IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/socres/v14y2009i2p60-69.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

‘You Don't Know How Lucky you are to be Here!’: Reflections on Covert Practices in an Overt Participant Observation Study

Author

Listed:
  • John S. McKenzie

Abstract

There has been a tendency in sociology to see covert and overt roles of social researchers in participant observation studies as opposites. This is both in terms of the researcher role and the surrounding ethics, with the overt researcher role being seen as fundamentally more ethical than the covert participant observer. However, Calvey (2008) alleged that covert practices often remain unreported in overt accounts. The purpose of this paper is therefore to address this issue through reflections on my own research experience. Drawing on my research with the contemporary spiritual milieu in Scotland, I will argue that the covert and overt roles are far from opposites and should be seen as part of a continuum. The moral high ground attributed to overt research is often questionable and most overt studies will employ covert practices. It will therefore be argued that decisions regarding the role of the participant observer should be grounded in the intellectual contemplation of specific research situations, including ethical considerations, rather than condemning sound social enquiry on the misguided basis that overt research is always superior to covert studies because of its ethical standards. In conclusion it will be argued that all researchers have a responsibility to reflect honestly upon their research experience as part of wider reflexive turn in social research.

Suggested Citation

  • John S. McKenzie, 2009. "‘You Don't Know How Lucky you are to be Here!’: Reflections on Covert Practices in an Overt Participant Observation Study," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 14(2), pages 60-69, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:socres:v:14:y:2009:i:2:p:60-69
    DOI: 10.5153/sro.1925
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.5153/sro.1925
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.5153/sro.1925?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rose Wiles & Graham Crow & Vikki Charles & Sue Heath, 2007. "Informed Consent and the Research Process: Following Rules or Striking Balances?," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 12(2), pages 99-110, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. John S. McKenzie, 2011. "Keeping It Real!: Constructing and Maintaining Traditional Authenticity in a Tibetan Buddhist Organisation in Scotland," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 16(3), pages 94-105, August.
    2. Ann Nilsen & Julia Brannen, 2014. "An Intergenerational Approach to Transitions to Adulthood: The Importance of History and Biography," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 19(2), pages 1-10, May.
    3. Andrew Upton, 2011. "In Testing Times: Conducting an Ethnographic Study of UK Animal Rights Protesters," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 16(4), pages 13-21, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Brian Pickering, 2021. "Trust, but Verify: Informed Consent, AI Technologies, and Public Health Emergencies," Future Internet, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-20, May.
    2. Hélder Raposo & Sara Melo & Catarina Egreja, 2022. "Data Protection in Sociological Health Research: A Critical Narrative about the Challenges of a New Regulatory Landscape," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 27(4), pages 1060-1076, December.
    3. Reed, Kate & Ferazzoli, Maria Teresa & Whitby, Elspeth, 2021. "“Why didn't we do it”? Reproductive loss and the problem of post-mortem consent," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 276(C).
    4. Liz Stanley & Sue Wise, 2010. "The ESRC's 2010 Framework for Research Ethics: Fit for Research Purpose?," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 15(4), pages 106-115, November.
    5. Kate Reed, 2010. "The Spectre of Research Ethics and Governance and the ESRC's 2010 FRE: Nowhere Left to Hide?," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 15(4), pages 120-122, November.
    6. Kate Reed, 2007. "Bureaucracy and Beyond: The Impact of Ethics and Governance Procedures on Health Research in the Social Sciences," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 12(5), pages 80-84, September.
    7. Hayley Davies, 2008. "Reflexivity in Research Practice: Informed Consent with Children at School and at Home," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 13(4), pages 17-30, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:socres:v:14:y:2009:i:2:p:60-69. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.