Taking sides?: issues of bias and partisanship when researching socio-political conflict
The article unpacks the issues of bias and partisanship - and the risk of being accused of these - which confront social scientists who study socio-political conflict. Drawing on the author’s experience when conducting research on the conflict between animal liberation activists and their state and...
| 1. VerfasserIn: | |
|---|---|
| Medienart: | Elektronisch Aufsatz |
| Sprache: | Englisch |
| Veröffentlicht: |
2017
|
| In: |
Critical criminology
Jahr: 2017, Band: 25, Heft: 2, Seiten: 231-244 |
| Online-Zugang: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Journals Online & Print: | Lade...
|
| Verfügbarkeit prüfen: | HBZ Gateway |
| Schlagwörter: |
| Zusammenfassung: | The article unpacks the issues of bias and partisanship - and the risk of being accused of these - which confront social scientists who study socio-political conflict. Drawing on the author’s experience when conducting research on the conflict between animal liberation activists and their state and corporate adversaries in Britain (1999-2014), the article argues for a relational research approach - focusing on the interaction between contending parties, rather than study stakeholders singly - as a way to overcome challenges of taking sides when studying socio-political conflict. The debate generated by Howard Becker’s classic essay "Whose side are we on?" (1967), now 50 years old, is used throughout the article as a point of reference for addressing the issues involved. The argument is made for constant reflexivity during research on radical social movements, and for "temporary bias" during qualitative fieldwork. |
|---|---|
| Beschreibung: | Literaturverzeichnis: Seite 243-244 |
| ISSN: | 1572-9877 |
| DOI: | 10.1007/s10612-017-9355-x |
