Covert Research Ethics

Abstract Covert research has a mixed reputation within the scientific community. Some are unsure of its moral worth, others would proscribe it entirely. This stems largely from lack knowledge about reasons for choosing covert method. In this chapter, these will be reconstructed in detail and all elements that allow one to judge level ethicality laid out reader. particular, chapter answer following questions: What harms can result subjects participating research? Is necessarily deceptive? which cases is ethically permissible researcher deceive? added value research, is, what does discover overt not? risks researchers acting undercover? Finally, some suggestions offered ethics reviewers help their appraisal research. Keywords Deception Research committees Social Qualitative Investigative social Citation Marzano, M. (2021), "Covert Ethics", Iphofen, R. O'Mathúna, D. (Ed.) Ethical Issues Covert, Security Surveillance (Advances Ethics Integrity, Vol. 8), Emerald Publishing Limited, Bingley, pp. 41-53. https://doi.org/10.1108/S2398-601820210000008005 Publisher: Limited Copyright © 2022 Marco Marzano License These works published under Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate create derivative (for both commercial non-commercial purposes), subject full attribution original publication authors. The terms licence seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode clearly not everyone’s analytic taste but commitment explore different creative ways constructing ethnographic narratives. role deeply artful offers way form intimate insider accounts wide range topics. It should become more standard part craft (Atkinson, 2015) rather than outcast as methodological pariah. certain forms autoethnography, online lurking cyber ethnography bystander observations public behaviours, there seems growing appetite although certainly becoming mainstream. There remains classic fear fascination (Calvey, 2019, p. 259) Introduction – done without informing those involved (i.e. ‘subjects’ research) been labouring negative academic community decades (Barnes, 1963; Calvey, 2017; Erikson, 1966; Herrera, 1999; Homan, 1980; Shils, 1982; Warwick, 1982). origin disgrace into fallen, after long period grace,1 sought fact extremely morally dubious. suspicion perceived dangers shared by members many review (RECs) or institutional boards (IRBs) promote rigorous code ethics, believing violates rights being studied an unacceptable way, scholars, especially sociologists anthropologists, who have various collaborative over recent years. latter believe incalculable damage pact between they study taken such care construct (Christians, 2000; Denzin, 1997; Guba & Lincoln, 1989; Noddings, 2003). attitudes whole led complete marginalisation with RECs IRBs beginning ban circumstances having stopped doing altogether. Today method used, difficulty, markedly limited number 2017). I argue highly development stigmatising on ethical grounds excessive unjust. why considered acceptable. abstain listing accusations traditionally levelled research2 well known focus instead motives have, implicitly explicitly, marshalled support general, possible distinguish two overall approaches defence moderate radical. perspectives reflect visions duties particularly science illustrate perspectives, starting approach. But first clarify my thinking refer primarily qualitative (Hammersley, 2020) other (such experiments), work sociology psychology and, lesser extent, anthropology. Moderate Defence Grounds approach most widespread 2008; Lugosi, 2006; Perez, 2019; Roulet, Gill, Stenger, Spicker, 2011). exponents do invoke total freedom calling end regulation. Quite contrary, assert that, if must compatible standards currently prevalent might even called ‘reformist’, objective bring types legitimate recognised methods fold demonstrate compatibility methods. To end, moderates reformers put forward arguments: Lying Must Be Exception place ‘reformers’ lying ‘normal’, natural sciences where possible, behave honestly make participants aware real reason presence field. case vulnerable fragile people. And any scientists justify behaviour field choices before or, absence these, sections articles dealing methodology (Lugosi, 2006). Overt Are Not Clearly Distinguishable Reiterating point, intentional blatant cannot tolerated normal (Spicker, 2011), defenders situation truly fully informed researcher’s purposes intentions closer myth life (Fine, 1993; Fine Shulman, 2009). From perspective, argued, easily identifiable distinguishable entities McKenzie 2009)) best inevitably opaque elements, ambiguities transparency clarity. respect, consent practices now avert doubt confusion (Marzano, 2012; Traianou Hammersley, frequently seem, beyond significantly limiting freedom, serve defend interests institutions protect people (Hedgecoe, 2016; Murphy Dingwall, 2007; Van den Hoonard, Informing Subjects Sometimes Really Impossible location determines whether performed open places town squares, air markets, football stadiums so on. situations, obviously impossible ethnographers inform everyone meet underway (Traianou 2020). case, going know exposing themselves gaze thus analysts could present.3 also true lacking private spaces living permanently homeless 2019). Informed Consent Can Never Cover Everything That Happens Field A further element rendering much least partially isolating contexts complex matter researchers’ significant information acquired informal, random conversations corridors, exchanges opinion friendly chats margins formal interviews. this? Shed context? Should valuable regarding understanding of, say, organisational culture really thrown away solely because sourced ordinary human outside protocol formally approved committee? speak behaviours practice contacts designed manage impressions improve reputations eyes studying obtaining specific benefits better access interest them. Most Important Things Learned through Unintentional More generally, we imagine takes resemble Trobriand islands Malinowski’s work, strangers rarely seen. contemporary advanced industrial (and post-industrial) societies, lion’s share packed coming freely, appearing scene briefly barging given chance warn them presence. personal experience mine relating dying cancer did years ago large Italian hospital. began semi-covert 2007) sense hospital staff knew project head ward had it. last was overt, (staff, patients relatives) nature purposes. was, however, precisely phase something totally unforeseen occurred: day room palliative intent writing up notes when doctor (dietician) suddenly came together wife daughter patient. three acted (perhaps assumed colleague wearing white coat), sat down table proceeded explain diet food patient (last stage terminally ill) women. witnessed conversation silence chilling entirely unaware his condition treated like pet induced eat foods little tricks. wrote dialogue diary then rigorously anonymous 2004). Many later, still right few minutes were stark representation dehumanisation brought across very ill Italy readers. sometimes fruitful. Inevitably Concerns Only Initial Design borne mind known, framework flexible (Hammersley Atkinson, 1995, 265; Wiles et al., 2007), ongoing restructuring redefining changing during course For reason, indeed happen supplied outset obtained participants, no longer up-to-date later point Researchers able (or willing) changes are, anthropologists unlikely interested finding details do, curiosities interests. Very frequently, keen ensure, namely get doing, too interruptions disturbances, working, interacting lives disturbed ethnographers’ words. Keeping constantly strategies nuisance, source irritation, result, too, objectives covert. Method May Suitable Way Getting Into covertly admissible time frame purpose, serving facilitate contexts, fact, revealing identity prejudicial potential analysis. example, gay bars, Lugosi (2006) believed dangerously counterproductive him revealed, start, far build solid friendships hours barman, free he chose spend there, so. this, exceptional momentary state commit making soon largest Acting simply necessary expedient initiate environment otherwise difficult gain access. begin ‘naturally observation’ gives rise topic enquiry place. Always Researcher Who Chooses Hide His/Her Identity situations working undercover independent choice gatekeepers require precondition allowing happened me twice 2018): hospital’s oncology whom contacted common friend told doctors nurses wanted observe went needed coat tell relatives trainee. second heads Catholic group proposed take educational week theirs only sociologist member others: ‘The risk feel laboratory guinea pigs’, told, ‘and annoyed.’ alternative breaking off groups organisations power imbalances visible decisions organisation’s impose (disregarding others) also, cases, involved. challenging norm, one’s explicit, mean hierarchy, casting decide Asking Subjects’ Impractical Inappropriate obstacles consist (a) not, reasons, capable (b) asking sign inopportune action 2012). frequent (how consequences?) glaring. An example Lawton’s hospices (Lawton, 2001; see Paterniti, 2000). British tried keep hospice her she sure understood, late illness dementia. signing (even consent) bound painful memories exploitation domination associations. waste pickers Perez (2019, Gubrium 2014, 1609). herself spoken preferring, stages career, use including avoid offending observing. despite fearing forget, remind spent outset, recording Doing would, believed, ‘required’ meant implying mental faculties compromised. serious accusation subjected stigmatisation disparagement daily basis refuted reminding others, ethnographer, qualifications. Autoethnography Online Research: Two Methodologies Difficult Reconcile new popular reconcile conventional codes ethics. autoethnography (Ellis, 2004; Jones, Adams, Ellis, 2016) Hennell, Limmer, Piacentini, scholars recount events own critically analyse narrator never character texts, generally autobiographies, mentioned actions described. equally clear prior latter. facts described already contact ethnographer. cyberethnography similar, material. Whilst theoretically envisage exponentially increases ‘lurking’, easy happens site media page intervening purpose) studies (Woodfield, 2017) issues examined relation ‘research places’ arise (Iphofen, Risk Causing Harm If reread history objectively, obliged accept harm controversial, negligible non-existent. Take controversial ethnography, universally cited critics method, Laud Humphrey’s Tearoom Trade, casual homosexual sex toilets half 1960s. Even criticised caused Humphrey (1975) observed interviewed. contributed increasing tolerance America bringing repressive policies (Yanow Schwartz-Shea, 2018). author himself, became well-known activist civil homosexuals, took order carry (Galliher, Brekhus, Keys, similar argument, though smaller scale, made regards Wacquant’s (2004) book boxers African-American ghetto Chicago. Considered Kind Last Resort opt giving thought. opposite, recourse strictly necessary, uneasily feelings guilt always preferring come reveal identities possible. Virtová, Stöckelová, Krásná (2018) recounted undertook got hired electronic goods factory chosen kept concealed freely interference firm’s management. As on, urge drop mask worker colleagues truth intensified department colleagues, them, meantime close friend, say strategy, parts terminated rewritten. decision (2019) myself, terms, quandary seeking 2007). Superiority Situated summary, espouse situated 2008) conceal limits constraints ensuring responsibility actions. view exponents, ‘positionality’ supply wider, authentic incisive protection mere consent, process defensive purpose (regarding institution belongs to). Radical Approach termed reformist has, rehabilitated said, citing here, however summarily, radical starts assumption complicated business requires getting barriers stop (Mitchell, 1993). context, absolute necessity sharing projects utopian. perspective sees world marked conflict juxtaposition side other. decidedly minority rare today great prophet Jack Douglas, theoretician passionate (Johnson, 2015). set philosophy’ (Douglas, 1976) begins striking phrase: goal discover, understand communicate beings society’. Douglas affirmation replete problems, heuristic complications huge epistemological difficulties, acquisition same. Naturally spoke positivists everyday seek our lives. truth, option prioritise particular equally, direct experience, person participation, shoes, whilst, organisation studied. gleaned interviews comes second, people, deduced logic last. behind ‘hierarchy’ nothing reliable experience. interviews, interviewees least, concealing likelihood themes (primarily sex, money power) above society divided conflicted America. deny proceed means relationships trust base willingness co-operate according number, adopting lying, false pretences infiltrating. referred basic this: often likely lie deceive often, resist power, organised attempt penetrate worlds describe criminals us all, things prefer hidden perimeter lies, deceit half-truths light activities thwart gathering mission sciences, relegating innocuous moralistic disciplines. mistaken deduce indifference orientation Douglas’s view, perhaps agree, principles inspired need ‘parrhesia’ wherever telling powerful, don’t want hear (Alvesalo-Kuusi Whyte, 2018, Galliher, 1979). Parrhesia, Michel Foucault (1983, 2011, 2012) reminded reworking ancient philosophy, courageous gesture (exposing anger revenge powerful) friendship brotherhood. words, condemn abuse stock reality. (1976, 115) argues investigative stating, putting writing, wound friends, sympathise who, results written up, treat concessions. (1976 115), tellers duty report illegal, shady deviant (from standpoint middle-class public) reported, used against political enemies, authors exist. Truth desire truth. book, describes frankly world’s hypocrisies lies sets himself life. bureaucratic issue relegated board protocol, profound whatever cost always. him, institutionalisation professional behavioural sanctions applied threat constitute tool grey, depressing conformity emergence ideas jeopardise consolidated balances laws liberal democratic states sufficient safeguard boards. unusual prompt