RESEARCH METHOD COHEN ok

174 NATURALISTIC AND ETHNOGRAPHIC RESEARCH
field, as Arsenault and Anderson (1998: 125) state,
‘is used generically in qualitative research and
quite simply refers to where the phenomenon
exists’.
In some qualitative studies, the selection of the
research field will be informed by the research
purposes, the need for the research, what gave
rise to the research, the problem to be addressed,
and the research questions and sub-questions. In
other qualitative studies these elements may only
emerge after the researcher has been immersed for
some time in the research site itself.
Stage 2: Addressing ethical issues
Deyle et al. (1992:623)identifyseveralcritical
ethical issues that need to be addressed in
approaching the research:
How does one present oneself in the field As
whom does one present oneself How ethically
defensible is it to pretend to be somebody that you
are not in order to gain knowledge that you would
otherwise not be able to acquire, and to obtain
and preserve access to places which otherwise you
would be unable to secure or sustain.
The issues here are several. First, there is
the matter of informed consent (to participate
and for disclosure), whether and how to gain
participant assent (see also LeCompte and Preissle
1993: 66). This uncovers another consideration,
namely covert or overt research. On the one
hand, there is a powerful argument for informed
consent. However, the more participants know
about the research the less naturally they may
behave (LeCompte and Preissle 1993: 108), and
naturalism is self-evidently a key criterion of the
naturalistic paradigm.
Mitchell (1993) catches the dilemma for
researchers in deciding whether to undertake
overt or covert research. The issue of informed
consent, he argues, can lead to the selection
of particular forms of research – those where
researchers can control the phenomena under
investigation – thereby excluding other kinds of
research where subjects behave in less controllable,
predictable, prescribed ways, indeed where subjects
may come in and out of the research over time.
He argues that in the real social world, access
to important areas of research is prohibited if
informed consent has to be sought, for example
in researching those on the margins of society or
the disadvantaged. It is to the participants’ own
advantage that secrecy is maintained as, if secrecy
is not upheld, important work may not be done
and ‘weightier secrets’ (Mitchell 1993: 54) may be
kept which are of legitimate public concern and
in the participants’ own interests. Mitchell makes
apowerfulcaseforsecrecy,arguingthatinformed
consent may excuse social scientists from the risk
of confronting powerful, privileged and cohesive
groups who wish to protect themselves from
public scrutiny. Secrecy and informed consent are
moot points. Researchers, then, have to consider
their loyalties and responsibilities (LeCompte and
Preissle 1993: 106), for example what is the public’s
right to know and what is the individual’s right to
privacy (Morrison 1993; De Laine 2000: 13).
In addition to the issue of overt or covert
research, LeCompte and Preissle (1993) indicate
that the problems of risk and vulnerability to
subjects must be addressed; steps must be
taken to prevent risk or harm to participants
(non-maleficence – the principle of primum non
nocere). Bogdan and Biklen (1992: 54) extend
this to include issues of embarrassment as well
as harm to those taking part. The question of
vulnerability is present at its strongest when
participants in the research have their freedom
to choose limited, e.g. by dint of their age, by
health, by social constraints, by dint of their
life style (e.g. engaging in criminality), social
acceptability, experience of being victims (e.g.
of abuse, of violent crime) (Bogdan and Biklen
1992:107). As the authors comment, participants
rarely initiate research, so it is the responsibility
of the researcher to protect them. Relationships
between researcher and the researched are rarely
symmetrical in terms of power; it is often the
case that those with more power, information and
resources research those with less.
Astandardprotectionisoftentheguarantee
of confidentiality, withholding participants’ real
names and other identifying characteristics.
Bogdan and Biklen (1992: 106) contrast this