Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

The ethics of researching unlikeable subjects

The ethics of researching unlikeable subjects Abstract This article explores ethical conundrums in linguistic research on online platforms populated by ‘pick-up artists’ (PUAs), a community that learns and practices speed-seduction for short-term mating. Originally a male heterosexual community, PUAs encourage men to use manipulative strategies to select, pursue, isolate and sexually conquer women ( Hall, Jeffrey A. & Melanie Canterberry. 2011 . Sexism and assertive courtship strategies. Sex Roles 65(11). 840–853). Using so-called ‘field reports’ – detailed accounts of interactions with women – from Anglophone PUA forums as our data, we investigate the narrative stance devices that PUAs use to impose the game frame on their activities. Unavoidably, sampling language in an environment where risky topics are under constant discussion presents ethical dilemmas. The article focuses on how conducting research in a hostile community may influence traditional methodological decisions. Through the example of the PUA community, we discuss the vulnerability of subjects and potential harm in linguistic research, and whether anything gives the researcher the freedom to forego informed consent, especially when dealing with publicly available data in an open forum. We also address the myth of the unbiased researcher that is prevalent in contemporary social science, arguing that an analysis should benefit from the fact that the analyst inevitably takes part in the “fight to construct reality” ( Latour, Bruno & Steve Woolgar. 1979 . Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press). http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Applied Linguistics Review de Gruyter

The ethics of researching unlikeable subjects

Applied Linguistics Review , Volume 8 (1) – May 24, 2017

Loading next page...
 
/lp/de-gruyter/the-ethics-of-researching-unlikeable-subjects-zKTkwTgngr
Publisher
de Gruyter
Copyright
Copyright © 2017 by the
ISSN
1868-6303
eISSN
1868-6311
DOI
10.1515/applirev-2016-1038
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Abstract This article explores ethical conundrums in linguistic research on online platforms populated by ‘pick-up artists’ (PUAs), a community that learns and practices speed-seduction for short-term mating. Originally a male heterosexual community, PUAs encourage men to use manipulative strategies to select, pursue, isolate and sexually conquer women ( Hall, Jeffrey A. & Melanie Canterberry. 2011 . Sexism and assertive courtship strategies. Sex Roles 65(11). 840–853). Using so-called ‘field reports’ – detailed accounts of interactions with women – from Anglophone PUA forums as our data, we investigate the narrative stance devices that PUAs use to impose the game frame on their activities. Unavoidably, sampling language in an environment where risky topics are under constant discussion presents ethical dilemmas. The article focuses on how conducting research in a hostile community may influence traditional methodological decisions. Through the example of the PUA community, we discuss the vulnerability of subjects and potential harm in linguistic research, and whether anything gives the researcher the freedom to forego informed consent, especially when dealing with publicly available data in an open forum. We also address the myth of the unbiased researcher that is prevalent in contemporary social science, arguing that an analysis should benefit from the fact that the analyst inevitably takes part in the “fight to construct reality” ( Latour, Bruno & Steve Woolgar. 1979 . Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).

Journal

Applied Linguistics Reviewde Gruyter

Published: May 24, 2017

References