcripts, and emotional labour offered in trust: where they are stored, who can access them, for how long, under what governance, and with what possibilities for withdrawal or revision, questions that sit at the heart of deliberative integrity as well as digital safety (Parry & Curato, 2024).