Advertisement

Introduction: Researching ‘Down’, ‘Up’, and ‘Alongside’

  • Jacqueline MarxEmail author
  • Gareth J. Treharne
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter outlines debate on the ethics of researching “down”, “up”, and “alongside” and the special contribution of each of the chapters in this section of the book to this debate. The first of these three conceptualisations of research relationships arises from critiques of the disjunctures of power that occur when participants are researched down upon and potentially harmed. In contrast, researching up is a conceptualisation of power held by individual participants or institutions that have sway over the research. A steadier balance is sought when researching alongside individuals or institutions as partners. We conclude by giving consideration to the enactment and limitations of reflexivity.

Keywords

Steady Balance Bantjes fieldField Participatory Action Research Inclusive Research Approach 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Aldred, R. (2008). Ethical and political issues in contemporary research relationships. Sociology, 42(5), 887–903. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038508094568 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allen, L. (2010). Queer(y)ing the straight researcher: The relationship(?) between researcher identity and anti-normative knowledge. Feminism & Psychology, 20(2), 147–165. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959353509355146 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arras, J. (2008). The Jewish chronic disease hospital case. In E. Emanuel, C. Grady, R. Crouch, R. Lie, F. Miller, & D. Wendler (Eds.), The Oxford textbook of clinical research ethics (pp. 73–79). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bauer, G. R., Hammond, R., Travers, R., Kaay, M., Hohenadel, K. M., & Boyce, M. (2009). I don’t think this is theoretical; this is our lives: How erasure impacts health care for transgender people. Journal of the Association of Nurses in AIDS Care, 20(5), 348–361. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jana.2009.07.004 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Baumrind, D. (1964). Some thoughts on ethics of research: After reading Milgram’s behavioral study of obedience. American Psychologist, 19(6), 421–423. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040128 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beauchamp, T., & Childress, J. (1979). Principles of biomedical ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bondi, L. (2009). Teaching reflexivity: Undoing or reinscribing habits of gender? Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 33(3), 327–337. https://doi.org/10.1080/03098260902742417 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brandt, A. M. (1978). Racism and research: The case of the Tuskegee syphilis study. Hastings Center Report, 8(6), 21–29. https://doi.org/10.2307/3561468 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Bridges, D. (2001). The ethics of outsider research. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 35(3), 371–386. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9752.00233 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chamberlain, K. (2000). Methodolatry and qualitative health research. Journal of Health Psychology, 5(3), 285–296. https://doi.org/10.1177/135910530000500306 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Charlton, J. I. (1998). Nothing about us without us: Disability oppression and empowerment. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Connolly, P. (2008). Race, gender and critical reflexivity in research with young children. In P. Christensen & A. James (Eds.), Research with children: Perspectives and practices (pp. 104–121). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241–1299. https://doi.org/10.2307/1229039 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Denzin, N. K., & Giardina, M. D. (2010). Qualitative inquiry and human rights. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.Google Scholar
  15. Duncan, R. E., Drew, S. E., Hodgson, J., & Sawyer, S. M. (2009). Is my mum going to hear this? Methodological and ethical challenges in qualitative health research with young people. Social Science & Medicine, 69(11), 1691–1699. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.09.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Evans, J. A. (2002). Cautious caregivers: Gender stereotypes and the sexualization of men nurses’ touch. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 40(4), 441–448. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.2002.02392.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Finlay, L. (2003). The reflexive journey: Mapping multiple roles. In B. Gough & L. Finlay (Eds.), Reflexivity: A practical guide for researchers in health and social sciences (pp. 1–20). Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Goodley, D., & Moore, M. (2000). Doing disability research: Activist lives and the academy. Disability & Society, 15(6), 861–882. https://doi.org/10.1080/713662013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Guillemin, M., & Gillam, L. (2004). Ethics, reflexivity, and ethically important moments in research. Qualitative Inquiry, 10(2), 261–280. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800403262360 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hammersley, M., & Traianou, A. (2012). Ethics in qualitative research: Controversies and contexts. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Herek, G. M., Kimmel, D. C., Amaro, H., & Melton, G. B. (1991). Avoiding heterosexist bias in psychological research. American Psychologist, 46(9), 957–963. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.46.9.957 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Horton, J. (2001). Do you get some funny looks when you tell people what you do? Muddling through some angsts and ethics of (being a male) researching with children. Ethics, Place & Environment, 4(2), 159–166. https://doi.org/10.1080/13668790125466 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kobayashi, A. (1994). Coloring the field: Gender, race, and the politics of fieldwork. The Professional Geographer, 46(1), 73–80. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0033-0124.1994.00073.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Koch, S. (1981). The nature and limits of psychological knowledge: Lessons of a century qua ‘science.’. American Psychologist, 36(3), 257–269. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.36.3.257 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Langlois, A. J. (2011). Political research and human research ethics committees. Australian Journal of Political Science, 46(1), 141–156. https://doi.org/10.1080/10361146.2010.544287 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lather, P. (1993). Fertile obsession: Validity after poststructuralism. The Sociological Quarterly, 34(4), 673–693. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1533-8525.1993.tb00112.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Liazos, A. (1972). The poverty of the sociology of deviance: Nuts, sluts, and perverts. Social Problems, 20(1), 103–120. https://doi.org/10.2307/799504 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Monahan, T., & Fisher, J. A. (2015). Strategies for obtaining access to secretive or guarded organizations. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 44(6), 709–736. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891241614549834 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. Morse, J. M., Barrett, M., Mayan, M., Olson, K., & Spiers, J. (2002). Verification strategies for establishing reliability and validity in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 1(2), 13–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690200100202 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Nader, L. (1972). Up the anthropologist: Perspectives gained from studying up. In D. Hymes (Ed.), Reinventing anthropology (pp. 284–311). New York: Vintage.Google Scholar
  31. Oakley, A. (1998). Gender, methodology and people’s ways of knowing: Some problems with feminism and the paradigm debate in social science. Sociology, 32(4), 707–731. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038598032004005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Orne, M. T., & Holland, C. H. (1968). Some conditions of obedience and disobedience to authority: On the ecological validity of laboratory deceptions. International Journal of Psychiatry, 6(4), 282–293.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Patai, D. (1991). US academics and third world women: Is ethical research possible? In S. Gluck & D. Patai (Eds.), Women’s words: The feminist practice of oral history (pp. 137–153). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  34. Pillow, W. (2003). Confession, catharsis, or cure? Rethinking the uses of reflexivity as methodological power in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 16(2), 175–196. https://doi.org/10.1080/0951839032000060635 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. (2001). Inquiry and participation in search of a world worthy of human aspiration. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.), Handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice (pp. 1–14). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  36. Richardson, L. (1993). Writing: A method of inquiry. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 516–529). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  37. Riggs, D., & Treharne, G. (2015). Ensuring quality in qualitative research. In P. Rohleder & A. Lyons (Eds.), Qualitative research in clinical and health psychology (pp. 57–73). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  38. Rosaldo, R. (1989). Culture and truth: The remaking of cultural analysis. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  39. Rose, G. (1997). Situating knowledges: Positionality, reflexivities and other tactics. Progress in Human Geography, 21(3), 305–320. https://doi.org/10.1191/030913297673302122 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sandelowski, M. (1986). The problem of rigor in qualitative research. Advances in Nursing Science, 8(3), 27–37. https://doi.org/10.1097/00012272-198604000-00005 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Sandelowski, M. (1993). Rigor or rigor mortis: The problem of rigor in qualitative research revisited. Advances in Nursing Science, 16(2), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/00012272-199312000-00002 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Schlichter, A. (2004). Queer at last? Straight intellectuals and the desire for transgression. GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies, 10(4), 543–564. https://doi.org/10.1215/10642684-10-4-543 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Schwandt, T. A. (1996). Farewell to criteriology. Qualitative Inquiry, 2(1), 58–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/107780049600200109 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Scourfield, J., & Coffey, A. (2006). Access, ethics and the (re)construction of gender: The case of researcher as suspected paedophile. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 9(1), 29–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645570500436122 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Smith, D. (2011, August 12). Pfizer pays out to Nigerian families of meningitis drug trial victims. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/aug/11/pfizer-nigeria-meningitis-drug-compensation
  46. Stone, E., & Priestley, M. (1996). Parasites, pawns and partners: Disability research and the role of non-disabled researchers. The British Journal of Sociology, 47(4), 699–716. https://doi.org/10.2307/591081 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Critical Studies in Sexualities and Reproduction, Department of PsychologyRhodes UniversityGrahamstownSouth Africa
  2. 2.University of OtagoDunedinNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations