1 researching deviant/criminal groups qualitative research 1.general comments 2.participant...
TRANSCRIPT
1
Researching Deviant/Criminal GroupsQualitative Research
1. General Comments
2. Participant Observation
3. Ethics: Laud Humphreys
4. Pros/Cons of PO
2
1. Qual. ResearchDifferent methods: fieldwork, PO, unstructured interviews, text analysis, oral history, etc.
Qualitative approach argues:
Humans not mice or atoms
Actions have meanings, purposes; different interpretations
Study in context/natural setting
More detailed knowledge of research groups
3
1. Qual Research
Early exponents:
Anthropology: e.g. Malinowski (1920s) - months ‘in the field’
Sociology: Chicago School (1920s +) - study diverse groups in setting e.g. tramps, dancers – deviants especially
4
2. Participant ObservationJoin group, participate in activities
Step back: observe, record, analyse
PO with deviant or criminal groups that have limited power
Powerful prevent entry
Early work challenged myths about poor eg Whyte - 1930s Boston slum
5
2. PO - Getting In• Are you an ‘insider’?
e.g. Becker, jazz and marijuana Polsky and pool hustlers
• Can you find research group (the mafia?)
• Constantly (re)negotiate entry - Armstrong (1993) and football hooligans
• Access ‘gatekeepers’
• ‘Snowball’ research group (Polsky)
6
2. PO - Blending In
Blend in, build rapport, win trustSimilar background & habits helpe.g. Hobbs - criminals and drinking
Polsky: keep quiet early on, avoid dumb questions
7
2. Doing PO
Research criminal group? Don’t pretend to joinDraw lines re personal involvement (Polsky)
Record info: avoid tapes. Take notes next day, or during ‘breaks’
Watch for ‘quid pro quo’ - help out research group
8
2. PO Dangers? - Going Native
Take on research group’s culture, forget sociological viewpointe.g. fights, disorderly behaviour in pubs(e.g. Parker 1974)
Criticisms by other, armchair academicsBUT: hard to ‘go native’ if not original ‘member’
9
3. Research Ethics
Most research can be ‘overt’ - in the openBSA - ethical guidelinesSeek ‘informed consent’ - group understands, accepts your project
Covert research - ‘spy’ on group
- might be practical
- can it be justified?
10
3. Laud Humphreys - Tearoom Trade
LH - ‘watch-queen’ role (lookout/voyeur)
Covert: open researcher wouldn’t win trust
Noted car reg of participants; got names and addresses
Year later - disguised (not recognised), interviewed around 100 participants
Homosexual male encounters in public toilets (tearooms)
11
3. LH - Ethical Problems?LH praised - new light on unusual activity
HAD to be covert?
Criticisms:
• no informed consent
• deceived participants
• probably impossible today
12
4. Wider Criticisms of PO1. Sample groups too small for generalizations e.g. one criminal gang, not variety
2. Lot of crime/deviance stays hidden or can’t be reported
3. Too subjective - researcher’s own interpretation
4. Underplays structural issues? e.g. class
5. Researcher influences behaviour
13
4. Benefits of PORichness, complexity of social life
Tells us more about little-known groups
Deviant meanings and identities – how intense, rationalized, relate to ‘normal’?
Detailed findings
CAN build in structural issues e.g. Birmingham School on youth, class and subcultures
Enjoyable / memorable research experience - but don’t try to ‘go native’