Aalborg Summer School
Qualitative Research Methods and Data
Analysis
Aalborg 23.8.-26.8. 2011
’Dangerous Fieldwork: Ethnography and
Ethics in Sociology’
Søren Kristiansen & Michael Hviid Jacobsen
Dangerous Fieldwork part 1
• Fieldwork: The relation between researcher and
research subjects
• Field roles
• Ethical complications in fieldwork
• Positions in the debate on the ethics of fieldwork
• Codes of ethics
• Closing up/some general advice
Ethics and methods
• Ethical considerations are not something that one
’attach’ to the thesis after the study have been
carried out – necessary prior to, during and after
conducting research
• Bad methods/research practice = bad ethics
US National Institute of Health
Institutional Review Board Guidebook
…if a research study is so methodologically flawed
that little or no reliable information will result, it is
unethical to put subjects at risk, or even to
inconvenience them through participation in such a
study […] Clearly if it is not good science, it is not
ethical.
The relation between researcher and
subjects in field research
• Researcher (often) has little power, informants can
decide when to leave the scene, they approve
researcher’s access (-under cover research)
• Subjects often control the specific setting,
researcher is on ’away ground’
• Interaction flows freely ’in both directions’,
relations are dynamic and subject to change –
makes the entire process unpredictable
Cassell, Joan (1980): Ethical Principles for Conducting Fieldwork. American Anthropologist, 82, pp. 28-30
Raymond Gold’s continuum model
Ethical complications I:
Guilty knowledge and ’dirty hands’
• Researcher witness and participate in crimes commited by
research subjects (Whyte: election fraud etc.)
• Researchers get hold of compromising information
What will happen to research subjects/the setting if
information is disclosed and communicated to legal
authorities? What are the consequences of not doing so?
Ethical complications II:
Science and friendship
As the men started to see me as a friend it became still
harder for me to percieve them as objects for my
research. In fact this particular situation became the most
delicate problem in my study – a problem for which I
never managed to find a complete solution. I was
trapped between the loyalty of friendship and the
researcher role. For example I found it extremely
difficult, after relaxed and informal evenings playing
bridge, to write fíeld notes about our interactions. To me
this would be a violation of our friendship and for long
periods of time I made no field notes at all.
Mathiesen, Thomas (1965): The Defences of the Weak: A Sociological Study of a Norwegian Correctional
Institution. London: Tavistock, p. 240
Positions in the debate on the ethics of fieldwork
(’absolutists’)
Certain research strategies are always illegitimate and
should therefore never be used by researchers. Absolutists
typically insists on complete informed consent, just as
they reject any kind of ’covert’ research and violation of
privacy. The ’indignant’ reactions to Laud Humphreys
study are examples.
Hammersley, Martyn & Atkinson, Paul (1997): Ethnography. Principles in Practice. London: Routledge, p. 276-77
Positions in the debate on the ethics of fieldwork
(’contextualists’)
The question of inacceptable research behaviour is always
a matter of contextual judgement – it depends on a
weightening of the pros and cons of different research
strategies. This approach attempts to avoid doing serious
damage on research subjects and accepts that the risk that
some people will be harmed by research never can be
eliminated. No research strategies are rejected absolutely
and in all cases, although some are perceived as more
’problematic’ than others. Howard Becker is an example.
Hammersley, Martyn & Atkinson, Paul (1997): Ethnography. Principles in Practice. London: Routledge, p. 277
Positions in the debate on the ethics of fieldwork
(’relativists’)
Since evaluations of ’good’ and bad’ is always rooted in
one of many possible value systems, there are multiple
answers to the question of suitable research behaviour.
The relativist ’answer’ typically is to involve subjects in
the research and to abandon research behaviour that
violate the participant’s moral principles.
Hammersley, Martyn & Atkinson, Paul (1997): Ethnography. Principles in Practice. London: Routledge, p. 277
Positions in the debate on the ethics of fieldwork
(’antagonists’)
In some cases ethical consideration can be more or less
neglected. Since society basically is characterized by
deception, secrecy and fundamental social conflicts,
’covert’ or ’deceptive’ research sometimes is necessary.
The researcher must be prepared to engage in unethical
practices since this often is the only way to produce data.
The claim of informed consent prevents effective
research in certain private and state organizations (Jack
Douglas)
Hammersley, Martyn & Atkinson, Paul (1997): Ethnography. Principles in Practice. London:
Routledge, p. 277-78
Central principles in codes of ethics
• Informed consent: Involves two dimensions: (1) consent is
to be given on a well-informed basis (do subjects really
know what they accept to participate in?), (2) subjects
must have an idea of what consenting might imply, what
are the consequences?
• Anonymity: Research participants have rights to remain
anonymous – use of ’false names’ for persons and places
• Avoid doing harm (questions on sensitive topics, provoke
embarrassing behaviours)
Jacobsen, Michael Hviid & Kristiansen, Søren (2001): Farligt feltarbejde – etik og etnografi i sociologien. Aalborg:
Aalborg Universitetsforlag
Central principles in codes of ethics
• Confidentiality: The researcher must guarantee that
collected information remains his private possession.
Desist from discussing information with colleagues, family
friends etc. and perhaps destruction of personally
identifying information when used.
• Respect for privacy: The protection against intrusion on
private property/territories, unauthorized access to personal
information, intrusive questions and ’nosing’ behaviours.
Jacobsen, Michael Hviid & Kristiansen, Søren (2001): Farligt feltarbejde – etik og etnografi i
sociologien. Aalborg: Aalborg Universitetsforlag
The applicability of codes of ethics
• Codes can never be exhaustively written (rules and rulefollowing behaviour are context dependent)
• How can we study deviant (sub)cultures? (John Lofland:
Covert research is OK for social policy ends; Joan Cassell:
Only if this is the only alternative and if research promise
important results; Robert Dingwall: Damages sociology’s
reputation).
• Informed consent is self-contradictory: it is impossible to
predict how the research process will develop, how
relations will be affected, which interactions will occur
•
Dingwall, Robert (1980): Ethics and Ethnography. Sociological Review, 28, 871-891; Fine, Gary A. (1993): Ten Lies
of Ethnography. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 22, 267—295, Cassell, Joan (1980): Ethical Principles for Conducting
Fieldwork. American Anthropologist, 82, pp. 28-30
The applicability of codes of ethics
• The hierarchy of consent: Who gives consent? can subordinates
freely withhold consent without official disfavour/negative
consequences?
• Too much information (the whole truth) may affect subject’s
behaviour (’demand characteristics’)
• Impossible/impractical to obtain consent on every occassion
without causing disruption
• Where is the limit between public and private? (involves a
cultural dimension). Does one have a right for ’privacy’ in
public places (Humphreys)?
Dingwall, Robert (1980): Ethics and Ethnography. Sociological Review, 28, 871-891; Fine, Gary A. (1993): Ten Lies
of Ethnography. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 22, 267—295, Malone, Susan (2003): Ethics at home:
informed consent in your own backyard. Qualitative Studies in Education, 16, 797-815.
What can be acheived through
codes of ethics?
• Professionalization of researchers (increased personal
confidence in coping with difficult situations – frameworks
within which good practice can be developed)
• Establishment of a kind of working community (affiliation
with common values and ideals)
• Trust from society (the question of whether social
researchers can be relied upon).
Lingås, Lars G. (1997): Over andres dørtrin. Frederikshavn: Dafolo, p. 29-30
Some general advice
• Member checks at very early draft stages may maximise
feelings of ownership of words/narratives
• Be honest and explicit about your perspective – social life
is observed and interpreted through this special lens that
makes the researcher ’see’ certain things – unexamined
assumptions flavour your writing – refrain from
discoveries of ’indisputable truths’.
• Try to anticipate ethical problems by asking difficult
questions at the beginning of the study
The fundamental ethical question
Will any kinds of harm (physical or
psychological) come to anyone as result of my
research?
Closing up
• Keep systematic records of all materials and actions in the
project – try to create and audit trail by documenting your
’way through the data (protection of you and your
discipline) - enhanced by CAQDAS
• Conduct your research so effectively that subjects don’t
experience a ’waste of time’
• Does the project’s design put people at risk/in vulnerable
situations/affect subject’s autonomy
• Show special attention to certain groups (children,
adolecents) and topics (sensitive subjects such as sexual
behaviors, substance abuse, mental health etc)