Qualitative Social Research Essay

Sociological researcher, Steven Taylor, in his articles discusses the example and ethical issues researchers must grappling with when they are carrying out studies of abusive behavior in institutions that have indistinct and disadvantaged people in our society. He cites his own 1 year work experience in a state institution for the mentally retarded to highlight his concerns. He describes it as being in hapless physical condition and grossly understaffed. The attendants had little training and there were no therapy programs.They controlled the inmates through verbal and physical sophisticate directly to them and forcing them to clean up their own mess, including feces and urine. They also pitted some inmates against others, such as giving and withholding favors of coffee, food and drugs. Further they forced them to perform chagrin acts such as swallowing lit cigarettes and performing fellatio on distributively other. Mr. Taylor felt that in order to gain the trust of the atten dants and thereby put down more valid observations, he had to develop a rapport with them.He did so by drinking beer with them and socializing in other ways. He also played the naive student role and refrained from being slender active their methods. Nevertheless, he was troubled by the abusive behavior he witnessed, but in a quandary as to what to do about it. The attendants, for their part, rationalized their behavior by saying the inmates dont hurt care we do and treating their actions as entertainment. Personally, I suspect they really didnt bed how to properly treat the inmates and were desperate to try anything that seemed to control them at to the lowest degree in the short run.The author then posed the question as to what the researcher should do in the face of this ethical dilemma during his study. He considered 4 alternatives 1)intervene. , for example to as attendant to stop or stake to inform his supervisor. The problem with this approach is that it would spell a n end to rapport with the attendants and thereby hinder the researchers ability to collect data on daily activities. 2) leave field. But research is needed to learn why people abuse. 3) blow the whistle.This would obviously shatter rapport and violate the confidentiality commissariat of the ASA Code of Ethics. 4 continue study- which is what Mr. Taylor did. Obviously he felt that although this top executive not appear to be a good option it was the least bad to him. The author then suggests 4 ways to deal with lowly acts 1 participation in abuses. He contends this is never justified, and that research goals push aside be accomplished without making human subjects suffer. Furthermore it is I establish violation of the ASA Code of Ethics.2 ) observation of abuse. This may be the charge to pay for conducting field research in immoral situations, but a person tail never sit idly by in extreme cases like murder and rape. 3 inadvertently contribute to abuse because of reactive effe cts . It is clear that often this cant be controlled by the researcher and therefore cant be contumacious by a professional code of ethics. However the researcher can refrain from encouraging it, for example pretending not to hear an invitation to get hitched with in such behavior.4) doing something about abuse after study, that is, by produce it and trying to get political action especially through luck media such as TV and newspapers. Finally Taylor concludes the researcher should 1) debate moral and ethical issues before embarking on a particular study and 2) beat his own assessment about how to resolve professional ethics and own(prenominal) morality.Reference Taylor, Steven J. Observing Abuse. Professional Ethics and Personal Morality in Field Research