Research Ethics under Fascism: Protecting Participants and Ourselves

• In Event: 30659 - Public Sociology and Engaged Scholarship Part II

Abstract

Sociologists have long committed themselves to studying marginalized and stigmatized populations. We often hope that a scientific and sympathetic understanding of these populations will inform efforts to remedy societal injustices. Central to these initiatives is qualitative research that centers participants’ experiences. However, research on populations deemed deviant or criminal may attract unwanted attention that can lead to political backlashes, various forms of harassment, and legal battles that put both researcher and participant at risk. In this article, we are concerned with the risks associated with the qualitative study of populations that have been rendered vulnerable by their increased politicization, including undocumented immigrants, parents of trans youth, and gender-affirming care providers. We begin by situating ourselves in the contemporary political climate, focusing on recent developments that have revealed the fragility of our research institutions and practices. To understand the threats posed by a political climate that is hostile to science and higher education, we review the history of legal and political threats to research activities. We center a few case studies of sociologists who have faced opposition to their research from the government, law enforcement, corporations, private citizens, and private interests. While we join others in advocating for threat modeling techniques that can inform strategies for protecting ourselves and our research participants, we focus on the larger ethical questions that come with conducting such research. Thus, we develop a complementary “ethics modelling” approach in which researchers should consider whether or not the research can be performed safely and effectively given their political, legal, and institutional context. We argue that researchers should consider employing non-intrusive methods of investigation or focus on “studying up” when they are uncertain about their ability to safeguard respondents. Finally, we bring our review to bear on recent conversations regarding data transparency given these threats.

Authors

• Peter Forberg, University of California-Berkeley

• Kristen Schilt, University of Chicago