Shubhangi Banerjee
The question of ethical pitfalls invariably arises
while conducting ethnographic fieldwork, by adopting the overt or covert method
of participant observation in naturalistic settings. This blog analyses the
research study by Jun Li, who has completed her postdoctoral fellowship from
the Ontario Problem Gambling Research Centre to investigate female gambling
culture. (Li, 2008, p.100) She has employed ethnographic fieldwork by focusing
on the various aspects and experiences of gambling by women through participant
observation, thereby outlining the ethical considerations involved and the
importance of ethnography when dealing with sensitive issues and investigating
groups who are often marginalised and stigmatised.
In her essay, Li notes that even though participation
observation presents detailed portraits of contextualised social realities, it
was controversial and stirred debates regarding deception and absence of
informed consent. Despite this, researchers with an advocacy and emancipatory
paradigm who aim to represent lives of the disadvantaged individuals, continue
to challenge such ethical constraints. (Bulmer et al, 1980 as cited in Li,
2008, p.101) Gambling is characterised by a combination of fame, secrecy and
stigma. Studies find that most women who engage in this often do so because of
being burdened with personal difficulties and adverse life situations and its due
to the attached stigma and toxic outcomes of gambling, that they prefer to keep
their perspectives and experiences private, especially when it comes to
researchers who are perceived to be in the position of public knowledge
production. (Li, 2008, p.102)
Thus, it can be inferred that adopting a covert method
in such cases usually helps the researcher to gain an insider’s insight and
first-hand experience of the daily realities on such delicate issues. However,
there are constraints attached to this form of data collection. Li discusses in
her report how being a non-gambler and using the budgeted research money, she
didn’t feel like she was fully involved and also couldn’t live through the
same emotional ups and downs and complex realities of the path of addiction
these women chose; and as a result how these would be so disparate from
statistical results generated by quantitative studies. (Li, 2008, p.103) During
field encounters in public spaces, Li was often warned against the addiction to
gambling and the moment she mentioned about her involvement in it for research
purposes; women who initially shared their experiences refused to provide any
more personal information for the research interviews/ questionnaires. She also
mentions how she felt emotionally disturbed as an undercover researcher and
that it wasn’t justified to use the end to the means, even though the
psychological risks were outweighed by the potential research benefits. (Li,
2008, p.106) However, adopting this systematic overt method was
unsuccessful as is evident above.
Its particularly interesting how Li discusses the
three key players- gender, culture and age-that conditioned the
researcher-participant relationship. Being a female researcher, there was a
certain comfort established and she had access to information. She notes that
even though interacting with individuals from similar cultural backgrounds can
seem beneficial, it didn’t quite favour her research. Although she encountered
a significant Asian population in the casinos, they weren’t willing to share
personal experiences/ viewpoints due to family objections and certain shared cultural
norms. In terms of age, Li argues that a teacher-student relationship
accidentally occurred. For instance, both the elderly Chinese lady and the
middle-aged White woman felt compelled to save me from becoming a victim to
this addiction by sharing their stories. (Li, 2008, pp.108-109)
In conclusion, one can infer that ethnography and
participant observation cannot be delinked and they often pose certain
challenges that cannot be overruled. Everyday social realities are fluid,
unpredictable and fragile; and ethnography requires mindful awareness of
ongoing relationships and frequent adjustments, because when a study supplies
both evidence and ground to contest against social prejudice, the process of
research itself becomes praxis and advocacy. (Li, 2008, pp.109-110) Also,
it is the comprehensive outlook of ethnography that provides a valuable
framework, that can put forth the various hidden programmatic costs and benefits
among various participants that the researcher might miss out during the
observational research study and evaluation. (Henry et al, 2007, p.315) There
is a cognitive and emotional connect which often leads to the undertaking of
certain moral decisions. Psychological preparedness and flexibility to
situational adjustments play a crucial role in successful fieldwork.
References
Li, J. (2008). Ethical Challenges in Participant
Observation: A Reflection on Ethnographic Fieldwork. The Qualitative
Report,13(1), 100-115. Retrieved from https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol13/iss1/8
Henry, D., Bales, R. & Graves, E. (2007).
Ethnography in Evaluation: Uncovering Hidden Costs and Benefits in Child Mental
Health. Human Organisation, Vol.66, No. 3, 315-326. Society for Applied
Anthropology. Retrieved from
Comments
Post a Comment