Friday, April 18, 2008
Hanna and Devyn-Ethics of Qualitative Research
As we briefly discussed in class the other day, it seems like there is controversy over whether the type of research that we see in Nickel and Dimed is an ethical type of research to conduct. You have human subjects and in this case, the subjects don't even know that they are being studied. Do you think that this type of research is ethical? Should people be able to study other human beings without informing them or letting them consent? Are there certain scenarios where you think that it is acceptable, or on the other hand, not acceptable, to do this kind of research? Also, consider the impact of having to be ethical on the realism of your study? Do you think it is possible to disclose what you are researching and not have your subjects change their behavior?m Please feel free to respond to these questions or post any other response you may have to the ethics of qualitative research.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
I think that for research purposes that it is better to not inform people that they are being studied because it can change their behavior, misleading the results and the purpose of the study. Ethically, I do not think that there is a problem with simply observing people and I do not think that people need to be notified unless it is going to be a published document. People observe others all the time and write in their personal journals, and that is similar to the what Ehrenreich is doing.
I think this research is ethical because it provides a different view that might not be able to be seen if people knew they were being studied. But I think that there are boundaries and precautions that need to be taken and I do not think that any material should be publised without the consent of the individual. I do not think that people can be stopped for studying the behavior of other people with or without consent, but I do think that it is important that nothing is published for he public without the participant knowing and be willing to allow the publication.
I do not think that it is possible to disclose the research and not have changes in behavior. Even if people do not willingly or knowingly change their behavior, majority of the time people act differntly if they know they are being observed or recorded.
I do not think that Ehrenreich's research methods were unethical becaue I believe that if she disclosed the information, her relationship with her co-workers would have been different. The relationships she was able to build with the staffs she encountered was built because they thought that she was one of them and I feel that if they knew she was a journalist and conducting a research study, their bonds would not have been as personal or as close.
In our culture, we do a lot of observing. We sit at coffee shops, restaurants, and trains to people watch. We watch people’s interactions and behaviors because that is what makes an individual so interesting. Though I don’t think that it’s very ethical, I know that it’s very difficult to otherwise study people, because most will change their behaviors once they know they are being studied. Therefore, I think that people should be able to study others without informing them or letting them consent, otherwise the data might become changed or be uncharacteristic of the person being studied. For Ehrenreich's case, had she told her co-workers that she was studying them, her relationship with the people he worked with would not have been the same. I think that there are some lines that should be drawn in this type of research. I think that if the information that will be published will end up hurting someone, or out someone out, I think then the person being studied must consent to the study being published. I really don’t think it’s possible to disclose what one is researching and not have the subject change their behavior.
While observing people is interfering with others privacy, I think that in order to get the best and most accurate kind of research, one should not tell their subjects that they are being studied. However, I do think that if the practice of studying people was for unethical purposes, or to "judge" a certain class of people, then the whole practice would be considered unethical and should not be done.
I think that the kind of research Ehrenreich is doing is ethical, but I also do believe that it is very important to make sure that the subjects being studied are notified if any information will eventually be published. After notifying the subjects, I think they would either be offended and say no (they didn't want the information published) or they would actually be interested and realize new things about themselves.
I think that if she were to tell the subjects they were being studied, they would most definitely act differently than they would normally; especially if they knew that their restaurant/business was going to be mentioned in a book/article/etc, which is another reason which I think justifies her research and makes it ethical. She is clearly writing this book to make a point about ways to better society; which is an ethical practice; therefore the ways in which she goes about doing so, in my opinion, is ethical.
Thanks, Devyn & Hanna, for an excellent reflection and question to consider. I like how you've taken something we were talking about in class and extended it to our blog. We may want to integrate some of the comments into tomorrow's class discussion. Thanks!
It is interesting trying to examine qualitative research through ethical frameworks. If you look at Utilitarianism, the research you are performing is merely a means to an understanding (the end result). Therefore, performing the research is completely ethical. You could even possibly see it as a "greatest good for greatest number" theory, also rendering it ethical. However, when the situation is flipped, examining the research from the other side, the individual, the methods of research might not justify the ends. It is pushing being a sacrifice of the individuals rights to privacy, to a certain extent, to produce a result, an analysis. When the individual is considered, the research might not be deemed ethical.
As far as permitting people to study others, I would go as far as to say we do that every single day. We might not be writing a book or doing a scientific experiment; however, humans study others through daily interactions. It is how we know how to act in specific situations and how we develop habits. Basically, we learn through studying others. We understand and empathize through placing ourselves in one another's position, whether physically or mentally. I do not consider an attempt to empathize in any way rude or unethical.
I think, as I already expressed in class, that sometimes, in order to get the truth out of people, it is necessary to keep them in the dark about the research you are doing. Some social groups in society that would not allow you to study them if they were informed of your research.
I think in terms of the people Ehrenriech is studying, I do not personally think that it is unethical for her to observe the people that she worked with. She was not putting them in any physical or emotional danger. She also changed their names for the book, so their identities were protected.
If those that she studied had known from the get-go that they were being observed, they would not have acted naturally. And if they did act naturally, they probably would not have accepted her a member of their group the way that they did. If all of the people she studied knew she was writing a book about them, she would have jeopardized the integrity of her study. I think it was a good idea. Haha.
Though I understand the potential importance of the qualitative research conducted by Ehrenriech in Nickel and Dimed, I also feel that that by publishing her secretive observations she could have betrayed the trust of many of the people she met. In my opinion, this betrayal of trust occurred not when Ehrenriech pretended to be someone she wasn’t, rather when she published the information about these people. Even though her observations are pertinent and eye opening to many in her audience, it is possible that the people Ehrenriech writes about do not appreciate the negative stigma assigned to them in the book. Even though Ehrenriech is trying to make a point, she is doing it at the expense of the people she worked with. Although she makes a point of changing the names of some of the places and people she meets, it is possible that the people who she writes about feel ostracized because of the publicity in the book. Also, Ehrenriech belittles, in a way, the work that she is performing when others working there may be grateful to have any kind of job at all. Although I do appreciate Ehrenriech’s work, I do not believe she conducted it in the most ethical manner.
I believe that, while there is a fine line between ethical and unethical studies, the research techniques employed by Barbara Ehrenreich are ethical. The main reason I support her ethicality is that none of her "subjects" were referred to by name; Ehrenreich assigned each a pseudonym. This anonymity protects their individual rights to privacy. Also, her novel us presented as such; it is not published in a scientific or even sociological journal.
It was imperative to the mission of the novel that Ehrenreich's subjects not know they were being studied. Had they known, their testimonies would have been biased and could have been false. The validity and realism of Nickel and Dimed relied upon the secretive way in which it was researched and written.
Although I think her subjects’ behavior COULD have changed with their awareness of being studied, I am not one hundred percent sure it WOULD have. Based off of their reactions to Ehrenreich’s admission, I don’t think they were very impressed or affected by her “real” career and goals.
It seems that in today’s society we are so obsessed with making sure things are ethical and that no one gets offended. Well no one has the right not to be offended. Many very important studies have been done that have contributed greatly to a better understanding of society and how people operate that, today would never be considered ethical.
Consider The Milgram experiment, this was a ground breaking study, this experiment was a series of seminal social psychology experiments conducted by Yale University psychologist Stanley Milgram, which measured the willingness of study participants to obey an authority figure who instructed them to perform acts that conflicted with their personal conscience. He did this by having a person believe they were shocking an unseen individual with extremely lethal doses of electricity (this unseen individual was not actually being shocked, but the subjects were led to believe that they were).
It is these kinds of social experiments that lead to a better understanding of how people function in different situations. This, in a sense, is exactly what Ehrenreich is doing. Unethical... no. Absolutely essential... yes!
I strongly believe that it is ethical to study other people's behavior. This gives an interesting view on our culture and a way of studying human life. These observations give a whole new perspective on society and allow us to freely express our own ideas. Therefore, I would consider it to be ethical for Ehrenreich to write in the way she chooses to do so. If she had told her coworkers that they were being observed, this would be completely different because they would behave much differently as opposed to not have been told. Also, this would of changed the relationship she had with them during the course of the story.
As long as a person's identity is being disclosed, then there shouldn't be a problem doing this type of research. This gives Ehrenreich to freely express herself without being criticized or have to change the way she writes. By doing this, it allows readers to understand how people function in society and certain circumstances.
Overall, I believe Ehrenreich does a good job going about her case studies. In her story, she makes sure not to say anything that will identify any of the characters and she works to not offend those she is observing. I believe that to understand others, it is necessary to observe them, and in this case, submerging yourself into their lifestyle. I think that because the author was trying to understand the lifestyle more than the actual people who live in homelessness, does her study deem ethical. It was acceptable that she did not tell others what she was doing because she was still fighting to make a living alongside them, and not just observing. Ehrenreich changes her entire lifestyle to understand more about the lower working class and the struggles they encounter. Had she disclosed her research objective, it is possible that her subjects may have treated her differently. They would not have built the relationships and trust that they did with her and much of the information in her book would not be included. Had Ehrenreich depicted these people in a negative view, her work could be considered unethical, but her little bias does not harm her work, and she effectively explains the situations the working class encounters. I think that the novel shows worthy qualitative research that was not constructed in an unethical manner.
Post a Comment