Qualitative Sociology

, 34:431 | Cite as

My Auto/Ethnographic Dilemma: Who Owns the Story?

  • Bernadette Barton


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.


Ethics Autoethnography Consent Fieldwork 



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.


  1. 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.Google Scholar
  2. Barton, B. (2006). Stripped: Inside the lives of exotic dancers. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Barton, B. (2007). Managing the toll of the sex industry: Boundary setting among exotic dancers. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 36, 571–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barton, B. (2010). “Abomination”—Life as a Bible Belt gay. Journal of Homosexuality, 57(4), 465–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barton, B. (forthcoming). Pray the gay away: Religion and homosexuality in the Bible Belt. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Blee, K. M. (1991). Women of the Klan: Racism and gender in the 1920s. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  7. Blee, K. M. (1998). White-knuckle research: Emotional dynamics in fieldwork with racist activists. Qualitative Sociology, 21, 381–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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.Google Scholar
  9. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chang, H. (2008). Autoethnography as method. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press, Inc.Google Scholar
  11. Cotterill, P. (1992). Interviewing women: Issues of friendship, vulnerability, and power. Women’s Studies International Forum, 15, 593–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Feigenbaum, E. F. (2007). Heterosexual privilege: The political and the personal. Hypatia, 22, 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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.Google Scholar
  14. Frye, M. (1983). The politics of reality: Essays in feminist theory. Freedom: Crossing Press.Google Scholar
  15. Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes of the management of spoiled identity. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  16. Gray, M. (2009). Out in the country: Youth, media, and queer visibility in rural America. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Harding, S. (2005). New feminist approaches to social science methodologies: An introduction. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 30, 2009–2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Henley, N., & Pincus, F. (1978). Interrelationship of sexist, racist, and antihomosexual attitudes. Psychological Reports, 42, 83–90.Google Scholar
  19. Herek, G. (1987). Religious orientation and prejudice: A comparison of racial and sexual attitudes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 13, 34–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Irwin, K. (2006). Into the dark heart of ethnography: The lived ethics and inequality of intimate field relationships. Qualitative Sociology, 29, 155–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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.Google Scholar
  22. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kirsch, G. (2005). Friendship, friendliness, and feminist fieldwork. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 30, 2163–2172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Linneman, T. J. (2003). Weathering change: Gays, lesbians, Christian conservatives, and everyday hostilities. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  25. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Moon, D. (2004). God & politics: Homosexuality and everyday theologies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  27. 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.Google Scholar
  28. Paulson, M. (2009, March 9). Number of N.E. Catholics tumbles: Study finds ethnic, geographic transformation. The Boston Globe. Retrieved from
  29. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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.Google Scholar
  31. Stacey, J. (1988). Can there be a feminist ethnography? Women’s Studies International Forum, 11, 21–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Stein, A. (2001). The stranger next door: The story of a small community’s battle over sex, faith, and civil rights. Boston: Beacon.Google Scholar
  33. Thorne, B. (1980). “You still takin’ notes?”: Fieldwork and problems of informed consent. Social Problems, 27, 284–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Whitley, B. (1999). Right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, and prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 126–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wolcott, H. F. (2005). The art of fieldwork (2nd ed.). Walnut Creek: AltaMira Press.Google Scholar
  36. Wolf, D. (1996). Feminist dilemmas in fieldwork. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  37. Wolkomir, M. (2006). Be not deceived: The sacred and sexual struggles of gay and ex-gay Christian men. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Sociology, Social Work and CriminologyMorehead State UniversityMoreheadUSA

Personalised recommendations