Strategically Communicating

A statement in chapter 5 of Qualitative Communication Research Methods was troubling to me. Page 141 contains this statement, “…as a matter of self-protection, all fieldworkers will inevitably practice some deception, although the types, extent and frequency will vary.” Lindlof and Taylor go on to say that the most important thing is to pay attention to your motivations as a researcher and the consequences for participants. I strongly disagree that outright deception on any kind is appropriate while conducting research. There may be circumstances where researchers passively observe people in a public setting or need to use a different name, but that’s the most “deception” I would ever tolerate.

This reminds me of the McCaskey case study we read for Brian’s class recently. In the article, a researcher at a market research firm in her late 20s named Martha McCaskey poses as a consultant for a start-up semiconductor manufacturer in order to obtain insider information for her client. Initially, McCaskey has reservations about resorting to deception to access trade secrets, but after pressure from her superiors and clients, she gives in against her better judgment. Brian still hasn’t shared with us what exactly happened to Martha, but it didn’t look promising. Deception simply has no place in the professional world, whether academic or corporate.

What do you all think? Is “some deception” a necessary evil or completely off limits when conducting research? When does some deception become too much?

It seems clear, pretty much from the outset of L&T’s Chapter 5, that the ethical boundaries of ethnographic research can be both a moving target and a particularly sticky wicket. As the authers reference, qualitative scholars are effectively “professional strangers” often simultaneously detached from–but inextricably tied to–the individuals, cultures and communities that they study. In citing Punch (1986), L&T acknowledge the view that virtually all fieldworkers “practice some degree of deception,” establishing murky boundary lines of empirical research.

In my mind, the delineation between the four “types” of ethnographic researchers (complete participants, complete observers, participant-as-observer and observer-as-participant) brought to mind certain hallmarks in journalism/literary nonfiction. From John Howard Griffin (Black Like Me) and Morgan Spurlock (Supersize Me) to Barbara Ehrenreich (Nickel and Dimed) and Hunter S. Thompson (Hell’s Angels), there is a pop culture totem that brings the kind of undeniable insights and uncomfortable realities that can accompany qualitative ethnography.

To what extent does a researcher’s participation influence or bias the “data” gathered through their study of individuals or groups? Could the same insights and observations be obtained without “immersion” techniques? Depending on the context, I suspect the answer is both “Yes” and “No.” However, in participatory ethnographic research, at what point do the ends ultimately stop justifying the means?

My area of research interest is primarily focused on children and how they interact with peers as well as with companies that are trying to market to them online in social media communities (e.g, Facebook).  The readings this week, especially the reading by Boellstorff, T. et al. (2012), reinforced my interest in ethnography as a relevant and useful tool in order to study the interactions of children in social media spaces.  However, the definition of virtual worlds as defined by Boellstorff, T. et al. (2012), excludes those spaces such as Facebook that don’t reflect “worldness and embodiment.” This exclusion makes sense when dealing with older subjects, but I wonder if children, who have always had Facebook and other social media as part of their daily lives, may view the lines between the physical and virtual worlds in different ways.  I would like to study this more and explore any research that has been done on children and their definitions of virtual worlds.

Another area to further explore to support my area of research interest is around how to conduct field research with fragile or impressionable populations such as children.  Identifying the most appropriate type and degree of participation when conducting field research, as described in the Lindlof and Taylor (2011) text, with children will be an especially interesting challenge that I look forward to exploring further. 

Bonding with avatar can shift perception.

Interesting research that directly speaks to our ethnography discussion!

In further readings about ethnography I came across a fascinating piece by Kathleen M. Blee who studied white supremacist women. She sought to understand what led these women into a cult of hatred. She faced several challenges in her research, from identifying potential subjects to how to conduct the interviews.

Blee took the approach of full transparency. She clearly stated that she disagreed with the views of her subjects but wanted to accurately tell their stories. With those guidelines she conducted “unstructured life history interviews.” This technique allowed more leeway in the conversations to draw out specific events that shaped personal histories. Blee began with a single neutral question: “Can you tell me how you got to where you are now?”

Blee’s subjects used fear to intimidate, and Blee found that managing her own fear during the research process became critical. Her activist subjects used fear to try to limit the scope of her research. Blee herself had a keen awareness that the emotional relationship between researcher and subject can influence both interpretation and analysis.

Researchers must strive to suspend their own beliefs to interpret behavior of individuals who are radically different than themselves. How do we even know the right questions to ask? How do we know what’s significant and what’s immaterial? I appreciated the technique of the unstructured life interview to elicit authentic stories. When studying violent groups, though, how do we know if we’re actually in danger?