PhD Course in Qualitative Research Methods and Data Analysis,
Aalborg University, August 2011
Michael Hviid Jacobsen & Søren Kristiansen
Part 1
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Ethnography and Sociology
Fieldwork: The Relation between Researcher and Research
Subjects
Field Roles and Role Conflicts
Ethical Complications in Fieldwork
Positions in the Debate on the Ethics of Fieldwork
The Codes of Ethics
Closing Up: Some General Advice
Part 2
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Sources of Bias in Qualitative Sociology
Sensitive Sociology
Emotions in Fieldwork
Dimensions of Dangerous Fieldwork
Situational Etiquette Instead of Iron-Clad Codes of Ethics
Concluding Remarks
1. Prior knowledge (too much, too little – insider, outsider)
2. Design faults and methodological mistakes
3. Dysfunctional technical equipment (measurement problems)
4. Informant bias (wrong informants, sampling problems, etc.)
5. Researcher bias (analytical and interpretative mishaps,
emotions, values, personal priorities and preferences, etc.)
• An integral aspect of all social research but
particularly important when researching
marginalized, weak or vulnerable
populations
• Concerns the conduct/discretion/empathy of
the researcher when investigating those who
– for various reasons – find themselves in
difficult or strenous situations
• Although always part and parcel of research,
it becomes particularly pertinent to be
sensitive in behaviour and interpretation
when confronting vulnerable people
• The outcasts/downtrodden/marginalized people (de udstødte):
A (often permanent) structural position – may lead to symbolic
violence on behalf of the researcher: we most often study the
bottom of society and only seldom its top positions
• The sick/depressed/hurt people (de udsatte): A personal –
chronic or momentary – situation (e.g. due to illness or psychic
distress) that casts people in a position of particular emotional
and psychological vulnerability – may lead to misinterpretation
and lack of empathy (or the opposite, too much empathy and
sympathy – the so-called danger of ‘over-identification’)
1.
In relation to the overall taboo topics and themes of society and
culture (changes over time and from place to place)
2. In relation to the concrete life situation of the individuals being
researched (de udsatte og udstødte)
3.
In relation to the specific research methods used (some methods
and techniques are more sensitive and appropriate than others)
4. In relation to the concepts, interpretations and understanding one
develops analytically (remember: words can hurt) – concepts need to
be sensitizing as well as sensitive
Investigating a public office in California dealing with family problems
(e.g. the enforced removal of children), sociologist John M. Johnson
listed the following five aspects of emotions in fieldwork:
1.
The initial emotions of insecurity and anxiety when entering the field
2.
Instinctive reactions to various experiences and situations (negative as well
as positive)
3.
Personal relations with people in the field
4.
Personal relations with colleagues ‘back home’
5.
The instinctive/inner need/wish to understand the field that fuels research
John M. Johnson, (1977): “Behind the Rational Appearances: Fusion of Thinking and Feeling in
Sociological Research”, in Jack D. Douglas & John M. Johnson (red.): Existential Sociology. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
The notion of ‘dangerous fieldwork’ covers all the
physical, psychological, emotional, ethical, cultural or
personal deprivations and distresses suffered by
investigator(s) or participant(s) in social/field research
ranging from physical pain and damage via mental and
health related harm to loss of prestige and threats to
identity.
Dangerous fieldwork may thus involve varying degrees
and forms of suffering or discomfort – as well as various
accompanying ethical problems to be confronted
1.
Researcher physical danger (physical harm, assault, bodily damage etc.
as a consequence of conducting research)
2.
Researcher psychological/emotional danger (mental distress etc. as a
consequence of conducting research)
3.
Subject physical danger (physical harm, assault, bodily damage etc. as a
consequence of participating in research)
4. Subject psychological/emotional danger (mental distress etc. as a
consequence of participating in research)
5.
Subject cultural danger (threats to the culture or community of those
participating in research)
6. Research cultural danger (threats to the career, reputation or prestige
of those conducting research)
Linda Dunn (1991): Research Alert! Qualitative Research
May be Hazardous to Your Health:
“Night after night, I would go to bed and fall asleep immediately, only to
wake up in a few short hours and remain awake for the rest of the night.
I diagnosed myself as depressed, by why? Exhausted, I made an
appointment with my physician and obtained a prescription that would
promote sleep. My inability to sleep diminished; however, extreme
gastrointestinal upsets began, which necessitated numerous tests, diet
changes and more tests. In addition, severe headaches accompanied
neck and shoulder pains, which were treated by more medication and
physical therapy. This treatment regimen was not only time consuming
but a financial burden. I was becoming drained. Family, friends and
peers commented about my tired appearance”
Nancy Howell (1986): Occupational Health and
Safety in Anthropology:
“Late nights at anthropological gatherings … experienced
anthropologists compare liver damage, broken legs, spectacular
car repairs and the isolation from assistance when accidents
occur. The knowledge that such accidents can prove fatal …
apparently lightens up the discussion”
Glennys Howarth (1993): Investigating Deathwork:
“I frequently had reservations about my involvement in deathwork: the
initial horror of witnessing bodywork, a tangible sense of tempting
fate and a concern about the course of my relationship with the
undertaker – a constant need to respond to his image of me as a
‘carefree and affable young woman’ clashed with my self-perception as
a serious researcher. Recording inner feelings in the field diary played a
significant role in keeping me in the field”
Researcher
Howarth’s
studies of the
funeral industry
E.g. teasing, testing, guilty
knowledge, dirty
knowledge, suppression
love, hatred, isolation
Garfinkel’s
breaching
experiments
Peritore’s
studies of the
Northern Irish
conflict
Zimbardo’s
studies in an
artifical prison
facility
Research subjects
E.g. pain, harm, suicide,
selfg-inflicted pain,
psycho-somatic
suffering, tourture,
threats
Physical
Psychological/
emotional
E.g. love, hatred,fear,
self-hate, identityconflicts, distance
E.g. pain, harm, suicide,
self-inflicted pain, torture
• Ruthlessness/cynicism (fortunately a very seldom reason)
• Recklessness/bad judgment/lack of understanding
• Bad planning/lack of predictability
• Lack of/limited knowledge
• Lack of/limited time and resources (shortcuts)
• One’s own personal habitus/preferences/viewpoints as
opposed to those of the investigated (gulf of incomprehension)
• Demands/pressures from external partners/sponsors
• Pre-existing tensions or conflicts in the field
• Unanticipated consequences/unexpected events
• Etc.
The potential pitfalls/problems of the codes of ethics:
 Cannot stand alone – must always be applied to/interpreted in





concrete social situations
Universalize/banalize ethical considerations to easy-tounderstand bullet points
Do not cater for ‘grey zones’ or informal social relations
Focus on abstract/formal/procedural obligations
Underestimate levels of discontent, discomfort or downright
conflict between the parties involved in social research
Understand relationships between parties in research primarily in
negative terms (rules about what not to do)
• One’s moral stance changes throughout one’s career (depending
on experience, age and position) – in our case from a moral ‘high
horse’ to a much more relaxed and pragmatic position
• One’s moral concerns changes throughout the duration of a
research project as one gets to know people and become part of
their lives
• Moral standards and regulations change over time and are
products of specific social and cultural contexts (e.g. the
importance of privacy in the Western world)
• Being ethical does not necessarily imply being moral
• Moral behaviour remains the sole responsibility of the individual
researcher – it can never be transferred or delegated to other
instances or institutions
• Michael Hviid Jacobsen & Søren Kristiansen (2001): Farligt feltarbejde.
Aalborg Universitetsforlag
• Martin Bulmer (ed.) (1982): Social Research Ethics. Macmillan.
• Paul A. Freund (ed.) (1970): Experimentation with Human Subjects.
George Braziller.
• Mette Hartlev (ed.) (1996): Den gode samfundsforsker - om etik i
samfundsforskningen. Akademisk Forlag.
• Roger Homan (1991): The Ethics of Social Research. London:
Longman.
• Raymond M. Lee (1995): Dangerous Fieldwork. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
• Marlene de Laine (2000): Fieldwork, Participation and Practice.
London: Sage Publications.
• Heather McCosker, Alan Barnard & Rod Gerber (2001): “Undertaking
Sensitive Research: Issues and Strategies for Meeting the Safety Needs
of All Participants”. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 2 (1) –
available online.