I've used the word/phrase 'ill-placed'

i.e. "polar bears are ill-placed to conduct research on penguins, because they may eat them"

Is this correct - it sounds fine to be, but *looks* a bit wrong, its not coming up with any errors in word though.

Sounds ok Sneaks, i've seen ill-advised used quite frequently and I suppose it's similar to that. I guess it's a more specific way of saying 'unsuitable'?

yeah, 'unsuitable' isn't quite right, neither is unable - because they can and IMO should research 'penguins', its just their situation in life (being carnivorous bears) puts them at a slight disadvantage.

I was going to say 'ill-equiped' instead but re-reading your polar bear example that would not be right either, ie polar bears can not be trusted (in their instincts)...as they may eat them'. However if you mean not have the qualifications or is not the most suitable person (or bear as the case may be!) I don't think 'ill-placed' is correct. Interesting...

ill-placed suggests to me that the ploar bears are in the wrong place to conduct the penguin research. What about 'inappropriate'?

yeah, I was thinking about the north/south divide :-) For anyone unclear - I'm not actually doing research on penguins, or polar bears.

what I;m trying to say in the sentence, is really that the polar bears - being bears, will be unable to really understand where the penguins are coming from, and therefore won't be able to elicit 'authentic' responses from them in qualitative interviews. (I then go on to persuade the reader (hopefully) that bears can indeed do this, just with a few simple tweaks to their methodology).

as in the researcher's postionality in the research and how it may influence, or be seen to influence research and its subsequent analysis?
I don't think ill-placed in this context is correct as to be ill-placed (to me) means that you are in the wrong place, or the wrong person (or bear!) to conduct the interview. However you see to be arguing that "while polar bears may seem ill-placed to conduct the research, in fact they were able to because..." Difficult to write without italics!!

ok - more info here's my full (adapted sentence)

Nevertheless, many researchers argue that [polar bear] interviewers are ill-placed to conduct research with [penguins], because they are disadvantaged in gaining trust, building rapport and therefore are unable to elicit personal or private information from participants

I too would think ill-placed would mean that the polar bear was in the wrong place.

I actually can't find a definition on the internet for ill-placed! who'd thought there is a phrase/word that isn't defined on the internet!

I originally wanted to post on this thread to let you know that I had a good chuckle at your example, I love it!

can you use 'unsuitable' instead?

I would say a phrase that contained ill-placed would be like:

"Elephants in Asia are ill-placed to carry out research on penguins since the elephants are far away from the natural habitat of the penguins"

maybe 'ill suited' or unsuitable as the previous poster said?

I presume your next sentence starts with 'However'? Still not convinced that ill-placed is correct word choice in this instance as for me it implies that they are not suitable for this case but could be suitable for another - possibly this is part of your argument though? I am wrestling with reseracher positionality a lot at the moment as a lot of my stuff focusses on people under 18.

Unsuitable, ill-equiped to me would be preferable to ill-placed.

What about "not well-placed"? "Ill-placed" for some reason jangles and jars, just does not sound right somehow...

Variants on "not well-placed" might be phrases like, "not ideally positioned, poorly positioned," something along those lines...

i'm going with 'poorly positioned'

Thank you :-)