Near the end of her chapter on her experience working at Wal-Mart, Barbara Ehrenreich describes the scene in which she tells Melissa what she’s really been doing. She writes, “We exchange addresses, including my real and permanent one. I tell her about the book I’m working on and she nods, not particularly surprised, and she says she hopes she hasn’t said ‘too many bad things about Wal-Mart.’ I assure her that she hasn’t and that she’ll be well disguised anyway” (189-190).
I’d like you to reflect on how Ehrenreich informs the women around her that she’s been observing them. Do you think it’s fair that she waits until after her month of working is over to tell them what she’s been doing? What knowledge or insight does she gain as a researcher by informing them at the end of the month? In what ways, though, does she infringe upon their rights as human beings by studying them secretly? How could her study and her writing potentially harm these women? What precautions does Ehrenreich take to alleviate such harm? Is it enough?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think it is necessary that she tells these people that she has been observing them for a study she has been doing. However, to effectively study these people she cannot disclose her true identity before she is finished observing them. If she tells them she is doing a study people will act differently, as sociologists described as the Hawthorne Effect. By informing them at the end of the month she can gauge their reactions to the news and see if how these people reacted was their normal behavior. She does infringe on some of their rights by not telling them she is writing about their lives, however this is required in this type of research. The Hawthorne Effect states that if someone knows they are being studied they will act differently, so if you want authentic situations you cannot tell them you are observing them. Her study could potentially put these individuals jobs at risk if she published the slander that they used on the job, but Ehrenreich could change the names and locations of her job so as to conceal the identity of these individuals. However, it might not be enough because a manager could read the book and recognize one of the situations, but the chances are unlikely. I think that the strategies Erenreich used are the most effective strategies for doing her type of observational research.
ReplyDeleteThere is a certain delicacy that is necessary when conducting studies and using humans hearts and feelings as a form of research. I think this is something very important to consider when working with Project Homeless Connect next week. Timing is not as much as a priority as how one “spills the beans”. It is the actual feelings of these women that really matter. I appreciate that fact the in the first instance “where she came out” she allows herself to ask the questions that really matter. Like what are their hopes and dreams even though they do face poverty. Through her delicacy within this I can begin to respect what Barbara is actually doing.
ReplyDeleteI personally do not feel that it’s fair that Ehrenreich waits till she is leaving her job to tell these women what she’s been doing. Although the information that she received may not have been obtained if she hadn’t of lied, the things that these people say are things they said in trust to a person that they believed they work with. Many people form good friendships at work because they can relate to the people in the job. Most of the time they come from the same backgrounds, have similar problems, and all have to deal with financial strain. Co-workers speak and confide in one another because there is a level of trust, that these people know and understand exactly what you may be going through.
ReplyDeleteAll of the information and insight that Ehrenreich collects about this life, would not have been collected if these people hadn’t believed she was one of them, she would have never been able to expose the many problems within the workforce. But I feel that she learned all her information through the experiences and lives of others, and as a result is a violation of their personal lives and information. I understand that Ehrenreich changed many names in order to protect these women but anyone can do enough work to find out who these workers are, and cost them their jobs and lives.
I don't believe that its fair for Ehrenreich to wait until a month after working, that she is observing them. In my sociology class, we discussed what it means to be a good ethnographer. One of the main issues we brought up was telling the people you are observing before you observe them. This way you are able to gain the trust and security of the subjects rather than surprising them at the end. When you wait until the end of the study to tell them, some people might get angry and distrust you and the work that you would like to publish. I could see why Ehrenreich didn't tell them but I still so not agree with it. She definitely got more of a true life experience in her environment but she allowed for more risks. She also should have gotten the permission of these women to publish her work. Getting their permission would have been much easier to do if she would have told h=them at the beginning of the study, rather than the end. Overall, I do not agree with the method of study Enrenreich used to do her research and I do not believe her subjects would be happy with it either.
ReplyDeleteI think that in order to continue her research, it was necessary for Ehrenreich to conceal her identity. For the sake of research, I think that it is fair that Ehrenreich did not tell them what she was doing until the end of the month, but ethically, keeping something like this under wraps it is not fair to the other women around her. Ehrenrech gains the entire month of research as well as the reactions of the people around her to add to her research by informing them at the end of the month. By studying the other individuals secretly, she is infringing upon their rights to privacy as well as their rights to feel comfortable in their surroundings. Her study and writing may harm these women, because she may reveal classified information about each woman, and change the name/facts. Although we do not know the women specifically, other people in the women’s lives may know them and not know that information about them. Ehrenreich does not use their real names and sometimes changes some of the facts, but I do not think this is enough. What was personal in each woman’s life may not be so personal anymore.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion I think it is fair that she does not inform the women that’s she’s been working with until a month after she has been working with them. If she did tell them at the beginning I think that they may treat her differently or act differently themselves because they know that they are being observed and studied. Barbara is already not getting the full experience of what it is like to work minimum wage, so any further “special conditions” would make her experience and research even more off then it already is. Although I do have to say that if I was one of the women that she had been working with I might be a pissed that she hadn’t told me, however none of the women really seem to care at all. I think in terms of pure ethics, its not exactly right that she doesn’t tell these women, but at the same time she doesn’t use their real names in the book and she is giving the rest of the population insight to the invisible world that they never think or see about. At least for some people this book could be a very eye-opening experience in thinking about the people that work for them or those that work “behind the scenes”, so maybe its helped at least get the voice of those people heard. Her study could harm the women because it shows that they complain about their job and shows the truth of what goes on when they work, but I think that by changing the names she alleviates this harm.
ReplyDeleteI don't think it's fair that Ehrenreich informs the women around her that she's been observing them. If I were being observed I would want to know about it. However, on the flip side, I can understand Ehrenreich's decision. Waiting to tell Melissa what she's really been doing at this time, has allowed her to gather more authentic qualitative data about her. If Melissa knew from the beginning that Ehrenreich was observing her, of course her behavior would change and comprise Ehrenreich's study.
ReplyDeleteEhrenreich infringes upon these subjects' rights of consent. By not telling them until right before she plans on leaving Wal-Mart, for a whole month she denies them the opportunity to either consent or decline the question of whether they want to participate in this study or not.
Her study and her writing could potentially harm these women by insulting them. Even if their names were changed, if one of these subjects found out the contents of the book, they might be offended or angry at the way Ehrenreich presents them.
As a researcher it is important for Ehrenreich to merge herself in her surrounding. She had to gain her co-worker’s trust to be able to write their stories and her experiences. Gerald D. Suttles, an urban sociologist lived in Addams area of Chicago for years to do research of the area and the people. Ehrenreich was thought as a friend to her co-workers, I don’t believe she is infringing upon their rights as human beings. If she did not inform these women about her studies and publish without consent that could be a violation of privacy and confidentiality. Her studies could potentially harm these women to cause them to leave their jobs.
ReplyDeleteI feel that Ehnrenreich made the right decision (though obviously a difficult one) to tell the women about her study after the fact. Though I can understand why some would say it wasn't fair to the women because they didn't know they were being observed, and thus could not give their consent, I believe that this was the only way she could truly observe them in an accurate working environment. Had she told them what she was doing from the beginning, they may have acted differently than they normally would in order to protect themselves from managers or others who could read their comments later on when the book is published. It's human nature to act differently under different circumstancess and depending on who's there to watch you... and Ehrenreich already has issues making her study credible - as we discussed last time, what with her not really being put in a postion of poverty, and other issues that question her accurate position in this study.
ReplyDeleteAll that being said, Ehrenreich is infringing upon their rights as human beings by studying these women without telling them because they are not given the opportunity to decline consent to be apart of the study. Someone may not have wanted to be anaylzed in this way, and should have had the right to say no. Should this study/book land in the hands of someone's angry manager, and the person in power manages to discover who the "disguised" person making all these horrible comments truly is, the worker could possibly lose her job or be treated worse by management as retaliation (I don't think I spelled that right, but Geoffrey said wrap it up soo....). Though she does change their names and the locations she was working at to protect the people, this may not have been enough.
While it may not be necessarily fair for her to wait until after her month of working to explain her research, I believe that it was necessary for her to wait in order to get the most realistic experience. Still, she gains more insight as a researcher once she explains herself because then Melissa is even more willing to open up and tell her story. She then experiences a subjective and objective observation by learning about the workers as her co-workers and as subjects or characters within her book. Even though she plans to change the names in order to protect these people, it is still possible that the characters will recognize each other. Ehrenreich reveals details that some of her co-workers may not want to be shared with the world, but she will still publish them under different names believing that this will protect them. Usually when people are doing observational research, especially information which will publish sensitive information, the observer must have prior permission. By studying them secretly she does not give them the chance to deny her in depth looks into their lives.
ReplyDeleteI don’t particularly think that it is fair for Ehrenreich to operate under false pretenses for so long. While she does not have the same restrictions as a journalist that she would have as a researcher, I still feel like she should try to follow some kind of ethical guidelines. A researcher would not be allowed to conduct a study on people without telling them what is going on. I think that even beyond a moral framework, Ehrenreich’s actions are wrong because they basically disrespect her coworkers. She makes them seem foolish practically, since they worked with this woman for a month and they never knew that she was not “one of them” per say.
ReplyDeleteAll that being said, I understand why Ehrenreich chose to conduct her research in the manner that she chose. If she were to have entered into the research as herself, taken the jobs as “the reporter who is only here to study us”, I am sure she would not have gotten the same insight from her experiences. People most likely wouldn’t have been as open with her or confide in her since they wouldn’t see her as an equal and during all their interactions with her they would probably be concerned about what she will write. I guess I would call it a necessary evil to conduct research in this manner.
I think it is a good thing that Ehrenreich “disguises” the women in her writing. This is her way of protecting them from any harmful consequences. Yet this in not foolproof and I’m sure if one tried hard enough they could probably trace any negative comments back to the specific person and maybe some unfortunate results would follow. It is somewhat unlikely that this would happen (but not beyond the realm of possibility) and I think that Ehrenreich did pretty much all that she could to protect everyone (besides not writing her book in the first place).
I think in the context of what she was doing, and trying to collect the most raw and honest experience she had to tell them after the fact. We as human beings tend to act differently when we know others are watching us. She infringes their rights by coming into their world in an untruthful manner, but her motives are not to harm or exploit their lives so in some ways she is justified. The harm that i can see that could come out of this is from the company's directly at the top because this tarnishes their reputations, and they are going to do whatever is in their power to avoid another such case so they probably will make it tougher to do such reporting. Also the women might somehow be identified and get in trouble, but i doubt that would occur. Overall its a tough job, and there are morals and ethics that were disregarded but that is the truth of any situation.
ReplyDeleteI think it is more of a bad thing that she waits to tell the women that she is going to write about them, but I also understand why that would produce better results. I think with any study, participation should be completely voluntary, and in this case, it is not. They should be able to know the details of the study she was conducting and have the options of not participating. I do understand, however, why the results she got from the study were probably more accurate because she didn't tell them. I think that often people act differently when they know they are being observed, and she wanted to avoid that. I think it would have been much more ethical for her to ask for their permission ahead of time.
ReplyDeleteI think that it is necessary for Ehrenreich to remain separated from her identity as a research while she is working with these women. People observe each other every day, and do not reveal facts about themselves all the time. It isn't infringing upon someone's rights to observe them, even if they aren't aware of it. Although we may not agree with some of Ehrenreich's observations or conclusions, she is performing her job as a researcher. If she is going to observe people's authentic actions and character, then she shouldn't reveal herself as a researcher. She has changed the names in the book, so that she can protect these people's privacy. if we are trying to gain a better understanding of what we are studying, then it's necessary to get the most unbiased results.
ReplyDelete