{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.010329244673983214, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.739130434782608, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Critical ethnography: extending attention to bias and reinforcement of dominant power relations.

AIM
Many forms of critical theory shape nursing research. One approach that is gaining popularity is Carspecken's critical ethnography. This methodology was designed to help researchers understand power relations by merging a critical stance with a complex and dynamic qualitative strategy of inquiry. Despite the appeal of this approach, we argue Carspecken does not adequately address how researchers can minimise researcher biases and dominance when studying power relations. The purpose of this article is to critique Carspecken's implementation of critical theory from the standpoint of lack of attention to bias and reinforcement of oppression.


DISCUSSION
The authors explain how greater attention to reflexivity, relationality and reciprocity could reduce opportunities for researcher bias and the potential for oppressive structures and dominant power relations to be reinforced.


IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH
Researchers can better address bias and reinforcement of power relations through reflexivity. Bias can be reduced by making explicit values that may privilege particular decisions and observations throughout the research process. Researchers can also reduce bias via relationality or giving participants equal power in decision making and taking action towards social justice. When researchers engage in reciprocity they encourage participants to contribute to all stages of the research process and therein equalise power relations.