Ethnographic Intimacy: Thinking through the Ethics of Social Research in Sex Worlds

Abstract

Ethnographic researchers entering sensitive fields of research become entangled in ethical dilemmas when they encounter ‘sticky’ questions, situations and issues. In undertaking research within two distinct sex worlds: female sex work and male sexual negotiation/risk and HIV, we struggled to manage the contingent links between our relationships with the people who inhabit these worlds, the ethical requirements of our institutional ethics committees, and our hybrid selves. In the context of ‘doing’ intimate ethnography, we were required to craft ourselves into the field and establish a number of intimate and prolonged relationships. While the participants in our studies were active in giving their consent, this did not obviate the risk that they would become objectified within the field relationship and the texts the research generated. These issues are central to our discussion as we consider the lack of fit between ethical guidelines and the practical reality of fieldwork.

Sex Work Research, Ethics Review Processes, and Institutional Challenges for “Sensitive” Collaborative Research

“…As noted previously, REB-researcher exchanges can facilitate productive and rigorous discussion and debate (Sanders, 2006; Pérez-y-Pérez & Stanley, 2011). Such discussions can indeed bring about the development and implementation of more protective, respectful, and thus more ethical research protocols.…”

“…Audience responses to a version of this article presented at the Law and Society Association conference in 2020 (Ferris et al, 2020) suggest that sex work researchers around the world are making difficult decisions about when and how to engage with REBs. We agree that training researchers to scrutinize sex work and other sensitive studies with exceptional care and precision prior to REB submission is important (Dewey & Zheng, 2013;Pérez-y-Pérez & Stanley, 2011;Sanders, 2006). We are also interested to engage at both the community-and institutional policy levels to ensure that this fraught labor does not disempower our community research partners, or discourage new research in our field.…”

“…For example, ethnographer Sanders (2006) notes, “one of the first stumbling blocks for the researcher (especially students) is gaining approval for the project from the internal institution’s ethics committee” (p.451). Ethnographers Pérez-y-Pérez & Stanley (2011) attribute similar barriers to “strong stereotypes and potential dangers” connected to the sex industry. Like Sanders, they note that protocols for sex work studies are “over scrutinised and charged with queries that expect more insight from the novice researcher” than might reasonably be expected (Sanders, 2006, p.453).…”

“…We must find ways, then, for community assessment of their own levels of risk to be prioritized, especially when/if community researchers are speaking for themselves in research protocols submitted for REB review. We appear already to be sharing some preparatory training, particularly for junior researchers, through more traditional academic means (Dewey & Zheng, 2013; McCracken, 2020; Pérez-y-Pérez & Stanley, 2011; Sanders, 2006). There is room, however, to further develop this training, perhaps through informal but less public networks such as “old school” national or transnational listservs for sex work researchers.…”

Researching Ulster Loyalism: The Methodological Challenges of the Divisive and Sensitive Subject

“…As recognised regularly by ethnographers (Murphy and Dingwall, 2007; Pérez‐y‐Pérez and Stanley, 2011), the recording of authentic testimony demands the establishment of a degree of intimacy and trust between researcher and research subject. During my research I was confronted by two particular challenges to this task that were particular to loyalist groups.…”