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...
| Autor principal: | |
|---|---|
| Tipo de documento: | Electrónico Artículo |
| Lenguaje: | Inglés |
| Publicado: |
2017
|
| En: |
Critical criminology
Año: 2017, Volumen: 25, Número: 2, Páginas: 231-244 |
| Acceso en línea: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Journals Online & Print: | Gargar...
|
| Verificar disponibilidad: | HBZ Gateway |
| Palabras clave: |
| Sumario: | 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. |
|---|---|
| Notas: | Literaturverzeichnis: Seite 243-244 |
| ISSN: | 1572-9877 |
| DOI: | 10.1007/s10612-017-9355-x |
