RESEARCH METHOD COHEN ok

124 SENSITIVE EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
On the other hand, Lee (1993: 127) suggests
that the researcher may have to make a few
concessions in order to be able to undertake the
investigation, i.e. that it is better to do a little of
the gatekeeper’s bidding rather than not to be able
to do the research at all.
In addition to gatekeepers the researcher may
find a ‘sponsor’ in the group being studied. A
sponsor may provide access, information and
support. A celebrated example of this is in the
figure of ‘Doc’ in Whyte’s classic study of Street
Corner Society (1993: the original study published
in 1943). Here Doc, a leading gang figure in the
Chicago street corner society, is quoted as saying
(p. 292):
You tell me what you want me to see, and we’ll
arrange it. When you want some information, I’ll ask
for it, and you listen. When you want to find out their
philosophy of life, I’ll start an argument and get it for
you ....Youwon’thaveanytrouble.Youcomeinas
afriend.
(Whyte 1993: 292)
As Whyte writes:
My relationship with Doc changed rapidly ....At
first he was simply a key informant – and also my
sponsor. As we spent more time together, I ceased to
treat him as a passive informant. I discussed with him
quite frankly what I was trying to do, what problems
were puzzling me, and so on ...so that Doc became,
in a real sense, a collaborator in the research.
(Whyte 1993: 301)
Whyte comments on how Doc was able to give
him advice on how best to behave when meeting
people as part of the research:
Go easy on that ‘who’, ‘what’, ‘why’, ‘when’, ‘where’
stuff, Bill. You ask those questions and people will
clam up on you. If people accept you, you can just
hang around, and you’ll learn the answers in the long
run without even having to ask the questions’
(Whyte 1993: 303)
Indeed Doc played a role in the writing of the
research: ‘As I wrote, I showed the various parts to
Doc and went over them in detail. His criticisms
were invaluable in my revision’ (p. 341). In his
Box 5.1
Issues of sampling and access in sensitive research
How to calculate the population and sample.
How representative of the population the sample
may or may not be.
What kind of sample is desirable (e.g. random), but
what kind may be the only sort that is practicable
(e.g. snowball).
How to use networks for reaching the sample, and
what kinds of networks to utilize.
How to research in a situation of threat to the
participants (including the researcher).
How to protect identities and threatened groups.
How to contact the hard-to-reach.
How to secure and sustain access.
How to find and involve gatekeepers and sponsors.
What to offer gatekeepers and sponsors.
On what matters compromise may need to be
negotiated.
On what matters can there be no compromise.
How to negotiate entry and sustained field relations.
What services the researcher may provide.
How to manage initial contacts with potential
groups for study.
1993 edition, Whyte reflects on the study with the
question as to whether he exploited Doc (p. 362);
it is a salutary reminder of the essential reciprocity
that might be involved in conducting sensitive
research.
In addressing issues of sampling and access, there
are several points that arise from the discussion
(Box 5.1).
Much research stands or falls on the sampling.
These points reinforce our view that, rather than
barring the research altogether, compromises may
have to be reached in sampling and access. It may
be better to compromise rather than to abandon
the research altogether.
Ethical issues in sensitive research
Adifficultyarisesinsensitiveresearchinthat
researchers can be party to ‘guilty knowledge’ (De
Laine 2000) and have ‘dirty hands’ (Klockars
1979) about deviant groups or members of a school