Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

Research Ethics and Fieldwork at New Consumption Communities

By C Bekin

Abstract

It is hard to deny that marketing practice has changed considerably during recent years. This is reflected in its increased focus on customisation, coproduction and interactive marketing, much of which has been enabled by\ud new information technologies. While marketing has remained innovative there has also been much rhetoric and little reflexivity about what has been done (Szmigin, 2003). Although marketers may have been listening more to consumers (e.g. through qualitative research), efforts have almost always been directed at controlling consumers; ranges of products pre-determined by\ud producers have been pushed through with little real involvement of consumers in the process, at a time in which we, consumers (are we not consumers as well as marketers?), are ever more aware of what is being done to us (Szmigin, 2003). In fact, many of these issues are also reflected in current consumer research practice. Consumer research has been of paramount importance to the development of marketing theory and practice, yet control over the research process remains entirely in the hands of marketers and academic marketing researchers alike. Consumers are seldom, if ever, involved in the research design and analysis processes, which raises issues that go beyond ethics and into an epistemological arena. These issues are particularly problematic when participant-observation is employed, as little is (and little could be) addressed by research guidelines and codes of ethics relevant to marketing research. Adopting an ethical standpoint of care and responsibility based on feminist theories (Edwards and Mauthner, 2002), I address some of the relevant ethical issues pertinent to participant-observation that arise from the lack of inclusion of the consumer in the research process (as well as the potential issues that may be involved in participatory and emancipatory research designs), the shortcomings of the available marketing research guidelines and codes of ethics as far as participant-observation is concerned, alongside the several issues that may\ud arise during fieldwork. To illustrate the discussion a reflexive account of my own fieldwork at six distinct New Consumption Communities (Szmigin and Carrigan, 2003) is presented. Although some authors have put reflexivity as the means to achieve ethical fieldwork conduct and relationships (Guillemin\ud and Gillam, 2004), such argument disregards the real-time and context-bound nature of ethical circumstances at the field, where the researcher must often respond to unexpected situations immediately. Reflexivity is a tool but cannot\ud be used alone; it is not completely exempt from its own political, philosophical and epistemological stances and paradoxes, as well explored by Harley, Hardy and Alvesson (2004).\ud This paper therefore does not aim to construct yet another set of guidelines for researchers that will engage or are already engaged in participantobservation; what goes on in the field can be unpredictable and fluid. Rather, the aim is to discuss the key issues that may be encountered while in the field through practical examples. This should prove valuable in alerting consumer researchers on the breadth and depth of ethical issues in the field, and on the all encompassing epistemological issues that we face, as researchers, on a daily basis. As put by Birch et al. (2002, p.3), the aim here “is to suggest\ud ethical ways of thinking rather than to provide answers or rules to be adhered to”. In this study such ethical ways of thinking will be placed within the particular context of participant-observation

Topics: research ethics, ethnography, participant-observation
Publisher: 4th International Critical Management Studies Conference, Critical Marketing Stream
Year: 2005
OAI identifier: oai:bura.brunel.ac.uk:2438/1442

Suggested articles

Citations

  1. (2005). Association, retrieved 18 th
  2. (2005). Association, retrieved 18th
  3. (1994). Atravesando fronteras/border crossings: a critical ethnographic exploration of the consumer acculturation of Mexican immigrants", doi
  4. (1992). Changing the social relations of research production?"
  5. (2002). Consenting to what? Issues of access, gatekeeping and 'informed consent'", doi
  6. (2000). Constructing the field: ethnographic fieldwork in the contemporary world, doi
  7. (2001). Contracts and member checks in qualitative research in human geography: reason for caution?" doi
  8. (2002). Divided loyalties, divided expectations: research ethics, professional and occupational responsibilities", doi
  9. (1993). Doing critical ethnography, doi
  10. (2002). Doing rapport' and the ethics of 'faking friendship'", doi
  11. (2002). Eliciting research accounts: re/producing modern subjects?" doi
  12. (2002). Encouraging participation: ethics and responsibilities", doi
  13. (1998). Ethical concerns in participant observation/ ethnography",
  14. (2002). Ethics and feminist research: theory and practice", doi
  15. (2004). Ethics, reflexivity, and "ethically important moments" in research", doi
  16. (1995). Ethnography in/of the world system: The emergence of multi-sited ethnography", doi
  17. (2004). Exploring boundaries of professional/personal practice and action: being and becoming in Khayelitsha Township, Cape Town."
  18. (2002). Introduction",
  19. (2002). Knowing responsibly: linking ethics, research practice and epistemology", doi
  20. (1997). Negotiating multiple viewpoints: the cook, the native, the publisher, and the ethnographic text", doi
  21. (2003). New consumption communities: resisting the hegemony of the marketing process", paper presented at
  22. (2003). New consumption communities: resisting the hegemony of the marketing process", paper presented at the 3
  23. (2003). Participatory video in geographic research: a feminist practice of looking?" doi
  24. (2004). Parts unknown: undercover ethnography of the organs-trafficking underworld", doi
  25. (1983). Principles and problems of participant observation", doi
  26. (2004). Reflecting on reflexivity", doi
  27. (1993). Secrecy and fieldwork, doi
  28. (1980). The ethics of covert methods", doi
  29. (2002). The ethics of intention: research as a political tool", doi
  30. (1986). The politics and ethics of fieldwork, doi
  31. (2004). the World Association of Opinion and
  32. (2004). the World Association of Opinion and Marketing Research Professionals,
  33. (1995). Trial and tribulations: courts, ethnography, and the need for an evidentiary privilege for academic researchers", doi
  34. (2003). Understanding the consumer, doi
  35. (1995). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes, doi

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.