Home > HCAS > HCAS_PUBS > HCAS_JOURNALS > TQR Home > TQR > Vol. 31 > No. 4 (2026)
Abstract
Research contexts pose different challenges during research processes, and these challenges may affect the credibility of study findings. This was especially the case when, as a researcher, I interacted with police participants from different cultural backgrounds from my own. This paper reflects on my experience as a female Sepedi‑speaking researcher conducting a Ph.D. qualitative, grounded theory study with male and female South African Police Service (SAPS) officers from the Venda and Tsonga cultural backgrounds. I used a reflexive autoethnographic research design to purposively look at myself as the subject of inquiry and analyze my reflexive journal using reflexive thematic data analysis. The results show a journey of navigating cultural differences and reveal various directed research actions that I adopted during the research process. I recommend a methodological framework for rigorous and ethical research training for postgraduate students and practice by qualitative researchers, which is informed by local knowledge and African relational moral theory, including ubuntu.
Keywords
autoethnographic research, culture, ethics, local knowledge, police, rigour, ubuntu
Acknowledgements
The Ph.D. study from which this paper was extracted was supported by a grant from the University of Venda Research and Publications Committee, titled: “A Grounded Theory of Police Critical Incidents Impact Management Amongst SAPS Officers in the Vhembe District, Limpopo Province.” The University of South Africa is also funding research presentation and publication for this paper.
Publication Date
4-27-2026
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International License.
Recommended APA Citation
Gumani, M. A. (2026). A rigorous and ethical methodological framework for navigating cultural differences with police officers in a South African rural community. The Qualitative Report, 31(4), 5616-5639. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2026.7543
ORCID ID
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6433-3977
Included in
Quantitative, Qualitative, Comparative, and Historical Methodologies Commons, Social Statistics Commons
