Cheek, J. (2010). Human Rights, Social Justice, and Qualitative Research: Questions and Hesitations about What We Say about What We Do. In Denzin, N.K., & Giardina, M.D. (eds), Qualitative Inquiry and Human Rights (100-111). Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.

Qualitative inquiry often regards human rights and social justice as important components of research. However, Cheek wonders if we think that our research alone works to advance human rights and social justice. What assumptions do we make about how our research works alongside human rights and social justice? Cheek explores hesitations she has about the connections between research and human rights and social justice. Her two points of hesitation are: Involvement and participation does not necessarily equal advancing social justice or human rights, and an alternate reading of a research program raises questions about what the doing actually does. Regarding the first point of hesitation, there is the assumption of a linear process that takes information from research to practice. Cheek addresses that we in qualitative research often hope to address some kind of sociological issue and use our research toward finding a solution. She then points out how we often come from an outside view: Who decided that researching a certain sociological topic was necessary? Who decided who would be involved in the research? In other words, are we restricting qualitative research to an ultimately conservative result, limiting progress of human rights and social justice in the process? Regarding the second point of hesitation, Cheek points out that the funding of specific research projects excludes other research projects from funding. After all, funding bodies tend to determine what and whom are researched, as well as how they are researched. Social justice and human rights are advanced, but this takes place within relatively conservative, certainly constructed parameters.

Cheek came from 10-plus years in a research program contributing to citizenship and social sustainability, in regard to care and services for older people. In other words, she has spent more than a decade in the field of research, which adds to her ethos. While my research will involve neither discussion with others nor funding, I am considering my research more carefully in regard to whose artifacts are included in the research, to why certain artifacts are privileged. In fact, I might need to change certain aspects of my proposal… again.

Erickson, F. (2010). Affirming Human Dignity in Qualitative Inquiry: Walking the Walk. In Denzin, N.K., & Giardina, M.D. (eds), Qualitative Inquiry and Human Rights (112-122). Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.

Erickson points out that, in the best circumstances, “qualitative social research advances human rights and affirms human dignity by seeking and telling the truth about what particular people do in their everyday lives and about what their actions mean to them” (113). As such, we understand the stereotyping of subalterns (i.e., black slaves being happy and content in their oppression, commercializing people native to Hawaii for tourist purposes, etc.) as violations of human rights. Qualitative research, ideally, treats subjects with honor and respect, but much inquiry of a qualitative nature ultimately amounted to Foucauldian panoptical surveillance. After all, qualitative researchers conventionally boast more power than the qualitatively researched; such privilege can (and often does) prevent researchers from seeing limits and important differences. There’s also the issue of pursuing “a definite truth,” when we have come to understand such a thing as contextualized truth(s).

Erickson goes on to review previous and contemporary methods of qualitative research, highlighting worthy goals and the difficulties in achieving them. These methods include: ethnography, critical ethnography, autoethnography, participatory action research (or collaborative action research), and arts-based qualitative research and performance ethnography. Ethnography simply refers to accounts of how people go about their everyday lives; this research usually focuses on some kind of subaltern. While the intentions are noble (usually), those who exist outside of the studied subaltern group often find difficulty in relating to the group of people they are studying. Critical ethnography examines oppression, including that of a subaltern group against itself. While this sort of inquiry can teach us, how do we communicate with oppressors within a subaltern group honestly about our research? Autoethnography sees someone within a group conducting research on that group. This inquiry avoids more readily than ethnography and critical ethnography. However, researchers might fail to see what’s right in front of them, and they might be blind to their own privilege, too. Participatory action research involves the researchers and the researched collaborating and working toward a change for the better, rather than enacting a traditional researcher-researched relationship. Arts-based qualitative research and performance ethnography see researchers shunning the notion of objectivity in their work, and conveying their research in more vivid, literary ways. Still, the researchers must check their bias(es), and not every researcher can convey their work and findings through more personal styles of writing.

Erickson concludes that we must question the good our research can do. We should continue to conduct qualitative research, but we should keep ourselves in check more than qualitative researchers of previous generations did.

Erickson’s research interests include the study of social interaction as a learning environment, the anthropology of education, and (obviously) ethnographic research methods. His interests make him an appropriate researcher for this topic. As for how this will function in my own research, I must again reiterate that I will not converse with others for my research in this course. In the end, my (thesis) research will work toward observing online activity – queer subversion, more specifically – though this specific project will focus on finding relevant artifacts. Still, it is important that I do not contribute to the panoptical surveillance perpetuated by former qualitative studies, here or in my broader research. Rather, I should resist any temptations to sensationalize or marginalize, and additionally raise questions regarding if such temptations arise in the first place. I believe that my being a part of the subaltern group focused on in my research will help me in this regard.