W2A-011 Sociology in Belfast-0.txt
Madeleine Leonard

'Doing the Double' in Belfast

The Politics of Sensitive Research

SOCIOLOGISTS, when they carry out research, enter into personal and moral relationships with those they study, be they individuals, households, social groups or corporate entities (BSA Statement of Ethical Practice 1992). These relationships become increasingly problematic where research involves studying topics that are sensitive. According to Sieber and Stanley (1988), socially sensitive research refers to studies in which there are potential consequences or implications, either directly for the participants in the research or for the class of individuals represented by the research. The overall research project to be discussed in this article was concerned with examining the extent and significance of informal economic activity in an estate characterised by high long-term unemployment located in West Belfast. Part of the research involved assessing the extent of welfare benefit fraud within the chosen area. Clearly this aspect of the research can be considered sensitive, as individual respondents or indeed the whole community may be harmed by the results and publication of research. Sensitivity affects almost every stage of the research process from formulation through design to implementation and dissemination (Lee and Renzetti 1990). According to Plummer (1983) sensitive research raises methodological, technical, ethical and political problems, as well as having potential effects on the researcher's life. This article is concerned with highlighting some of the main problems associated with studying a sensitive issue in a politically sensitive locality. Rather than revealing conclusive answers to the methodological questions that sensitive topics pose to researchers, the article will attempt to add to the growing debate by discussing some of the difficulties faced, and how I addressed them.

RESEARCH DESIGN

Duelli Klein (1983) points out that 'the "what" to investigate must come prior to the decision of "how" to go about doing one's research.' Clearly, if the issue under investigation is a sensitive one, this restricts the range of methods that can be utilised to study the topic. For example, in researching any group, the question arises immediately as to who or what to sample. However, the more sensitive or threatening the topic, the more difficult sampling is likely to be, because potential participants have greater need to hide their involvement (Renzetti and Lee 1993). Sensitivity renders random sampling impractical. Two of the major strategies that can be used for sampling special populations that are deviant in some way are the location of locales within which sample members are likely to be found and the use of snowballing strategies to gain access to respondents.

In relation to my research, the estate I focused on was deliberately chosen, as it represented the peak unemployment area in Northern Ireland. The high levels of unemployment which plagued the estate were documented in a number of reports and surveys (e.g. McAuley 1986). Moreover, the estate was the focus for considerable negative media attention, being widely acknowledged as a dumping ground for 'problem' families. This presented a number of moral and ethical problems. While my overall intention was to look at the various forms of informal economic activity prevalent in the estate which fell outside conventional definitions of work as equal to formal employment, it was obvious that some of these activities would border on illegality. This particularly applied to criminal activities and 'doing the double' which refers to working informally whilst simultaneously collecting welfare benefits. Uncovering levels of social security abuse involves potential negative costs to those participating in the research. I was aware from the outset that individuals and indeed the whole community may be harmed by the results of the research. Moreover, perhaps I could be accused of holding preconceived prejudicial attitudes by initially deciding to focus on that area. Negative images of'scrounging Catholics'abound in the media and the research could enhance the credibility to these biased viewpoints. Finally, from an ethical viewpoint, have I the right to expose the 'wrongdoings'of others for the sake of demonstrating the fallacy of equating work with formal employment? There are no easy answers to any of these issues. I could justify my decision to locate the research in the estate by stressing that my choice was mainly motivated by my part-time employment in a community school in the area. Hence I felt that this avenue would enhance my access to the wider community. Whether this justification removes the moral and ethical dilemmas posed by the research is debatable. All the researcher can do is constantly reflect on the heightened responsibilities to respondents in terms of privacy, confidentiality and anonymity where respondents are being asked to reveal incriminating information about themselves. The fact that sensitive topics pose complex issues and dilemmas for researchers does not imply that such topics should not be studied (Lee and Renzetti 1990). As Sieber and Stanley (1988) point out: "...sensitive research addresses some of society's most pressing social issues and policy questions. Although ignoring the ethical issues in sensitive research is not a responsible approach to science, shying away from controversial topics simply because they are controversial, is also an avoidance of responsibility."

The remainder of this article will deal with the methodological, technical and ethical issues inherent in studying sensitive issues.

METHODOLOGICAL AND TECHNICAL ISSUES

When dealing with sensitive topics, the researcher has to primarily decide which style of research is best-equipped to overcome respondents'resistance (Brewer 1993). Bearing in mind the sensitive nature of the topic and the sensitive natures of the estate itself, I felt that a questionnaire which asked about controversial issues such as 'doing the double', especially when put by a stranger, would not only be unreliable because of the reluctance of respondents to give truthful answers, but also could be a potentially dangerous activity. Rather, I felt that qualitative research based on participant observation and extensive unstructured and semi-structured interviews were best suited to my purposes. Brewer (1993) suggests that qualitative methods have special qualities for dealing with controversial topics in sensitive locations, as they entail a gradual and progressive contact with respondents which is sustained over a long period, allowing a rapport to be slowly established.

My initial and preferred research method was to utilise the snowball sampling technique. Snowball sampling has particular qualities for dealing with deviant populations. Contacts with one or two well-known and trusted people in the area can be utilised to gain access to a wider sample of respondents. Moreover, initial contacts can be actuated to vouch for the researcher. Morrissey et al. (1984) suggest that this is the only feasible way of researching social security abuse. Working in the community school within the estate provided me with a number of key informants and I intended to gain access to the wider community by interviewing my informants'social networks and associates in a snowball pattern. While snowball sampling throws up problems of representativeness, nonetheless I felt that this was the only way I would be able to gain meaningful data on informal economic activity. Throughout my period of working in the community school, I heard countless'stories' of how various bureaucrats, particularly 'dolebusters', had gained information on the work patterns of the unemployed in the area by pretending to be researchers carrying out door-to-door interviews. These'stories' were related to me with such frequency that they further increased by misgivings about the survey method.

However, after adopting the approach for one year, I decided to supplement the methodology by carrying out a survey of the area. I became unhappy with the snowball technique for several reasons. Firstly, the method proved very time-consuming. Long periods lapsed between respondents expressing their willingness to pass me through their social networks and these contacts materialising. Even when interviews were arranged, often the setting was the community school rather than the respondents'households. It seemed logical to my contacts that the community school should serve as an interview base and they stated that this would enhance the willingness of their associates to talk to me as anonymity would be assured. However, I felt that often these interviews took place in an artificial setting and valuable data was lost by separating respondents from their household environment. As time progressed, I became increasingly dissatisfied with the quality of the data I was collecting. Sample sizes were small. Respondents were interviewed mainly in isolation from their households and the wider community. Hence, after one year in the field, I decided to supplement the data I had already collected by carrying out a survey of one in four households in the estate, generating a sample size of 150 households.

THE SURVEY

One of the most difficult aspects of the survey was walking up the garden paths to the individual houses and convincing the occupants to allow me to come in and interview them. As Homan (1991) points out, the interviewer on the doorstep stands at the frontier of private space. I often felt like a salesperson trying to sell some unwanted and unnecessary item. In gaining access to households and obtaining information, I was greatly assisted by the fact that I originally came from a Catholic working-class area in West Belfast, situated about two miles from the area studied (although I might add that until my employment in the community school, I had never been inside the estate where the research took place). Burton (1978) illustrates how the process of 'telling' permeates social relationships among Catholics and Protestants in Belfast. 'Telling' is the patterns of signs and cues by which religious ascription is arrived at in everyday interactions of Protestants and Catholics. It is based on the social significance attached to, among other things, name, face, dress, area of residence and school attended. Burton (1978) argues that, in particular, the area one lives in, is of paramount importance for the Belfast working class. Hence interviews were often preceded by attempts by respondents to pry into my background. I must admit that I welcomed these intrusions into my personal life and indeed often initiated conversations around issues which enabled me to establish some sort of co-membership with individual respondents.

Feminist researchers (Oakley 1981, Kennedy Bergen 1993) advocate the use of self-disclosure or reciprocity on the part of the researcher as a means of overcoming participants'inhibitions. Once it was established that I was one of them, trust and confidence were often secured. On the other hand, this relationship places greater responsibility on the researcher and intensifies the ethical issues concerned with studying both a sensitive topic in a politically sensitive area.

PRAGMATIC COMPROMISES

I told all respondents that I was using a pseudonym for the estate and that while this would enhance anonymity, I could give no guarantees that the location would remain secret. Barnes (1979) argues that a pseudonym only offers a partial disguise. Most individuals are able to recognise themselves and through time one's colleagues come to share the secret of where the research was based. However, Barnes argues that even if a disguise is transparent, it may still serve a useful purpose in that it may shield the area from casual approach. Identities remain uncertain and ambiguous and this may provide some useful protection if a powerful outsider tries to use the research as evidence against the respondents. I also gave assurances that pseudonyms would be used to describe all persons mentioned in the data. Hence individual identities would remain anonymous, except perhaps to co-residents in the estate, who may recognise individual identities in the final report. Thus no space existed on the questionnaires for the names and addresses of respondents and this was illustrated to each household. This proved important, as on several occasions I was stopped and searched by army patrols in the area, in full view of the residents of the estate. Taylor (1988) argues that, at various times, researchers have been forced into hiding or have had to leave Northern Ireland, due to unfounded fears that research materials were finding their way to the security forces. The above incident served as a timely, though unnecessary reminder, of the highly-politicised natures of the social field within which the research was located. Throughout the survey, I had to make a number of pragmatic compromises which departed from the textbook portrayal of ideal research practice. Brewer (1993) suggests that when research involves sensitive locations and/or topics, the pragmatic compromises multiply in number and in the degree of departures from ideal practice. Given these considerations, the main method utilised was the loosely structured interview, using an interview schedule containing mainly open-ended questions. I decided to omit direct questions on the illegal aspects of informal economic activity from the interview schedule. Rather I hoped to introduce this aspect casually during my interaction with the respondents. Brannen (1988) suggests that researchers into sensitive topics need to tread warily, particularly at the beginning of interviews, and not reveal all their hand at the outset. She further states that it is important not to prejudge the research problem by labelling it or defining its boundaries too closely; respondents may thereby define the problem in their own terms. Hence, in relation to this study, while all the interviews were structured by an interview schedule, the natural progression of the conversation dictated the final nature of the interviews. The interviewing proved to be a very time-consuming process. When interviewing, my intention was to allow the research topic to emerge gradually in its own terms. This often meant that respondents would become totally absorbed in talking about their own lives. Often the issues covered were not directly related to my research interests. In these circumstance, my inclination was not to interrupt. As a result, often respondents would give away telling information about themselves which sometimes was at odds with earlier responses, especially those given in answer to direct questions. Moreover, during the conversations, I wanted to adopt as unobtrusive a role as possible. Therefore I felt that writing down everything that was said would interrupt the natural flow of the conversations. Hence while responses to direct questions were noted, conversations were generally trusted to memory. Rather only key words and phrases were jotted down. Usually interviews were only carried out one at a time. Once the interview ended, I left the estate immediately to write down the informal conversation. This was due to distortion in memory recollections. Again this meant that the process was very time consuming. Interviews lasting three or four hours were not uncommon and this was generally followed by a number of hours spent recalling conversations.

COMMON PROBLEMS
The approach outlined above throws up other problems. The flexible manner in which the interviews were carried out may have implications for the reliability of the material gathered. In some households I sensed an atmosphere of suspicion and hostility and felt it unwise to motivate discussions on the illegal aspects of informal economic activity. In this respect, the interviews were not consistent and valuable data may have been lost due to my personal interpretation of the situation. The final account of the research makes much of the informal conversations I had with the respondents. The problem remains, to what extent can I utilise these informal conversations as trustworthy data? There is no easy solution to this problem. While there was a high level of internal consistency within the data encouraging me to treat the data as provisionally reliable, nonetheless I do not want to reduce the issue here to a simple claim of truth in repetition. At the end of the day, whether or not the approach was successful or not is best left to the judgment of the reader of the overall account.
