Abstract
This chapter outlines the ethical concerns raised in previous chapters and addresses them in relationship to Community-Based Participatory Research design, methodologies, and practice. We combine our perspectives, positionalities, and voices and offer examples of each issue and the corresponding insights we gained. We reflect on our initial research questions and explain how we developed the surveys for individuals inside and outside of jail, gathered and analyzed the data, and decided on next steps and how to share our work with the community. The implications for ethics in this and other projects are explored in subsections and highlight co-researchers’ voices.
“Be mindful of the inequality between academic researchers and community members. Don’t act like it’s not there, but actively work to name it, and work towards creating conditions of actual equality between us in the research project. Think of a research team that includes academic and peer researcher in the terms of critical PAR researcher María Elena Torre as a ‘contact zone’, which she defines as ‘a messy social space where very differently situated people [can] work together across their own varying relationships to power and privilege.’”
~L. Boilevin et al.
Research 101: A Manifesto for Ethical Research in the Downtown Eastside, 2019, p. 9.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
This project was funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council Connected Communities Programme. Led by Sarah Banks, their aim was to provide a critical overview of participatory approaches to community-based research while focusing specifically on ethical issues. They focus on research “categorized as ‘diverse’, ‘hard to reach’ or ‘easily ignored’. Specifically, it identified ethical challenges in community-based participatory research (CBPR). The study involved a Co-inquiry Action Research group of community partners and academics and a team of international advisors” (Durham University, n.d.).
- 2.
See Chap. 1 for an explanation of participants and co-researchers’ roles and the differences between them. There were a total of 12 co-researchers (five Outside WRIST, five Inside WRIST, two Inside and Outside WRIST). 158 individuals contributed to this project. See Chap. 2 for demographic information about all participants.
- 3.
See Chap. 1 for a description of the differences between being held in jail versus prison.
- 4.
One of her criminal convictions.
- 5.
The insurance license was a requirement of Jenny’s job, and without it, she could not continue to work in her current position. During our co-authoring process, Jenny submitted the paperwork and was denied her license. She was told she would have to wait 15 years, due to her criminal record, to apply for and gain the license. This example is one of many that reveal how difficult it can be to live a productive and responsible life with a criminal record.
- 6.
In my conversations about research with Caty Simon and Naomi Lauren (members of Whose Corner Is It Anyway), they talk about their suspicions that some journalists and researchers may not credit sex workers’ or other marginalized individuals’ intellectual labor and appropriate their analysis in the name of “maintaining confidentiality.” Journalists and researchers must be vigilant and identify contributors as they want to be identified. In cases where their anonymity be maintained, at the very least they should acknowledge the ideas were developed by a contributor from a directly-affected community.
- 7.
Many of the individuals involved in this research project wanted to use their real names in the book. if a name is included without an asterisk (*) the name is the given name of the participant. An asterisk designates a name has been changed for privacy.
- 8.
This number was defined in the initial IRB application based on my conversations with Red Tent leadership.
- 9.
See McCracken (2013, p. 132–135) and Starhawk (1990, p. 9–11) for more discussion about “power over,” “power from within,” and “power with.”
- 10.
I call attention to this ideology because it exists, although it is beyond the scope of this work to engage more fully here.
- 11.
We cannot determine the difference exactly, although we can surmise that discussions might have flowed more freely or included different information had an “insider” or individual with an incarceration background had led the discussions and gathered the data.
- 12.
Quads are small rooms within the pod, each one separated by one wall that house four or five people.
- 13.
This response was not uncommon in many of the groups we held together, both inside and outside the jail. Our group meetings would be passionate, and people would want to take the research process further, but then once they were back in their pods or in their everyday life outside of jail, the passion for and importance of the research would fade. Not because they were no longer interested, but because the “real world” of jail or living outside became the focus, and it was difficult to maintain that level of excitement—especially in the face of such daunting, systemic, and complex issues.
My excitement and passion also faded at times. I would get overwhelmed with the project and what kind of impact we could even hope to have within the larger picture. We would come back to the group and discuss our frustrations and questions, try to go back to the basics of what we were trying to accomplish, and then continue our project.
One substantial difference was discussed at the beginning of this chapter: I was and am getting paid for my time, and they, aside from their initial participation in the outside jail group, were not.
- 14.
Working on one’s resume also implies that an individual will be applying for a job in the formal economy where resumes are valued. Many jobs do not require nor want a resume, and this information on a resume would most likely not be valued much. Although in the cases where a resume is required or accepted, a reference to this project reveals the individual’s initiative and leadership.
- 15.
During the final stages of editing this book, I learned that Boston died of complications related to her asthma. She was an incredible leader, and I am grateful I had the opportunity to meet her when I visited WCIIA this past summer. Her loss is an incredible one for all of us, and most especially those who are fighting for the rights of the most marginalized communities.
- 16.
In hindsight, I wonder if it would have made any difference to participants—both in participation and trust—had I handed out the incentives at the beginning of the group. Simply waiting until the end of the group, especially given the differential in power of positions (even with RTFs), implies that everyone must stay the entire time to “earn” the incentive.
- 17.
Additional information can be found at https://www.gofundme.com/w-ma-street-worker-leader-stipends.
- 18.
SpringerBriefs does not pay royalties for books sold, but rather offers a one-time $250 payment for the completed manuscript. This payment will be split between all co-authors.
References
Agustín, L. M. (2004). Alternate ethics, or: Telling lies to researchers. Research for Sex Work, 7(June), 6–7.
Banks, S., Armstrong, A., Carter, K., Graham, H., Hayward, P., Henry, A., … & Moore, N. (2013). Everyday ethics in community-based participatory research. Contemporary Social Science, 8(3), 263–277.
Boilevin, L., Chapman, J., Deane, L., Doerksen, C., Fresz, G., Joe, D.J., …, Winter, P. (2019). Research 101: A manifesto for ethical research in the Downtown Eastside. Updated 1 May 2019. Retrieved on 22 May 2019 from https://docs.google.com/document/d/1M2D6_XAVNI78UjxKJpsmBn2N1ORIb9t7uJ6A7y9P3no/edit.
Brummett, B. (1991). Rhetorical dimensions of popular culture. Tuskaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
DeCat, N.A. (2019). “The Racism of Decriminalization.” Tits and Sass: Service journalism by and for sex workers. Retrieved on 22 May 2019 from: http://titsandsass.com/the-racism-of-decriminalization/.
Dodson, L., Piatelli, D., & Schmalzbauer, L. (2007). Researching inequality through interpretive collaborations: Shifting power and the unspoken contract. Qualitative Inquiry, 13(6), 821–843.
Durham Community Research Team. (2011). Community-based participatory research: Ethical challenges. Retrieved on 7 June 2019 from http://www.dur.ac.uk/resources/beacon/CCDiscussionPapertemplateCBPRBanksetal7Nov2011.pdf.
Ferris, S., & Lebovitch, A. (2013). Out of the frying pan, into the fire: Sex workers in the courts and in research. Retrieved on 07 June 2019 from http://whoreandfeminist.ca/out-of-the-frying-pan-into-the-fire-sex-workers-in-the-courts-and-in-research/.
Jello, L. (2015). “Why you shouldn’t study sex workers.” Tits and Sass: Service journalism by and for sex workers. Retrieved on 22 Mat 2019 from http://titsandsass.com/why-you-shouldnt-study-sex-work/.
McCracken, J. (2007). Listening to the language of sex workers: An analysis of street sex worker representations and their effects on sex workers and society. Dissertation. The University of Arizona. Retrieved on February 22, 2019 from https://repository.arizona.edu/handle/10150/194013.
McCracken, J. (2013). Street sex workers’ discourse: Realizing material change through agential choice. Routledge Research in Gender and Society.
Quigley, D. (2006). A review of improved ethical practices in environmental and public health research: Case examples from native communities. Health Education and Behavior, 33(2), 130–147.
Shane, C. (2013). “Getting Away” with hating it: Consent in the context of sex work. Tits and Sass: Service journalism by and for sex workers. Retrieved on 22 May 2019 from http://titsandsass.com/getting-away-with-hating-it-consent-in-the-context-of-sex-work/.
Wallwork, E. (2003). Ethical analysis of group rights for the collaborative initiative of research ethics in environmental health. Report to Collaborative Research Ethics Project, Religion Department, Syracuse University, Syracuse.
Whose Corner Is It Anyway. Go Fund Me. Retrieved on 22 May 2019 from https://www.gofundme.com/w-ma-street-worker-leader-stipends.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
McCracken, J. (2019). Allowing Ethical Dilemmas to Shape and Teach Us. In: Learning with Women in Jail. SpringerBriefs in Anthropology(). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-27690-4_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-27690-4_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-27689-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-27690-4
eBook Packages: Behavioral Science and PsychologyBehavioral Science and Psychology (R0)