Content Warnings
This study and its supporting materials contain explicit discussion of: ascetic spiritual practices (fasting, cilice/physical mortification); LGBTQ+ identity (bisexual orientation, community engagement); integration of devout Christian faith with queer identity; complex intersectional identity navigation; costuming and character expression (Rocky Horror Picture Show); personal vulnerability and lived experience as research instrument; mental health treatment history; strong language used strategically within the research text.
Methodological Stance: Radical Transparency. The researcher IS the research instrument. All identities disclosed are necessary for methodological integrity. Concealment would undermine intersectionality claims. This is autoethnography—authenticity serves the research. Reader discretion advised.
2.8 Ethical Considerations
Radical Transparency as Methodology
The researcher has elected full radical transparency rather than selective disclosure. This decision transforms the privacy framework from censorship to framing—nothing is hidden, but everything is contextualized. The rationale is threefold:
Methodological Integrity
Hiding aspects of the research instrument would undermine intersectionality claims, fragment the narrative, and reduce autoethnographic validity. The researcher cannot document “standing between” while “hiding behind.”
Ethical Consistency
The Golden Rule (Matthew 22:36–40), tattooed on the researcher’s hand per Deuteronomy 6:8, applies to the self: loving yourself enough to be authentic, integrated, whole. The same standard applied to research subjects in other studies must apply when the researcher is the subject.
Community Service
Visibility matters. For the LGBTQ+ community: integration is possible, faith and queer identity can coexist. For faith communities: devout Christians can be queer, embodiment takes many forms. For academic communities: autoethnography can handle extreme complexity with radical transparency.
Sensitivity Framework (Replaces Privacy Framework)
Rather than hiding information, the study employs a sensitivity framework that provides appropriate contextual framing:
| Sensitivity Level | Content Category | Framing Approach |
|---|---|---|
| Maximum Sensitivity | Ascetic practice specifics, personal costuming and character expression | Academic framing with content warnings; discussion serves methodological purpose |
| High Sensitivity | Theological study, ministry preparation, Ni-Ti loop states | Scholarly presentation with appropriate contextualization |
| Medium Sensitivity | Rocky Horror service, cultural touchstones, ministry+LGBTQ+ intersection | Historical and cultural framing with acknowledgment of complexity |
| Low Sensitivity | Bisexual identity, INFJ patterns, polymath capacity, technical skills | Standard academic presentation; public information |
IRB Considerations
Informed Consent
As the sole participant, the researcher provides ongoing informed consent through the act of continued participation and publication. The radical transparency election constitutes informed consent for full disclosure, with the understanding that published materials become part of the public academic record.
Data Protection
All research data is stored on researcher-owned infrastructure (self-hosted Ollama GPU, eight physical drives, no cloud processing for sensitive data). This ensures compliance with the researcher’s own privacy standards and protects the interests of third parties mentioned in the research (e.g., ministry contacts, professional colleagues).