Abstract
This article explores ethical issues of co-mingled data, demarcating the field and informed consent in a study researching the consequences of Christian fundamentalist ideology on the lives of “Bible Belt gays”. When what constitutes informed consent is ambiguous, how does the qualitative researcher justify her decision either to include or exclude meaningful data? To illustrate these ethical issues, I analyze four instances of co-mingled data, two featuring Christian fundamentalists and two Bible Belt gays, in which I gain theoretical insights under conditions of blurry consent, and weigh potential harm to subjects against the liberatory goals of the project.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Angrosino, M. V., & Mays de Perez, K. A. (2003). Rethinking observation: From method to context. In N. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials (pp. 107–154). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Barton, B. (2006). Stripped: Inside the lives of exotic dancers. New York: New York University Press.
Barton, B. (2007). Managing the toll of the sex industry: Boundary setting among exotic dancers. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 36, 571–596.
Barton, B. (2010). “Abomination”—Life as a Bible Belt gay. Journal of Homosexuality, 57(4), 465–484.
Barton, B. (forthcoming). Pray the gay away: Religion and homosexuality in the Bible Belt. New York: New York University Press.
Blee, K. M. (1991). Women of the Klan: Racism and gender in the 1920s. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Blee, K. M. (1998). White-knuckle research: Emotional dynamics in fieldwork with racist activists. Qualitative Sociology, 21, 381–399.
Blee, K. M. (2009). Access and methods in research on hidden communities: Reflections on studying U.S. organized racism. eSharp, “Critical Issues in Researching Hidden Communities,” 10–27.
Blee, K. M., & Vining, T. (2010). Risks and ethics of social movement research in a changing political climate. Research in Social Movements, Conflicts, and Change, 30, 43–71.
Chang, H. (2008). Autoethnography as method. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press, Inc.
Cotterill, P. (1992). Interviewing women: Issues of friendship, vulnerability, and power. Women’s Studies International Forum, 15, 593–606.
Feigenbaum, E. F. (2007). Heterosexual privilege: The political and the personal. Hypatia, 22, 1–9.
Finch, J. (1984). “It’s great to have someone to talk to”: The ethics and politics of interviewing women. In C. Bell & H. Roberts (Eds.), Social researching: Politics, problems, practice (pp. 70–87). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Frye, M. (1983). The politics of reality: Essays in feminist theory. Freedom: Crossing Press.
Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes of the management of spoiled identity. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Gray, M. (2009). Out in the country: Youth, media, and queer visibility in rural America. New York: New York University Press.
Harding, S. (2005). New feminist approaches to social science methodologies: An introduction. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 30, 2009–2015.
Henley, N., & Pincus, F. (1978). Interrelationship of sexist, racist, and antihomosexual attitudes. Psychological Reports, 42, 83–90.
Herek, G. (1987). Religious orientation and prejudice: A comparison of racial and sexual attitudes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 13, 34–44.
Irwin, K. (2006). Into the dark heart of ethnography: The lived ethics and inequality of intimate field relationships. Qualitative Sociology, 29, 155–175.
Johnston, L. (2010). The place of secrets, silences and sexualities in the research process. In R. Ryan-Flood & R. Gill (Eds.), Secrecy and silence in the research process: Feminist reflections (pp. 291–305). London: Routledge.
Kirkpatrick, L. (1993). Fundamentalism, Christian orthodoxy, and intrinsic religious orientation as predictors of discriminatory attitudes. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 32, 256–268.
Kirsch, G. (2005). Friendship, friendliness, and feminist fieldwork. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 30, 2163–2172.
Linneman, T. J. (2003). Weathering change: Gays, lesbians, Christian conservatives, and everyday hostilities. New York: New York University Press.
Margolin, G., Chien, D., Duman, S. E., Fauchier, A., Gordis, E., Oliver, P., et al. (2005). Ethical issues in couple and family research. Journal of Family Psychology, 19, 157–167.
Moon, D. (2004). God & politics: Homosexuality and everyday theologies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
O’Brien, K. (2010). Inside “doorwork”: Gendering the security gaze. In R. Ryan-Flood & R. Gill (Eds.), Secrecy and silence in the research process: Feminist reflections (pp. 117–132). London: Routledge.
Paulson, M. (2009, March 9). Number of N.E. Catholics tumbles: Study finds ethnic, geographic transformation. The Boston Globe. Retrieved from http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/03/09/number_of_ne_catholics_tumbles/.
Rostosky, S. S., Riggle, E. D. B., Horne, S. G., & Miller, A. D. (2009). Marriage amendments and psychological distress in lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) adults. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 56, 56–66.
Sedgwick, E. K. (1993). Epistemology of the closet. In H. Abelove, M. A. Barale, & D. M. Halperin (Eds.), The lesbian and gay studies reader (pp. 45–61). New York: Routledge.
Stacey, J. (1988). Can there be a feminist ethnography? Women’s Studies International Forum, 11, 21–27.
Stein, A. (2001). The stranger next door: The story of a small community’s battle over sex, faith, and civil rights. Boston: Beacon.
Thorne, B. (1980). “You still takin’ notes?”: Fieldwork and problems of informed consent. Social Problems, 27, 284–297.
Whitley, B. (1999). Right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, and prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 126–134.
Wolcott, H. F. (2005). The art of fieldwork (2nd ed.). Walnut Creek: AltaMira Press.
Wolf, D. (1996). Feminist dilemmas in fieldwork. Boulder: Westview Press.
Wolkomir, M. (2006). Be not deceived: The sacred and sexual struggles of gay and ex-gay Christian men. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.
Acknowledgements
I would like to extend a special thanks to Kathleen M. Blee and Ashley Currier for their thoughtful feedback on several drafts of this manuscript, as well as inviting me to participate in this special issue and the accompanying conference. Thanks also to Samuel Faulkner, Philip Krummrich, Anna Blanton, Constance L. Hardesty, Linda Morrison, Kelsy Burke, Amy McDowell and all the presenters and participants at the October 2010 “Beyond the IRB: New Frontiers in the Ethics of Qualitative Research” conference held at the University of Pittsburgh.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Barton, B. My Auto/Ethnographic Dilemma: Who Owns the Story?. Qual Sociol 34, 431–445 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11133-011-9197-x
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11133-011-9197-x