Before we begin to analyze the amazing book by Sudhir Venkatesh, we have to understand what ethics means and why it’s important. The Ethical lapse was established within social science due to the fact that the institutional system was in need of a safeguard to protect and enforce the values and principals of individuals. The term ethics refers to whether an action within research is considered right or wrong, good or bad (Carr, 2017). The purpose of this paper is to address the ethics involved in Gang Leader For A Day, whether Sudhir’s study is an ethical one, and most importantly if the methods he employed were worth the results.
First and foremost, the reading was very intense from beginning to start, Sudhir does the amazing job of involving himself in one of the most notorious gangs in Chicago. In a following sequence of events, Vanaktaesh managed to meet JT who happened to have an interest in the sociologist. This led to Sudhir taking on a seemingly impossible task for his dissertation project. At the begging of the book, you ask yourself the question: what would you do in such a situation? Prior to reading the book, I was certain the ethics employed were faulty, and that there was no way that it was worth risking your life and the integrity of your research on something that will most likely involve violence and other severe crimes. The book takes you on a roller coaster of values and ethics in which you constantly challenge yourself, asking the question; is what Sudhir is doing legal? Whenever an individual within social research wants to conduct a study on people, they must consider if the study they’re about to perform is ethical. Although Sudhir had derived his sense of right and wrong from his cultural background and beliefs, he had to have in mind the three principles of the Belmont report 1979. Its main purpose is to protect human’s who participate in any social or medical research. The three principals Venkatesh had to follow were respect, towards all the people in Robert Taylor, beneficence, the responsibility of
SOC 311 2
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 2, 2018 3
not harming anyone involved in his dissertation, and last but not least justice. The principle of justice is the one I believed Sudhir failed to follow (Hatch, 09/11/18). At one point in the reading, he deliberately hands over information to Ms.Bailey and JT. This information was detailed notes of the salary of all the squatters, hustlers, and people making money in the projects, most importantly the Black Kings. This action was unethical and broke the Belmont reports principal. Justice demands that the risks and potential benefits must be distributed the same among all participants. By giving up information, Sudhir was in a way spying and reporting to JT who would then go deliver a beating to whoever wasn’t paying their dues, proving clear unethical research.
Moving on, we are going to be doing a more in-depth analysis of Sudhir actions, regarding the fact that he overstepped his boundaries, and most importantly if his relationship with his research subject caused him to be biased. According to Venkatesh, “When I began sharing my experiences with my advisers and showing them my fields notes, did I begin to understand and adhere to the reporting requirements for researches who are privy to criminal conduct” (Venkatesh, 2009, pg. 119). Upon reading this quote several thoughts come to mind. First, Sudhir was not being completely honest to his advisors in regard to what he was observing and what he was partaking in. He began to realize the serious consequences of his actions once he showed the field notes to one of his colleagues. Upon such realization he came to notice that any detailed information shared could be a liability, only then did he begin to understand that he was going to be relying on his own moral compass. Within time Sudhir goes on to explain that he started to feel overwhelmed, with such worry’s he goes to see a lawyer, who ended up telling him that if he became aware of a plan to harm someone, he was obligated to report it. Throughout the
SOC 311 3
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 2, 2018 4
whole book we see several moments, including the instance with C-note and Bee Bee, in which Sudhir witnessed violence occurring and he did not interfere. I believe that he felt he was part of the Black Kings, and that he could not report anything to the authorities because if he was to do so, he would lose JT’s trust and everyone’s else in Robert Taylor. In many parts, it’s seen how he runs on his moral compass and does not follow protocol for research. I think there’s also a bi- standard effect, in which Sudhir doesn’t observe anyone calling the police or anyone stopping such violence, which makes him lose his individuality and become part of “The Black
King.” (Hatch, 09/27/18). He does so because he has become biased, and has created a relationship with JT and many people in Robert Taylor.
Sudhir started to acknowledge that for the past several years, he had been coming to the projects hustling everyone for information, and he was not at ease with his conduct regarding his ethical and moral duties. He tricked JT into thinking he was writing him a biography but it was clear that he was playing the tenants and JT by misrepresenting his intentions. Sudhir would always go around telling people that his findings were for his dissertation but the reality is that he hustled everyone the same way they hustle, he became part of his experiment in a way. Nevertheless, it was clear that there was a power dynamic in which he solely benefited and the people in Robert Taylor got the short end of the stick.
Part of the book which I found ethical was the fact he had Confidentiality, meaning that the researcher can connect the data to the individual's identity but promises not to release the given data (Carr, 2017). This is seen at several parts when JT and several other people approach him and tell him that they are not worried about him taking notes, that they know he has confidentiality and he cannot say what he saw because he would end up in jail as well.
SOC 311 4
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 2, 2018 5
In conclusion, although Sudhir’s ethnography was following the steps as far as negotiating access to Robert Taylor, taking notes of the tenants and everyone in the Black King community, choosing a topic, and deciding when to back out (Carr, 2017). He did not by any means make this an ethical research project, he constantly pushed the limits of ethical values and moral principals, in a way he started to become very close to the subjects, making it hard to tell if he was being ethical or if he was just doing it for his personal benefit. My opinion is that Venkatesh couldn’t have done this reacher any different,
As a researcher, the only way to get access and information in locations as Robert Taylor is to establish a close relationship based on trust, then you are able to do social research. In other words, you must become one of them, and that includes violating ethical and moral principals. I believe that the reading was not ethical, however, the methods employed were worth the results, and I truly enjoyed the findings. I admire Sudhir Venkatesh’s courage to be able to break from all the rules and get such dissertation done. In a way, the feeling I get after finishing the book is the one of admiration.