The clinic. An autoethnographic journey through emotions, conflict, and epistemic tensions in interdisciplinary research

This autoethnographic study examines the epistemic, institutional, and interpersonal dynamics shaping an interdisciplinary clinical research project in clinical sociology. The project involved a randomized controlled trial combining adapted physical activity and art therapy for oncology patients, assessed through validated questionnaires, participant observation, semi-structured interviews, and arts-based techniques. While methodologically robust, the collaboration unfolded within a clinical setting marked by entrenched biomedical dominance and hierarchical institutional culture. Findings reveal how epistemic hierarchies privileged quantitative and biomedical approaches over qualitative and sociological contributions, generating delegitimization, symbolic control, and exclusionary practices. These tensions, embedded within broader institutional structures, translated into daily micro-interactions that produced emotional distress, frustration, and marginalization, while also eliciting acts of resistance and mutual care. Adopting an embedded, reflexive analysis, the study situates these dynamics within literature on epistemic injustice, interdisciplinary collaboration, and the affective dimensions of research work. Implications highlight the need for institutional recognition of methodological pluralism, reflexivity training, and relational practices of care to foster more equitable partnerships. The discussion also addresses methodological limitations - including the partial anonymization and narrative simplification of events - and outlines future directions for advancing interdisciplinary research through long-term institutional partnerships grounded in openness to diverse epistemologies. • Epistemic hierarchies shape everyday interactions in interdisciplinary clinical research. • Qualitative and arts-based methods are marginalized within biomedical research settings. • Emotional reflexivity reveals how power operates through relational and affective dynamics. • Care persists in fragile, informal ways amid institutional and epistemic pressure. • Friendship and loyalty complicate authority and silence in clinical research collaborations.