Navigating the grey areas of law and ethics in ethnography: Justifying participatory methods with criminal ticket touts in the UK

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to argue that the use of legally and ethically dubious methods in ethnography can sometimes be justified in the pursuit of new knowledge. The paper offers reflections on the risks that participatory methods of enquiry can bring upon both researcher and research participants, particularly in terms of the physical and reputational risks that researchers must face when adopting ethnographic methods in unwelcoming research environments.

Design/methodology/approach

Ethnographic methods, specifically participant observation (PO), were adopted to penetrate a gang of criminal ticket touts in the UK through a gatekeeper who provided access to knowledge and experience.

Findings

Pushing the legal and ethical boundaries of research is not only justifiable, but sometimes necessary in the discovery of new, socially valuable and otherwise unobtainable knowledge. Ethnographic research and PO are the only methods through which it is possible to gauge an understanding and appreciation, and thus present a valid depiction, of deviant and hard to access groups. As such, the use of these methods can sometimes be justified, within certain parameters.

Originality/value

This research adopts ethnographic methods in the under-researched and topical area of black market ticket touting in the UK. Ethnography alone, through an “internal” understanding of the participants’ viewpoints, can reveal that much of what is discussed in the media and in Parliament is inaccurate. The paper builds on the existing literature on touting and on conducting illegal research, and offers reflections on why these methods can sometimes be justified.

Citation

Moretti, A. (2020), "Navigating the grey areas of law and ethics in ethnography: Justifying participatory methods with criminal ticket touts in the UK", Journal of Organizational Ethnography, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 44-65. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOE-09-2018-0038