Disguised Observation as Privacy Invasion
It is expected that many sociologists should like to observe their subjects in their natural environments, such as a people within the workings of their culture (religion, language, art etc.), and even further, participate in the daily life of the people. One can do this openly in his/her role as a researcher. However, some do this covertly n some disguised role, where the researcher misrepresent their identity to have access to social situations in which they would otherwise not access. This poses significant ethical issues (Erikson, 1967).
True, there are limitations to open participation. For example, some communities do not allow ‘outsiders’ into their midst, and even if they do, they may not allow ‘outsiders’ into certain more sensitive occasions. This may be for fear of percussion. This unacceptance of ‘outsiders’ can be implicit (like when subjects manipulate their behavior and give the wrong impression) or explicitly (outrightly denying ‘outsiders’ access to certain occasions).
Still, whatever the reason, disguised observation remains questionable. The language ‘disguised observation’ seems deliberately ‘disguised in itself’- because, ultimately, there is the implicit story of denied access and, therefore, an attempt to breach the borders (psychological or physical).
Indeed, some communities’ refusal to accept ‘outsiders’ may be irrational; some of their fears may be unfounded. Still, every human being has the right and the freedom to decide what to let out or not, unfounded or not. Even that irrational fear is private. Whether for the wrong or right reasons (depending on what perspective one takes), to breach that right and the choice made because of it is to invade a realm one has not been allowed to enter yet, a privacy.
References
Erikson, K.T. (1967). A Comment on Disguised Observation in Sociology. Society for the
Study of Social Problems, 14(4), pp.366-373
Last Completed Projects
| topic title | academic level | Writer | delivered |
|---|