Researchers face many dangers (e.g., injury, illness, emotional distress, violence, death) when entering the field. While there is a growing recognition of the risks involved in research, the full range of risk experienced is not yet fully realized. There have been a few studies (
Worley et al. 2016;
Kenyon and Hawker 1999;
Johnson and Clarke 2006;
Dickson-Swift et al. 2007;
Bloor et al. 2007) that shed light on risk and provide examples of the emerging recognition of the issue of risk faced by researchers. However, most information available on the occurrence of risk is anecdotal. Furthermore, it is unknown if researcher characteristics, environment, or topic under study affect the occurrence of risk.
There are a variety of fieldwork and non-fieldwork-based methods used to collect data within the social sciences. Researchers go into crack houses, half-way houses, and prisons. Research can be conducted within a researcher’s place of business or other areas under his/her control. There are even some types of research that involve what Hunter S. Thompson referred to as
edgework, defined as “voluntary risk-taking” (
Lyng 1990).
Edge ethnography is a term used to describe researchers utilizing covert or full participation methods to conduct research (
Tewksbury 2009). Regardless of the research method employed, many social researchers may not fully comprehend risk until they are in the process of research. However, there is a dearth of academic research pertaining to risk. This study addresses that gap by collecting information on the experience of risk from researchers employing various types of research methods to study social deviance and criminal behavior.
Inexperienced researchers are at greater risk because they are not able to anticipate the risk that awaits them (
Paterson et al. 1999). Students sometimes take part in research (
Morris and Marquart 2010;
Pogrebin 2010). This may be during a methods course or as part of a thesis or dissertation project. “Novice researchers may be especially at risk, as they are often more concerned with their methodology and response rate than ensuring their own safety” (
Sharp and Kremer 2006, p. 321). According to
Lee (
1995), a researcher’s first fieldwork endeavor is a type of rite of passage, whereby the young researcher must survive on his/her own.
It is suggested that gender plays a role in the experience of difficulties during research (
Arendell 1997;
Gurney 1985;
Easterday et al. 1977).
Liebling (
1999) reports that the interactions were different for male and female members of her research team conducting interviews with prisoners.
Perrone (
2010) reports that during her research on drug use, subjects requested sex or nudity as a type of payment for their participation. For
Sampson and Thomas (
2003), being female most likely contributed to their experience of sexual harassment while conducting research on seafarers.
Westmarland (
2000) offers a slightly different view. In conducting research with police, she noticed that being a female seemed to bring about a protective nature in the male officers. This would indicate that in some research, being female may provide a protective factor. According to
Paterson et al. (
1999), the experience of risk to researchers is not strictly a gender issue; “researchers of both genders have experienced threats to their safety by persons of either sex” (p. 261). Gender does not produce risks, but rather it may amplify existing risks in certain settings (
Bloor et al. 2007). “In some cases the characteristics of the researcher with respect to participants may create the conditions for harassment or violence” (
Sharp and Kremer 2006, p. 318).
Inciardi (
1993) suggests that women should not enter the crack house research environment due to the potential for rape. It is inferred that risk is associated with the environment, as well as, participants and the topic under study (
Paterson et al. 1999).
Worley et al. (
2016) recently conducted phone interviews with eight social scientists who had utilized fieldwork methods to study crime, deviance, or social control. They discovered that all of the researchers experienced some sort of “significant trauma” of a professional, legal, physical, or emotional nature (p. 204). Research is conducted on a variety of topics involving an array of individuals of different ages and genders living in different geographical settings. Sociologists and criminologists conduct research on topics such as drug addicts (
Perrone 2010;
Inciardi 1993), strippers (
Price-Glynn 2010;
Israel 2006), burglars (
Wright et al. 1992), law enforcement (
Westmarland 2000;
Van Maanen 1988;
Marks 2003;
Holdaway 1983;
Goldsmith 2003), gangs (
Hopper and Moore 1990;
Venkatesh 2008), phone sex workers (
Mattley 1998), and sex in public places (
Humphreys 1968). However, a breakdown of risk across the range of research topics or locations does not exist. What was more readily identifiable were types of risks experienced. For the purpose of this study, these risks were logically placed into risk categories of (1) physical/health, (2) legal, (3) emotional, and (4) personal/professional.
1.1. Physical/Health Risks
Physical dangers exist in various forms when conducting research. Respondents in a study by
Kenyon and Hawker (
1999) reported issues of a serious nature including physical assault, a shooting, sexual assault, and a near rape.
Inciardi (
1993) reports that he was present in a crack house once when a gun was fired in another room of the house. Fortunately, as everyone took shelter, no one was hurt. Another example is provided by
Hopper and Moore (
1990) who had guns pulled on them one morning when they entered a bikers’ camp while conducting research on motorcycle gangs. The bikers, sleepy and hung over from the previous night’s party, thought Hopper and Moore were competing gang members. They very well may have been killed or experienced serious injury if one biker had not recognized them and interceded on their behalf.
Marks (
2003) also encountered risk from guns on several occasions as she embarked on patrols with police officers, often entering into situations knowing that she may not survive the day. She reports that it was typical to be shot at while on routine patrol.
Westmarland (
2000) wore a bulletproof vest or anti-stab vest while observing police in England. On one occasion she was forced to hide behind a tree to avoid being shot by an offender.
Venkatesh (
2008) also describes a gang shootout in which he was forced to take cover while watching others get shot. Martin Sanchez-Jankowski was stabbed once and shot twice during his time researching gangs (
Worley et al. 2016).
Calvey (
2000) reports being in a threatening situation involving armed men while he was conducted ethnographic research on door supervisors, often called bouncers, in Manchester, England. These anecdotal examples illustrate the very real danger of physical risk from firearms/guns that exists for researchers.
In 2009, Annie Le, a Yale University pharmacological graduate student was murdered in her research laboratory where she was conducting biological research (
Vitagliano and Solomon 2011). Her body was later found inside a laboratory wall. On 17 March 2011, Raymond Clark, III, a university lab technician, plead guilty to both attempted rape and murder of Annie Le. While this example is not taken from the discipline of sociology or criminology, it is noteworthy that such violence could occur in non-fieldwork-based research. An example within the field of criminology is the death of Caribbean criminologist, Ken Pryce. He mysteriously disappeared while studying criminality in Jamaica. “His body was later found washed-up on a beach” (
Bloor et al. 2007, p. 18). Fortunately, there is not an abundance of examples of death during research.
Some researchers have reported physical assault, sexual assault, and a near rape (
Kenyon and Hawker 1999). During his fieldwork on homeless families,
Blackman (
2007) was physically attacked by a man who thought he was someone else. While interviewing a prisoner,
Liebling (
1999) had a pen plucked from her hand. The prisoner pointed out that if he had wanted to he could kill her with the pen. James Marquart was assaulted by an inmate while studying correctional officers (
Worley et al. 2016). As graduate students,
Sharp and Kremer (
2006) experienced sexual harassment and intimidation during research projects.
Sampson and Thomas (
2003) also report experiencing sexual harassment while conducting research on seafarers.
One might consider that females researching deviant populations may find themselves in locations and, at times, that makes them especially vulnerable to sexual harassment or assault (
Lee 1995). However, it is not only the criminal or deviant who pose a threat to female researchers. Stanko (in
Lee 1995) surveyed female members of the American Society of Criminology about sexual harassment. He found that one in three of the respondents had been on the receiving end of sexual comments or sexual harassing behavior. This behavior was perpetrated by police, prison officers and court officials.
Researchers are also sometimes placed in harm’s way due to the political climate of the country in which they are conducting research. These researchers are sometimes viewed as spies working with or helping the enemy. Thirteen percent of respondents in
Howell’s (
1990) study of anthropologists reported being suspected of spying while conducting fieldwork (p. 97). Five of the 204 respondents noted being involved in a hostage-taking event while in the field (p. 99). Perhaps most of the sociologists and criminologists studying social deviance and criminal behavior are conducting research in countries of a more stable political climate. However, this does not rule out the possibility of them being suspected of spying or being held hostage. These types of risks are well illustrated by
Venkatesh (
2008). In the beginning stages of his research on gangs, Venkatesh was held hostage in a stairwell. Gang members thought he was a member of a rival gang and that he was there to spy on them. On that occasion, gang members attempted to intimidate him by flashing guns and knives in a threatening manner.
1.2. Legal Risks
Legal problems may also arise as a result of conducting research. Two main areas of research that seem to capture the interest of police and prosecutors have been illegal drug culture and sexology. Researchers have had information confiscated by authorities that wish to prosecute participants in the study (
Sonenschein 2001). Sometimes that data are destroyed or simply not returned to the researcher for an extended period of time. There have been times when researchers found themselves being pressured to testify against their subjects. Refusal to do so can result in imprisonment. For example,
Scarce (
1994,
2001) spent 159 days in jail. Police agencies believed that he possessed valuable information and held him in contempt of court for not disclosing such information. Martin Sanchez-Jankowski was also jailed for refusal to disclose information discovered during his research (
Worley et al. 2016).
According to
Polsky (
1985), legal danger for researchers comes primarily from law enforcement professionals. This is due to the type of information researchers uncover during the course of fieldwork that law enforcement would like to access. An example of this issue is seen in the Boston College Belfast Oral Project where researchers had gathered oral accounts of individuals who had been involved with the Irish Republican Army (IRA) and loyalist groups. Participants had been ensured that their information would not be released until their death. However, through the use of an international subpoena, officials in the United Kingdom were able to obtain a portion of the files (
Borgersen 2017).
Inciardi (
1993) states that while there are dangers from grand juries, prosecutors, and police, these are not typical issues for researchers. Law enforcement agencies likely have better information that can be used for prosecution. However, researchers do run the risk of being arrested and imprisoned for participation in activities while conducting research (
Sonenschein 2001). This is often the case when the researcher is simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.
An example is provided by
Inciardi (
1993) who was in a car with three drug users who were giving him a tour of the drug scene when they stopped at a convenience store for one of the men to pick up some cigarettes. The man quickly ran back to the car with cash and a gun after robbing the store. As they fled the area, Inciardi convinced them to let him out of the car. The three men were shortly arrested. Certainly, in this case, if he had remained in the car he would also have been arrested. Inciardi was not so lucky during a drug bust on a crack house while he was present. On this occasion, he was handcuffed and put in jail. He was later released with no drug charge. Crimes sometimes do happen when a researcher is present and, therefore, the researcher is at risk of arrest.
Another example is illustrated by
Humphreys (
1968) who was also in the wrong place at the wrong time. He had been standing outside a tearoom (public place for sexual encounters) talking to another man when police approached and asked for his identification. When he refused to provide any information, the police harassed him for not cooperating. Humphreys was subsequently arrested for loitering.
Being arrested is also a possibility when a researcher becomes an active participant in the research. Jeff Ferrell was arrested for destruction of property while he was conducting a study on graffiti artists (
Worley et al. 2016). He was convicted and placed on probation.
1.3. Emotional Risks
Wright et al. (
1992) report their most dangerous experience occurred while driving with a subject in the car. The subject saw someone on the street and wanted the car stopped so that he could get out of the car and kill the individual. They managed to calm the subject after refusing to stop the car and driving away from the area. The management of a volatile subject could weigh heavily on the researcher. Certainly, to be present when the subject acts in a violent manner would have some impact on the researcher. Yet, researchers are expected to be objective in their report of research. Perhaps for this reason, the emotions experienced by the researcher have escaped many publications. Due to the stressful situations researchers face, mental illness and emotional stress are a concern.
According to
Liebling (
1999), as her research team’s time in the field went on, their interviews with prisoners became “harrowing” to the point of being “traumatic encounters” (p. 150). Team members would often emerge from interviews exhausted and upset. Liebling reports that the team members would engage in risky behaviors such as alcohol abuse and driving in an unsafe manor to relieve stress.
Respondents in a study by
Kenyon and Hawker (
1999) reported feelings of “isolation, vulnerability and/or fear” while engaged in fieldwork (p. 317). An example of this type of emotional stress is provided by
Miller (
1986) who conducted research on street women, female hustlers, and prostitutes. She interviewed women in various settings such as halfway houses and prison. While conducting interviews in a prison, she was sometimes interrupted by male inmates who caused her fear. On one occasion, she was alone in a prison chapel, waiting on an interviewee, when a male inmate entered. During her conversation with the man she feared that he was thinking about sexually assaulting her. The person Miller was to interview entered the room and ran him off. On another occasion, while at a home for women, she was watching TV with some of the women when a man on a motorcycle arrived. Miller reports that he gave her the message that she was not welcome there. She reported feeling physically threatened on that occasion.
Lecocq (
2002) raises the point that many researchers do not express or discuss their feelings, especially feelings of fear because of the emphasis that one must remain neutral while conducting research. The researcher is expected to remain objective and detached; thereby leaving any personal reflection and what might be viewed as contamination out of the analysis report on the research endeavor (
Punch 1986).
The element of fear has received little scholarly attention, especially within the discipline of criminology. This is most likely because many researchers manage difficult situations without experiencing major harm (
Goldsmith 2003). For example,
Price-Glynn (
2010) reports that although she did not directly experience any major issues, she did fear possible aggression from men while conducting research in a strip club (p. 207).
Jamieson (
2000) recounts that on many occasions when interviewing youth of varying levels of deviance or criminal behavior, she feared for her physical well-being. Jamieson points out that entering an unfamiliar environment can lead to feelings of stress and apprehension. She recalls several occasions where she went to meet with one youth and found herself surrounded by a group of males.
Austin (
2003) reports that while conducting research in Mindanao he felt the need to be on guard. When talking about working with the police,
Van Maanen (
1988) also expresses the experience of fear. Experience of this type of fear or feeling the need to be on constant alert could cause the researcher immense stress.
Calvey (
2000) reports this type of stress in his account of research as a doorman. He expresses the experience of tremendous fear while walking home one evening after a particularly threatening encounter. He likened the research encounter with a “paranoid nightmare” (p. 51).
Miller (
1986) experienced other feelings during the course of her research on street hustlers. She felt “angry, generally upset, and depressed” (p. 189). She was angry that children grew up in the types of situations she was hearing about and that people could be so brutal to one another. She was depressed over the lack of options for the women and upset that society bred the kind of hatred, discrimination, and inequality she was seeing. Miller did make mention that as paralyzing as her emotions could be, they provided motivation for the continuation of research.
Dickson-Swift et al. (
2007) point out that researchers conducting secondary analysis also experienced emotional issues including “sleep disorders, emotional changes and a need for social support” (p. 328).
Kinard (
1996) found that researchers reviewing case records of abused children experienced sadness, anger, frustration and a sense of powerlessness. There was a similar discovery for researchers reviewing case records of rape victims. The researchers reported the experience of emotions similar to those reported by victims of rape (
Alexander et al. 1989). They reported feelings of anger, anxiety, fear, and sadness. They also experienced insomnia, nightmares, nausea and generalized pain.
Worley et al. (
2016) found that some of the participants in their study experienced what they referred to as
compassion fatigue. In clinical psychology, the term is used to describe “a condition where care providers, or in this case field researchers, experience stress as a result of over empathizing with their clients” (
Worley et al. 2016, p. 297).
Sampson and Thomas (
2003) report that long hours of study, combined with the isolation of being on a ship during their research, created emotional stress for them. They report one incident in which a researcher was confronted with great hostility by the captain of the ship. He isolated the researcher from the crew while they were out to sea for 16 days. Other researchers who report experiencing hostility include
Marks (
2003) and
Wright et al. (
1992).
Marks (
2003) experienced hostility from both sides of the law while conducting a study on police in South Africa.
Wright et al. (
1992), who were studying active residential burglars, encountered hostility from subjects who feared that they were being set up.
When research experiences become stressful or dangerous, emotions are sure to surface. If not dealt with appropriately, these emotional issues can lead to issues of substance abuse and reckless behavior. Individuals could be left emotionally scarred by events encountered during the course of research. The research reveals emotional issues in accounts of both fieldwork and non-fieldwork-based research. These emotions include fear, depression, isolation, anger, vulnerability, stress, and apprehension.
1.4. Personal and Professional Risks
Researchers may also experience personal and professional difficulties due to their research. Researchers might experience
stigma, a type of social disgrace, due to their work. Stigma can affect a researcher on both a personal and professional level. Some researchers are subject to what Erving Goffman called
courtesy stigma (
Kirby and Corzine 1981;
Mattley 1998;
Miller and Tewksbury 2001). This is when the stigma of the topic is assigned to the researcher and they experience the labeling effect of guilt by association (
Kirby and Corzine 1981;
Mattley 1998;
Miller and Tewksbury 2001).
Mattley (
1998) more accurately refers to this as a
(Dis)courtesy stigma. She feels that having a stigma normally associated with deviance transferred to her serves as a discourtesy.
During their research on homosexuals,
Kirby and Corzine (
1981) found that nonacademic individuals rather than academics more quickly labeled a researcher. Conversely,
Mattley (
1998), while conducting a study on fantasy phone sex workers, found that stigma was more of an issue with academics than with nonacademic individuals. Her interactions with colleagues changed as she began to realize that other professionals viewed her differently. Some male colleagues began to make sexual comments about the study. Many seemed incapable of focusing on the topic as viable and valuable research. They would often ask inappropriate questions about the fantasy phone sex conversations. Many times, Mattley heard from other people that they could not do that type of research. They were clearly not comfortable with the topic. Rik Scarce and Carol Rambo attribute difficulty with gaining employment in academia to stigma associated with their research (
Worley et al. 2016).
Israel (
2006) also had experiences with stigma during her research on strippers. However, she received much support from her academic affiliations and her family, while it was her friends (especially males) who seemed to associate her with her work.
The experience of an ethical dilemma is another area of concern on both a personal and professional level.
Marks (
2003) who traveled with the police and directly observed raids, was asked on more than one occasion to take a female suspect into another room and conduct a physical search including her vaginal area. Not only did this place Marks in a potentially violent position if the suspect were to attack her, but it also raised ethical concerns for the limit of her role as a researcher.
Holdaway (
1983) first faced ethical concerns in deciding to conduct covert research of the police. He states that “covert research and the ethical questions it raises create conditions of stress within which the sociologist has to live with himself” (p. 9). Holdaway felt strain over balancing his ethical limits, the research, and his role as a police officer.
Whyte (
1981), who conducted ethnographic research on street gangs in Boston, provides another example of the stress created by ethical boundaries when he decided to vote more than once in an election. He risked his research as well as his freedom when he broke a federal law prohibiting repeated votes. He reports struggling with his conscience after the illegal act.
Calvey (
2000) also struggled with ethical dilemmas during his research. He faced many situations in which he witnessed illegal drug use, theft of door money, and physical assault on people. As part of the job, he also physically restrained people. Calvey openly recounts the emotional dangers he faced as he experienced vulnerability to his sense of self.
Another example is provided by
Gans (
1962) who conducted research in a slum district. He was not completely honest with his subjects about his role as a researcher because he feared it would limit his access. He reports a feeling of guilt over what he considers to be a misuse of his relationships to gather data.
According to Marquart ethical dilemmas are inherent in conducting research (
Worley et al. 2016). He stated:
There were ethical dilemmas all day long. You’re seeing violence and a lot of things that go against the grain of normalcy. So, there are questions that come up. Do you blow the whistle on people or do you maintain your silence?
(p. 301)
1.5. Mediating Factors
It has been inferred that risk is associated with the environment, as well as, participants and topic under study (
Paterson et al. 1999), and that gender may also contribute to the level of risk experienced (
Arendell 1997;
Gurney 1985;
Easterday et al. 1977). However, a breakdown of risk across the range of research topics or locations has not been discovered. How does the environment or population under study affect the experience of risk? Elements to be considered in relation to the experience of risk include data collection method, researcher demographics, topic of study, population under study, and research location or setting. It is important to explore these elements in relation to the experience of risk in order to formulate an accurate illustration for the occurrence of risk and how such factors may mediate risk.