Aalborg Summer School Qualitative Research Methods and Data Analysis Aalborg 23.8.-26.8. 2011 ’Dangerous Fieldwork: Et

1. 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

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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.

5. 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

6. Raymond Gold’s continuum model

7. 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?

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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

15. The applicability of codes of ethics • Codes can never be exhaustively written (rules and rule-following 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

16. 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.

17. 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

18. 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

19. The fundamental ethical question Will any kinds of harm (physical or psychological) come to anyone as result of my research?

20. 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)