Epistemological and ethical implications of reactivity in videotape research

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Epistemological and ethical implications of reactivity in videotape research
Physical Description:
vii, 157 leaves : ; 28 cm.
Language:
English
Creator:
Roth, Jeffrey
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Research -- Methodology   ( lcsh )
Research -- Moral and ethical aspects   ( lcsh )
Videocassette recorders   ( lcsh )
Video tape recorders   ( lcsh )
Video recording   ( lcsh )
Genre:
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Florida, 1987.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (leaves 145-156).
Statement of Responsibility:
by Jeffrey Roth.
General Note:
Typescript.
General Note:
Vita.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 001039155
notis - AFC1688
oclc - 18327558
System ID:
AA00002155:00001

Full Text









EPISTEMOLOGICAL AND
OF REACTIVITY IN


JEFFREY


ETHICAL IMPLICATIONS
VIDEOTAPE RESEARCH


ROTH


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN
PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY


UNIVERSITY


OF FLORIDA


1987













ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


I wish


express


my gratitude


to each


the


members


committee


their


special


contribution


the


completion


this


dissertation:


chair,


Prof.


Sandra


Damico


her


unwavering


encouragement


and


support;


Prof.


Robert


Sherman,


his


scrupulous


attention


matters


organization


and


argumentation,


especially


early


stages


signposts


writing;


to guide


to Prof.


through


some


Hernan


dense


Vera,


erecting


thickets


theory;


to Prof.


Arthur


Newman,


for


his


friendship


and


continuing


interest;


and


to Prof.


Michael


Resnick,


providing


opportunities


duties


to conduct


at Children'


videotape


Developmental


research

Services,


as part

College


Medicine,


University


Florida.


I would


also


like


thank


the


following


individuals:


Profs.


John


Newell


and


James


Algina,


past


and


present


chairs


Foundations


financial


Education,


support


who


graduate


consistently


studies;


arranged


Elizabeth


Bondy


and


Mary


West,


MSN,


coworkers


on the


ethnographic


research


team


who


generously


shared


their


data


and


their


insights;


Prof.


Marguerite


Warner,


another


ethnographic


research


team


member


whose


grasp


and


sensitivity






who,


a number


of challenging


discussions,


alerted


many


the


paradoxes


that


attend


observing


observers.


Finally,


in recognition


innumerable


moments


intimacy


we had


to forego


that


this


study


could


come


fruition,


I dedicate


this


dissertation


wife,


Harriet,


my daughters,


Emily


and


Corinna.













TABLE


OF CONTENTS


Page


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS


ABSTRACT


CHAPTERS


INTRODUCTION


. . . 1


ENCOUNTERING


THE


PROBLEM


OF REACTIVITY


a 6


The Origins of
The Purpose of
The Audiovisual
Research
Evidence of Rea
Accommodations
Team
Researcher Ambi


the Res
the Res
Compon
Project
activity
Made by


earch
each
ent of


Proj
Proj
the


arch
arch


valence


DEALING WITH
ISSUES


Definitions
Explanations
Threats Pose
Techniques f
The Pursuit
Summary


REACTIVITY:


EPISTEMOLOGICAL


a . a . . 38


3f Reactivity . . 3
of Reactivity . . 4
1 by Reactivity . .. 4
or Dealing with Reactivity . 5
3f Invisibility . . 5
B 6


DEALING


WITH


REACTIVITY


A Brief History o
Requirement
The Rights of Per
Informed Co
Modifying the Inf
for Low Ris
Further Erosion o
Requirement
.TC, c4 4 iFa r. 4 Cnn


the
* a
ons
sent
rmed
Res
the


: ETHICAL

Informed


Embod
Agre
Cons
earch
Info


ISSUES


* 62


Consent


led in the
ement .
ent Requirement


Srmed
rmed


v .Doc4-r .i n


Cons


. 74


. 80
&aw r ffLn a ft^j~


. 65

. 70


!
!











CHAPTERS


RESPECTING REACTIVITY: THEORETIC
PRAGMATIC JUSTIFICATIONS FOR
COLLABORATIVE RESEARCH .


AND


Construing
Acti
Dialogue w
Collaborat
Recin


A
Advantages
Be
Be


FOSTERING


Research
ity .
thout Dom
on: The S
ocal Bene
Exchange
Exchange
Sharing o
of Collab
nefit to


nefit


REACTIVITY


as a Hermeneuti


nation
earch fo
fits .
of Mean
of Know
f Duties
oration
Subjects


r Specifi

ings
ledge


. .


to Researchers


VIDEOTAPE


CONTRIBUTION
RESEARCH


TO COLLABORATIVE


The
The
Aga
Cur
Mak
Rev


Maki

The


Merits of
Unique Fe
n the Que
ent Analy
ng the Fr
sing the
Contexts
ng the Im
Comment
Two Uses
The


The


O


Camera


ature
stion
tic P
amewo
Resea
of S
age T
ry
of Vi


S O
of
rac
rk
rch
elf
ext


Research


f V
Re
tice
Exp
er'
-co:
: H1


videotape .
activity .
es .
licit .
s Role in
nfrontation
ermeneutic


t ft t ft
.
.


deotape


Hermeneutic
of Videotape
Propadeutic
f Videotape


Use
.* . .
Use
. S .


CONCLUSION


REFERENCES .

BIOGRAPHICAL


SKETCH


Page













Abstract


School
of the


the


Require


ssertation


University o
ments for the


Presented


Florida
Degree o


the


Partial


Doctor


Graduate


Fulfillment
Philosophy


EPISTEMOLOGICAL
OF REACTIVITY


AND


ETHICAL


IN VIDEOTAPE


IMPLICATIONS


RESEARCH


Jeffrey

December


Roth

1987


Chair:
Major


Sandra


Department:


Damico


Foundations


Education


The


purpose


this


dissertation


to critique


current


res


earch


methods


that


employ


videotape


and


propose


their


place


a model


that


fosters


genuine


collaboration


between


subject


researchers


still


and


researchers.


operate


from


Many


videoptape


a positivist


epistemology:


They


choose


not


involve


subjects


tasks


data


collection,


analysis,


and


dissemination


fear


that


such


involvement


would


constitute


a disturbance


or contamination


"natural"


routines.


The


techniques


that


researchers


utilize


presence


to minimize


their


the


reactivity


audiovisual


subj ects


equipment


rely


forgetfulness


or evasion


and


therefore


distort


principle


informed


consent.







communicative


action.


The


aspect


this


theory


that


relevant


to revising


researcher/subject


domination.


justifications


obligations


relationship


A continuous


all


the


exchange


participants


that


"dialogue


explanation

an inquiry


define


without


and


establishes


validity


final,


consensual


interpretation


assigned


a particular


practice.


An extensive


literature


review


sought


to find


out


how


res


searchers


who


use


cameras


deal


with


obtrusiveness


their


equipment


laboratory


and


and

field


subjects


responses


methodology


to it.


consider


Both


reactivity


inevitable


artifact


the


observation


process


itself


and


potentially


a serious


threat


the


transferability


findings


to unobserved


settings.


They


therefore


recommend


strategies


that


aim


at invisibility--either


waiting


until


subj


ects


no longer


notice


camera


s presence


or by


getting


permission


advance


to conceal


location.


These


strategies


compromise


ethical


ideal


that


had


originally


inspired


informed


consent


legi


slation--respect


the


personhood


subjects.


The


epistemological


and


ethical


warrant


observational


research


sounder


when


subjects


are


invited


inspect


and


justify


their


performance.


Reviewing


tapes


together


an ideal


occasion


engendering


dialogue


about


meaning


and


purpose.


the


ensuing


exchange












CHAPTER


INTRODUCTION


This


dissertation


a contribution


an ongoing


debate


in the


social


sciences


about


ethical


and


epistemological


assumptions


undergirding


observational


research.


Recent


anthologies


Kimmel


1981),


Beauchamp


(1982),


and


Hartmann


(1982)


attest


the


fact


that


methodology


are


trying


to provide


guidance


researchers


the


wake


recent


changes


both


the


rules


and


method


conducting


observational


research.


In the


area


ethics,


social


science


researchers,


like


their


colleagues


federal


in the


regulations


biomedical


to inform


sciences,


their


are


now


subjects


required


formally


and


antecedently


purpose


and


consequence


their


investigation

inexpensive

researchers


In the


portable


area


videotape


to routinely


tape


method,

cameras


the

has


activities


availability


encouraged


subjects.


Thi


dissertation


addresses


the


question


whether


widespread


contemporary


practice


using


videotape


document


group


legislation


interaction


designed


betrays


to protect


the


the


spirit


dignity


and


recent

autonomy


human


subjects.


It i


the


thesis


thi


dissertation


that


researcher


:








guarantee


informed


consent.


Even


though


researchers


are


now


required


to be explicit


with


subjects


about


nature


and


purpose


their


inquiry,


once


they


insert


their


camera


into


a setting,


they


resist


subjects


' subsequent


efforts


renegotiate


the


terms


and


meaning


what


they


have


consented


I intend


to make


case


that


present


formats


of mechanical

unresponsive


observation


and


render


unaccountable


researchers


their


socially


subjects.


further


intend


to demonstrate


that


the


use


video-


tape a

assays


allows

of t


social


scientists


lifeworld


without


to continue

t genuinely


conducting

involving


their

subjects


research


endeavor.


I plan


to show


that


we subvert


meaning


informed


guarantee


that


consent


subjects


when


are


we interpret


free


narrowly


terminate


participation


any


time.


I will


argue


that


when


retreat


behind


our


cameras


and


discount


or wait


out


any


evidence


that


systematic


observation


fundamentally


altering


dynamics


social


situation,


we do


so out


allegiance


to a positivist


epistemology.


We choose


not


engage


our


subjects


' ambivalent


responses


to being


studied


because


we are


still


persuaded


that


our


account


social


reality


should


consist


primarily


"facts"


which


believe


exist


independently


our


presence.


Even


though


facts


we are


after


are


now


"under


standings,


we still


believe


thev


can


"captured"


with


least


amount


Lll


j


U. -


J-







I plan


to make


the


case


that,


every


other


seeming


advance


that


technology


has


brought,


with


videotaping


have


gained


some


things


and


lost


others.


Camera-dependent


research


carries


with


so many


dilemmas-


-about


reactivity,


about


mutual


deception,


about


ownership


knowledge- -that


discussion


will


have


to insist


on continuity


between


epistemological


and


ethical


considerations.


Having


made


the


case


that


current


procedures


which


use


videotape


simply


to document


social


interaction


not


respect


theoretical


autonomy


and


subjects,


practical


I will


arguments


present


employing


both


videotape


such


a way


that


an equitable


and


trustworthy


relationship


can


sustained


between


researchers


and


subjects.


intend


to ground


the


discussion


the


epi


stemological


and


ethical


dilemmas


that


surround


the


use


videotape


reference


a real


world


situation


which


they


were


directly


experienced.


Hence


Chapter


a narrative


involvement


an ethnographic


study


a middle


school-nursing


home


geriatric


remotivation


program


which


involved


collecting


then


focus


and


on the


analyzing


concept


videotape


data.


reactivity


to being


observed


appears


current


methodological


discus


sions


the


subject-researcher


relationship.


In Chapter


examine


the


epistemological


uncertainty


that


said


adhere


to studies


contaminated


reactivity







techniques


intended


to minimize


subjects'


awareness


researchers


' presence.


The


motivation


these


techniques


shown


to originate


a commitment


to objectivity,


stance


that


continues


to be


synonymous


with


properly


conducted


research.


In Chapter


IV I


explore


ethical


dimensions


these


recommendations,


extent


to which


nonengagement


and


invi


siblility


are


compatible


with


researchers


fulfilling


the


requirements


informed


consent


agreement.


contrast


central


moral


imperative


informed


consent--respect


the


personhood


subjects--with


methodologists


' efforts


to exempt


"low-ri


social


research


from


full


disclosure


component


their


contractual


agreement.


In Chapter


V I


interpret


these


arguments


camera-ass


Habermas


critique


rationality


about


isted


merits


forms


' theory


reducing


of observation


communicative


instrumental


which


reason,


maintains


action,


reactivity


context


particularly


a manipulative


asymmetrical


form


stribution


power


in the


researcher


-subject


relationship.


Using


Habermas


' concept


a "dialogue


without


domination,


examine


a number


pragmatic


justifications


that


have


been


made


improving


accuracy


and


fairness


research


through


involving


subjects


enterprise.


I begin


Chapter


VI by


reconceptualizing


camera-assisted


research


as a dialogic,


rather


than


a documentary,


activity;







specifically,

participants,


envisage


guiding


researchers


discussions


sharing


which


videotapes


with


audiovisual


text


The


spurs


an exchange


dissertation


closes


explanations


with


about


presentation


performance.


a two-stage


model


future


researchers


reach


and


a consensus


videotape


subjects

s about


research:


jointly


their


a first


examine


meaning;


stage


tape


this


which


order


followed


second


stage


which


both


agents


the


inquiry


collaborate


on producing


a video


that


tells


others


what


has


been


learned.


When


researchers


join


forces


with


subjects


creation


an instructional


narrative,


they


are


transforming


research


into


an enterprise


that


directly


and


mutually


educative.













CHAPTER


ENCOUNTERING


THE


PROBLEM


OF REACTIVITY


This


dissertation


begins


with


an account


a research


project


that


had


been


progress


five


months


time


was


asked


to join


assignment


was


assess


whether


subjects


were


still


feeling


constrained


and


uncomfortable


with


audiovisual


methods


data


collection,


even


though


the


researchers


had


modified


their


original


arrangements


course


review


documenting

ng subjects


social


interaction.


' complaints


about


being


videotaped


and


researchers'


accommodations


those


complaints,


became


apparent


that


certain


assumptions


were


at work


about


propriety


and


versimilitude


videotape


data


that


needed


to be


investigated


further.


The


modifications


procedures


that


researchers


represented


extent


made


to which


the


they


videotaping


were


prepared


to respond


claims


subjects


about


direction


the


inquiry.


What


required


explication


was


how


researchers'


conception


research


itself


mitigated


against


genuine


collaboration


between


researchers


and


subjects.


The


narrative


that


follows


intended


to make


clear


C -


- *-


- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ L~l -II~ a -r -~ a n e -L a


.~ 1


rli


1,,~,, 1


L*rL LL







subjects--left


intact


possibility


that


researchers


would


still


exclude


subjects


from


having


a voice


interpretation


their


videotaped


behavior.


In giving


short


story


this


project,


aim


to show


that


informed


consent


agreement


guaranteed


to subjects


only


negative


role


way


research


was


carried


out.


It is


contention


that,


addition


their


explicitly


stated


objections,


the


reactivity


that


subjects


displayed


the


recording


equipment


represented


an effort


to renegotiate


the


terms


their


involvement


in the


research.


I plan


to make


case


that


reason


researchers


minimize


efforts


subjects


to modify


the


means


and


ends


a study


can


traced


their


allegiance


to a static,


non-interactive


conception


research.


I offer


this


account


how


videotaping


was


used


one


ethnographic


project


an example


pos


itivist


epistemology


that


perceive


to be


operating


a good


deal


qualitativative


research.


Researchers


are


still


guided


belief


that


there


are


certain


"facts"


about


social


situations


which


exist


independently


their


being


observed.


These


"patterns


relationships"


are


discernible


when


the


conditions


study


are


so that


there


minimum


mutual


interference.


Researchers


promise


subjects


that


the


data-collection


methods


will


only


initially


arouse


unaccustomed


levels


self-consciousness


an acclimation







This


a static--and


as I will


expand


on later


monologic--conception


research,


one


in which


two


groups


of speakers,


first


the


researched


and


then


researchers,


occupy


position


authority


with


regard


the


veracity


story


being


told


about


social


process;


when


one


holds


forth,


the


role


the


other


confined


to listening


and


looking


passively


and


uncritically.


The


model


this


two-stage


conception


research


act,


first


dominated


detached


witnessing


physical


activity,


followed


mental


cerebration


and


the


assignment


meaning,


course,


laboratory


experiment.


The


rival


pursuit


plausible


generalizable


explanations


findings


social


unconfounded


science


researchers


their


to exclude


investigation.


subject


We shall


from

see


the

how


interpretive


once


stage


a particular


social


situation


was


placed


under


scrutiny,


and


subjects


were


promised


that


their


natural


reaction


to researcher


obtrusiveness


would


diminish,


researchers


construed


their


promise


non-interference


as a form


invisibility


. In


spite


researchers


pressions

declined


curiosity


to make


and


available


concern


the


subjects,


observational


data


generated


social


their


relations


they


cameras,


were


fear


studying


that


would


patterns


hopelessly


contaminated


addition


exogenous


levels


explanation


emanating


from


subjects


confronting


their


own







possesses


engendering


divergent


accounts


group


activity


was


not


tapped


because


positivist


underpinnings


research


required


that


final


assignment


meaning


had


to be


unequivocal.


The


Origins


the


Research


Project


In 1982


a new


chronic


care


facility


strikingly


modernistic


architectural


design


was


opened


United


States


Veterans


Administration


(henceforth


abbreviated


a small-sized


city


the


southeastern


United


States.


The


building


veterans,


housed a

majority


120-bed


whom


nursing

were


home


elderly


ailing


males.


they


took


their


duties,


newly


assembled


health


care


staff,


inspired


part


being


in a new


structure,


surprise


ingly


light


and


airy


a federal


facility,


felt


a strong


commitment


to explore


innovative


ways


to combat


depression


and


withdrawal


that


oftentimes


accompanies


institutionalization


the


elderly.


nurse


information


successfully


with


about


brought


special


programs


about


training


that


social


gerontology


claimed


sought


to have


remotivation,


that


behaviors


indicative


increased


involvement


and


concern


with


self


and


others.


Though


she


was


not


much


impressed


studied


that


used


pre-


and


post-test


measures


on residents'


longevity


or the


polled


opinion


staff


and


family


prove







program


manuals


from


other


VA hospitals.


When


a videotape


arrived


Minne

which

their


mid-1982


sota,


involve

social


from


chronicling


regular


studies


a VA facility


a 10-year


sits


curriculum,


old r

sixth


one


Cloud,


motivation


graders

the re


program


as part


creation


therapi


nursing


home


had


the


idea


to contact


officials


at a nearby


middle


school


see


they


would


interested


in some


kind


joint


program.


The


school


nurse


volunteered


to be


liaison


person


with


For


better


part


a year


these


three


practitioners


nurtured


heavily


bureaucratized


negotiations


through


and


between


their


institutions.


Documents


had


to be drawn


apportion


legal


responsibilities


attendant


on a


volunteer


program


which


children


would


be acting


capacity


"non-professional


motivation


therapist


language


final


statement


agreement


termed


them.


The


format


which


this


therapy


would


delivered


was


as follows


school,


a Geriatric


Club


was


to be


made


available


as one


the


options


an already


existing


"prime


time"


structure.


This


was


a block


minutes


first


part


each


school


day


which


students,


selecting


from


a wide


array


of nonacademic


activities


organized


direction


their


learning.


At meeting


Geriatric


Club,


the


children


would


responsible


planning


activity


with


nursing


home


res


idents,


whom


they


would


visit







responsibility


the


hospital'


recreation


therapist.)


The


prime


time


sessions


would


also


the


occasion


where


information


about


possible


problems


communicating


elderly


with


could


the


physically


conveyed


the


and


school


emotionally


nurse


impaired


(and


subsequently


a special


education


teacher)


who


would


serve


the


club


s sponsor.


The


nurse


and


recreation


therapist


had


to modify


the


curriculum-based


Cloud


remotivation


program


to fit


their


school


s prime


time


schedule


. The


Cloud


remotivation


program


was


embedded


an elementary


school


soc


studies


curriculum;


every


weeks


the


students


rotated


out


the


program.


After


examining


the


Cloud


tape


again


and


the


study


that


accompanied


Thralow


Watson,


key


1974),


element


the


the


nurse/therapist


Cloud


team


program:


decided


pairing


to retain


a child


with


a res


ident,


instead


a class


visit


format.


They


realized,


however,


that


their


program


s extracurricular


status


contained


the


possibility


some


matched


pairs


persisting


over


three


years.


There


was


a risk


that


such


long-term


assignments


would


produce


some


dissatisfied


pairs,


but


they


opted


non-rotation


on the


grounds


that


the


development


friendships,


rather


than


novelty,


would


create


a basis


social


and


personal


engagement.


The


first


meeting


pairs


took


place


shortly







the


residents


nursing


home


were


called


"guys,


" and


twice-weekly


visitors


from


middle


school


were


known


their


"pals.


" The


use


term


"pal"


had


been


selected


the


school


nurse


and


recreation


therapist


to accentuate


the


fact


that


therapeutic


component


the


remotivation


program


was


to be


centered


around


establishment


a friendship,


one


which


emphasized


joint


activities


and


reciprocal


benefits.


Actually,


"guys"


was


term


used


primarily


adult


coordinators


the


residents.


The


middle


school


children


referred


men


they


were


paired


with


their


"pals


use


staffs


term


to distinguish


members


the


dyad.


spring


1984


the


program


had


established


itself


as a popular


feature


at both


hospital


and


school;


plans


were


made


resume


beginning


next


school


year.


this


point,


nurse


specialist


gerontology


wondered


whether


program


should


be studied


some


exploratory


yet


systematic


way.


She


was


concerned


that


some


the


changes


noticed


the


elderly


(elevated


levels


affect,


improved


personal


appearance)


might


attributed


causally


the


program.


She


was


aware


that


many


intervention


programs


initially


succeed


with


institutionalized


population


because


they


represent


departure


from


routine,


but


their


benefits


become


extinguished


over


time.


also


wanted


to know


whether







shown


to be


as cost-effective


as an in-house


behavior


modification

instruments


program.

currently


She

in us


felt,

e were


however,


that


inadequate


the

r explaining


how


the


changes


came


about.


For


that


reason


sought


the


assistance


a professor


who


taught


qualitative


research


methods


at a nearby


university.


It happened


that


university


professor


was


attached


to had


a small


measure


jurisdiction


over


school


that


had


which


the


originally


Geriatric


been


Club


contacted


was


was


based.


not


the


a county


school


public


school


but


a laboratory


school


nominally


under


the


aegis


university


s college


education.


As a laboratory


school,


prided


itself


on its


long


history


inaugurating


experimental


programs


which


were


then


scrutinized


university


express


researchers.


an interest


Therefore,


conducting


when


professor


an ethnographic


study


the


joint


school-hospital


program,


no serious


obstacles


were


raised,


at least


not


school


officials.


The


officials,


however,


could


no financial


ass


instance,


and


the


search


funding


the


research


turned


to local


hospital


administrators.


After


six


months


proposal


submi


ssion


and


review,


funds


were


granted


October


1984


a small,


qualitative


pilot


study,


with


understanding


that


a propo


for


a subsequent,


large


scale


study


was


submitted


immediately


to a national-level


VA entity--the







Once


the


money


a pilot


study


became


available,


research


team


was


assembled.


It consisted


four


investigators.


Two


fieldworkers,


one


school-based,


one


hospital


based,


were


to conduct


formal


and


informal


interviews


with


program'


participants


and


coordinators.


They


would


also


participant


observers


the


twice-weekly


sessions.


Their


data-gathering


methods


would


supervised


professor,


an educational


sociologist.


A fourth


researcher,


trained


using


Spradley'


(1979,


1980)


four-phase


analytic


technique


(identifying


domains,


organic


ing


taxonomy,


assigning


components,


and


linking


themes


would


continuously


examine


the


data


from


audio


and


videotaped


conversations.


The


Purpose


Res


earch


Project


The


researchers


were


required


to submit


a description


proposed


project


institutional


review


board


univer


sity


where


the


professor


taught.


The


objectives


research


project,


as outlined


on the


protocol,


were


as follows.


preserve


confidentiality


sources,


I withhold


name


the


institution.)


probability


increase
during r
elderly


the
and


d if a pilot
motivation


residents


remotivation
attitudinal


children


over


funding
study
therapy


and


middle


process,
changes t


time,


and


[by HSR&D]
documents
sessions,
e school c


identifies


:hat


gives


occur


n


insight


will
what


be
occurs


investigate


children
various
L elders


into


how


experience
behavioral
and


how


and


why


.6.. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~l tin aI~ S a. tJ a- m M1. f at.


The


LrLr~r


It III1I


_ ~ml-:


r


I *I II







hypotheses


to be


investigated


the


large


scale


study


to be


submitted


communication,


for
June


[HSR&D]
14, 198


funding.
14)


(Personal


The


study's


description,


the


objectives

researchers


were


clearly


promised


multiple.


to locate


and


In their

project


the


understandings


participants.


Insofar


researchers


claimed


their


study


would


a rendering


the


social


world


the


program


s participants,


they


could


said


to be


engaging


interpretive


social


science.


Yet


they


also


promised


to identify


variables


that


would


amenable


to methods


of measurement


favored


quantitative


social


science.


The


fact


that


there


were


two


conceptions


research


operating


this


study--one


searching


meaning,


other


trying


to establish


causal


connections--had


profound


consequence


on the


researchers.


The


combination


these

able


two


visions


to share


the


research


explanatory


limited


stage


how

the


much

stud


they would

v with the


participants.


We shall


see


that


though


the


videotape


made


possible


a collaboration


between


observers


and


observed


constructing


an interpretation


recorded


behavior,


subjects


were


not


included


the


hermeneutic


task


study.


Another


statement


purpose


was


issued


during


the


study;


appeared


as part


an informed


consent


form


circulated


program


coordinators,


soliciting


their


permission


to be


included


within


scope o


f the research.







researchers.


source


In this


information;


project


out


subjects


were


inchoate


valued


mass


as a

a year


worth


words


and


actions,


researchers


would


generate


propositions


about


how


a remotivation


program


works.


It is


researchers'


story


the


program


that


ultimately


confers


benefits


to both


parties,


the


form


improved


procedures


internal


and


the


additional


studies.


investigation


are


before,


kept


documents


anonymous.)


The purpose
remotivation


the


program


study
m is


[is] t
planned


o learn


and


how


carried


a geriatric


out,


what


goes
best
from


on during
study the


this


study


remotivation


program


will


in the


used


sessions,


future.


to develop


and


The


how


we can


information


a larger


research


plan


understanding


and


eventually


the


ways


increase


in which


our


geriatric


remotivation
residents, m
teachers at


program
iddle sc


hool


middle


beneficial
children


school,


and


to nursing


and


their


staff


home


families


members


nursing
1985)


home.


(Personal


communication,


January


Notice


implication


that


many


people


besides


participants


might


benefit


from


the


study,


but


nature


those


benefits


could


not


specified


precisely


advance.


The


Audiovisual


Component


the


Research


Project


The


pilot


study


called


videotaping


three


cycles


six


consecutive


one


-hour


its,


sampling


three


weeks


beginning


October),


middle


January),


and


end


(March/April


year


-long


program;


thus


a total


18 different


sessions


were


to be


taped.


In the


spirit


doing


best


thpv


rnnul ri


wi th


ths1i r


rcAtr li nclt


fi nani aI


r snnm- rn -


L










focus


interactions


only


three


the


visitor-


resident


pairs.


This


smaller


group


three


pairs


constituted


the


"research


group.


" Concentrating


on a


relatively


small


sample


the


program


s participants


was


justified


not


only


on economic


grounds


(insufficient


funds


to conduct


additional


videotape


analyses).


The


researchers


defended


their


sample


size


on the


grounds


that


they


were


studying


the


program


ethnographically;


that


the


three


pairs


served


as key


informants


through


whose


experiences


therapeutic


effect


the


program


could


reconstructed.


Their


interaction--closely


observed


on videotape


over


course


the


program--would


analyzed


to show


how


whether


patterns


mutual


engagement


evolved.


Program


activities


were


usually


conducted


the


dining


room


the


nurs


home.


There


was


room


at each


the


large,


round


dining


tables


three


pairs


pals


and


guys


to conduct


the


day


activity


craft


project,


guided


reminiscing,


board


games).


In order


to reduce


ambient


noise


during


research


the


group


taping


was


these


initially


one-on-one


separated


into


activities,


an adjacent,


special


taping


temptation


room.


the


This

pals


strategy


the


also


research


served

h group


to eliminate


interact


with


their


peers


at adjoining


tables.


However,


whenever


--- L- aa -a "


- -


/-L11


,L ,11


L


IU


YYIIYLI


I IA L







these


whole-group


activities


were


also


taped


order


discern,


purposes


comparison,


how


targeted


pairs


comported


themselves


during


programs


involving


everyone


attention.


The


videocamera


and


recorder


was


a JVC


industrial


professional


model,


borrowed


from


a nearby


teaching


hospital.


It used


three-quarter


inch


U-matic


format,


with


advanced


editing


capabilities,


rather


than


the


one-half


inch


consumer


VHS


or Betamax


format


choice


that


was


to have


troublesome


consequences,


as will


seen


shortly)


. The


camera


was


to be


visible


at all


times


and


operated


one


two


eldworkers


present.


Evidence


Reactivity


The


chief


problem


researchers


faced


choosing


videotape


program


activities


was


the


possibility


that


presence


their


camera


would


provoke


reactivity


subjects

elicited


"Reactivity

specifically


refers


as a result


to behaviors


being


that


are


observed


(Kazdin,


1982).


To what


extent


then


were


subject


this


naturalistic


study


demonstrating


certain


behaviors


simply


because


they


were


being


monitored


How


would


researchers


distingui


sh between


spontaneous


and


constrained


behavior?


stinction


worth


making


and


who


should


make


The


answers


these


questions


hinged


on the


degree







expressed


researchers


and


subjects


about


possibility


reactivity


eventually


disappearing


was


starting


point


this


dissertation.


Each


the


parties


maintained


different


recording


position


with


equipment


regard


the


the


midst


naturalness


setting.


These


incongruent


perspectives


were


indicative


a divergence


interests


that


had


not


been


resolved


the


informed


consent


agreement


which


was


supposed


to spell


out


the


set


mutual


obligations


between


researchers


and


subjects.


The


investigation


reactivity,


trying


to determine


whether


had


persisted


or disappeared


during


the


project,


joined


with


a review


how


researchers


past


and


present


had


dealt


with


led


me to a consideration


a collaborative


mode


conducting


videotape


research.


The


rest


this


chapter


devoted


to presenting


divergences


found


subject


and


researcher


judgments


about


consequences


videotaping.


was


compiled


during


sec


ond


half


the


research


project,


after


I had


been


asked


to join


the


research


team


and


conduct


ancillary


study


the


role


reactivity


might


playing


the


primary


assess


awareness


study.


to what


that


first


degree


they


examined


pals


were


and


tapes


guys


on camera.


themselves


demonstrated


looked


actions


that


were


directed


specifically


towards


camera


and,


conversely,


actions


taken


to evade


being


seen


and


heard







were


not


taped.


The


fieldworker


focusing


on the


guys


could


detect


no evidence


a difference


between


taped


and


untaped


sessions.


In her


interviews,


probed


and


received


indication


from


the


guys


that


they


had


any


way


modified


their


behavior


as a nurse,


because


attributed


the

the


presence

absence


a camera.

reactivity


Trained


guys


their


diminished


sensory


capacities.


The


opposite


was


case


with


fieldworker


assigned


pals.


many


their


interviews


with


her,


they


mentioned


obtrusiveness


audiovisual


research


methods


. She


had


established


a strong


rapport


with


many


pals


program


because


simultaneously


with


her


work


on the


remotivation


dissertation


on coping


project


was


behavior


gathering


middle


data


school


children


fieldnotes


were


source


much


evidence


that


the


three


pals


"research


group"


often


expressed


both


positive


and


negative


feelings


about


being


cynosure


audiovisual


equipment.


I declined


interview


three


pals


personally


during


course


study.


(When


school


was


over,


I met


them


once


home


fieldworker,


where


we talked


about


effect


the


videotape


equipment


had


had


on the


way


they


acted


during


programs


VA.)


chief


informants


were


res


earchers


themselves.


They


were


already


familiar


figures


setting


asked


them


to be


alert


and


probe


any


comments






observers


the


scene,


case,


a newcomer


studying


the


study.


That,


however,


was


the


role


I did


adopt


the


research


team


s staff


meetings.


There


I paid


attention


decision-making


process


whereby


the


researchers


pondered


how


to respond


to subjects


when


they


expressed


interest


finding


out


what


the


visual


record


showed


about


their


performance.


the


extent


that


was


not


involved


gathering


and


analyzing


data


about


the


remotivation


program


itself,


remained


an outsider


the


group


doing


primary


study.


This


independence


enabled


me to examine


equally


the


claims


each


party


made


with


regard


to the


impact


that


videotaping


was


having


on the


study.


I begin


with


first


step


in my investigation,


what


saw


when


looked


the


tapes.


the


first


and


only


group


orientation


session


with


the


pal


informing


them


that


their


program


during


that


school


year


was


going


to be


the


subject


of a study,


one


the


researchers,


referring


the


videotaping


which


that


very


you.


minute


The


was


kids


going


immediate


advised,


reaction


"Don


could


t let


bother


described


as a


mixture


scepticism


("Oh,


sure")


and


nervousness


(giggling)


they


gesticulated


toward


the


camera,


calling


"The


One


Big-Eye.


In the


repartee


that


followed,


two


themes


recurred:







insistence


that


their


awareness


that


situation


would


diminish


over


time.


In such


questions


as "Will


other


kids


see


me?"


"What


m caught


an embarrassing


situation?"


, the


kids


appeared


grasp


facticity


videotape


s sound/image.


Their


ques


tions


displayed


awareness


that


very


existence


an audiovisual


record


contained


the


possibility


that


gaps


or mistakes


the


image


they


wished


to project


themselves


could


be scrutinized.


Though


res


earcher


guaranteed


confidentiality


("We


will


not


show


this


stuff


anyone


outside


this


room"


these


young


adolescents


could


not


this


juncture


completely


trust


an outsider.


course


some


initial


suspiciousness


was


to be expected


because


the


researcher


was


yet


a dependable


person


in their


lives.


Only


someone


who


wasn


your


friend


would


claim


was


going


to be


neutral


or nonjudgmental


are


going


about


to be hanging


your

around


actions

this D


"Three


program,


or four

watching,


. keeping


out


But


their


uneasiness


can


also


attributed


perception


any


intelligent


person


might


have


these


circumstances


: Actions


recorded


on videotape


cannot


anonymous.


images


and


sounds


on the


tapes


were


to be


distorted


technical


means,


they


routinely


are


certain


investigative


TV shows


such


as 60


Minutes,


then


anonymity


could


guaranteed.


But


no such


doctoring


way") .







friends,


relatives)


could


conceivably


able


to view


their


actions


and


form


opinions


about


them


without


their


being


present


argue


their


own


defense.


In short,


important


mechanism


both


allowing


and


concealing


social


improprieties--their


not


being


noticed


flux


time--was


going


to be disabled.


Another


kind


reservation


expressed


during


this


meeting


can


found


one


the


pals


exhorting


the


group


to "Act


normal,


" which


was


followed


another


pal


retorting,


"You


can't


act


normal.


The


researcher


presiding


was


quick


to minimize


threat


that


reactivity


poses


spontaneity:


"That


s normal


to feel


that


way.


After


while


you


won


't feel


that


way.


won


't bother


you.


does


bother


you


after


a while,


us know.


The


difficulty


kids


might


have


had


in acceding


this


request


can


seen


the


necessity


researcher


to follow


with


some


specific


strictures:


"Don


mess


with


the


wires


don't


ham


the


camera;


try


not


to look


at it.


" These


imperatives


were


the


a concession


deployment


researcher


audiovisual


that


equipment


precisely


was


because


an unfamiliar


addition


the


social


setting,


there


would


a tendency,


particularly


on the


part


of curious


and


incompletely


socialized


children,


to notice


something


peculiar


their


midst.


Being


taped


continued


to elicit


a response


because


there


was


nothing


else


like


going


on in


any


other


social







Once


taping


first


cycle


remotivation


program


got


underway


nursing


home,


difficulties


with


observational


format


were


brought


to the


attention


researchers.


In interviews


that


were


being


conducted


school-based


fieldworker,


kids


both


within


and


outs


videotape


sample


complained


about


the


separation


three-pair


"research


group.


Three


different


rationales


were


discernible


these


objections:


first


was


fracturing


their


school


s social


order,


brought


about


what


seemed


them


the


irrational


way


which


assignment


the


research


group


had


been


made.


None


three


girls


picked


to be


"the


research


group"


were


eighth


grade


seniors;


the


exclusion


older


pals


fueled


their


graders


tendency


made


to disparage


planning


whatever


contributions


program


activities.


lower


More


importantly,


pals


who


were


selected


were


not


members


a naturally


occurring


friendship


group.


Thus


several


sets


friends


who


had


volunteered


program


were


able


to experience


participating


together.


This


obstruction


camaraderie


was


connected


second


motive


complaining:


The


separation


friends


made


work


of getting


along


with


elderly


harder;


friends


were


not


nearby


support


when


they


ran


out


things


their


guy.


The


third


objection


separation


rested


on the


perception


that


was


unfair


: By







democratize


sample:


"Why


not


study


everyone?"


But


three


girls


the


research


group


had


second


thought


about


surrendering


their


special


status.


Before


examining


depth


the


target


group


s sense


ambivalence


about


their


involvement,


will


supply


empirical


evidence


their


reactivity.


Despite


the


request


to ignore


the


equipment,


the


tapes


showed


instances


individual


pals


scowling


just


before


they


turned


their


backs


the


camera.


A peeved


expression


was


sometimes


flashed


the


operator


trained


the


camera


the


pals


who


got


from


a table


and


moved


out


frame.


Averting


also


occurred


when


the


operator,


after


panning


through


a whole


group


activity,


would


stop


the


camera


and


zoom


in on a particular


pal-guy


pair.


Another


way


subjects


disabled


surveillance


capacity


camera


was


engage


making


directly,


faces


staring


operator


right


viewing


into


them


the


. The


lens


tapes


and


contain


approximately


four


to six


instances


this


direct


engagement


per


session,


with


as many


the


end


the


cycle


taping


as at


the


beginning.


When


the


first


round


taping


had


been


completed,


researchers


found


that


the


professional


camera


they


were


using


was


deficient


audio


pickup


. This


type


professional


camera


customarily


used


a studio


setting


with


an overhead


microphone


setup.


To reduce







away


from


table


where


action


was


going


the


camera'


built-in


microphone


was


not


able


to pick


the


often


subdued


voices


guys.


The


researchers'


response


finding


that


conversational


component


their


videotapes


was


indistinct


was


to place


an audiocassette


recorder


on the


table.


Thus


kids


faced


two


modalities


recording


trained


on their


behavior--one


proximate,


one


distal.


They


replied


occasionally


this


situation


muffling


audio


recorder


with


books


or jackets;


at other


times


they


would


scream


into


the


microphone


or speak


an alphabetic


code.


When


asked


fieldworker


what


prompted


these


hijinks,


one


pal


said:


"You


can


talk


freely.


like


a prison.


You


have


to be


careful.


Another


said:


bothers


to just


see


[the


cassette


recorder]


sitting


there.


pushes


you.


You


can


't relax.


But


is not


from


scattered


incidents


innocuous


sabotage


amidst


overall


compliance


that


a case


can


made


a deep


ambivalence


towards


being


researched.


The


evidence


numerous


interviews


compiled


school-based


fieldworker


who


had


gradually


come


occupy


place


trust


and


respect


among


the


children.


formal


prime

their


and


time


informal


planning


parents,


the


interviews


sessions,


three


conducted


but


targeted


also

pals


mos


their


talked


during


homes

about


with

what







heightening


their


impact,


constituted


a very


insightful


account


the


experience


being


alternately


attracted


and


repelled


systematic


observation.


Numerous


times


the


three


girls


expressed


both


pride


and


annoyance

research


special


group.


For


status


example,


conferred

when resea


being


rchers


"the


offered


hold


a special


research


meeting

.. the t


with


hree


all


pals


members


on the


obtrusiveness


research


group


said


they


the


were


others


not


were


going


not


qualified


through


Like


talk


media


about


since


celebrities


who


cultivate


and


elude


paparazzi,


the


three


research


group


members


thrived


on and


yet


felt


encumbered


having


their


social


performances


visually


documented.


some


interviews,


three


pals


seemed


to welcome


the

the


deontic

camera


effect

created


being


a press


observed.

on them to


They


intera


admitted

ct with


that

their


guy,


but


the


same


time


they


said


they


knew


this


was


the


"right"


thing


to do.


Being


on camera,


they


told


interviewer,


also


inhibited


their


gossiping


and


"fooling


around"

operas,

They ge


slipping


roaming


fnuinely


the

share


halls,

d the


room


dallying


opinion


to watch


the


afternoon


snack


adults


soap


table).


charge


that


such


behavior


was


inappropriate,


at least


during


times


they


were


being


encouraged


to reflect


and


were


not


actually


trapped


a conversation


that


had


petered


out.







instantiate


"forever"


proof


any


maladroitness


they


might


have


exhibited


as a result


their


inexperience.


preoccupation


about


how


they


appeared


to others


extended


also


to critiquing


themselves


in the


random


occasions


when


they


got


to hear


or see


themselves.


(Self-confrontation


had


not


been


given


a place


the


original


res


earch


design.)


Once


when


they


were


playing


with


fieldworker


tape


recorder,


stopping


to hear


what


they


sounded


like,


one


girl


complained


that


her


voice


sounded


"Squeaky,


like


baby


talk


Another


girl,


on see


herself


monitor,


commented,


nose


so flat.


" (More


will


said


next


chapter


about


power


the


video


image


to induce


self-assessment.)


I earlier


guarantee


attributed


confidentiality


subjects


could


a suspicion


not


that


ironclad.


Though


they


had


been


promi


sed


that


tapes


would


destroyed


some


unspecified


time


after


researchers


stopped


coming


around,


recall


that


no offer


to disguise


their


voices


or faces


the


tapes


had


been


made


them.


At least


during


school


year,


their


private


comments


which


had


escaped


self-censorship


were


circulating


certain


locales


of the


wider


community,


audiovisual


labs,


secretarial


pools,


and


seminar


rooms.


Statements


such


know


like


him"


or "She


find


out"


were


not


completely


unreasonable


light


fact


that







The


pals'


perhaps


exaggerated


concern


about


leaks


are


important


because


the


attention


that


was


being


directed


their


program


the


researchers


presented


them


with


unique


opportunity


to criticize


the


behavior


the


adults


supervising


them.


However,


as long


they


sensed


that


their


identity


could


not


completely


shielded,


opportunity


to be candid


with


outsiders


carried


a certain


risk.


They


were


willing


to fault


some


activities


planned


the


super-


visors


as repetitious


and


boring.


Yet


they


enjoined


researchers


not


to communicate


their


negative


assessments


some


staff


behavior


fear


that


the


source


criticism


would


obvious.


There


was


another


reason


why


the


three


pals


may


have


felt


ambivalently


about


being


cynosure


rese


arch.


In addition


to constricting


behavior,


observational


format


also


had


an rescuing


effect.


Whenever


interest


the


activities


flagged,


camera


or recorder


was


always


available


momentary


engagement.


was


one


several


"save


routines


the


pals


had


recourse


to when


they


got


bored


or stuck


a conversational


deadend.


Grimacing


camera


or moving


out


range


provided


an opportunity


pause


before


coming


with


some


new


topics.


Reliance


on an


interaction


with


camera


and


operator)


may


also


explain


a sense


loyalty


regimen,


over


and


above


proprietary,


privileged


status


adduced


earlier.


Once







taping.


In particular,


there


was


a keen


curiosity


about


tapes


themselves,


a curiosity


that


was


to be


sati


sfied


during


course


research


project.


The


program


coordinators


present


the


sessions


also


communicated


to researchers,


more


guardedly


than


pals,


an interest


the


uses


to which


tapes


were


being


put.


Since


remotivation


program


was


a fir


st-time


undertaking


VA recreation


therapists


and


middle


school


teachers,


they


sought


reassurances


that


tapes


would


not


form


basis


of unfavorable


comparisons


with


their


predec


essors,


original


school


nurse/therapist


team.


The


pair


that


had


initiated


the


program


had


left


their


positions


before


start


the


new


school


year,


just


research


project


was


beginning.


The


new


coordinators


were


anxious


to duplicate


success


spring


1984


program.


They


expressed


reservations


about


their


competence


in areas


with


which


they


were


unfamiliar:


The


teachers


hospital


setting,


therapists


working


with


children.


Like


pals


the


research


group,


they


recognized


power


tapes


to document


inadequate


performance,


but


as professionals


they


were


encouraged


prospect


of greater


understanding


put


forward


research


proposal;


hence,


they


said


they


were


eager


learn


whether


ongoing


examination


tapes


had


revealed


areas


where


program


was


working


well


and


where







Accommodations


Made


the


Research


Team


the


end


first


cycle


taping,


isolation


"research


group"


a separate


taping


room


was


terminated.


Now


all


the


pal-resident


pairs


did


their


craft


projects


or played


board


games


tables


the


nursing


home


cafeteria.


The


three


target


pairs,


however,


remained


grouped


together


one


table.


At first,


there


was


a strict


prohibition


about


friends


coming


over


even


to chat,


but


this


eventually


was


relaxed


face


another


round


complaints


about


hardships


that


"stars"


have


endure.


Shortly


after


videotaping


research


group


had


been


integrated


with


the


rest


the


program,


program


coor-


dinators


approached


researchers


and


pointed


out


that


their


interactions


with


the


guys


and


pals


now


formed


part


visual


record.


The


coordinators


were


concerned


that


they


had


not


been


adequately


notified


that


their


actions


were,


willy-nilly,


going


to be


included


within


scope


the


research.


The


researchers


' response


the


charge


that


they


had


unwittingly


enlarged


frame


their


video


research


beyond


three


dyads


was


to draw


an informed


consent


agreement


coordinators.


The


purpose


this


document


was


to guarantee


them


formally


their


rights


privacy


and


confidentiality,


but


also


had


the


effect


adding


validity


their


claim


that


their


performance







Researcher


Ambivalence


There


a final


aspect


about


use


of videotape


this


project


which


should


included


before


ending


this


chapter.


I refer


researchers'


response


patterns


behaviors


they


were


covering


course


their


study.


These


data


surfaced


the


regular


staff


meetings


the


research


team


that


I started


attending


midway


through


duration


the


project.


was


not


until


after


second


cycle


of videotaping


had


been


completed


January


1985


that


the


team


received


from


ethnographer


charge


Spradleyean


analysis


a preliminary


report


on the


first


set


tapes.


This


report


confirmed


what


participant


observers


had


been


noticing


at the

several


sessions:

weeks tc


After


focus


making


considerable


exclusively


their


effort

guy,


the

the


first

pals


inside


and


outside


research


group


were


engaging


much


more


peer


socializing.


We discus


at length


knotty


epistemological


issue


whether


thi


-task


behavior


was


proof


that


pals


had


grown


accustomed,


even


indifferent,


camera


s monitoring


presence


or whether


friend


ships


had


developed


over


course


siting


and


socializing


had


become


more


important


than


complying


with


previously


agreed-upon


agenda.


The


discussions


did


not


reach


conclusion,


and


I experienced


the


first


time


how


difficult


would


be conceptually


to disengage


habituation







One


point


peripheral,


and


agreement


direct- -was


among

that


all

the


the


observers--remote,


objectives


the


program--the


delivery


remotivation


therapy


to the


elderly


--was


not


being


systematically


carried


out


during


the


twice-weekly


activities.


The


original


therapeutic


model


called


non-professional


therapists


to structure


their


visits


along


a five-stage


sequence


(Robinson,


1968).


The


purpose


demarcating


each


visit


into


stages


was


to guide


elderly


from


an appreciation


their


accomplishments


toward


an optimism


about


their


prospects.


However,


depth


good


depression


intentions


some


and


guys


sympathies


proved


their


to be


pals.


beyond


the


face


pals


' difficulties


adhering


repetitiously


the pre-sele

relinquished


cted


their


five-stage


format,


expectations


about


program


long


range


supervisors

psychologi-


cal


benefits


and


became


more


accepting


the


program


short


term


recreational


value.


Another


reasonable


explanation


why


we began


see


more


off-task


sceptical


and


behavior

impatient


was

wit


that

h the


participants


aura


had


grown


scientific


modesty


that


researchers


attached


their


work.


A usual


response,


example,


the


question


from


both


school


and


hospital


staff


members


about


when


would


share


knowledge


good


and


bad


practices


that


they


had


come


to believe


were


being


extracted


from


the


tapes


was, "


soon


as we know


what







would


not


until


after


program


was


over


that


year


that


they


might


derive


any


benefits


from


having


been


studied.


We had


agonized


our


meetings


over


whether


and


how


much


we should


bring


our


emergent


findings


to bear


modifying


aspects


remotivation


program.


The


most


seasoned


researcher


counseled


postponing


participation


policy


decisions


until


after


the


research


had


concluded.


do otherwise


would


to abandon


our


stance


scientific


neutrality.


were


supposed


to supply


our


sponsors


with


a report


about


changes


the


res


idents


which


researcher-induced


effect


were


held


to a minimum.


Otherwise,


but


the


non-studied


transferability


geriatric


our


remotivation


findings

program


to a similar


would


jeopardized


we intervened


and


tinkered


with


this


program'


life


history.


We reached


a consensus


that


our


judgment


shortfalls


program


were


emanating


from


structure


values


that


only


the


extended


analytic


phase


research


process


would


make


explicit.


short,


would


share


no insights


until


our


project


was


complete.


were


there


to study,


not


treat.


was


puzzled


the


research


team'


deci


sion


not


create


a mechanism


which


the


program


supervisors


and


pals


could


sati


sfy


their


curiosity


about


how


they


were


performing.


It seemed


the


researchers


were







long


as subjects


had


been


notified


that


the


tapes


were


being


compiled


a series


post


hoc


analyses


triangulated


with


participant


observers


' fieldnotes


and


focused


interview


transcripts)


the


researchers


believed


they


were


under


no obligation


to make


available


their


"raw"


data


any


stage


in the


study collection,


analysis,


dissemination.


They


felt


they


were


within


their


rights


so because


they


had


properly


complied


with


all


the


provisions


informed


consent


requirement.


came


see


that


would


necessary


to examine


the


origin


and


development


the


informed


consent


agreement


order


understand


sense


that


though


subj ects


had


been


protected


from


egregious


harm,


their


full


rights


as persons


were


still


in some


manner


being


infringed.


When


the


pilot


study


ended,


I decided


to delve


deeper


into


epistemological


videotape


in research.


and


I have


ethical


posed


implications


a number


using


questions


as a result


involvement


this


project.


Why


are


field


researchers


inclined


to minimize


significance


reactivity?


the


informed


consent


agreement


merely


a courtesy


extended


to subjects


secure


their


cooperation


a forceful


guarantee to


subjects


that


their


personal


dignity


will


respected?







latter,


then


what


way


does


the


informed


consent


agreement


make


subjects


the


equals


researchers


in the


research


endeavor?


To what


with


extent


opportunity


does


erecting


agreement


and


provide


modifying


subjects


conditions


under


which


their


behavior


will


studied?


Are


there


provi


sions


which


allow


subjects


renegotiate


terms


agreement


the


light


their


experience


being


studied?


In fact,


a contractual


agreement


most


suitable


model


guiding


the


researcher-subject


relationship?


there


a theoretical


model


collaborative


research which

knowledge and,


would


provide


same


both


time,


parties

humanely


with


substantive


promote


convergence


their


interests?


To what


extent


current


documentary


uses


videotape


research


preserve


and


reinforce


the


divergence


in researcher


and


subject


interests?


there


a way


to conduct


videotape


res


earch


that


builds


on rather


than


deflects


subjects'


reactivity?


Would


examination


conception


The


involving


their


of informed


remainder


subjects


practices


consent


this


more


require


and


dissertation


deeply


changing


researcher


contains


visual


our


s role?


results







a critical


review


the


proposals


put


forward


research


methodologists


a number


disciplines


dealing


with


the


threat


that


they


consider


reactivity


poses


the


Chapter


reliability


IV is


and


validity


an examination


knowledge


the


ethical


(Question


implications


these


proposals


as they


bear


on meeting


the


requirement


informed


consent


(Questions


2-5).


The


starting


point


Chapter


V is


Habermas'


theory


communicative


action


which


then


applied


to collaborative


research


designs


that


claim


to honor


subjects


' desire


to shape


the


direction


inquiry


(Questions


Chapter


VI contains


a description


two-stage


model


conducting


videotape


research


that


requires


continuous


and


close


collaboration


between


researchers


and


subjects


(Questions


8-10).












CHAPTER


DEALING


WITH


REACTIVITY


: EPISTEMOLOGICAL


ISSUES


In Chapter


an account


was


given


of a research


team


response to

audiovisual


subjects


data


' explicit


gathering


and


methods.


implicit


objections


As a member


that


team,


was


assigned


the


task


reviewing


discussions


reactivity


methodological


literature


several


social


previous


science


disciplines


researchers


had


and


grappled


reporting


with


on the


issue.


ways


The


present


chapter


is a critical


review


those


discussions.


It begins


with


definitions


the


phenomenon


drawn


from


both


experimental


and


field


research


traditions.


Next,


various


explanations


of reactivity


are


presented;


some


are


couched


language


psychology,


others


language


philosophy.


conceptualizations,


the


Following


these


nature


explanatory


threats


that


reactivity


said


pose


creation


reliable


and


valid


knowledge


are


outlined.


The


discussion


then


turns


strategies


that


methodologists


recommend


dealing


with


those


threats.


Since


this


review


intended


to be critical


as well


wide-ranging,


second


part


chapter


I will


analyze th


epistemological


assumptions


underlying


_w --







recommend.


point


out


that


in spite


their


recommendations,


a large


degree


uncertainty


still


surrounds


the


veracity


observational


research.


I end


tying


continuing


difficulty


that


reactivity


presents


researchers


' conception


research


as a di


interested,


disengaged


activity.


It is


precisely


this


model


inquiry


that


causes


reactivity


to be


construed


as a distraction


and


underlies


the


proposals


circumcumventing


through


techniques


deception


and


unmindfulness.


Definitions


Reactivity


The


most


extensive


discussions


reactivity


are


to be


found


the


methodological


literature


experimental


and


clinical


psychology.


The


reader


may


object


that


experimentalist


tradition


is an inappropriate


place


to begin


an investigation


into


problems


that


were


encountered


field


researchers.


This


objection


can


answered


several


ways.


search


discussions


subjects


' overt


and


subtle


efforts


to subvert


the


conditions


being


studied,


found


that


psychology


StS,


especially


behavioral


therapi


sts,


take


reactivity


much


more


seriously


than


writers


fieldwork


precisely because

reactivity, some


manuals.


there


seems

more


It could


to be


argued


that


an intentionality


mechanistic


assumptions


to

of


behaviorists


become


suspect


and


they


therefore


are


required







non-disruptive


form


of observation


is not


only


possible


but


eminently


desirable.


But


field


research


too,


as we shall


see,


prizes


objectivity


and


neutrality


reports


about


social


practices.


Leaving


unresolved


the


moment


the


question


whether


the


two


research


traditions


are


characterized


different


attaches

intrigued


positions


the


with


intentions


me about


regard


importance


of a reactive


experimentalists'


subject,


inve


each


what


stigation


reactivity


the


paradox


that


the


artificial


setting


laboratory


natural


subjects


settings


tend


(Baum,


to behave


Forehand,


less


Zegiob,


reactively


1979;


than


Foster


& Cone,


1980;


Kazdin,


1979;


Tunnell,


1977


laboratory,


only


a narrowly


specified


bit


of behavior


placed


under


observation;


where


field,


aspects


subjects


' performance


that


will


be studied


researchers


are


deliberately


left


vague


and


uns


pecified


both


the


outset


and


during


course


a study,


leaving


intact


occasion


anxiety


and


dis


sembling.


also


found


logical


to start


with


experimentalist


tradition


psychology


because


allegiance


to controlled


observation


procedures


takes


into


consideration


certain


fundamental


facts


about


study


of phenomena


that


have


a long


time


been


grasped


investigators


the


physical


and


life


sciences.







species


present


than


when


they


are


alone


(Zajonc,


1965).


A great


deal


the


responsiveness


humans


has


been


shown


to involve


the


involuntary


nervous


system:


The


approach


another


increases


arousal


rates


and


alters


response


frequencies


Cottrell,


1968;


Middlemist,


Knowles,


& Matter,


1976).


Laboratory


investigators


also


explicitly


acknowledge


omnipr


esence


the


uncertainty


principle


First


postulated


particle


physics,


the


uncertainty


principle


predicts


that


act


observing


a phenomenon


will


change


. Therefore


no surprise


that


methodologists


the


behavioral


sciences


commonly


define


reactivity


as virtually


synonymous


with


uncertainty


principle.


Reactivity


variable
procedure


Reactivity
the target


refers


that


occurs


. (Ciminero,


refers


behavior


assessment


the


changes


as a function


Graham,


to immediate


or target


procedure.


a dependent


measurement


1977,


& Jackson,


long-term


subj


(Haynes


ects


changes


as a function


& Wilson,


1979,


The


reactive


testing


effect


process


can


itself


expected
a stimulus


whenever t
to change


rather


than
1963,


a pas


sive


record


behavior.


(Campbell


& Stanley,


Note


that


these


definitions


attribute


no intentionality


to subjects.


construed


definitional


an intrinsic


limit


evel

that


at least,


acts


reactivity


asymptotically


to lower


the


accuracy


researcher


s measurements.


However,


when


we look


illustrations


which


accompany


__ _


I







author


numerous


studies


reactivity,


example,


points


out


that


valence--the


social


value


accorded


behavior--influences


desirable


the


sitively


direction


valenced"


reactivity.


behavior


Socially


task


completion)


whereas


tend


"negatively


increase


valenced"


under


conditions


behavior


assessment,


drug


use)


tends


to decrease.


When


contexts


which


reactivity


occurs


are


included,


subjects


ascription


researchers


a desire


Rosenthal,


to manipulate


is sometimes


labeled


1976)


experimenter.


"evaluation


impute


This


apprehension,


"demand


characteristic,


"impression


management.


Construed


either


as an evasive


or aggrandizing


action,


ascription


indicates


that


though


experimental


usually


ask


subjects


behavior,


to supply

request


only


to watch


very

even


narrow

a brie


sample


performance


regarded


subjects


as falling


within


province


social


encounter.


While


experimentalists


do acknowledge


that


laboratory


settings


human


beings


resist


having


their


performance


decontextualized


and


reduced


to a datum,


they


have


also


described


a form


of reactivity


which


subjects


carry


out


their


own


objectification.


Kazdin


1979)


asserts


that


observers


not


have


to be present


there


to be


reactive


effects.


situation


reactive


whenever








they


may


alter


their


behavior


during


any


regimen


self-monitoring.


A whole


line


laboratory


research,


conducted


on this


phenomenon


starting


the


late


1960s


and


continuing


throughout


1970s,


establi


shed


that


monitoring


one


s own


behavior


creates


reactive


effects


equal


to being


monitored


obtrusively


observers


(Bailey


& Sowder,


1970


Ciminero,


Nelson,


& Lipinski,


1977;


Danet,


1968;


din,


1974)

this


. Behavioral

phenomenon b


therapist


because


are


particularly


"self-monitoring


creates


attracted


a feedback


loop


whi


ch contributes


to self


-regulation"


(Nelson,


Lipinski,


& Black,


1975,


346).


They


have


shown


that


when


subjects


make


use


some


type


self-recording


device


(speaking


into


a audiocassette


player,


consulting


a tele-


vision


monitor,


reviewing


a videotape),


they


tend,


like


subjects


under


scrutiny


observers,


to amplify


behaviors


considered


socially


beneficial


and


suppress


behaviors


that


are


aversive


to others


and


themselves


(Haynes,


1978;


Nelson,


1977;


Nelson


& Hayes,


1981;


Nelson,


Lipinski,


chapter


& Boykin,


this


1978)


. I will


potential


return


change


final


that


present


audiovisually-as


sisted


techniques


self-monitoring.


Explanations


of Reactivity


an extensive


summative


review


studies


nubl i shed


duri na


1960S


and


1970s .


which


documentI


i i -


B


L







(1982)


concluded


that


not


a single


one


them


addressed


significance

retrospective


the


essay,


phenomenon

reached


Kazdin


a similar


(1982),


conclusion:


Reactivity
conditions
underlying
Relatively


effects


and


not


under


well
which


mechanisms


little


the


understood.


reactive


remain
known a


factors


that


Both


effects


to be


bout


dictate


the


occur


and


elaborated.


nature
their


reactive


appearance.


Thus,


though


experimental


procedures


have


been


adequate,


even


powerful,


method


proving


that


reactivity


occurs


laboratory


a function

provided


being


little


insight


erved,

t into


the


language


either


origin


or meaning


of reactivity.


a broader


and,


the


same


time,


deeper


description


what


happens


when


one


human


being


intently


studies


the


actions


another,


I had


turn


to philosophy.


One


most


penetrating


analyses


the


effect


being


observed


found


to be


writing


Briti


sh psychology


John


Shotter.


For


the


past


years


Shotter


been


public


shing


work


whose


aim


to humanize


psychology


reconceptualizing


was


at its


origins,


a specialty


within


philosophy


that


uses


empirical


observations


speculate


on the


nature


the


self.


The


school


philosophy


that


Shotter


believes


has


most


to offer


psychology


in guiding


back


towards


being


both


a rigorous


and


a speculative


discipline


phenomenology.


He draws


- a -


i I m -


-- I






non-manipulative


rationale


psychology


(See


Shotter,


1975


and


Gauld


and


Shotter,


1977


an outline


his


program.)


Shotter


first


came


attention


an essay


contributed


to Dowrick


and


Biggs'


(1983)


Using


Video,


collection


theoretical


and


technical


articles


British


and


Australian


psychologists


who


employ


videotaping


tool


therapy.


In his


contribution,


Shotter


offers


hermeneutical


account


self-confrontation.


He provides


detailed


philosophical


analysis


how


the


viewing


videotaped


images


brings


about


an increase


in understanding.


The


essay


contains


thorough


explication


the


tension


and


information


which


may


generated


whenever


human


beings


are


subject


to systematic


observation.


According


to Shotter,


phenomemo logy'


special


province


to force


our


attention


to how


meaning


arises


conjunction

relations;


inner p

attempts


rimordial


experiences


to disentangle


the


and


two,


outer


only


social

weave


skeins


back


together.


When


we assign


meaning


action,


we assert


a relation


between


ourselves,


other


social


actors,


and


the


action


we are


trying


to explain.


This


act


called


interpretation


from


interpres,


Latin


an agent


between


two


underlies


parties,


any


a broker).


interpretation


An assumption


that


some


that


correspondence


exists


between


our


mind


and


mind


the


other.


Yet


phenomenologists


deny


possibility


a direct


mind-to-







unidimensional:


Whenever


we direct


our


gaze


actions


others,


we may


intend


to perceive


primarily


their


state


mind,


but


at the


same


time


we always


experience


our


own


state


mind


with


regard


them.


This


doubling


undermines


any


simple


mind-to-mind


fit.


It is


difficult


to specify


accurately


meaning


another


s actions


because


we are


prejudiced


favor


our


own


already


specified


view


the


world.


The


intentional


nature


can


human


only


and


action


partially


self


such


specified.


incomplete


that


Our


both


because


meaning


an action


knowledge


are


world


in never-ending


formation.


No single


description


can


delimit


meaning


an action.


The


participial


case


the


word


"meaning"


alerts


us to


fact


that


meaning


a perpetual


state


becoming.


The


indeterminate


nature


meaning


implies


that


when


look


at action--in


or on videotape--we


confront


a wide


range


possible


meanings.


A myriad


interpretations


are


available


to researchers


when


they


try


to make


sense


out


their


informants


'inability


or refusal


ignore


being


observed.


Shotter,


who


uses


videotape


in a


clinical


mode,


and


therefore


cannot


overlook


either


etiology


or the


function


of his


patients


' reactivity,


provides


us with


an interpretation


observer-observed


relation


that


has


important


implications


any






Erving


Goffman,


specifically,


The


Presentation


Self


Everyday


Life


(1959).


To summarize


briefly,


Goffman


proposes


that


any


given


time


during


an interaction


occupy


one


three


roles,


each


with


own


rights


and


duties.


These


roles


are


the


first


person/performer


who


directs


expression


outward;


the


second


person/recipient


who


may


intervene


and


modify


the


intended


action


the


first


person;


the


third


person/observer


who


from


a remove


may


attend


which


the


or he


unintended


foregoes


aspects


the


an action


right


return


intervene.


we grant


that


conjugation


these


roles


which


maintains


the


coherence,


the


"grammaticality"


social


interaction,


then


we are


a position


to describe


reactivity


as a kind


solecism.


Reactivity


occurs


when


rules


governing


the


syntactical


allocation


these


roles


are


contravened


a participant


whose


silence


renders


conjugation


impossible.


This


inert


participant


the


camera.


Though


the


camera


purportedly


merely


one


instrument


grammar


the


social


observer


, a silent


interaction,


amanuensis,


positioned


impregnably


the


third


person.


It is


not


open


to negotiating


forgiveness;


doesn


t supply


instantaneous


feedback;


won't


laugh


when


a joke


cracked.


The


camera


reification


the


observer


s non-interference.







Yet,


observed


express


bring


the


observing


and


being


has


equally


observers.


observed


unintended,


When


rather


that


profound


we notice


than


the


effects


that


received,


spontaneous


on the


what


we seek


aspects


our


behavior


under


our


control.


This


task


giving


intention


unintentional


leads


us to dramatize


our


actions


before


a camera.


It i


then


we experience


transitory,


unfamiliar


sensation


artificiality


and


insincerity


about


our


conduct.


Exi


stentiali


in particular


have


dwelled


on the


condition


Sartre


being


(1956)


observed.


writes,


The


that


first


others


thing


you


you


are


notice,


an object.


This


a disconcerting


perspective,


since


object


contrast


to subjects--are


definition


empty


intentions.


Most


what


we know


about


ourselves


we have


learned


from


occupying


active


first


and


second


person


roles.


Both


them


are


context-bound;


both


involve


mutuality.


To be


exposed


continuous


gaze


an observer


to be


rendered


isolable,


server.


oneself


In such


as well


transparent,


a situation


and,


one


observer.


ultimately,


becomes


One


becomes


inert


an object


acutely


conscious


sintegrates


the p

into


performing


self


persons:


. The


A crit


first

ic now


person pe

comments


former


the


adequacy


the


player.


The


conflation


performer


and


observer


can


also


described


as a continuous


oscillation







this


fluctuation


perspectives


the


deautomatization


behavior:


our


usual


inattention


processes


over


which


we have


relinquished


conscious


control


can


longer


continue;


we are


forced


observation


to watch


our


self


act.


Self-objectification


alters


the


ecology


social


interaction.


as "the


Shotter


interlocking


(1983)

pattern


defines


right


this

s and


ecological


duties


system

terms


which


people


hold


themselves


and


one


another


responsible


their


actions


and


evaluate


each


other


and


their


own


performance"

definition.


(p.

This


208).


Note


why


the


the


present-centeredness


camera


always


this


an intruder:


continuous


replication


reality


makes


present


into


a past,


one


forever


retrievable


future


Threats


Posed


Reactivity


this


point


seem


to have


been


indicating


that


objectives


the


experimentalist


and


the


philosopher


are


distinctly


different,


implying


that


the


former


limits


himself


to devising


proofs


the


existence


and


effects


reactivity


while


latter


provides


extensive


phenomenological


analyses


intentions


that


underpin


I cited


as examples


the


self-confessed


absence


among


behavioral


researchers


a conceptual


basis


reactivity


and


contrasted


with


phenomenologists


' rich


description







to show


this


section


that


both


laboratory


and


field


methodologists


share


a common


dread:


imprecision


that


reactivity


bodees


observational


studies.


In the


following


section,


I will


argue


that


when


field


methodologists


recommend


strategies


intended


to minimize


reactivity,


they


are


operating


within


the


same


framework


distanciating,


reificatory


research


their


laboratory-bound


colleagues.


At first


glance,


the


problems


that


reactivity


raises


experimental


and


field


researchers


would


seem


to be


quite


different.


their


review


previous


writings


subject,


Foster


and


Cone


(1980)


summarize


the


concern


experimentalists,


using,


as might


expected,


quasi-mathematical


formulation


: "the


problem


with


reactivity


that


highly


variable"


316).


Reactivity


problematic


an experiment


because


independent


variable


observation


does


not


remain


constant


within


across


treatment


conditions


subjects


react


differently


being


observed;


some


are


inhibited


while


others


are


stimulated


presence


an observer.


This


differential


response


enlarges


the


within-group


variance,


that


unexplained


variance


or error


. Thus,


reactivity


an obstacle


to consi


stent


and


therefore


accurate


measurement.


Foster


and


Cone


discuss


additional


challenges


that


reactivity


poses


to epistemological


certainty.


The







They


categorize


several


sets


factors


present


research


situation


that


have


the


potential


to induce


reactive


effects.


One


include


demographic


characteristics


the


participants,


both


subjects


and


researchers.


Such


characteristics


age,


race,


sex,


and


social


standing


have


an effect


on how


both


parties


will


view


each


other


during


an inquiry.


The


consequences


the


researcher-subject


matchup


are


not


at all


easy


to predict


advance

certain:


or control


There


in progress


no way


. One


to eliminate


point,

e these


however,

personal


attributes.


Another


question


being


factors


involves


investigated:


the


the

set


substantive


behaviors


selected


study


one


that


subjects


are


likely


to magnify


or conceal


What


a prior


considerations


determine


the


range


and


significance


the


targeted


behaviors?


What


expectations


both


parties


entertain


about


investigation


and


outcome?


A third


source


uncertainty


stems


from


the


temporal-spatial


framework


the


inquiry.


How


long


should


regimen


observation


last


How


much


does


reactivity


decline


over


time?


How


could


disappearance


altogether


confirmed?


Are


subjects'


self-conscious


responses


confined


the


research


site


or are


they


carrying


over


into


non-research


environment?


How


does


one


distinguish


between







The


crux


the


issue


not


whether


but


to what


extent


behavior


people


that


stemologica


change


reactivity

1 question


a result


provokes

is as tr


being


atypical?


oubling


observed.


This

an ethnography


an experiment.


In both


kinds


studies,


as we


shall


see,


reactivity


construed


as a threat


to validity.


Kazdin


1982)


very


clear


this


point;


claims


study


s validity


depends


on the


representativeness


data.


Reactive


effect


interfere


with


drawing


valid


inferences.


decreases
research


reactivity


in performance,


settings


are


not


prompts


generalizations


valid.


(pp.


increases


non-


11-12)


With


their


emphasis


on careful


measurement


group


differences,


behavioral


methodologists


regard


reactive


effects


as seriously


compromi


sing


explanatory


power


their


experimental


designs.


Unnoticed
recording


that,
inves


or uncontrolled


can


at best,
tigator's


uninterpretable


introduce
introduce


data,


and,


features


sources


variability
at worst,


or misleading.


(Kent


observational


error


into


and


bias


the


render


& Foster,


1977,


280)


Quasi-mathematical


terms


such


"error"


and


"bias"


sense


systematic


mismeasurement)


are


not


normally


part


the


speaking


vocabulary


about


that


field


validity


researchers


their


studies.


use

Yet


when

both


research


feature


paradigms


their


value


samples,


representativeness


experimental


as an important


order


. If







Like


their


colleagues


laboratory,


field


methodologists


regard


reactivity


as a distortion


reality,


one


that


can


be be rectified


techniques


that


minimize


researcher


s presence.


An example


this


intense


desire


to be


able


to look


and


yet


not


seen


looking


can


found


Kenneth


Stoddart


(1986)


recent


review


the


state


ethnographer


s art,


which


claims


that


the


distortions


caused


observation


are


"inconsequential


writing


adequate


ethnographies"


112).


Stoddart


refers


the


field


researcher


s quandary


"the


problem


presence.


How,


short


actually


not


capture


being t
a domain


here,


can


the


exists


ethnographer
independently


his


or her


presence?


106)


The


sees


the


invisible
without


natural


researcher


being


field


observed


without


the
and


ideal


researcher


consequently


tainting


(pp.


who


captures
108-09)


[Ethnographers]


seek
their


o preserve
research


both


presume


this


it in carrying
endeavors. (p.


natural


out
119;


state


and


and reporting
underlining added).


In manuals


of fieldwork


Goetz


& LeComte,


1982)


novice


researcher


are


commonly


told


that


their


presence


causes


subjects


a study


assume


and


convey


unrepresentative


and


inauthetic


images


themselves.


The


so-called


observer


effect


may


lead


participants,


deliberately


misleading


or unconsciously,


data.


to supply


false


109)


In the


initial


dissemble,


what
1, a- %


they


stages


present


think


the


an ide


research,
al self,


researchers


informant
or tell re


should,


s may
searchers


or want


*A A J 1


<"l ^ A \







example,


into


talks


life


"infiltration"


a group"


and


16).


"inveigl[ing]


Other


one


researchers


s way


take


their


subjects


' posturing


as evidence


that


that


researcher


-subject


relationship


basically


adversarial,


one


marked


mutual


concealment


and


distrust.


It is
deals
good
even


taken
with,
reason


expecting
expects o


for granted
perhaps all


to hide
them.


trust


their


from
Instea


return,


to suspect


that


many


people


others
d of t


one


him.


some


what


e people
extent,


they


rusting


suspects
(Douglas,


are


people
others
1976,


one


have


doing
and
and
p. 55


Douglas


claims


that


subjects


use


same


techniques


shielding


themselves


as researchers


use


penetrating


defenses


: misinformation,


evasiveness,


and


misrepresentation.


Technique


Dealing


with


Reactivity


The


difference


between


the


advice


offered


laboratory


and


field


methodologists


addressing


reactivity


is not


one


more


kind


but


explicit.


degree.


They


are


The


less


experimentalist


uncomfortable


are


with


simply


notion


exercising


control


over


subjects


because


basic


their


notion


their


what


inquiries


confers


validity


generate


idea


kind


that


knowledge


lowest


possible


number


explanations


should


assigned


display


of a behavior


Foster


and


Cone


1980)


categorize


into


three


FC. -- a....ae'F, a w


~J~ yl AllA


l, l 1 1.1 a


and


A*IC *r _


ik~C


1I~Y~


n









These


strategies


are


habituation--postponing


data


collection


until


the


reactivity


that


accompanies


the


initiation


study


gradually


declines


as subjects


accommodate


themselves


(become


desensitized)


the


presence


observers;


unobtrusiveness--making


data


collection


less


obvious


through


use


remote


or covert


means


observation


cameras


"bugs,


" and


one-way


mirrors);


manipulation--


withholding


or falsifying


information


about


actual


focus


the


research.


These


three


strategies


have


common


maintaining


a strict


separation


between


the


researcher


and


the


subject


studied


situation.


The


language


experimentalism


counsels


keeping


distance:


"The


observer


should


become


as neutral


a stimulus


as po


ssible


minimizing


interaction


between


server


and


observed"


(Nelson,


Lipinski,


& Black,


1975,


. 345).


contrast,


field


research


said


to be


marked


encouragement


many


levels


contact.


Michael


Agar


(1985),


example,


insists


that


hypothe


the


ses


wrong


intense


, measurement,


guidelines.


personal


traditional


style
making


to meet


involvement,


scientific


situations


control,


not


samples,


and


. Ethnography


instruments


are


requires


an abandonment


an improvisational
the researcher's


. (p.


Yet


fact


remain


that


field


researchers


* a a


*


* -


*


*


q q


q


ii







learning


about


how


group


functions.


Rare


social


group

When


that

the s


invites


scientists


social s

arrive,


scientists


they


to study


bring


scrutinizi


workings.

.ng eyes,


their


own


and


sometimes


mechanical


ones


as well.


It is


those


eyes,

that


searching


sense


patterns,


of hollowness


that


that

was


create


described


an individual


Sartre


(1956)


: Under


the


gaze


an other,


one


becomes


object--all


surface,


no interior.


Thus,


even


though


ethnographers


not


conduct


their


observations


laboratory,


long


their


business


ass


ign


significance


actions


certain


human


beings


edification


a third,


absent


group


human


beings,


their


watching


will


engender


reactive


responses.


In order


to defuse


reactivity


and


move


on to


sphere


behavior


that


drew


the


researcher


setting


first


place,


fieldwork


methodologists,


like


their


experimentalist


colleagues,


recommend


cultivating


techniques


that


render


the


researcher


impact


less


noticeable.


One


aid


in executing


this


feat


duration.


Enough time
visible--and


normal


LeComte,


the


hence


flow


1982,


field


can


make


non-reactive


activities


res


--in


can


resume


earcher


setting
. (Goetz


less
so that


224)


The


longer


disturbing


the


stay,


researcher


mirror


what


stay,
effect


more


who


without


goes


on.


the


likely


observes


being
(Holy,


seen
1984,


s/he


argued, the
ethnographer


less


The


is to resemble


a situation


and


thus


through


without


longer


the


a one-way


disturbing







Stoddart


reactivity


fieldwork


(1986),


"the


accounts


cited


problem


which


earlier


his


presence,


contain


description


" reviewed


a number


discussions


ways


that


ethnographers


have


gone


about


"looking


without


being


noticed.


groups


the


strategies


that


they


reported


into


two


broad


categories:


disattending


and


misrepresenting.


distinguishes


marked


four


variants


an "erosion


disattending,


visibility"


(pp.


all


-111).


them


This


fading


from


sight


accomplished


either


becoming


integrated


into


the


setting


through


such


techniques


establishing


friendships


or by


mimicking


the


characteristics


an average


group


member.


misrepresentation,


Stoddart


reports


that


two


forms


have


been


practiced:


Either


the


ethnographers


mask


their


research


interest


or they


mask


their


identity


entirely.


The


Pursuit


Invisibility


are


now


turning


point


the


discussion


techniques


that


have


been


recommended


reducing


epistemological


uncertainty


observational


research.


have


shown


that


two


major


research


traditions


social


science --the


experimental


and


the


naturalistic--


display a

to direct


similar

attention


discomfort


the


with


the


research


tendency


process


itself.


subjects

The


ra anrn n an r


+ I a r i Sn -


hoon


rrf en4


fnrih


hn>4"


ae an


T


I* Y







steps


which


practitioners


might


approach


this


ideal.


However,


once


we enter


area


practical


advice


cultivating

exclusively


invi


ep:


sibility,


istemologica


we are

l1 issue


no longer

s. The c


dealing


choice


with

what


methods


logistical


use


deci


answer


sion;


our


questions


is an ethical


not


deci


sion


simply


as well.


To quote


Michael


Scriven


(1986),


"methodology


is a normative


subject"


. In


choosing


observational


formats


that


attempt


to keep


research


activity


margins


subjects'


consciousness,


we are


expressing


an attitude


about


our


own--and


also


our


subjects' --capacity


willingness


engage


dialogue.


Engaging


subjects


a conversation


about


our


research


methods


goals


tructed


continued


dominance


positivism


in educational


research


Howe,


1985).


Though


non-experimental


modes


inquiry


such


as ethnography


have


become


common,


they


are


utilized


as an alternative


route


positivist


goal


ascertaining


unequivocal


knowledge


about


a reality


that


independently


observers.


Smith

have


and

been


Heshusius


improperly


1986)

press


claim

d into


that


qualitative


service


approaches


itivist


agenda.


The principal c
for qualitative
to claim the sa


available t
assumptions
*h1h sffCr-l-


concern


now


inquiry


me


that


objectivity


o quantitative


and


how
will
and


inquiry.


preoccupation


i-trmntfnr nn-


with


to generate


allow


this


certitude
This di


techniques


methods
approach
presumably


sregard


have


i nflr1i r


of
had


4 nr4-r


I


mir a 1 +-a4- ,7--


SIl







The


chief


criterion


which


a qualitative


inquiry


judged


to be rigorously


scientific


whether


interpretation


off


ers


objectively


verifiable.


Miles


and


Huberman


1984a)


Qualitative


Data


Analysis


cookbook


researchers'

by empirical


techniques


explanations


assessing


are


evidence.


whether


"saturated"


need


to be confident


field


confirmed

that


another


researcher


facing


data


would


reach


a conclusion


which


fall


the


same


general


'truth


space


'" (Miles


Huberman,


1984b,


22).


In addition,


realism


positivism--the


view


that


certain


"facts"


are


immanent


and


immutable--creates


researchers


press


not


to di


sturb


the


interaction


patterns


that


were


operating


prior


their


arrival.


[Participation]
the object of t


makes


problematic


research


exists


belief


in an external


that


world


the


that,


has


same


like


sense


any


knowable


other


the object
object of


characteristics


any


scientific


that


must


not


science


does


and


inquiry,


be di


sturbed


the


process


of observation.


Holy,


1984,


There


danger


that


the results


will


not


representative


and


his


alter


actions


flow


natural


are


events


a foreign


events.


because


influence


(Diener


the


that


& Crandall,


observer


might
1978,


123)


Another


ontological


distinction


positivism--the


separation


the


knower


from


the


to-be-known


--provides


basis


cultivation


objectivity.


Objectivity,


Charles


Taylor


(1985)


pointed


out,


represents


an effort


j.- - --- - 9 - --


__ _


_ --* __ J


r I


,.., L ,,,,,,,







ascertaining


truths


that


beyond


human


fabrication.


order


carry


out


task


charting


structure


these


fundamental


laws,


positivism


requires


that


kinds


questions


means

and c


asks


transcending


concentrating


decontextuali


zed,


must


"de-anthropomorphized"


site-specific,


contradictory


instead on formulating

nomothetic propositions


. This


narratives


universalistic,

. Transcendent


categories


abstracting


knowledge


and


are


objectifying


attainable


persons


only


and


through


situations.


The


chief


ramification


researchers


of a positivist


ontology


that


reinforce


the


tendency


to focus


abstract


issues


their


discipline:


refining


confirming


theory


and


extrapolating


local


findings


predictive


generalizations.


In defining


as valid


and


legitimate


only


that


knowledge


which


available


to and


consonant


with


an objectifying


point


of view,


researchers


find


their


justification


resisting


subjects


efforts


socialize


study


process


and


make


relevant


and


meaningful


their


present


circumstances.


One


final


comment


about


the


influence


positivism


field


res


earch


the


reduction


subjects


' understandings


status


encourage


data.


fieldworkers


Research


to solicit


manuals


from


definitely


participants


conceptual


categories


that


guide


their


actions


(Bogdan


Biklin,


1982;


Wax,


1971).


But


in reporting


to colleagues,







situation


the


one


time


and


again


advanced


over


one


those


researched"


(Rist,


1981,


271).


Persons


make


no direct


contributions


propositions


inquiry
asking a
inquiry.


that


all


md subje
(Heron,


one


purport
-sided.


icts


to be
The


' actions


about


them.


researcher


alone


are


the


. The


does


focus


the
the


1981,


Summary


point


bringing


together


statements


about


experimental


and


natural


stic


method


research


been


to indicate


their


surprising


similarity


with


regard


reactivity.


Both


traditions


regard


resistance


subjects


their


to being


primary


studied


task:


as distracting


creation


scientists


objectively


from


arrived-at


and


objectively


strategies


verifiable

minimizing


forms


reactivity


knowledge.


that


Both


reinforce


propose


and


the


same


time


shield


the


researcher


position


as an


onlooker.


The


retreat


into


invisibility


leaves


wake


an ethical


question:


Does


the


researcher


s disembodiment


subvert


the


guarantee


to respect


subjects


' personhood?


next


communicative


chapter


and


this


ethical


dissertation


dimensions


I will


the


examine


researcher-


subject


relationship


as it


has


come


to be


codified


the


doctrine


current


"informed


conception


consent.


informed


I will


consent


argue


is the


that


ethical


correlate


voyeuristic


research:


The


contractual












CHAPTER


DEALING


WITH


REACTIVITY


: ETHICAL


ISSUES


boundary


between


epistemological


ethical


issues


research


no means


a firm


one.


All


researchers


studying


human


behavior


face


a similar


dilemma:


can


they


simultaneously


accurate


and


fair?


The


interpenetration


these


two


values--veri


similitude


and


propriety--is


especially


pronounced


research


that


attempts


deemphasize


unnaturalness


systematically


observing


people.


researchers


this

who


chapter

claim t


I examine


hat


the


positioning


ethical


position


themselves


periphery


of subjects


' awareness


is absolutely


essential


describing


human


action


without


distortion.


previous


chapter,


the


problems


that


reactivity


poses


to epistemological


certainly


were


presented.


The


fact


that


subjects


respond


unpredictable


ways


to being


observed


troubles


researchers


loyal


positivist


goal


generating


explanatory


generalizations


that


are


transferable


and


verifiable.


In order


to reduce


subject


reactivity


from


confounding


search


underlying


constants,


researchers


employ


methods


that


disguise


the


actuality


research


undertaking.


This


approach


research,


one


dedicated


to ascertaining the


foundations







obtrusive


observer,


more


reactive


the


subject;


then,


less


obtrusive


observer,


less


reactive


subj


ect.


The


locus


classics


techniques


"meant


to be


carried


without


awareness


or even


cooperation


research


subject


" (p.


145)


Webb,


Campbell,


Schwartz,


Sechrest


1966)


Unobtrusive


Measures:


Nonreactive


Research


Social


Sciences.


The


techniques


reported


first


edition


were


devised


largely


projects


funded


. S.


Navy;


book


was


dedicated


memory


Francis


Galton,


founder


psychometrics.


When


a second


edition


was


published


1981,


the


authors


changed


title


to Nonreactive


Measures


the


Social


Sciences.


preface,


they


explain


change


grounds


that


intervening


years


concern


researchers


has


shifted


away


from


keeping


themselves


unobtrusive


and


more


toward


keeping


this


subjects


change


nonreactive


emphasis


(p.

the


ix) .


An additional


inclusion


a new


signal

chapter


(the


shortest


the


book)


on the


ethics


nonreactive


measures.


Changing


conceptions


"correct"


research


the


dual


sense


valid


and


proper)


theme


thi


chapter.


The


publication


Unobtrusive


Measures


1966


marked


the


apogee


in researchers'


efforts


to shield


their


inquiry


from


the


awareness


subjects.


The


use


hidden


cameras


and


one-way


mirrors


laboratories


and







were


never


again


so fully


sanctioned.


What


happened


between


1966


1981?


Were


rights


of researchers


reduced


expense


of enlarging


rights


subjects?


No doubt


chief


vehicle


that


effected


transfer


of rights


subjects


was


federal


legis


lation


making


the


soliciting


informed


consent


mandatory


government-funded


research


Webb


et al.,


1981,


this


chapter


will


examine


historical


and


philosophical


feature


this


attempted


transformation


res


earcher-subi ect


relationship.


The


discus


sion


organic


following


order:


First,


a brief


historical


sketch


given,


showing


evolution


the


current


concept


informed


consent.


Next


each


rights


and


responsibilities


specified


informed


consent


spelled


out.


The


scussion


then


turns


dilemma


that


thi


ethical


consent,


requirement


mandating


creates


researchers


explicitness,


: Informed


exacerbates


problem


reactivity.


The


reader


is next


through


a series


arguments


that


have


been


successfully


advanced


exempting


certain


forms


"low-risk"


research


from


the


full-disclosure


component


of informed


consent.


In keeping


with


stated


objective


that


these


methodological


positions


are


to be examined


critically,


counter


arguments


are


presented


to support


the


contention


that


the


attenuation


researcher


s obligation


to communicate


fully


with







I conclude


the


chapter


presenting


the


case


that


reactivity


will


always


considered


a liability


research


whose


aim


the


postulation


universal


principles.


A Brief


History


the


Informed


Consent


Requirement


That


consent


antecedentally


from


has


to be obtained


subjects


before


formally


they


and


participate


res


earch


was


first


stated


clearly


Nuremberg


Code


(1946),


derived


from


judicial


summary


made


the


trial


Nazi


against


physicians


humanity.


who


It has


had


since


been


indicted


served


the


crimes


model


subsequent


contractual


arrangements


between


researchers


and


subjects


The


voluntary


absolutely


ess


consent
ential.


the


This


human


means


subject
that the


person


involved
consent;


free


should
should


power


any


reaching
straint


have


legal


capacity


so situated


choice


element


any


without


force,


other


or coercion;


deceit,


ulterior


and


should


to give


to exercise
intervention


duress,


form


have


over-


con-


suffi-


cient
ments
enable


knowledge


the


him


enlightened


and


subject


to make


decision.


comprehension


matter


ele-


involved


an understanding


(cited


and


Burgess,


1985,


149)


The


first


application


these


principles


to a research


setting


the


the


Clinical


United


Center


States


the


occurred


National


with


Institute


opening


Health


(NIH)


1953


(Webb


et al.,


1981,


. 159).


The


NIH


policy


-3 - .1- -


--91-1-3


_ S


1-


1 _ _?


_-- __ _


r







should


be disclosed


to subjects


. Within


the


next


decade,


this


formalized


structure


of on-site


institutional


review


boards


(IRBs)


was


extended


to non-govermental


facilities


wherever


government-sponsored


biomedical


research


was


to be


carried

funded


out.

unless


Since

the


1966,

propose


no biomedical r

d investigation


research


has


been


been


subject


prior


review


colleagues


assure


an independent


determination


following:


protection


subjects


rights


obtain


and


welfare,


informed


appropriateness


consent,


and


method


instruction


used


nature


risks


and


potential


benefits.


In 1971


these


regulations,


which


had


been


codified


biomedical


research


United


States


Public


Health


Service,


were


adopted


toto


the


United


States


Department


Health,


Education


and


Welfare


(HEW)


and


became


applicable


social


science


research


sponsored


that


agency.


efforts


The


decade


on the


part


1970s


of social


was


marked


scienti


strenuous


to extricate


their


work


from


these


federal


requirements.


To little


avail.


Under


leadership


redoubtable


Secretary,


Caspar


Weinberger,


HEW


rejected


arguments


that


sought


distinguish


mild,


temporary


comfort


psycho


-social


inquiries


from


the


life-altering


interventions


medicine.


In two


additions


made


Federal


Register


1974


and







1975,


HEW


asserted


that


a single


policy


protection


human


subjects


avoided


arbitrary


distinctions


between


disciplines


and


had


the


effect


of underscoring


the


interaction


biological


and


behavioral


variables


the


study


of human


beings.


At HEW'


direction,


a National


Commission


the


Protection


Human


Subjects


Biomedical


and


Behavioral


Research


was


established


1974.


After


holding


a number


hearings,


issued


recommendations


The


Belmont


Report:


Ethical


Principles


and


Guideline


Protection


Human


Subjects


of Research


1978).


The


Report


recommended


conduct


that


towards


three p

subjects


principles

: respect


govern


persons,


researcher


beneficience,


and


justice.


The


first


principle


comprises


obligation


to provide


subjects


with


complete


information


about


nature


research;


guarantees


their


right


withdraw


any


time


without


penalty


their


right


to be


apprised


researchers


benefit


findings.


to state

also re


quires


The

risks


second p

involved


principle


and


a strategy


obliges


anticipated


dealing


with


unanticipated


consequences.


The


third


principle


assures


subjects


the


nonviolation


their


rights


to privacy


and


confidentiality.


the


wake


these


recommendations,


leading


professional


organizations


academic


researchers,







such


as the


American


Psychological


Association,


American


Sociological


Association,


and


the


American


Anthropological


Association,


whom


had


drafted


ethical


guidelines


start


decade


when


the


first


press


governmental


supervision


had


begun,


were


forced


to revise


their


ethical


codes


as the


decade


drew


to a close.


Thus


researchers


were


now


obliged


try


and


satisfy


the m

their


oral


compunctions


governmental


funding


three different

source, their


constituencies--

professional


colleagues,


and


their


wary


subjects.


Needless


say,


number


laboratory


field


researchers


strenuous


objected


this


increase


required


pre-approval.


The


issue


legal


precedents


that


link


the


right


subjects


their


status


as persons


will


examined


separate


section.


remainder


this


section


will


briefly


review


some


objections


that


researchers


have


raised


to governmental


regulation


and


professional


codes


ethics


The


original


purpose


federal


government


mandating


(1981)


mechanism


to permit


was,


researchers


according


remain


to Webb


sensitive


et al.


to what


ethically


acceptable


their


local


communities


155).


" In theory,


IRBs


are


communities
conducted,


cnr'i ^i7


expected


to be representative


which


acting


research


as surrogate


( Pnmrnn1 tic


being
e host


11,n \


1Q Fi9







In practice,


they


include


as members


other


professionals--


most


commonly,


lawyers--who


are


not


part


research


institution.


Two


quite


different


perceptions


exist


about


the


restraints


that


IRBs


exercise


over


researchers.


One,


represented


Reynolds


(1982),


that


governmental


regulation


was


required


because


the


ethical


codes


biomedical


and


behavioral


disciplines


did


not


exercise


adequate


The


supervision


development


review o
dramatic


f research
evidence


over


conduct


federal


with


researchers.


procedure


human


failure


prior


participants


associations


to convince


public


that


either


their


members


are
ass


to be


ociations


trusted


are


individuals


to be


trusted


or that


to control


the


them.


103).


Another


view,


exemplified


Tropp


(1982),


that


IRBs,


not


the


federal


government,


have


stymied


innovative


research


with


human


subjects


on the


grounds


that


a possible


controversy


both


would


local


jeopardize


and


the


collegial


standing


community.


institution


Intended


initially


to act


as a fiduciary


agency


guarding


the


rights


subjects,


IRBs


now


serve


chiefly


to protect


reputation


the


research


institution.


IRBs


have


order


apparently


impose


methodology


embarrassment
institution,


their


abused


their


notion


on investigators,


and
and


legal


threat


to achieve


good


scretion in
scientific


to avoid


their


political


ends.


411)


The


chief


criticism


leveled


at professional


codes






have


apparatus.


weak


enforcement


While


they


and


appear


sanctioning


to protect


rese


and


arched,
status


they


more


prof


to confer


session


. (Punc


respectability
h, 1986, p. 8)


Other


writers


, Reynolds


, 198


find


ethical


codes


"useful


extreme


or trivial


cases


which


solutions


are


obvious"


xiii)


Like


Punch,


he claims


offer


little


guidance


resolving


specific


ethical


dilemmas


preci


sely


because


eir


general


language


leaves


individual


researchers


free


judge


moral


appropriateness


their


activity.


There


is obviously


a good


deal


of disagreement


about


use


fulness


and


relevance


of ethical


codes


and


IRBs


helping


researchers


decide


whether


particular


methods


they


choose


to employ


fully


respect


rights


subjects.


To perceive


directly


what


parameters


the


researcher


-subject


relationship


are,


we have


to examine


components


informed


consent


agreement


itself


The


Rights of
Informed


Persons
Consent


Embodied i
Agreement


Defining


right


serves


a dual


purpo


se:


One


restrain


their


infringement;


other


assure


their


observance


Prohibiting


and


guaranteeing


clearly


obverse


relation;


yet


does


not


prevent


ethici


from


speaking


"negative


and


itive


rights


" (Reynolds,


1982,


For


example,


Reynolds


' p.


distinguishes







negative


ones:


the


right


not


to be


deceived,


right


not


to be


harmed


physically


or psychologically,


right


not


have


one


s privacy


invaded


or one


s confidentiality


betrayed.


Thus,


way


a researcher


shows


respect


the


personhood


subjects


to obey


a set


prohibitions.


Webb


et al.


(1981,


152)


also


caution


the


researcher


not


to do


anything


that


would


infringe


capacity


subjects


to act


as autonomous


decision-makers


or would


diminish


dignity


and


uniqueness


a fellow


human


being.


This


exhortation


to avoid


acts


which


not


respect


subj ects


' personhood


predicated


on an exclusively


modern,


Occidental--specifically


capitalist--


conception:


person


an individual


who


owns


the


rights


to her


or his


autonomy.


Therefore,


according


to Reynolds


1982),


a person


may


transfer


or relinquish


his


or her


rights


to gain


some


end


113).


The


action


that


transfers


these


rights


consent.


The


primary


importance as
determination


informed


a mechanism


individuals


consent


respecting


foregoing


the


self-


rights.


Thus


informed


consent,


though


popularly


thought


guaranteeing


certain


inalienable


right


, has


practice


been


construed


as something


considerably


narrower,


namely,


notice


that


subjects


are


mortgaging


some


their


rights


a joint


venture


expected


to yield


new


knowledge.


ink~~~~~1 -*Y a .-a .aA.A


L Al


S.- &. A. a-a


'- a aZ a


* S


m%.,


IlrL


s&.t







Informed


consent


gives


probabilities


they


may


Diener


choose


subj ects


and


freely


& Crandall,


enough


magnitude


whether


information


of risks


to part;


icipate


that
or not.


1978,


Exactly


what


sorts


information


are


to be exchanged


within


exchange


legal

e can


framework


be specified,


informed

four co


consent?


nditions


Even

have


before

to be


present


to meet


test


that


researcher


s soliciting


subjects


temporarily


forego


their


full


autonomy


does


not


violate


central


ethical


mandate


respect


persons.


The


presence


these


conditions


guarantees


that


decision


criteria


to participate


judging


unforced;


whether


they


individual


provide


actually


capable


of giving


consent.


In short,


they


define


what


means


to be


a person


. According


to Reynolds


1982),


subject


must


have


capacity


to make


a rational,


mature


j judgment


freedom


from


coercion


or undue


influence;


information


about


what


is to


occur;


and


comprehension


possible


effects"


These


four


conditions


the


boundaries


researcher-subj ect


relationship.


will


show


Chapter


to what


extent


they


are


coterminous


with


Habermas


conception


communicative


action.)


They


have


been


aptly


summarized


a recent


handbook


the


ethics


research


psychology.


The


focus


rights


is currently


on respecting


to self-determination


and


participants


autonomy


ensuring


that


research


na ri I i cn.i na n


WR~


snt psry


it-n







The

comprise

States D


most


recent


informed


department


formulation


consent


Health


to be


and


the

found


Human


element s


the


Services


that


United

(DHHS)


guideline


published


the


Federal


Register,


January


1981


: 8,


-90).


These


guidelines


accompanied


new


regulations


expediting


prior


review


procedures


certain


types


"low


-risk"


research.


(The


arguments


made


behalf


these


modifications


will


be presented


the


next


section.

subjects


In seeking

researchers


the

must


informed

furnish


consent


at a minimum


their

m the


following


information:


An explanation


the


project


s purpose,


the


expected


duration


the


subject


s participation,


and


description


the


procedures


to be


used;


A description


any


foreseeable


risk


or discomfort;


A description


any


expected


benefit;


A statement


describing


how


the


confidentiality


records


will


maintained;


An explanation


whom


to contact


answers


about


research


and


the


research


subjects


' rights;


and


A statement


that


participation


voluntary,


refusal


to participate


incurs


no penalty,


and


withdrawal


any


time


permit


ssible.


These


six


provisions


assign


basically


two


responsibilities


to researchers:


They


must


respect


subjects







objectives


in advance.


What


it about


these


requirements


that


made


social


scientists


lobby


successfully


their


modification?


Modifying


Informed


Consent


Requirement


Low


sk Research


Additional


sections


revis


1981


DHHS


Guidelines


Federal


Register,


16),


January


1981


: 8,386-88)


exempted


broad


categories


social


res


earch


from


the


full


committee


government


procedures


reversed


required


previous


biomedical


position


research.


that


research


with


human


subjects


required


strict


informed


consent


guarantees


and


accepted


instead


the


arguments


social


science


professions


that


research


activity


exposes


subjects


defined


to "minimal


1981


Guidelines


This


as one


condition


"where


investigator


does


not


manipulate


subjects


' behavior


and


research


will


not


involve


stress"


392).


Thus,


full


consent


subj ects


in all


federally


sponsored


experimental


research


conducted


educational


settings,


as well


as all


nonexperimental


research


surveys/interview


, psychometric


testing,


archives,


direct


observation)


no longer


mandatory


(Gray,


1982).


All


same,


local


IRBs


may


still


require


procedure


order


to show


"institutional


'willingness


to afford


human


research


subjects


protections


nnrq


a rln I -an a 4 -


imrn n1 i 4rn-4


: a,
'9 I a^t..N


*"^ .*


_ ___ ,


I 1%1


irl


~~^^ l- T







The


biomedical


successful


research


separation


was


social


achieved


research


employing


from


a set


distinctions


which


was


then


used


to justify


waiver


informed


consent


on the


grounds


that


social


research


harmless.


Minimal


risk


was


said


to derive


from


inconsequentiality


social


research.


Consider


the


following


dichotomy


presented


to DHHS


National


Commission


Protection


Human


Subjects


Biomedical


and


Behavioral


Research


when


the


process


revising


federal


guidelines


was


going


(1976-1981)


Biomedical


Social


Subject
Setting
Intervention
Benefit


individuals
laboratory
active manipulation
immediate physical
improvement


aggregates
field


passive
gradual


collection
enlargement
self-knowledge


Harm


permanent
(Adapted


damage


from


temporary


Patullo,


1982,


discomfort


378)


Writers


who


support


the


modification


full


informed


consent


requirement


Diener


& Crandall,


1978;


Reynolds,


1982;


Webb


et al.,


1981)


claim


that


unit


analysis


social


res


earch


always


an aggregate


individuals,


specious


some


because


identifiable


the


group.


concept


This


sample,


first


even


dichotomy


where


selection


assignment


random,


presupposes


that


the


individuals


studied


share


membership


some


existing


population


(all


arthritis


sufferers,


14-year


old


males


with


acne),


and


is to


this


group


that


findings


will


nonnnr1 4 PA







These


writers


impute


a further


difference


between


naturally


occurring,


self-selected


group


and


one


assembled


logic


of experimentation.


Whereas


latter


compri


ses


simply


a set


"natural


persons,


" the


former


functioning


collectivityy"


(Reynolds,


1982,


140).


Because


rights


a collectivity


e.g.,


s second


grade


classroom,


regulars


the


Bull


& Brush


pub)


are


less


specified


within


our


legal


system


than


those


person,


model


informed


consent


may


be difficult


implement


or may


inappropriate


protecting


participants


' rights


" (Diener


& Crandall,


1978,


51).


This


argument


reverse


previous


one


about


the


group


being


unit


analysis


social


research,


is equally


specious


SResearchers


may


interest


in a


group


s patterns


of behavior,


but


data


will


always


drawn


from


performances


distinct


individuals


acting


harmony


or conflict


with


one


another.


The


argument


exempting


social


science


from


full


closure


extend


claim


unspecifiability


from


right


naturally


occurring


groups


the


and


benefits


they


face.


Two


reasons


are


given


the


indeterminate


nature


the


risks


and


benefits


social


research.


One


the


now


familiar


limitation


on certain


knowledge


posed


variability.


Predicting


consequences


difficult


because


"what


one


person


may


find


frightening


and







novel"


cause


(Keith-Spiegel


imprecision


& Koocher,


1985,


relativity


398).

the v


The


other


values


risk


benefit.


Such


concepts


are


embedded


society'


value


system,


the


constituting


which


always


"debatable


and


contestable


" (MacIntyre,


1982,


179).


Many


factors


involved


are


thought


to be


intangible.


In most


both


social


risk


limited


judgments


res


harm


a lack


. (Bower


& de


earch,
and c


however,


the


potential


knowledge
Gasparis,


on which


assessment


benefits


to base


Obviously,


though


, judgments


are


made.


The


scale


most


commonly


used


to weigh


risks


against


benefits


a form


utilitarian


analysis


called


"consequentialism"


(Dworkin,


1982,


246).


The


product


this


analysis


most


frequently


expressed


as a ratio:


After


estimating


the


total


risks


benefits


that


may


ensue


from


an action,


the


deci


sion


carry


out


determined


whether


sum


benefits


will


larger,


that


"outweigh"


the


sum


risk


Reynolds,


1982


, p.


11).


There


are


a number


problems


with


this


moral


calculus,


some


conceded


to by


those


who


urge


adoption


anyway.


Despite


complaints


that


a utilitarian


approach


moral


analysis


treatment
to avoid.


research


may


participants,


Resources


are


lead


to a callou


virtually


public


and


choices


impo
must


S
ssible


made.


(Reynolds,


1982


, p.


Reynolds


realizes


that


some


form


quantification


would


required


these


direct


comparisons.


Under


the


nress


nf Mar!Tntvrss


'armrsnmt s!


bhut


1 I.I


.i renl. atti on


I


I l l







MacIntyre (1982)

appropriate only


holds

for w


that


risk/benefit


ell-designed


analysis


controlled


experiments


"conducted


with


view


an immediate


deci


ion


between


alternative


policies"


180).


Another


consequence


inappropriately


applying


risk/benefit


research


ratio


that


to affirm


diminishes


harmlessless


importance


social


social


rese


arch.


"The


more


important


the


phenomenon,


the


greater


likelihood


that


the


research


may


involve


a ri


sk of


negative


effects,


stress


or embarrassment


participants"


Reynolds,


1982,


. 141).


But


methodologists


exaggerate


contrast


between


laboratory


researchers


having


strict


control


field


over


res


a narrow


searchers


slice


mercy


individual


a social


s' behavior


group


and


s whims.


This


self-ascribed


vulnerability


serves


to advance


claim


that


subjects


social


research


are


not


likely


to be


harmed


because


researchers


are


there


to study,


not


treat.


descriptive


--positiv
A low pos
diminish


res


each]


or negative--on


sibility
s the ju


there
the


for negative
stification f


are


no major


effects


participants.


effects
r inform


substantially
ed consent. .


Moral


dilemmas


descriptive


are


research,


substantially


primarily


less


because


dramatic


the


direct


effects


on participants


nonexistent.


(Reynolds,


are


1982


usually


, pp.


modest


140)


Reynolds


represents


perhaps


an extreme


in the


position


that


field


research


markedly


non-interventionist.


the


opposite


end


are


fieldworkers


such


as Walker


1986)


and


Wax


(1 QRA


xAhn


ina4 @4-


4412*


2 f '.'10


c+-1Vt


a 4r tman 4rnan-


mho7


r






ideas


and


concepts


that


may


dramatically


affect


how


participants


think


about


themselves


their


environment.


However,


since


the


nature


changes


that


researcher


likely


to introduce


slanted


toward


increased


understanding,


intervention


usually


not


considered


harmful.


Thus,


both


kinds


researchers,


those


who


see


fieldwork


as studiously


detached


and


those


who


find


unavoidably


harming


disruptive,


subj ects


concur


minimal


that


because


possibility

possibility


affecting


them


minimal.


Both


assess


the


innocuousness


sk by


criterion


that


stress


research


never


exceeds


the


anything


warrant


subjects


generated


encounter


assertion


daily


that


life.


the


Thus


full


disclosure


component


informed


consent


not


necessary


cases


where


the


potential


harm


to subjects


low.


The


problem


with


thi


low-impact/low


-risk


argument


that


enables


social


researchers


to justify


not


sharing


information


on the


grounds


that


what


they


are


investigating


basically


trivial.


can


lead


researchers


to make


arrogantly


Here,


humble


example,


statements


the


about


advice


the


Miles


impact


and


their


Huberman


work.


(1984a)


give


to researchers


who


might


worried


about


their


influence


on subjects'


behavior.


"Don


inflate


the


potential


problem;


you


are


not


really


such


an important


presence


lives


these


people"


233).







communicate


to subjects


that


project


does


not


and


need


not


concern


them.


Further


Erosion


Informed


Consent


Requirement


In addition


to minimal


risk,


DHHS


Guidelines


permit


withholding


information


under


one


other


condition,


name ly,


"when


research


could


not


practically


be carried


without


waiver


or alteration"


(Federal


Register,


46(16).


January


1981,


390).


This


language


crucial


approving


strategies


to circumvent


reactivity.


now


are


position


examine


how


exemption


full


disclosure


component


informed


consent


secures


continuance


positivist


ethical


approach


mandate


to human


to respect


subject


persons.


research


I have


the


already


face


cited


Reynolds'


1982)


casuistical


interpretation


that


informed


consent


is actually


a procedure


allow


individuals


forego


most


(but


not


all)


rights


under


certain


conditions"


. Reynolds


uses


another


sophistic


argument


to support


giving


incomplete


information


to subjects.


He claims


fundamental


feature


of research


inability


predict


consequences


participants"


Inquiry


after


inaugurated


to determine


connections


patterns;


these


were


already


known,


there


would


reason


to conduct


research.


Thus,


complete


information


never


available


outset.


"The


best


investigators


can







But


the


problem


facing


researchers


not


insufficient


information


but


rather


that


any


facts


communicated


outset


(about


the


focus


the


research,


about


previous


findings,


about


the


intended


audience)


will


tend


influence


subjects


' performance.


Every


researcher


faced


with


dilemma


that


the


very


soliciting


informed


consent


incites


reactivity.


is now


knowledge o
does affect
phenomenon.


clear


the


that


details


many
of


experiencing


(Reynolds,


cas
the
and


, p.


es a participant's
scientific objectives


reporting


the


115)


It is


enough


often


highly


information


likely
about


that


subjects


a research


are


given


investigation


in order


to give


informed


consent


they


will


alter


their


the


behavior


inve


ways


tigation.


that
(Webb


will


et al.,


affect


the


1981,


outcome


154)


Explanation
procedures


research


. may


skew


purpose


social


and


some


science


research


results


because


affected


subject


new


s natural


knowledge.


behavior


(Tropp,


1982


will
P.


405)


We find


here


in contexts


discussing


the


ethics


research


the


same


objections


to reactivity


that


were


raised


the


previous chapter

associated with


s review


reactivity.


the

Most


epistemological

methodologists


problems

are


convinced


process


the


that


itself,


distribution


detailed


biases

and d


explanation,


subjects


duration


like


the


responses.


these


observation


They


reactive


know


effects


that

are


not


specifiable


a second


level


observation,


reactivity


conceived


as an artifact


observation


process


itself.


Monitoring


these


distortions


starts







recedes.


They


regretfully


conclude


that


presence


reactive


effects


positivist


seriously


goal


confounds


research


a study


--the


s findings.


discovery


Thus


immanent


structures


of social


thwarted.


Only


one


exit


remains


out


this


epistemic/ethical


cul-de-sac,


and


that


is to recommend


legally-sanctioned


procedures


designed


minimize


subjects


' awareness


research


activity.


Justifications


Restricting


Awareness


Onc

consent


a researcher


provides


accepts


a mechanism


notion


minimizin


that

g the


"informed

prospect


later


concern


then


for a

makes


n ethical


sense


breach"


try


(Webb

secure


et al., 19

permission


8


1, p.

while


providing


as little


information


as possible.


is normally


sufficient


tell


subjects


that


the


complete


purpose


study


cannot


shared


with


them


until


afterward"


Diener


Crandall,


1978,


44).


The


routine


withholding


of complete


information


consent


stage--a


practice


often


referred


as "deception"--has


been


widely


reported


discussions


ethics


both


experimental


and


field


research


Keith-Spiegel


& Koocher,


1985;


Menges,


1973


Peshkin,


1984;


Punch,


1986;


Suls


& Rosnow,


1981).


Field


researchers


have


been


particularly


candid


about


what


they


perceive


to be


absolute


nececes


sity


deception


their


work.


Peshkin


1984),


example,


states







The


consensus


value


because


are


they


lost.
have


S. is


that


without


Participant


no other


deception,


observers


alternative


things


deceive


they


are


granted


access


. (p.


259)


The


crux


or active,


other


means.


the


matter


enables


you


(Punch,


that


to get


some d
at data


ecept
not


ion, passive
obtainable b


1986,


But


is not


merely


getting


past


the


gatekeepers


that


makes


researchers


"play


down,


gloss


over


or be


evasive


about


ultimate


purpose


research


and


outcome


" (Bulmer,


1980,


60).


Full


explanations


are


not


provided


because


researchers


are


convinced


"deception


helps


to minimize


distortion"


(Peshkin,


1984,


259).


Peshkin


certain


that


only


not


communicating


their


own


beliefs


can


researchers


hope


to capture


subjects


customary


behavior.


Additional


argument


have


been


advanced


on behalf


res


tricted


(1986


finds


closure


"informed


about


research


consent


objectives.


unworkable


Punch


some


sorts


observational


research"


because


serves


reduce


participation


the


powerful.


They,


much


more


than


powerless,


are


a position


to refuse


to participate.


Thus,


same


procedure


intended


to protect


vulnerable


and


deviant


populations


used


their


overseers


escape


scrutiny.


The


obvious


status


differential


those


who


accede


and


those


who


decline


to be


studied


confirms


Herbert


Ke Iman


(1972)


description


researchers


the


establishment


s private


detectives.


-- -


i


m i


1 I. I


.


I -







characteristic


most


human


interaction.


normal


social


intercourse


a person


who


totally


honest


unbearable


and


socially


immature"


Punch,


1986,


. The


encouragement


strategic


communication


worries


some


writers


on the


ethics


research.


Bulmer


(1980)


and


Warwick


(1982


both


warn


that


when


researchers


withhold


information


from


subjects,


even


sound


methodological


reasons,


they


sow


seeds


of distrust


and


suspicion


the


setting,


thereby


reinfor


cing


public


s perception


social


scienti


manipulative


and


self-serving.


The


Case


Against


Incomplete


Disclosure


"For


between

rigor"


practicing


professional

(Menges, 1973,


researcher,


ethical


there


principles


1033).


This


and


sense


a trade-off


methodological


of having


compromise


exactitude


sake


fairness


haunts


research


loyal


the


positivist


ideal


objective,


disembodied


researcher.


The


maintenance


a di


screpancy


between


researchers


' and


subjects'


knowledge


inquiry


guarantees


an adversarial


tenor


relationship.


. research


against


each


each


other


will


other,


about


pit


subject


probably


what


the


and


raising


other


investigator
the suspicions


doing,


but


methodologically


of such
(Menges


suspicions
, 1973, p.


incapable


and


verifying


evaluating


their


exi


stence


consequences.


1034)


Other


objections


can


lodged


against


researchers


__ *


- S .a_.__ -_


,L-L..- F-







their


subjects,


are


also


circumscribed


tacit


assumptions.


Gunnar


Myrdal


(1969)


attributes


researchers


' constricted


awareness

illogical


extent


partiality


pursuit


prevailing


detachment


storical


their

; they


vision


their


underestimate


contingencies


when


the

they


strive


a decontextualized


vantage


point.


Research


contestational


enterprise,


and


participants


become


committed


emotionally

thorough in


as well


vestigation


intellectually to the

of a problem requires


issues.


inspecting


close


at hand


as well


as at


arm


s length.


We diminish


our


own


and


our


subjects


' humanity


when


we choose


to perceive


only


from


a di


stance.


Our


unwillingness


to declare


our


fallibility


cloaked


cultivation


objectivity.


Pretending


to be


partially


present


and


also partially


absent


is more


than


deluded;


socially


disruptive.


According


to Alasdair


MacIntyre


(198


, pretending


"undermines


all


our


most


taken-for


-granted


assumptions


about


interpretation


behavior


others"


182).


MacIntyre


likens


the


actions


the


fieldworker


spy's:


Both


court


familiarity


to disguise


their


outsider


status


and


both


are


insincere


about


the


depth


their


engagement.


. behind


the


overt


surfaces


and


disclosures


spy
and


s behavior
intentions;


withhold


himself


a whole


moreover, w
or herself


while


undisclosed


the


spy


motives


tries


systematically


in his


her


encounters


with


others,


or she


the


same


time


-~. S -S


. R


.I


1







MacIntyre


distinguishes


between


"harm"--the


physical


psychical


distress


that


informed


consent


alerts


subjects


to--and


"wrong"--a


moral


infraction


agreement


does


not


addre


ss.


Researchers


may


be said


wrong


subjects


when


they


breach


promise


to regard


subjects


as persons,


that


as rational


agents


. In


deciding


whether


to give


consent,


rational


agent


has


to be able


to consider


all


facts


relevant


to inaugurating


and


sustaining


a relationship.


When


researchers


decline


to communicate


their


objectives


fully,


they


are


short


ircuiting


agent


s decision-making


capacity.


Even


acts


passive


deception


interfere
actions.
agent in
choosing


1982


, p.


with


[They]


voluntary


limit


ignorance


one
247)


action


character


voluntariness


facts


rather


that
than


are


f [the
keeping


agent
the


relevant


another.


(Dworkin,


Dworkin


speculates


that


researchers


resort


to pretense


because


they


not


believe


that


persuasion


would


work.


purely


rhetorical


approach


securing


participation


would


require


that


speaker


and


stener


hold


some


beliefs


common.


In practice,


researchers


do not


have


the


same


interest


that


as subjects.


reciprocation--an


As a result,


exchange


not


either


surprise


goods


concepts--rarely


occurs


a research


setting.


This


not


that


all


methodologists


recommend


non-engagement.


contrary,


continuously


redirecting


line


inquiry


response


to emergent


concerns







essence


dialectical,


[ethnographic]


or feedback


method


that


interactive-reactive


method"


Similarly,


Corsaro


1985)


states


"the


nature


ethnographic


research


demands


that


the


sampling


procedures


also


be reactive


to developments


the


course


research"


33).


Such


statements


assert


the


potentiality


conducting


research


were


a two-way


conversation.


Yet,


as I


have


shown


this


chapter,


researcher


are


not


quite


willing


question


informed


involve


subjects


or answering


consent


Even


requirement


either


framing


under


which


goad


enjoins


a research


the


respecting


subjects


self-serving


estimates


' intelligence,


arguments


of what


researchers


not


happening.


have


devised


communicating


The


their


conversation


ingenious,


own


continues


to be


one-sided,


with


subjects


asked


to do


most


talking


while


stream


a conception


researchers


behavior.


research


impassively


This


which


reticience


judges


document


have


changes


attributed


worthwhileness


to be


the


extent


to which


conclusions


are


transferable


from


one


researched


situation


many


unresearched


ones.


that


they


may


generalize,


researchers


try


to minimize


the


impact


their


presence,


the


chief


way


being


to restrict


the


amount


information


they


provide


about


themselves.


Researchers


cannot


justice


ideal


open







theories


about


purpose


research.


Both


experimental


cautious


an


canon


d field

about s


research


scientific


traditions

reasoning:


obey

for


a similar,

conclusions


to be valid


and


reliable,


they


must


based


uncontaminated


and


unequivocal


evidence.


This


methodological


caution,


or rigor


sometimes


called,


creates


a press


toward


retrospectivity,


that


a looking


to discover


principle


currently


operation,


in contrast


prospectivity,


a creating


new


sets


relations.


The


consequence


this


cons


serving,


non-di


sruptive


outlook


execution


both


kinds


of research


favoring


unidirectionality


communicative


roles


sketched


out


informed


consent


agreement.


Researchers


seek


subj ects


approval


of entering


relationship:


researchers


into


subjects


the


a short


are


auditors.


to be


Holding


-term


monologic


speakers


subjects


and


first


person role

intimacy and


researchers


equality


that


third


comes


from


prohibits


alternately


the

occupying


sec


person.


informed


consent


to bring


about


bi-directional


communication


researcher-subject


relationship,


different


theory


about


function


research


is required.


Such


a theory,


one


powerful


and


comprehensive


enough


project


research


as enlightening


conversation,


does


exist.


It is


to be


found


Habermas


' writings


ideal


speech













CHAPTER


RESPECTING


REACTIVITY


: THEORETIC


AND


PRAGMATIC


JUSTIFICATIONS


FOR


COLLABORATIVE


RESEARCH


first


three


chapter


I have


posed,


and


answered


the


negative,


following


question


about


reactivity:


tendency


subjects


to become


self-


conscious


and


acutely


interested


their


observers'


intentions


adequately


addressed


an antecedent


declaration


concerning


respect


their


rights


as persons?


I have


argued


that


because


the


epi


stemological


situation


labile--on


being


served,


human


beings


voluntarily


and


involuntarily


adjust


their


behavior--researchers


have


had


request


exemption


from


full


disclosure


component


informed


consent


order


to maintain


a steadfast,


sequestered


vantage


point.


this


chapter


propose


to set


forth


a broad


interpretation


ethical


ideal


implicit


informed


legalistic


consent:

restraints


Instead


conceiving


on researchers,


I want


as a set of

to demonstrate


potential


engendering


collaboration


between


researchers


and


subjects.


In order


to explicate


a revised


conception


this


relationship--from


adversaries


to coworkers--it


will


necessary


to consider


alternatives


the


positivist







nomothetic


goals


positivism


to conduct


social


scientific


inquiries


has been


questioned


repeatedly


see,


most


recently,


Comstock,


1982


Guba


& Lincoln,


1983


maj or


tenets


of positivism--defining


as real


only


those


phenomena


amenable


to measurement


and


manipulation,


distinguishing


statements


prediction


sharply


value,


control


between


generating


of human


statements


covering


behavior


facts


laws


(Bowers,


and


increase


1978)--one


in particular


been


singled


out


as especially


inappropriate


proponents


two


other,


rival


paradigms


SOC


science


research.


These


paradigms--the


interpretive


and


the


critical


(see


Bernstein,


1983;


Bredo


Feinberg


, 1982)--are


united


their


assault


positivist


notion


truth-as-correspondence.


The


ontological


ition


itivism


assumes


there


a reality


independent


of human


mind(


our


knowledge


this


reality


(unchanging,


immanent


truth)


is commensurate


with


degree


to which


our


statements


approach


and


match,


that


correspond


this


underlying


reality.


The


chief


consequence


working


within


a realist


ontology


is a strong


preoccupation


with


accurately


measuring


the


extent


to which


our


recording


captured,


instruments--and


as impassively


ultimately


as a mirror,


the


our


minds--haved


contours


this


reality.







In place


a truth-as-correspondence


view,


opponents


positivism


argue


truth-as-agreement


view


(Miller,


1986).


mind


this


ontological


-dependent;


constructed


perspective,


a modifiable


out


reality


framework


understandings


meaning


that


prevails


among


any


coherent


community


language


users


. The


chief


consequence


operating


within


a "consensual"


ontology


necessity


to explore


how


historically


situated


social


actors


use


language


to define


and


understand


one


another.


Among


the


social


situations


requiring


a negotiation


definitions


order


arrive


at mutual


understanding


research


situation


itself.


theoretician


today


has


provided


a more


complete


or more


compelling


picture


the


ideal


symmetrical


communication


within


res


earcher-subj ect


relationship


than


Juergen


Habermas


1971,


1973,


1983,


1984).


Habermas'


theoretical


work


is central,


even


though


there


has


been


no dearth


call


from


field


methodologists


increased


sharing


research


tasks


with


subjects.


Variously


termed


participativee,


" "interactive,


or "collaborative,


close


" these


involvement


proposals


the


are


people


marked


being


appeals


"observed"


generating


and


validating


new


knowledge.


Several


these


appeals

While t


will


hey


examined


contain


the


reasonable


second


and


part


persuasive


this


argument


chapter.

ts for


including


subjects


genesis


and


execution


a study,







justification


their


recommendations.


Habermas


on the


other


hand,


has


last


years


been


dedicated


constructing


a comprehensive


"logic"


types


social


scientific


inquiry,


which


justification


collaboration


occupies


a crucial


conceptual


role.


Construing


Research


as a Hermeneutical


Activity


Habermas


is heir


to a long


tradition


German


philosophy


that


insi


the


language-drenched


nature


Gei


steswissenschaf ten,


social


or human


sciences


opposed

1983).


the


It is not


physical or

pertinent


natural


this


sciences (Polkinghorne,

dissertation to review


this


tradition


that


originates


with


Kant.


Suffice


say


that


makes


a sharp


distinction


between


phys


ical


and


social


achievable


sciences


through


: Understanding


mastery


the


logical,


former


artificial


language


mathematics


whereas


under


standing


the


latter


no other


medium


save


the


semantics


ordinary


language.


Moreover,


objects


study


natural


sciences


studies


do not


talk;


quite


opposite


case


social


sciences


. It


is no exaggeration


say


that


language,


specifically


how


human


beings


use


to create


and


communicate


meanings,


preeminent


object


study


well


social


The


scientist


discernment


s chief


meaning


analytical


what


makes


tool.


social







scientists


intercourse


but


people


daily


life.


as they


Bringing


carry


forth


out


a convergence


these


divergent


understandings


a goal


of the


philosophical


tradition


within


which


Habermas


works.


Habermas

tradition


has

for


criticized


their


some


latent


his


positivism.


predecessors


sees


in this

the


writings


Verstehen


theorists


(such


as Dilthey


and


Weber)


a tendency


treat


understandings,


value


systems,


and


core


beliefs


as data,


root


sense


something


given,


as opposed


to something


contingently


constructed


rhetorical


engagement


between


speakers


belonging


different


traditions.


this


conception


hermeneutics


a conversation


within


and


across


cultures,


dialogue


occupies


a crucially


important


place


Habermas


' logic


the


social


sciences.


It is


through


dialogue


that


the


assignment


meaning


intention


accomplished.


A dialogic


orientation


permits


interpretation


that


is to be


affixed


to behavior


emerge


after


an unconstrainted


exchange


of divergent


perspectives.


conversation


For


are


Habermas,


obliged


the


to make


speakers


clear


the


bases


hermeneutic


their


judgments.


Habermas


makes


absolutely


clear


that


participants


any


investigation


social


life


are


engaging


acts


self


and


mutual


definition


and


are


operating


from


specific


sets


interests.


Researchers,