Thank you so much for responding. I everything you said is pretty much on the money. Of course I am representing their voices but when it comes to racist language I cannot help but not take their sides. I am on a very taboo topic here and subjectively I am more towards the conservative side of National Identity, traditional and religious culture (which my interviewees know). But on many points my paper may seem to be advocating the inclusion of non-conservative social-practice and other ethnicities; which I know my conservative informants would not like. I guess I want to maintain friendships with them. I don't have to show them my findings I guess. But if I don't then I feel like I am just using them. I think there needs to be transparency. As for their written consent, I have it; and they have seen the transcripts of what was said and replied with clarification on some points. So I guess I just need to write-it-up like it is and then let it go.

Once again,
many thanks.

In conducting research on attitudes to 'tradition' and 'cultural change', I gave the impression (by no means intentionally) to those I interviewed that their input would allow their voice to be represented. However, in writing up my research paper I cannot avoid critiquing some aspects of their position despite 'justifying' others. I am bound to cause offence, upset and a sense of betrayal. Is this an ethical thing? What should I do? How do I strike a ballance? I don't want them to think I am like a journalist hunting for a story and heartless or disrespectful to their perception of their culture and society, but the data and concerns emerging from the research also need to be addressed. Any advice welcome.

Hi y'all,

I am looking for examples of the use of Complexity Theory in the fields of Linguistics and Social Anthropology, especially in qualitative research. I know it is a rare thing but it's pertinent to my current research project on hybrid and beyond hybrid identities in the wealthy Arab Gulf states.

Please help :-)