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’