‘Inauthenticity, dissimilitude, and potential, perhaps inevitable betrayal, … are inherent in fieldwork methods’ (Stacey 1988, p.23): the importance of Ethics in the Research Environment and fieldwork

In many domains, research has become an issue of ethical concerns, which is understood as what the researcher can and cannot do (Jones 2016a, p.62). Questions of how to protect the interests of those who take part in a study have drawn ethics to the foreground (Flick 2009, p.36).

In the widely cited article above, Stacey (1988) argued that feminist ethnographic methods, and the challenges they face (Schrock 2013, pp.48–60), expose their subjects to greater risks of exploitation and betrayal (Skeggs 2011, p.435). She also argues that fieldwork research is deemed as an intrusion to a system of relationships, and the researcher cannot escape the tasks of interpreting, evaluating and judging the data (Stacey 1988, p.24). However, the arguments she pointed out are applicable not only to feminist ethnography itself, but to the wider ethnographic research. In this short article, the theme of betrayal (Aune 2009, p.310) is discussed in relation to the relevant literature for ethnographic research.

Betrayal is the violation of trust or confidence by which it produces moral and psychological conflict within a system of relationships. It can take many forms in ethnographic research, such as by exploiting the relationships a researcher has with his subjects, bridging confidentiality and anonymity, not obtaining informed consent for a research and many others. Many subjects, even without any commitment, feel betrayed once their relationship with the researcher is exposed (Jones 2016b, p.164).

One form of betrayal lies in the exploitation of the research subjects (Bryman 2012, p.454; Stacey 1988, p.23), with the researcher becoming too embedded in the reality of its subjects. It follows that ethnography is regarded as an intervention to the relationships formed by the subjects. Bell & Bryman (2007, p.67) describe this as a ‘power relation’, where the researcher is in a position of power or influence over his subjects. In addition, Neyland (2007, p.179) further argues about the intrusion nature of a researcher by describing how the researcher is perceived within an ethnographic research ‘a Trojan horse taking notes’. To protect research subjects from exploitation and the intrusion of the researcher, the Belmont principles of ethical codes for social research have the fundamental principle of ‘respect for persons’ (Jones 2016a, p.66). Alcadipani & Hodgson (2009, p.135) report how important, but at the same time intrusive, it is to clearly communicate that all their research was confidential and for academic purposes.

Furthermore, another form of betrayal arises when the informed consent is not obtained. Its principle lies back in the formation of the Nuremberg Code, where any subjects need to provide their agreement for being studied (Alcadipani & Hodgson 2009, p.129; Corrigan 2003, p.774). It forms the basis for ensuring the protection of vulnerable subjects (Bell & Bryman 2007, p.67). Ethical guidelines direct the researchers, who are responsible for ensuring informed consent is obtained. However, the extent to which participants can ever be fully informed of the research is questionable (Bell & Bryman 2007, p.67). Some ethical committees required informed consent to be obtained by all organisation members (Grugulis 2011). Ellis (1995, pp.68–98), in her article, described how ethical uncertainty had emerged with the people she was researching, upon returning to the research site after her book publication. She argued with her subjects as some of them felt betrayed by her representation of the events. This also had an impact on her:

‘the contradiction of caring about these people and knowing they are aware of my description makes me feel sick…’ Ellis 1995, p.79

Several other forms of betrayal take shape in the form of confidentiality, anonymity, honesty and transparency, and beneficence (which is defined as to maximize benefit, by reducing risk, wrongdoing and harm). These are often regarded as common principles of ethical code (Jones 2016a, p.63), and ‘betraying’ any of them will be deemed as unethical to a study. Cassell (1980, p.37) examines how the ‘power’ relationship between researchers and subjects in different types of research varied with the levels of harm and benefit to the subjects. A challenge, specifically associated with confidentiality and privacy, arises when the research needs to be reported back to the organisation, where those within the organisation are likely to understand who is involved and able to identify the individuals (Bell & Bryman 2007, p.71; Jones 2016b, pp.155–184).

Bryman (2012, p.455) argues that the ethnographer should fulfil all his ethical obligations simultaneously and be transparent. Saunders et al. (2008, p.188) represents this in a well-presented stage-gate ethical issues model for research. Fine (1993, pp.267–294) presents the image of ethnographers, splitting them into three clusters: classical virtues, technical skills and the ethnographic self, arguing that virtues such as sympathy, openness and honour, represent the standards of ethnography. Neyland (2007, pp.178–195) critically revisits this and argues that these should be representative of the common images of ethical and competent field researchers.

In this short article the theme of betrayal, identified in Stacey’s article, is presented in relation to the many forms it can take. We argue that subjects can feel betrayed once one or more of the above forms of betrayal take shape, and most importantly with a lack of an ethical framework (Creswell 2013, pp.132–142). We conclude that it is important to always follow an ethical framework, when conducting or reporting research, considering the consequences of any actions of the researcher, to protect vulnerable research participants from exploitation and potential harm.

About the author:

Leonidas Aristodemou is a doctoral researcher in Artificial Intelligence and Technology and Innovation Management. He is a member of the Innovation and Intellectual Property Management (IIPM) group, within the Centre for Technology Management (CTM), Institute for Manufacturing (IfM), University of Cambridge. He is currently a visiting scholar at the Alan Turing Institute, London. His current research revolves on the usage of Big Data, applied machine learning, and Intellectual Property Analytics; more specifically, he analyses big datasets of intellectual property data and forecasts technological value/impact using deep learning models. This is anticipated to improve the technology strategic decision-making processes within innovation management models.

Profiles

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/leonidasaristodemou/

Cambridge: http://www.eng.cam.ac.uk/profiles/la324

The Turing: https://www.turing.ac.uk/people/doctoral-students/leonidas-aristodemou

References:

• Alcadipani, R. & Hodgson, D., 2009. By Any Means Necessary? Ethnographic Access, Ethics and the Critical Researcher. Tamara Journal for Critical Organization Inquiry, 7(3/4), pp.127–146.
• Aune, K., 2009. Feminist Ethnography. Encyclopedia of Gender and Society, pp.309–312.
• Bell, E. & Bryman, A., 2007. The ethics of management research: An exploratory content analysis. British Journal of Management, 18(1), pp.63–77.
• Bryman, A., 2012. Social Research Methods, Oxford University Press.
• Cassell, J., 1980. Ethical Principles for Conducting Fieldwork. American Anthropologist, 82(1), pp.28–41.
• Corrigan, O., 2003. Empty ethics: The problem with informed consent. Sociology of Health and Illness, 25(7), pp.768–792.
• Creswell, J.W., 2013. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches 4th Edition
• Ellis, C., 1995. Emotional and Ethical Quagmires in returning to the field. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 24(1), pp.68–98.
• Fine, G., 1993. Ten Lies of Ethnograpy Moral Dilemmas of Field Research. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, pp.267–294.
• Flick, U., 2009. An introduction to qualitative research.
• Grugulis, I., 2011. Research Ethics and James Bond. Social Science Space.
• Jones, M., 2016a. Ethics in Organizational Research. In Researching Organizations: The Practice of Organizational Fieldwork. pp. 61–73.
• Jones, M., 2016b. Getting Out : Leaving the Field and Reporting Research in. In Researching Organizations: The Practice of Organizational Fieldwork. SAGE Publications, pp. 155–184.
• Neyland, D., 2007. Organizational Ethnography. Organizational Ethnography, pp.178–195.
• Saunders, M., Lewis, P. & Thornhill, A., 2008. Research Methods for Business Students
• Schrock, R.D., 2013. The Methodological Imperatives of Feminist Ethnography. Journal of Feminist Scholarship, 5(Fall), pp.48–60.
• Skeggs, B., 2011. Feminist Ethnography. In Handbook of Ethnography. SAGE Publications, pp. 426–442.
• Stacey, J., 1988. Can there be a feminist ethnography? Women’s Studies International Forum, 11(1), pp.21–27.