Research_Report__Laud_Humphrey's_Tearoom_Trade

Outline I have chosen to do my research report on Laud Humphreys study of the tearoom trade. This looks at impersonal sex in public places. The idea originally came from Humphreys graduate advisor raising the question of “Where does the average guy go for a blow-job” and the idea of studying “deviant behaviour of a social subculture” stemmed from this. Aware that sociologists had already studied gay bars and male prostitution Humphreys wanted to push the envelope by researching the areas where impersonal sex was common and the most arrests were made. For this study there was no hypothesis or primary study Humphreys thought it better to let one develop out of the work opposed to going in with any preconceived notions. He simply wanted to know what sort of men frequented tearooms. Humphreys made no secret of his willing use of methodological triangulation and for the purposes of his study the two gel together well. “I employed the methods described herein not because they are the most accurate in the sense of neatness and cleanness but because they promised the greatest accuracy in terms of faithfulness to the people and the actions as they live and happen” The main bulk of the research was done by way or participant observation where Humphreys played the part of the watch queen (A sentry for an undesirables) and And the next stage was done via surveys and structured interviews. Reason For The Use Of Research Design Participant observation was the most obvious choice of research given the secretive Nature and reluctance of the group he wanted to study. Over history so called “deviant subcultures” have always found ways to defend themselves against infiltration by outsiders and to safeguard their own interests and identities. No average man could walk in from the streets and be accepted. Only by keeping clandestine about your true nature and intentions could you make any kind of progress. This on its own is an ethics nightmare as this study would violate ethical standards for research by not gaining the prior consent or knowledge of those you seek to study. The question to ask back to this seeming breach of ethics would be: firstly would you still find willing participants if you announced your true purpose and intentions' Secondly If you were able to procure willing volunteers would your data not be corrupted by the Hawthorne effect and their not acting as they normally would under the same circumstances. And I believe Humphreys thought that the ends would justify the means when it came to the ethics. Alongside his participant observation Humphreys created what he called a “Systematic Observation Sheet” in an effort to have some archival data of the 1st half of his research. The form was used by Humphreys on 50 willing participants he encountered in the Tea Rooms. Information gained on these forms was a description of the subjects age, attire, car and their role within the Tea Room. records of weather and other environmental conditions were also noted as was location of places of contact and fellatio, progress of encounters and reactions of any observers. This was created and implemented in an effort to keep objective validity and the possibility of being able to replicate the data. The use of these two research methods are further example of the methodological triangulation used in Humphreys study. The final part of the study came from Humphreys wanting to accumulate more hard data other than the very few willing participants he had already interviewed and wanted to do it in a way that was not as obtrusive as knocking on the door and flat out telling the person “I saw you engaging in a homosexual act in a tea room last week I wondered if you’d mind answering a few questions” So he fabricated a questionnaire in an effort to get a picture of the tea room users outside of that environment. He took a sample of 100 people randomly from the data he had already collected and went door to door suitably disguised to obtain answers. In his study Humphreys stands accused of seriously breaching sociological ethics. His covert study of illegal activity without the consent of any of the parties is a serious breach of peoples human rights; and then again by administering a questionnaire under false pretences after the completion of the initial study. The reliability of this and some people may argue all participant observation is limited at best; as they are usually impossible to repeat and in the end it's only the written opinion of the observer which is open to bias and the possibility of going native. During his study Humphreys made the discovery that many of the patrons of the tea rooms were high ranking respectable pillars of society and the lives of these men could have been ruined should the information have fallen into the wrong hands. For any sociological research there has to be at least a vested interest on the part of the researcher in the subject matter you are researching. This shows an inherit bias on behalf of the researcher. Humphreys is no different: he admits a sexual and intellectual fascination with the deviant subculture and this again calls ethics into question. Can a true picture be gathered by someone who finds sexual gratification for their subject matter and could another researcher be able to infiltrate the inner circles as easily' A straight man may find the whole practise an abhorrence and a woman would not fit into the deviant group and even taking out the issue of gender they may fall prey to the same ethical issues as the homosexual researchers. Assessment Of Research Design If you disregard any of the ethical issues Humphreys study worked well in the two major areas he studied. His covert observation gave him unimpeded access to a deviant subculture that was until then untouched by social scientists as a whole. So in that respect the piece of work was groundbreaking. The second major part of his research in the form of questionnaires helped Humphreys gain a truer picture of the people who used the tearooms and how they lived their day to day lives. Some of those randomly selected for interview did decline but as a whole the questionnaire gave a fair representation of those involved. Without the use of methodological triangulation this piece of research wouldn't have been as in depth and quite possibly would have just looked like a seedy report into illegal sexual escapades. The follow ups with the quantitative research helped validate the research as a whole and give a more comprehensive answer to the question "What sorts of men use the tearooms" The question that will always seem to dominate this study is: was it right to disregard the people being studied and obtain information via deception. In my opinion the ends to these deceptions justified the means especially in regards to the participant observation. You would not have gotten any kind of true picture by announcing your true intentions. While it is true that the people who used the tea rooms were watched by other men, the instant you announce any ulterior motive beyond sexual stimulation people would become nervous or suspicious and their behaviour would change. The waters muddy when you get to the questionnaire: once again you call ethics into question and is it right to gain information by deception' Well some may argue that those in law enforcement have been doing it for years. The most important thing to remember is at that time homosexuality was illegal and I think being clandestine helped Humphreys establish an overview of tearoom patrons home lives without being overly intrusive or "outing" them on the doorstep of their suburban homes. This breach of ethics in my opinion was successful damage limitation. Humphreys gathered information relative to his study and kept it under lock and key once finished with it. Making the anonymity of his research subjects the prime objective. And however distasteful some people may find the way he went about his research I think it was the best way under the circumstances to observe and study such a taboo subculture. Bibliography https://moodle.serc.ac.uk/mod/resource/view.php'id=20438 https://moodle.serc.ac.uk/mod/resource/view.php'id=49480