Ethnography and Public Scholarship: Ethical Obligations,Tensions,and Opportunities

Alice Goffman, Success and Controversy

Sociologist Alice Goffman, who conducted her doctoral work at Princeton University with advisor Mitchell Duneier, received immense praise for her study. The American Sociological Association (ASA) awarded the study with its Dissertation Award (Lewis-Kraus, 2016). Well-known public figures such as Cornel West, Malcolm Gladwell, and Christopher Jencks lauded the book, published by The University of Chicago Press. A year later, Goffman (2015) performed a TED Talk which, at the time, received approximately 1 million views.

Amid lionization, critiques began to accumulate. Sociologist Victor Rios (2015) accused Goffman of theoretical and analytical carelessness; he portrayed the ethnography as a jungle book narrative—a metaphor he developed to describe flawed, self-aggrandizing tales of ethnographers who portray themselves as entering “dangerous” urban settings and surviving to write about their adventures with the natives (Rios, 2011). Others questioned the veracity of the account and ethics of the fieldwork (Betts, 2014; Kotlowitz, 2014). A group of 128 “students, alumni, and allies” at Pomona College wrote a petition when the university announced Goffman as a 2-year visiting professor (“April 21st Letter to the Pomona College Sociology Department,” 2017). They requested the college rescind the job offer, stating, “It is especially troubling that Goffman’s publications have been critiqued as racist, sensationalist and unethical. If no action is taken, the Sociology Department will knowingly provide Goffman with a platform to promote harmful research methods.” Pomona College upheld the appointment (Claremont Independent, 2017). The University of Wisconsin–Madison (2015), where she was an assistant professor, released a statement of support:

The University of Wisconsin-Madison has carefully considered the misconduct claims and found them to be without merit. The critiques are all part of scholarly . . . The work of Dr. Goffman is important and she continues to have the full support of our university as the conversation on her work continues.

Law professor Steven Lubet (2015a, 2015b) presented the most trenchant critiques. Applying his own legal expertise along with conversations with local legal authorities, he questioned statements and events. Most importantly, he examined the conclusion of the ethnography when Goffman discussed the murder of a participant and the quest for his murderer. Lubet claimed that, based on Goffman’s account, she perpetrated a crime, conspiracy to commit murder. He concluded,

[A] high-profile case such as Goffman’s provides an opportunity to draw bright lines. What should an ethnographer do when asked to participate in a murder plot? When do the police need to be informed about the perpetrators of a homicide? These do not strike me as difficult questions. Disdaining the police in favor of vigilantism is not ethically responsible behavior. And it certainly falls below the standard of conduct that should be expected of scholarly researchers.

Lubet (2018) continued his critique of Goffman, in particular, and ethnographers, in general, in Interrogating Ethnography. The legal expert extended Duneier’s metaphor of the “ethnographic trial,” a thought experiment that explored the implications of calling participants to testify in a court of law. Lubet argued that ethnographers ought to adapt legal techniques to ensure truthfulness in research. ²

In the special issue, we explore key issues related to ethics, ethnography, and public scholarship. Goffman’s case operates as an entryway to at once familiar and still often unanswered questions. We do not wish to present Alice Goffman as a villain or to add to a considerable chorus of unkind critiques. Goffman apologized. We assume she was sincere. We also recognize that she is a young scholar who, like all researchers, ought to be allowed to improve. No design, after all, is perfect; no study is mistake free. Some of the critiques have been disconcerting. We do not excuse. However, we argue that it is possible to be both critical and kind while examining one’s work. Goffman’s case, at the risk of oversimplification, illuminates the promise and peril of public scholarship.

Ethnography and Public Scholarship

Public scholarship, as Clemens and Tierney define it in their article, is “dialogue with multiple publics—e.g., scholars, policymakers, activists, mainstream audiences, etc.—to inform social issues, facilitate deliberative participation, and promote public interest and social justice.” Public scholarship as an ideal has long-existed. C. Wright Mills (1959/2000), for example, petitioned scholars to connect social inquiry with public concerns, to translate complex theories into common language that may inform public dialogue. In recent years, it has become an even more pronounced goal for academics—even if evidence suggests the benefits, at least for promotion and tenure, still pale in comparison with traditional outputs like peer-reviewed journal articles (Alperin et al., 2018).

When ethnographers engage public audiences, they invite methodological scrutiny. Assuming the best practices and intentions, venturing from the relatively safe—and sometimes obscure—confines of academia to more public venues like news outlets and social media platforms poses both benefits and risks. The audience expands from a coterie of academics to an assortment of readers. There is a considerable difference between a critical review in a journal and headlines in The Chronicle of Higher Education and The New York Times.

Core methodological assumptions and commitments exacerbate tensions. Even within the field of qualitative inquiry, scholars have failed to establish universal criteria to judge the worth of research (Lincoln, 2001) or standards to guide ethical practice (Bosk & De Vries, 2004). Overarching (and perhaps overreaching) ethical guidelines vis-á-vis federal regulations guide social inquiry; unfortunately, the standards often do not capture the nuances and idiosyncrasies of qualitative research (Lincoln & Tierney, 2004). The misalignment ill-prepares researchers for the field, exposes them to potential ethical conundrums in the field, and makes them vulnerable to critiques from outside observers.

Prominent controversies illustrate the need to reappraise the too-often cloistered activities of ethnographers. Research processes ought to be more public and scholars ought to be more accountable (Anfara et al., 2002). Of course, as Rhoads points out in his article, researchers must balance transparency of research with commitments to and anonymity of participants. A number of the papers explore a central question: What are the implications of making private acts public?

Considering external influences, Denzin and Lincoln (2018) identify four threats—the political, epistemological, ethical, and economic right—to qualitative inquiry. The political right values experimental designs for policy-relevant research; methodological conservatives reject the merit of qualitative research. The epistemological right values antiquated views of qualitative research, founded on positivist assumptions. Qualitative research, they argue, is useful insofar as it aligns with mainstream beliefs. The ethical right endorses standards and procedures based on the medical model; they reject innovative methodologies that empower communities and democratize research endeavors. The economic right reinforces the capitalistic underpinnings of research; members support an audit culture that sets seemingly objective measures to determine the success or failure of scholarship and scholarly activities. In doing so, they marginalize work that does not conform. The four categories provide a useful typology to anticipate potential critics and critiques of ethnography as public scholarship.

Academics have embraced emergent technologies and explored new venues to interact with audiences, for example, funders, policymakers, and the general public. A common theme among the papers in the special issue is the impact of technology and social media. It both enables and constrains. As Lester notes, social media affords novel representations of the research process and engagement with diverse stakeholders. And yet, the internet, an infrastructure developed to pursue capitalistic purposes, may also serve to amplify voices and mute others.

Scholars encounter dangers seen and unseen when engaging with multiple publics. The research landscape has become more complex, diffuse, and political. Think tanks, non-profits, foundations, and universities vie for voice and impact. Partisan groups present advocacy-based work as legitimate research. Stakeholders use and misuse legitimate research as tokens to accomplish political goals (Henig, 2008); the uses fray the threads of authorial intent. Social media platforms allow research stakeholders to share work across mediums. The diffusion, however, has undermined the centrality of databases, the clear repositories of scholarship in the past. Even more, politicians have weaponized the idea of fake news to undercut evidence-based news and policies. These factors combine to create a public arena defined by uncertainty and unpredictability. As a result, scholars must anticipate potential issues, benefits, and risks.

Special Issue Overview

The papers discuss the ethical obligations, tensions, and opportunities related to engaging in public scholarship. The special issue begins with Clemens and Tierney’s “The Role of Ethnography as Ethical and Policy-Relevant Public Scholarship.” The article provides a discussion of the role of ethnography for public scholarship. The authors present the fundamental elements of both ethnography as methodology and public scholarship as a pursuit and product. Adopting Gramsci’s discussion of traditional and organic intellectuals (Forgacs, 2000), they suggest a range of activities with public and private audiences, including writing books and policy reports, encouraging research involvement, lecturing to a range of audiences, and developing university-school partnerships. They emphasize the importance of recognizing personal commitments and reconciling them with audiences with a plurality of views, views that may conflict. They argue both ethics and quality anchor endeavors to create and share scholarship. Strategies, namely, prolonged engagement, member checking, and audit trails, are central to improve public scholarship. The authors emphasize the critical role of ethnography as policy-relevant research; as a result, acknowledging the potential for scrutiny and prioritizing the rights and well-being of participants, scholars must consider how to best conduct and present research.

In “‘Whales Tales’ on the Run,” Robert Rhoads discusses anonymization in ethnographic work. He compares Goffman’s case with his own experiences related to research, a cultural analysis of fraternities, for his master’s thesis and later an article, “Whale Tales, Dog Piles, and Beer Goggles” (Rhoads, 1995). The original article, based on an ethnographic case study, found that the fraternity encouraged negative portrayals of women and narrow conceptions of masculinity. He concluded that, while fraternities changed the pledge process, they continued to encourage oppressive beliefs and practices. When published as the thesis, controversy ensued. Members of the fraternity and a board of trustee requested that the university censor the thesis. Rhoads undertook a number of steps to demonstrate how he followed IRB protocol and employed rigorous data collection and analysis techniques. At the conclusion of the investigation, the university requested the author change one word.

Rhoads argues that a tension exists because of the obligations of an ethnographer to present detailed descriptions and protect participants’ identities. Technological trends and developments including inquiry openness and digital archives magnify threats to anonymity. IRBs further complicate researchers’ commitments as the ethical standards and procedures of IRBs, based on the medical model, do not always align with qualitative research. Rhoads notes, for instance, the importance of power and privilege. As an example, he cites IRBs’ requirement to include university contact information on consent forms. He wonders how likely participants are—particularly, participants from marginalized groups who have endured institutional discrimination—to contact a university if they observe the researcher committing ethical violations. He concludes with an appeal to social scientists, in general, and ethnographers, in particular, to reexamine standards and practices for anonymization and ethical obligations toward participants.

Jessica Nina Lester, in “Going Digital in Ethnography,” explores the affordances of conducting research online. The author examines the blurred boundaries between notions public and private. Just as Rhoads notes the shortcomings of viewing promises of anonymity as either/or propositions, Lester problematizes the “public-private binary.” She notes that individuals in public spaces often assume their words and expressions are private. The blurred spaces create dilemmas for obtaining informed consent.

Connected to public and private spaces, Lester discusses the ethical implications of viewing data as preexisting documents versus data as the product of individuals. That is, how are people and the content they produce related? Does an Instagram post and subsequent comments represent a conversation among individuals or a public document detached from individuals? Lester concludes with a discussion of the potential benefits of “going digital.” She argues digital spaces afford unique mediums to represent the research process, transforming the static and traditional methodological section in a journal to a dynamic and innovative multimedia presentation on social media. Using Fielding’s (2012) notion of “citizen researchers,” she argues that technology can empower individuals to contribute to scholarship. The researcher concludes with examples from her research with Dee, an individual who self-identifies as autistic, to demonstrate the transformative potential of digital technologies in pursuit of understanding.

The special issue concludes with Yvonna Lincoln’s “What Do We Want to Tell? And to Whom Do We Want to Tell It? The Ethnographer’s Ethical Dilemma.” The author interrogates enduring ethical and methodological questions. As the title indicates, tensions arise for the ethnographer, who has the tripartite obligations of presenting a rigorous and truthful account; protecting all involved in the research, including himself or herself; and following the duties and responsibilities of a public citizen.

Lincoln assumes a stark position that she acknowledges may shock fellow ethnographers. She argues that public scholars have a preeminent obligation as public citizens:

Where is the conversation regarding what we owe the larger community of citizens, as citizens? Where is the conversation regarding respect for the law? Where is the discussion regarding the rights of the intended victim? Claiming membership in the knowledge production community does not obviate our duty or obligation to act with prudence and foresight when imminent danger to another life is threatened.

Public scholars, she contends, must adhere to accepted codes of conduct. As each of the authors of the special issue note, ethical guidelines fail to account for the nuance and complexity of ethnographic research. Lincoln asserts that, when considering revisions to guidelines, scholars need to account for the role of researchers as public citizens.

Conclusion

The editors argue that the benefits of public scholarship outweigh the risks. The papers discuss multiplex obstacles; they also emphasize immense possibilities. Yes, the research landscape is fraught with hidden motivations and often empty—but influential—discourse. As the papers in the compendium demonstrate, we must investigate what public scholarship is and who public scholars are. This involves a more thoughtful and critical engagement with the assumptions and purposes of public scholarship. It requires universities to develop guidelines for and structures to reward public scholarship.

Why is ethnography important? Ethnographers rely on prolonged engagement in communities and strong, trust-bound ties with participants. The methodology excels at examining taboo topics with marginalized groups. Ethnographers often pursue lines of inquiry to contest dominant forces against and promote equity for minoritized groups. The task requires ethnographers to design and conduct rigorous studies, to collaborate with participants, to immerse themselves within cultural groups and participate—to varying degrees—in daily activities. In short, ethnographers are uniquely positioned to contribute to public dialogue. ³ Researchers must reaffirm their commitment to being arbiters of knowledge. Recognizing the importance of Mills’ (1959/2000) appeal to encourage the sociological imagination, ethnographers have the ability to inform, contest, and reframe discussions of social issues and justice.