(Parts One and Two are here and here.)
Being something of a scientist, and living in a society that revels in its hierarchy and is constantly looking for ways that at least appear objective to justify it, I’ve struggled with this issue before. It was interesting to see it come up at Sex 2.0, and hear an actual professional researcher tackle it.
The first session I went to (I could only be there for the afternoon sessions, sadly) was the following:
Building bridges and Alliances between Sex Worker Communities, Researchers & Clients
We acknowledge from the start that these categores (sex worker, researcher, client) are not monolithic, and that they contain overlapping segments with individuals belonging to more than one category with varying degrees of openness. In order to advance the cause of sex worker rights these communities need to collaborate, yet collaboration is made difficult by distrust (often earned by researchers who have not taken the time to learn how to be allies). There are excellent examples of working alliances, and we’ll discuss how those examples serve as models for other collaborations that can, over time, help reduce the distrust that has made good research, good policy, and good outreach difficult. Collaborative spaces exist online and offline, and ideally participants in these spaces interact as equals, each being recognized for the specific knowledge and skill they contribute.
One of the session leaders was a researcher, and she spent some time discussing a recent study done in Vancouver on HIV/AIDS transmission and how the study, which focused on tracking the rise of HIV/AIDS in Vancouver, ended up providing the local news with the following headline:
Local study sheds light on HIV
More than a quarter of female sex trade workers in city infected with virus!!!!!! (multiple exclamation points mine, sorry–I couldn’t resist)
Now, if you go to the actual study abstract in the scientific journal in which it was published, you will see that the actual study conclusion is the following:
The subgroups of IDU [intravenous drug users] and MSM [men who have sex with men] account for the greatest proportion of HIV infections.
And the statistic on “female sex trade workers” isn’t even accurate–the study specifies “street-based female sex trade workers.” Interesting disconnect, eh?
The session leader went on to discuss the responsibilities of researchers, specifically researchers working with marginalized groups–one must always keep in mind, she said, that your research can potentially be used against these groups. Her message was that researchers owe it to the individuals they are studying to do their best to prevent that–she suggested any number of ways in which the minimalization of harm to them can be realized. Frankly, she pointed out, why should these folks help you out in your research otherwise..? (That one’s pretty impossible to argue with, and as the ex-spouse remarked to me after the session, “If I was a sex worker, pretty much any researcher out there could just kiss my ass in terms of doing their ‘research’ on me.”)
But broadening our perspective to include research on other historically marginalized groups–few things aggravate me to the degree that gender-and-race-and-sexuality-based studies do, especially as they’re reported in the news. Anybody who’s ever read PunkAssBlog is already aware of this–I’ve complained many(1), many(2), many(3), many(4), many(5), many(6) times in the past.
However, I always draw the line at complaining about the research’s existence, period. I am a big fan of pursuing knowledge for the sake of knowledge, and there is no knowledge of any description that I have yet encountered that I could ever bear to say, “You should just not try to find that out” about. I just can’t do it, any more than I can ever suggest banning a book, no matter how personally repellent I find its contents, or denying freedom of speech to any group, no matter how personally repellent I find what they have to say.
But I also really hate how people use certain types of research to further their own personal agendas. Really hate it. And for the first time, now, I’m wondering–beyond one-on-one research, in which case the ethical obligation to an interviewee or test subject is clear and obvious–do researchers doing research on a pool of people of a certain subgroup have, indeed, an ethical obligation to that group? When the research conducted has, in of itself, no personal impact on the lives of the persons being studied–doing research using SAT scores, for instance–is there an obligation to consider what effect the results of the research might have on the population group being analyzed and what is the extent of that obligation?
The session leader did not appear to entertain the idea that research that might negatively impact a marginalized group should be avoided altogether–her definition of the ethical obligations of researchers appeared to be defined as doing one’s best to ensure that the results of the research weren’t twisted to support either a sensationalist or an outright negative agenda. “Doing one’s best” was further defined as making sure press releases were short and to the point in terms of the study conclusions and making as many direct statements in public venues as was possible oneself to keep the study goals and limitations as clear in the minds of said public.
And as always, I find myself flip-flopping back and forth. The scientist part of me wants to stick its nose in the air and sneer about idiots from the lovely distance of its ivory tower–only pure knowledge matters! let the hoi polloi grunt and scratch as they will–because they will, and nothing you can do will ever really, significantly prevent that, including their appropriation and mangling of pure knowledge to further their own mindless, self-serving ends. (Yes, the scientist part of me is probably an asshole, or would be if it ever condescended to interact with real human beings at all.) But the social activist part of me contends that knowledge is power, and like all other forms of power, must be closely monitored by all of us who can be affected by it, because all power is inherently prone to abuse. Researchers and scientist must step up to the plate–like other wielders of power such as those working in law enforcement, and politics, they have a special responsibility towards those directly in their sphere of control. They must be better-behaved–more ethical–than your average Joe-or-Jane in the street, because they have more power. That goes for journalists too–and teachers–anyone who has real control over the flow of knowledge from the one to the many.
Next up–last but not least–Sex 2.0 Part Four: Alas! Every Village Has To Have One, Doesn’t It?