35. The phrase of finding a balance that is “right for them” is from Shana Maier and Brian Monahan, “How Close Is Too Close?”
36. Some publishers now demand to know whether respondents gave written permission for the interviews or field notes to be published, particularly if the respondents’ identities could be deduced by readers. As a result, consent forms should include an explicit statement that study participants are giving permission for the information to be published and that while every effort will be made to keep the information confidential, the participants understand that there is always the possibility that someone could recognize them in the publication.
37. Of course, persons portrayed in newspaper articles or, for that matter, on reality television, often are livid about those portrayals. Arlene N. Morgan, a dean at the Columbia School of Journalism, reported from her career as a reporter that it was “good common sense to meet with a person and give him or her a chance to write a letter to the editor or come in to meet with the editors in charge.” She adds, “Being more proactive to signal what is in a story is . . . [what] I would recommend. . . . Prepare and prepare some more and if it does not damage the story, think hard before you publish.” Personal communication, October 27, 2010. For the journalist code of ethics, see Gene Foreman, The Ethical Journalist. For an example of one family’s reactions to a reality show, see Jacques Steinberg, “One Show’s Unexpected Lessons in Reality.”
38. Participatory research is an exception. In that tradition, research participants are involved in each of these steps. See Whitehead and McNiff, Action Research, as well as, in a somewhat different vein, Binaya Subedi and Jeong-eun Rhee, “Negotiating Collaborating across Differences.” On the role of the researcher in conducting the research and reporting on it, see, among others, Maier and Monahan, “How Close Is Too Close?”; Cassell, “Risks and Benefits to Subjects of Fieldwork”; Katherine Irwin, “Into the Dark Heart of Ethnography”; Jack Katz, “On the Rhetoric and Politics of Ethnographic Method”; John Van Maanen, Tales of the Field. There are also many efforts to create new forms for the presentation of ethnography, including poetry and performance art. See Michal M. McCall and Howard S. Becker, “Performance Science”; Carl Bagley, “Educational Ethnography as Performance Art.”
39. Nancy Scheper-Hughes, Saints, Scholars, and Schizophrenics, 2nd ed., pp. xviii, xvi–xvii.
40. Researchers seek to resolve this complex ethical dilemma in various ways. Duneier, for example, has allocated his royalties from Sidewalk to the men profiled in the book. But the actual amount is very modest, often less than $25 per man per year. In addition, introducing a payment after the research is over for work done earlier changes the relationship between a researcher and participants. In When a Heart Turns Rock Solid, Timothy Black directly labels ethnographic research as a form of exploitation. Compared to sociologists, anthropologists have a much richer literature on methodological dilemmas in fieldwork. See, for example, Paul Rabinow, Reflections on Doing Fieldwork in Morocco; Margery Wolf, A Thrice-Told Tale.
41. See Arlie Hochschild, The Second Shift. If I continue my research focus on the reproduction of inequality, then I would not want to give my own book to potential participants, since it would reveal too much about the research question of the study. However, given widespread internet access, it is likely that some potential research participants would do a search on my name; they are very likely to learn of my research interests that way. (Other researchers, though, could use Unequal Childhoods as an example of a final product.)
42. It is important to remember that researchers and subjects not only have different interests in the final product, but they are engaged in different endeavors: study participants are living their lives; researchers are engaged in analysis.
43. This kind of dialog is not easy to achieve. It requires a willingness to listen to people’s highly critical and angry statements. Here the key is not to argue, or be defensive, or insist on explaining the original ideas. Rather, the goal is to listen very carefully to others’ statements, clearly conveying that you have heard not only their words but the emotions behind them. Acknowledging these respondents’ concerns word for word demonstrates that you have heard and understood their position. Then, by continuing to come back to visit, you confirm the sincerity of your concern about them and their feelings. I term this “staying in relationship with them” through the anger. It is quite difficult to do. But it is not impossible.
44. Indeed, when I went by the house to share my summary of their reaction to the book (included above), both Mr. and Ms. Yanelli noted that their views had changed. Mr. Yanelli said the summary was “on the money,” an accurate statement of their feelings “at that time.” When I told Ms. Yanelli on the telephone that I had a draft of their reaction to the book, she asked, “When? At first or now?” In addition, Ms. Yanelli was aware that others had different views. (Ms. Yanelli had given the book to a relative to read; the relative liked the portrait.) Still, the portrait of the family clashes with Ms. Yanelli’s view of herself and her family and thus remains a source of pain. During our visit, over six years after the book appeared, Ms. Yanelli became tearful as she discussed it.
45. William Foote Whyte, “On the Evolution of Street Corner Society,” p. 66. Paul ten Have makes a similar point in Understanding Qualitative Research and Ethnomethodology. He notes that “Doc” read “every page” of Whyte’s book before it was published, but that it can be difficult to predict how research participants will feel later. As ten Have writes, “The feeling of being ‘used’ by the researcher may be hard to avoid” (p. 116).
CHAPTER 15: IN CONTEXT
1. See Daniel Kindlon, Too Much of a Good Thing; KidsHealth.org, “Is Your Child Too Busy?”; Madeline Levine, The Price of Privilege. For earlier works, see David Elkind, The Hurried Child; Alvin Rosenfeld and Nicole Wise, The Over-Scheduled Child. For a vigorous defense of the virtues of hectic schedules (as well as a defense of blending of parenting directives with the cultivation of children’s talents), see Amy Chua, Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother. Despite her emphasis on the virtues of issuing directives, the rebellion of Chua’s daughter led Chua to retreat from her style of blending parental directives with the cultivation of her daughter’s musical talent. In the end, Chua adopted a more traditional style of concerted cultivation. For historical accounts of changes in child rearing, see Steven Mintz, Huck’s Raft; Ann Hulbert, Raising America.
2. I received a grant from the Spencer Foundation to conduct the follow-up study and to examine the results of Unequal Childhoods using a large, quantitative data set. As a result of that grant, Elliot Weininger collaborated with me; later Dalton Conley and Melissa Velez at New York University also were involved in a more limited fashion. See Lareau and Weininger, “Time, Work, and Family Life.” See also Weininger and Lareau, “Cultivating the Religious Child”; and Weininger, Lareau, Conley, and Velez, “Concerted Cultivation and Natural Growth among American Children.”