Ethics and observational research

General questions of research ethics as they apply to ethnography are treated in a later chapter, but a few special points need to be dealt with in this focused dis­cussion of observation.

On the one hand, the relatively unobtrusive nature of observational research lessens the opportunities for unfavorable interpersonal encounters between researcher and ‘subjects’. But it is that very quality of unobtrusiveness that opens it to abuse in the form of the invasion of privacy. A researcher can be guilty of the latter either by entering into places that can be construed as private even though they have a public character (e.g. a public bathroom) or by intruding into the zone of privacy carved out by people within the larger public space (e.g. eavesdrop­ping on what is clearly a private conversation although it takes place right next to you at a busy lunch counter). It may also occur through a researcher misrepre­senting him or herself as a member of the group he or she wants to observe. Doing so is not necessarily a serious problem (although it is still an ethical viola­tion) if the group is not defensive about its own identity; for example, a researcher posing as a passenger by surrounding him or herself with luggage in order to observe an airport waiting room is not doing violence to anyone’s integrity. However, if the group has a stigmatized identity, or if it is engaged in criminal activities or activities thought of by others as somehow deviant, then pretending to be an insider can represent a very significant violation of the privacy of others.

Some researchers question the general application of this rule of non-violation of privacy, asking whether conforming to the rule automatically eliminates certain sensitive – but obviously socially important – subjects (e.g. sex) from the research agenda. The usual answer is that studying sensitive subjects is not taboo – but doing so without the express permission of the participants is ethically wrong. In any case, it is now generally agreed that:

  • It is unethical for a researcher to deliberately misrepresent his or her identity for the purpose of entering a private domain to which he or she is not otherwise eligible.
  • It is unethical for a researcher to deliberately misrepresent the character of the research in which he or she is engaged. (See Erikson, 1967, for an exposition of these principles.)

These reflections bring us back to Humphreys’s research. At the time of its publication, his book would have been controversial enough given its subject matter, which was not common in the social research of that period, and which was seen as downright titillating by the general public. But criticism was not at first directed at Humphreys’s activities as an observer. Rather, they concerned the way he continued his research beyond the bathroom. Among the data he so care­fully collected were the license plates of the men he observed in the bathroom. After his stint of observation, he tracked down as many of them as he could using their plate numbers, and arranged to conduct interviews with them. He had changed his looks and identified himself as being part of a public health survey. He did not reveal that he had covertly encountered them before. Although he was only collecting demographic data – innocuous in and of themselves – and not pry­ing into the details of their sex lives, the fact that he was able to connect men involved in an illicit activity with their larger demographic context, and that he was able to do so without their knowledge, let alone their permission, was seen as a very worrisome matter.

Scrutiny of this aspect of his research led many to revisit the original observa­tional study itself. When in the bathroom, Humphreys tried out a few of the roles for himself, including that of straight person/bystander and ‘waiter’. Neither of these poses got him the access he needed. So he decided to take on the role of ‘watchqueen’, essentially a look-out. In that guise he came to be trusted by the others, who were unaware that his agenda entailed making careful observations of their behavior and only incidentally warning them of approaching danger. As ‘watchqueen’, Humphreys could take on a recognized and valued membership role that nonetheless stopped short of his participation in the sexual activity going on around him. Humphreys’s critics pointed out that he was ethically wrong to have misrepresented himself deliberately as a member in order to gain access. Moreover, it was said that he put his needs as a researcher ahead of the rights of the people he was studying. He did not pay sufficient attention to the conse­quences should his research be made public in ways he could not control. He had not even considered the possibility that the police, should they find out what he was doing, might subpoena his notes in order to bring criminal charges against the men in his study.

The Humphreys case is perhaps an extreme one. Most observational researchers do not venture into such a moral danger zone, and when they do they are presumably armed with the ethical precautions now mandated by law (see Chapter 8 for an elaboration of these measures). But it is important to remember that even when a situation is not as obviously controversial as a public bathroom, ethics can arise when observation is covert and the identity of the researcher is misrepresented.

In sum, ‘researchers are reminded that they must take into account subjects’ rights to freedom from manipulation when weighing the potential benefits of the research role against the harms that could accrue’ (Adler and Adler, 1994, p. 389).

Source: Angrosino Michael (2008), Doing Ethnographic and Observational Research, SAGE Publications Ltd; 1st edition.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *