By: Zahra Hosseini
In research, reliability and trustworthiness are often treated as foundational pillars. They are expected, demanded, and rigorously evaluated. Yet in practice, achieving them is far from straightforward. Research does not unfold in controlled, predictable environments; rather, it is shaped by human experiences, perceptions, and contexts, elements that are inherently complex and sometimes contradictory. At the heart of this challenge lies a deeper question: what does it mean to find the “truth”? Truth in research is rarely absolute. It is influenced by context, timing, social dynamics, and the positionality of both participants and researchers. What we interpret as truth is often a partial, situated understanding rather than a fixed reality.
These challenges become even more pronounced when the research topic and the participants are regarded as sensitive. In projects like Trust-M, where the goal is to create trustworthy services, and the target group is migrants, the complexity deepens significantly. Migrants often navigate conditions of uncertainty in host societies. They may be seeking legitimacy, stability, and acceptance, which can shape how they respond to research inquiries. In such contexts, self-censorship is not unlikely; participants may consciously or unconsciously adjust their responses to align with perceived expectations or to avoid potential risks.
For researchers, this creates a delicate balance. On one hand, there is a commitment to uncover meaningful and accurate insights. On the other hand, there is an ethical responsibility to protect participants’ privacy, dignity, and well-being. Researchers cannot and should not intrude into private lives or attempt to “verify” truth through invasive means. Nor can they rely on assumptions or speculation to fill in gaps. Qualitative strategies such as triangulation are often used to strengthen trustworthiness by combining multiple data sources or perspectives. However, triangulation does not always resolve uncertainty. In fact, inconsistencies across data can sometimes raise further questions rather than provide clarity. Instead of revealing a single coherent truth, they may highlight the fragmented and multifaceted nature of human experience.
In such situations, perhaps the role of the researcher is not to claim definitive truth, but to transparently present the conditions under which knowledge was produced. This includes acknowledging potential biases, limitations, and trustworthiness challenges within the study. Rather than masking uncertainty, embracing it can lead to more honest and ethically grounded research.
As part of the Trust-M project, our investigation of migrants’ trust in digital public services revealed several methodological challenges that hinder truth-finding in research, especially research conducted by organizations and institutions. In our article, we examined how factors such as participant vulnerability, power dynamics, and contextual pressures can influence responses in interviews and, consequently, influence the interpretation of trust. Additionally, we highlighted the limitations of conventional methods in capturing authentic experiences, underscoring the necessity of reflexivity and transparency throughout the research process.
You can read more about these reflections here: https://culturecrossroads.lv/index.php/cc/article/view/512/516