Abstract
Despite social researchers directing a great deal of attention to methodolog- ical and theoretical arguments relating to bias and partisanship, and the reflexive turn within the social sciences, explicit reflections of the opera- tion and experience of these in criminological research have been scarce. In a sense, partisanship is frequently presented as if it needed little support- ing argument and is discussed in ways that cover over controversial issues. These arguments are not taken seriously by social researchers because they are seen to have been undercut by developments in the philosophy and soci- ology of science (Hammersley 2000). According to Hammersley (2000, 11): ‘Nor do we find, in the literature on researcher partisanship, explicit value arguments about what goals research ought to serve. Instead, ‘“whose side to be on” is treated as a foregone conclusion, as if the world were made up of “goodies” and “baddies’”. However, when conducting ethnographic research on deviant or criminal cultures the researcher can be required to balance the interests of powerful or elite groups with those of the less powerful or the ‘underdogs’ (Gouldner 1973). Thus, it is essential that the criminologist is visible in the text in order to ensure that he/she does not exploit his/her authorial position (Brewer 2000). According to Devine and Heath (1999), the best way to proceed is not to pretend to be value neutral, but to be hon- est about one’s own perspectives and beliefs on any given research topic and then seek to represent the data in as objective a way as possible.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Antisocial Behaviour (Scotland) Act (2004) [asp 8].
Becker, H.S. (1967) ‘Whose Side Are We On?’ Social Problems 14: 239–47.
Brewer, J.D. (2000) Ethnography, Buckingham: Open University Press.
Cohen, S. (2002[1972]) Folk Devils and Moral Panics, 3rd edn, London: Routledge.
Devine, F. and Heath, S. (1999) Sociological Research Methods in Context, Basingstoke: Pal grave.
Engagements (2005) House of Commons Debates (15 June 2005). URL (accessed 5 July 2005): www.TheyWorkForYou.com
Gouldner, A. (1968) ‘The Sociologist as Partisan’ American Sociologist 3(2): 103–16.
Gouldner, A. (1973) For Sociology, London: Allen Lane.
Hammersley, M. (2000) Taking Sides in Social Research, London: Routledge.
Lumsden, K. (2009) ‘“Do We Look Like Boy Racers?” The Role of the Folk Devil in Contemporary Moral Panics’ Sociological Research Online 14(1): http://www.socresonline.org.uk/14/l/2.html
Lumsden, K. (2013a) Boy Racer Culture: Youth, Masculinity and Deviance, London: Routledge.
Lumsden, K. (2013b) ‘“You Are What You Research”: Researcher Partisanship and the Sociology of the “Underdog”’ Qualitative Research 13(1): 3–18.
Mcintosh, L. (2009) ‘Women Car Enthusiasts Head for Race Tracks and Streets of Aberdeen’ TheTimes Online (22 August 2009). URL (accessed 3 January 2010): http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article6805957.ece
Press & Journal (2003) ‘Gathering of City Boy Racers Is Hailed as a Success’ (3 June 2003). 77ïi5 is North East Scotland (2004) ‘Plans to Close Beachfront Road in Bid to Stop Disruptive “Bouley Bashers’” (21 September 2004). URL (accessed 10 January 2005): http://www.thisisnorthscotland.co.uk/new/util/content/jsp?id=10989735
Vaaranen, H. (2004) ‘The Emotional Experience of Class: Interpreting Working Class Kids’ Street Racing in Helsinki’ The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 595(1): 91–107.
Van Maanen, J. (1988) Tales of the Field, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2014 Karen Lumsden
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Lumsden, K. (2014). ‘You Are What You Research’: Bias and Partisanship in an Ethnography of Boy Racers. In: Lumsden, K., Winter, A. (eds) Reflexivity in Criminological Research. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137379405_21
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137379405_21
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-47874-3
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-37940-5
eBook Packages: Palgrave Social Sciences CollectionSocial Sciences (R0)