FIELD RESEARCH AND FOCUS GROUP RESEARCHpersonal relationship in addition to their researcher-
researched person relationship. Based on deep
trust, a member may share intimate secrets with the
field researcher alone. As Howell (2004:346) found
in her study of women from Oaxaca, Mexico:
Ethnographers typically present detailed descrip-
tions of their subjects’ lives and circumstances to
portray fully the cultural and personal events. Yet
informants may try to hide from the general public
the more sensitive of the myriad topics... including
infidelity, wealth accumulation, criminal activities,
and violence... culturally and personally sensitive
subjects—such as sexual assault—may be difficult,
if not impossible, to probe with strangers and
acquaintances.... When informants volunteer infor-
mation about these experiences, standard channels
for maintaining ethical guidelines are invoked....
The situation becomes more delicate when infor-
mation is volunteered as a confidence between
“friends,” one of whom is also an ethnographer in
a position to publish potentially damaging secrets
from another’s life.... The importance of present-
ing as accurately as possible the realities—including
violence and fear of violence—that affect inform-
ants’ opportunities and choices compels ethnogra-
phers to discuss these carefully guarded secrets that
are not necessarily revealed within the researcher-
researched paradigm. Yet doing so reinforces the
importance of considering anew the issues of confi-
dentiality, betrayal, and power....3.Involvement with illegal behavior. Re-
searchers who conduct field research on people
who engage in illegal, immoral, or unethical behav-
ior know of and are sometimes involved in illegal
activity. Fetterman (1989) called this guilty knowl-
edge. Such knowledge is of interest not only to law
enforcement officials but also to other field site
members. The researcher faces a dilemma of build-
ing trust and rapport with the members, yet not
becoming so involved as to violate his or her basic
personal moral standards. Usually, the researcher
makes an explicit arrangement with the deviant
members.
4.The powerful.Many field researchers study
society’s people who are marginal and powerless
(e.g., people who live on the street, the impover-
ished, children, low-level workers in bureaucra-
cies). Some criticize researchers for ignoring the
powerful, yet the wealthy and powerful people in
society have effective gatekeepers and can easily
block access. At the same time, elites and officials
criticize researchers for being biased in favor of the
less powerful.
Becker (1970c) explained this by the hierarchy
of credibility. It says that those who study people
who are powerless, criminals, or low-level subordi-
nates are often viewed as being biased, whereas
people with official authority are assumed to be
credible. Many people assume that people at the top
of organizations have the right to define the way
things are going to be, have a broader view than
people at lower levels, and are in a position to do
something. Thus, “the sociologist who favors offi-
cialdom will be spared the accusation of bias”
(Becker, 1970c:20). Researchers who immerse them-
selves in the world of people who are disadvantaged
by developing an in-depth understanding of that side
of social life and then publicize a rarely heard per-
spective may be accused of bias simply because they
are giving a voice to a rarely heard sector of society.
5.Publishing field reports.The intimate
knowledge researchers obtain and report on can
create a dilemma between the right of privacy and
the right to know. Researchers cannot always reveal
all secrets they learn without violating privacy or
harming reputations, yet failure to make public
what the researchers have learned keeps that infor-
mation and details hidden. When the researchers
are not giving a complete and accurate account of
events, others may question a report that omits crit-
ical details.
Some researchers suggest asking members to
look at a report to verify its accuracy and to approve
of their portrayal in print. Such reviews of studiesGuilty knowledge Information of illegal, unethical,
or immoral actions by the people in the field site that
are not widely known but the researcher learns.
Hierarchy of credibility Concept of ranking of
believeability that refers to situations in which a
researcher who learns much about weaker members
of society whose views are rarely heard is accused of
“bias” while the views of powerful people are accepted
as “unbiased” based on their high social status.