I suppose my real concern with this is how much of the advice seems to be concerned with the rights of the researcher and academic freedom rather than, as I would suggest, the vulnerability of the objects of research. It seems to me that this is putting the cart before the horse (to put it mildly) and as someone who spent a long time working in the homeless sector and as a refugee officer I would say that the researcher is more than welcome to take what risks they want for themselves but they have no right to do it for anyone else.
So let’s begin with the facts – being in the UK without leave to enter/remain is a crime; employing someone who has no legal status is also a crime. Therefore, interviewing someone who lets you know they are without legal status and/or working without legal status gives you knowledge of a crime being committed. It does not matter whether you or I believe that this activity should be treated as a crime or think the law is offensive and stupid. Immigration is being used increasingly for political point-scoring here just as in the US and it would be naive in the extreme to assume that just because you're an academic researcher you won't become a hapless scapegoat if you walk into this without thinking clearly about it. In this respect, the examples Bradley gives of working with prostitutes and heroin addicts are spurious; being a prostitute in the UK is not illegal and neither is being a heroin addict - being an illegal immigrant is... which is why they're called 'illegal'.
After the introduction of the Proceeds of Crime Act in the UK in 2002, the duty to report crime in a variety of new areas was introduced. As Tim Crook put it: “The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 has increased the scope of mandatory reporting…. Unlike existing duties to report, the obligations in the Proceeds of Crime Act apply to all criminal offences.” (Legal Duties of Academic Members of Staff and Researchers in relation to Criminal Law, By Tim Crook, Senior Lecturer, Media & Communications, March 2007).
I don't know whether the Proceeds of Crime Act has yet been applied to illegal migrants and illegal labour and I don't care; the remit of the Act makes it quite plain that it could be. My earnest in suggesting these possible legal complications was in response to the request for information and it seems to me that this would be at least a good area to get legal advice in and to ask your supervisor about, i.e. to make good and goddam sure you and your material are not only legally in the clear but can't be used against your research subjects.
In respect of which, Section 333 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 is about tipping people off before you report them – where this comes in is with the part of the ethical declaration that warns your subject that if you are given knowledge of a criminal act you will have to report it. The authorised disclosure part in section 338 makes it an offence to ‘tip off’ someone that a disclosure has been made, so your ethical declaration itself could constitute a breach of the Act…
Finally, I really don’t care about ‘the bureaucrats’, any more than I care about ‘sticking it to the man’ – the foremost concern in this case should be, above all do no harm. Can you GUARANTEE that the legal/procedural/methodological framework of your research will do no harm to a subject group who are the focus of a truly dirty realpolitik and the special object of interest of a highly political government organization (the Border Agency)? If not, then don’t do it.
Jon
Dr Jon Cloke
Lecturer/Research Associate
Geography Department
Loughborough University
Loughborough LE11 3TU
Office: 01509 228193
Mob: 07984 813681
________________________________________
From: A forum for critical and radical geographers [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Bradley Garrett [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 12 March 2012 16:09
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Managing criminal activity disclosures of participants
Come on Jon, don't let the bureaucrats control where, and with who, we do our research - we are perfectly capable as researchers of assuring anonymity and being loyal to both our project participants and our academic institutions. The fact that many of these people are, as you say, the "most miserable groups of workers in the UK" is exactly why we should be out there working with them to give them a voice, even if it has to be through us, in anonymity. Menah, there is a long history of the Chicago school of Sociology working with people undertaking criminal activity including prostitution and drug use - it was vitally important work! You will need to do this carefully as Jon says, change names of people and places, use coded field notes with the key somewhere else, burn papers you're done with, stay out of photos, do whatever you have to do, always keeping the stakes in mind.
Erika Sigvardsdotter at Uppsala University has been doing work with asylum seekers for the past 3 years - she has developed and interesting ways of hiding the identities of her project participants and may be able to help (though I know she is under the pressure of writing up right now). I undertook recreational trespass for my PhD but my project participants were pretty open about the criminal activity they were undertaking so I did not have the same concerns. However, following my ethnography meant breaking the law myself - a good ethnographer doesn't give up when the work becomes uncomfortable.
In any case, there are a lot of case studies form anthropology and sociology that should be of use like Agar's work with heroin addicts: http://www.amazon.com/Ripping-Running-Ethnography-Addicts-Language/dp/0128021500. I say read what's been done and how they did it, develop a careful methodology, tell ethics what they need to hear and go for it. You may actually have a shot at undertaking a project with some social relevancy and policy implications. We should all strive for as much.
__________________________________
Dr. Bradley L. Garrett
P: +44 (0)759.054.9322
E: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
W: http://www.placehacking.co.uk
"The ongoing wow is happening right now."
- Speed Levitch
On 12 Mar 2012, at 15:31, Jonathan Cloke wrote:
If you knowingly talk with people who are undocumented you are by definition talking to people who have broken the law. Chapter 2 of the Border Agency’s ‘Immigration Offences and Breaches’ states: “To enter without leave is to enter in breach of section 3(1) (a) and therefore constitutes illegal entry as defined by section 33(1) of the 1971 Act as amended by the 1996 Act.” (http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/documents/policyandlaw/enforcement/oemsectiona/). It then goes into the various penalties that can be levied, and believe me these folks don’t mess around.
If you find out (accidentally or on purpose) that someone is sans papieres your ethical application therefore makes it plain that you are expected to report the fact. If you don’t, you are complicit in a breach of a law – it is also possible/probable that if the Border Agency finds out what you’re up to and they even think you’re talking to undocumented immigrants then they may require you to hand over information and take you to court if you refuse – they could also use your information to track down whoever you talk to and then prosecute you anyway.
You need to think really, really carefully about what it is you’re about to do to the women you interview. If they all have legal documentation then that isn’t a problem – which kind of begs the question as to why you need the legal disclaimer in the first place. Are you under the impression that migrants are more likely to commit criminal offences, or is this ethical application a set of weasel words by which you can get the ‘thrill’ of talking to ‘illegals’ but still convince yourself that you’re remaining within the law?
Never mind gaining the trust of an already ‘hard to reach’ group, have you really thought through the damage you can do to what must already be one of the most miserable groups of workers in the UK? Are you prepared to accept the consequences of your involvement in what is a highly-politicized area of government policy, not just for yourself but for the people whose ‘trust’ you might establish and then have to betray anyway?
Dr Jon Cloke
Lecturer/Research Associate
Geography Department
Loughborough University
Loughborough LE11 3TU
Office: 01509 228193
Mob: 07984 813681
________________________________________
From: A forum for critical and radical geographers [[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>] On Behalf Of Menah Raven-Ellison [[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>]
Sent: 11 March 2012 21:11
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Managing criminal activity disclosures of participants
Dear all,
I’m keen to get some advice on managing the potential disclosure of criminal activity when conducting qualitative research. My sample includes migrant women living in the UK with varying immigration statuses, some of whom may be 'undocumented'. My recent ethics application has been conditionally approved subject to the assertion that I will make it clear to participants that I do “not wish to learn of any criminal activity (on the part of the participant or others) that has not already been dealt with by the Courts… With the participants being aware that anonymity could not be guaranteed in the event of a criminal disclosure”.
This raises a number of concerns not least exacerbating existing challenges of gaining the trust of an already ‘hard to reach group’. Does anyone have any experience of managing anything similar or can offer any advice/references?
Many thanks,
Menah
--
Menah Raven-Ellison
PhD Student
Senior Occupational Therapist
Department of Geography
Queen Mary, University of London
Mile End Road, London E1 4NS
+44 (7824) 902 688
|