Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Asses the extent to which the methods used in Laud Humphrey's text…
Asses the extent to which the methods used in Laud Humphrey's text 'The Tearoom Trade', were ethical.
-
-
Findings
-
-
24% were bisexual, happily married and well educated
-
-
-
-
SOURCES
Lenza- controversies surrounding Laud Humphrey's tearoom trade. Humphrey's work seriously violated respect for autonomy which essentially is informed consent , the subject has a right to make an autonomous decision. However it is important to understand that there was little professional ethical guidelines around consent at the time. Article discusses how his research has been misunderstood Whilst it is unethical, it relied on that in order to be accurate. The study benefitted marginalised people. Article suggests critiques tried to control legitimate research. This article argues Humphrey's provided insight into the lives of homosexuality, challenged assumptions and research on small sexual minorities. Humphrey's kept the identities of the pps in a box at a secret location 1000 miles away - protecting his pps. Article also suggests that one should consider the fact there was a lack of ethical guidelines surrounding informed consent.
Hollister - Beyond the interaction membrane - Humphrey's crossed the interaction membrane separating public behaviours from private ones. Boundary between public and private interactions, participants maintain a strict separation between sexual behaviour and their normal social identities - Humphrey's does this successfully. Hollister made a large sociological contribution - tearoom trade was not random but rather a pattern, pps were marries, respectable and socially integrated men. Hollister also emphasises the ethical issues - lack of consent - large reason for the studies fame. Privacy violations - recording license plates. Hollister argues the trade-off - Humphrey's made a conscious methodological trade off - to understand the hidden groups and minorities the ethical costs had to outweigh and ethics had to be traded out. Foundations for future ethical guidelines. .
Earl Babbie - Laud Humphrey's and research ethics - Article claims that the outrage of the tearoom trade was due to homophobic response. - Violation of privacy - Humphrey's intentions were good, he had the best interest of the subjects at heart. There is always a question for is there a need for deception - it might not justify it, got to ask 1. does the potential value of research justify deception 2. will people be hurt. After research - we should ask 1. was potential value realised and were subjects hurt. Psychological harm - tearoom trade could have given a more bad rep about me that hide in the shadows, deviants. Some damage done - heated up the topic of homophobia. Follow up surveys - breach of ethics in their self as humphrey's left his post as watch queen to write down number plates of the subjects. Invaded their privacy by turning up at their doors - deceived them with a health study. Humphrey's identified this as a grey area in ethics and it is difficult to imagine how the participants must have felt seeing the watch queen on their doorstep - psychological harm - they might have thought he was black mailing them.
Justify research - Humphrey's did not hide in bushes or look into someones room, that would be an invasion of privacy. To an extent he protected his subjects. Humphrey's could be justified because their is little evidence that the study caused damage. Several agreed to interviews. This was a representative survey which helped the defy stereotypes. Overall, Humphrey's willingness to work in both right and wrong ways forces modern day students to think about ethics rather than being dedicated to the ethical code
Tewksbury - the intellectual legacy - Humphrey's methodological choices shaped his legacy. Using covert observations, collecting data through deception, sociological reframing of public sexual encounters. Intellectual impacts on research - forced researchers to think about ethical boundaries. inspired research on minorities and hidden populations, challenged assumption about sexuality and identity. His findings redefined understandings surrounding sexual encounters and ethics.
Humphrey's text itself - tearoom, trade -
Humphrey's text highlights justifications for is ethical decisions. He stated that any good methodology for the study of human behaviour will be potential harmful or unethical. He believes the larger issue is having misrepresented research and findings. Humphrey's discusses Erikson's views and suggest that it is unethical to purposefully misrepresent identities and characters. Justification - whilst Humphrey's did deceive is pps in the interviews, he gave a full representation of what he was doing. Humphrey's also argues he too every precaution to protect the pps identities and data. He protected the names and addresses of participants. Humphrey's sacrificed himself to be arrested rather than admit to his research. Humphrey's believes his research was good enough and useful to have no social backlash. Some claimed that Humphrey's created a manual for tearoom queens. However, he criticises this ad says he doubts his work would have any effect on increasing or decreasing amount of homosexual activity. Humphrey's feels very strongly on how society reacted to those who took part. The retrospect section in the text highlights how it should be obvious that any researcher that devotes 20% of their book to ethics and methods realises there will be controversy.
A multicultural feminist analysis of laud Humphrey's tearoom trade. - Humphrey's used ethnographic field research to help challenge our conceptualisation of deviance during this time period. Privacy was created for homosexuals and their partners. Humphrey's research helped to expand our existing knowledge on same sex couples and interactions/behaviour. He was able to deliver difficult topics like homosexuality effect and speak about an invisible population. Humphrey's was able to give a voice to those marginalised by society.
Marginal People In Deviant Places - Irvine - this article claims Humphrey's work shoes an ethical violation rather than ethnographic greatness. The article discusses how critiques view his work as negative misrepresentations however, they ignore the fact that it was published on the brink of the ethical reviews exaggerating Humphrey's flaws. More criticisms stem from the fact that he was in a heterosexual marriage during his research, which would have been frowned upon/illegal during the 1960s. Viewers did not respect Humphrey's because he was faking his sexuality and he was a fraud. Humphrey's questioned the definition of deviance and ethnographic work questioned stereotypes.
Warwick - article discusses Humphrey's
impact on studies of human freedom. Ethical costs - Humphrey's spent several months passing as a deviant - went to gay bars, private gatherings. He misrepresented his identity when being the watch queen. he disguised the fact he was making a recording of the observations with a tape recorder, deceived the police. Interferes with freedom of pps. Humphrey's was involved with far too many lives and had potential to damage reputations. Ethical objections - researcher took advantage of vulnerable group, other concenr is this deception and representation encourages it in future and other areas
The study of anonymous gay sex leads to ethics scandal - humphrey's research was risky, he collected sensitive data which could have been used for blackmail, criticised for recording license plates - misrepresented his identity
-