Whose Side Are We On?

Abstract

T o have values or not to have values: the question is always with us. When sociologists undertake to study problems that have relevance to the world we live in, they h d themselves caught in a crossfire. Some urge them not to take sides, to be neutral and do research that is technically correct and value free. Others tell them their work is shallow and useless if it does not express a deep commitment to a value position. This dilemma, which seems so painful to so many, actually does not exist, for one of its horns is imaginary. For it to exist, one would have to assume, as some apparently do, that it is indeed possible to do research that is uncontaminated by personal and political sympathies. I propose to argue that it is not possible and, therefore, that the question is not whether we should take sides, since we inevitably will, but rather whose side we are on. I will begin by considering the problem of taking sides as it arises in the study of deviance. An inspection of this case will soon reveal to us features that appear in sociological research of all kinds. In the greatest variety of subject matter areas and in work done by all the different methods at our disposal, we cannot avoid taking sides, for reasons firmly based in social structure. W e may sometimes feel that studies of deviance exhibit too great a sympathy with the peo le studied, a sympathy reflected in t Re research carried out. This feeling, I sus ed, is entertained off and on both I ! y those of us who do such research and by those of us who, our work lying in other areas,

Child sexual victimisation: ethnographic stories of stranger and acquaintance grooming

“…The clearest benefit of ethnographic research is that it gives a voice to those communities who are labelled as deviant, or who are marginalised, and allows an understanding of the meaning such individuals and communities attach to their everyday lives (Becker, 1967;Hobbs, 2007;Yates, 2004). Furthermore, Hobbs' (2007, p. 204) review of "deviant ethnographies" notes how the ethnographic method requires a commitment to personal observation, interaction and the witnessing of the experiences of those being studied, and because of this, it is an adaptable tool.…”

Racism versus Professionalism: Claims and Counter-claims about Racial Profiling

“…In Henry and Tator's view, both denials are racist. Becker's (1967) approach, on the other hand, while appealing, is too categorical and insufficiently recognizes that competing definitions of the situation may both be correct.…”

“…We may profitably draw upon Becker's (1967) seminal article with reference to the biases that are inherent in all forms of research. Becker convincingly argues that responsible officials level accusations of bias precisely because they are accountable.…”

“…These denials are explained either as a form of democratic racism or, from the vantage point of Howard S. Becker's (1967) hierarchy of credibility, as outright lies told by those in power in order to protect their prestige and authority. In this paper, we want to suggest an alternative perspective on the issue of racial profiling.…”

Bearing Witness to the ‘Pain of Others’: Researching Power, Violence and Resistance in a Women’s Prison

“…Confronted with the reality of 'being there', of 'bearing witness', the critical prison researcher responds to the fundamental challenge famously posed by Howard Becker to fellow researchers: 'Whose side are you on?' (Becker 1967). The 'sides' are both conceptual and interventionist, illustrated by the dichotomous relationships between rehabilitation and incapacitation, between care and custody.…”