Tearoom Trade, Research Ethics, and Political Intervention

[Originally an assignment essay submitted for the module "Researching Society" in Univ of Warwick, 12/2006. ]

Assignment: Identify an item of published research that includes material that addresses research design and ethical issues. Write a critical assessment of the design of the research and of some aspects of the ethics of the research.


Tearoom Trade, a book written from Laud Humphreys’ PhD thesis in Harvard, was the first-ever study about the homosexual encounters in US public toilet (nicknamed ‘tearoom’ in its practitioners’ circle), an illegal offence when the project was conducted in late 1960s. After its debut, this book was soon reviewed as “a remarkable achievement[1]” and bestowed the 1969 C. Wright Mills Award by Society for the Study of Social Problems. But four decades later, it is now mostly remembered as “notorious[2]” for corrupted research ethics. What does this story tell? This is the theme to explore in this essay.

In the first section I will briefly outline the design of this study, followed by a critical review, in second section, of the defenses Humphrey presented in his last chapter. I will further explore the issue of whether deception and invasion into subjects privacy is justifiable in section three and four, from the perspective of sociology community and Humphreys himself. Through these presentations, I shall argue that while it’s necessary to regard Humphreys’ methods as unethical within sociology community, there exists an alternative perspective from which his efforts, seen as a form of political intervention, may be justified.

Tearoom Trade－Its Research Design

In the study reported in Tearoom Trade, Humphreys devised a sophisticated research design with use of a variety of disguises, to tackle the sensitive subject matter. In the first stage, he got the access to enter the hidden scenes in the ‘tearooms’ by assuming the role of ‘watchqueeen,’ a lookout voyeur responsible for signaling if policemen or strangers approached when other participants were enjoying a variety of physical interactions. By playing this role, he was able to observe and record not only his subjects’ characteristics and behaviors, but also their car registration numbers. In the second stage, he managed to trace the name and addresses of his sampled car number from the police in the disguise of a ‘market research.’ And then he successfully reached a group of subjects, got into their house, and interviewed those men whose homosexual behaviour he had previously watched in public toilets, all in the disguise of a “social health survey.” In order to minimize the chance of being recognized, Humphreys deliberately waited until a year later, changed his hairstyle and even get a new car. As one of its major critic commented (Warwick 1982), this study may well “hold the world record” for its “concentration of mispresentation and disguises.”

Humphreys’ Defenses

It is unethical for a sociologist to deliberately misrepresent his identity for the purpose of entering a private domain…It is unethical for sociologist to deliberately misrepresent the character of the research in which he is engaged.
－ Erikson (1967 373)

Humphreys was aware of the potential ethics controversies underlying his use of covert design, especially after Erikson published a strong critique of disguise research in 1967[3]. Then, how did he respond to the foreseeable challenges?

In his last chapter titled “Postscript: A Question of Ethics”, Humphreys presented a series of defenses. He first defended the use of covert method by pointing out “any conceivable method employable in the study of human behavior has at least some potential for harming others (169),” and therefore research ethics shouldn’t be considered in absolute terms but instead be adopted in different circumstances by “weighting possible social benefits against possible cost in human discomfort (170).” He also noted (170) that few interviewers he knew would be “completely honest with his respondents,” otherwise the whole concern of effective questionnaire construction “could be dropped.” Here it is apparent that Humphrey subscribed to an ethical stance falling somewhere between the “situation ethics” and “pervasive ethical transgression” in Bryman’s typology (2001 478)－a stance that has its legitimacy but leave whether the specific study is justifiable to be further determined.

Humphreys then went on defending his study against the charge of deception and violation of subject’s privacy. He presented two arguments about the first-stage participatory research. (1) Everyone in the tearoom was represented only as participant, and he “was indeed a “voyeur,” though in the sociological and not the sexual sense.” Hence he claimed, “ I misrepresented my identity no more than anyone else.” (2) His activities were intended to gain entrance not to “a private domain” but to a public restroom.

These two justifications, however, are totally faulty. First, indeed everyone in the restroom conceals their other identities, but a shared identity was that all came here for sexual curiosity－a identity Humphrey misrepresented. Second, as Reynold rightly noted (1982 197), the very existence of the role ‘watchqueen’ defined the scene a private one, despite it’s physically located in a public building.

About the second-stage disguised survey, he justified his approach by appealing to the existence of multiple uses of archive data. “Is it unethical to use data that someone has gathered for purpose one of which is unknown to the respondent,” he asked. This defense, again, is weak since making use of data collected for other purposes does not involve a deliberate act of deception (though the issue of privacy may arise).

The only convincing defense about his methods seems to be the efforts he made to protect his respondents’ privacy from the public (while not from him). He claimed, in presenting research result, he’d made every effort to conceal all identifying tag of his subjects, indeed a difficult task when he has to avoid data distortion[4]. However, this deliberation for safeguarding the subjects’ identities from the public did not change the fact that he did deceive the subjects and violate their privacy. Then, the question remains is: Was it worthy?

Was It Worthy? －Shifting Ethics in Sociology

Is deception and invasion of subjects’ privacy worthy in this study?
Among others, Warwick (1982 57-58) presented the most-cited[5] objections against their worthiness: (1) Humphreys took a relatively powerless group that cannot challenge this study, (2) deception and privacy invasion would spread a trickery image of sociologist and made future research more difficult, and (3) these very means would encourage similar behavior in other part of the society, which untimely help produces “a society of cynics, liars and manipulators” and “undermine the trust which is essential to a just social order.” This compelling passage, which I subscribe to[6], explains the way in which Tearoom Trade is presented in today’s methodology textbook.

However, it must be noted that ethics is a form of social construction that evolves across time. In late 1960s, this very question must had been considered worthy among some sociologists if the expected gain of knowledge is substantial, otherwise this project, one supervised in the most prestigious institution worldwide, would not had been done[7]. A survey of the book reviews published in academic journals seems to verify this point－most of the critiques were placed on its lack of deeper investigation of the causes and their motivations, while little attention were paid to ethical issues[8]. Therefore, placing all the condemnation on Humphrey and ignoring the intellectual background in which he was raised won’t do him justice.

Tearoom Trade as a Political Intervention

In the last section, I wish to point out a more profound aspect of Humphreys’ radical engagement in this controversial research design. I shall argue that, while it is justifiable for the mainstream sociologist community to distant themselves from the strategies employed in Tearoom Trade, one need to lift this study from the purely academic discourse, and reinterpret it as a maneuver of political intervention for a fully appreciation.

What’s most apparent in Humphrey’s passages is his concern for the suppressed homosexual community and his aspiration to make a change. He wrote with passion “the greatest harm a social scientist could do to [homosexual group] would be to ignore… (169).” And he concluded his chapters with a policy suggestion and a plea for greater tolerance toward homosexual group. He even seems to regard this research as a competition with the social control institutions when he claimed he has more concern “that a group of law students and their advisors would be the first to risk involvement in such a study,” rather than “that some sociologist might endanger his ethical integrity (168).”

Indeed, as Warwick (1982 56) commented, such an ambition presented a “rather inflated sense of professional self-importance.” Bulmer also pointed out (1982 226) the consequence of a published research is “not within the control of the researcher.” These comments presented a more modest and more restricted self-image of sociologists, which I believe shall be a rule for most sociologists.

But at any stage of history, there would always be some anomies that eventually shift the history by not following the agreed rules. In that regard, naïve as Humphrey may be, his controversial work nonetheless rebutted some then-prevailing stereotype, successfully attracted much public attention to homosexual issues, and fostered the related debates. These are processes that have their credit for leading some consequential legal and social changes, e.g., the later abolishment of homosexual discriminating laws[9]. So, can we consider Humphrey as one of such figure－one condemned in the academic court but redeemed in historical court? This question is difficult to answer, but apparently he was well received by some, especially among the homosexual-friendly organizations[10], those organizations that are supposed to have represented his subject group－the very “victims” of Humphreys’ wrong-doing in his critics’ eyes.

Warwick was right in pointing out (1982 58) “A democratic nation is ultimately built upon respect of constitutional processes and restraint in the use of means.” But in the realm of the suppressed, maybe the nation just does not seems like a truly democratic one. And what they look for is not a restricted scientist, but a hero who is daring and capable for making a sound you cannot ignore. In this regard, research ethics has little to say.

REFERENCE
BRYMAN, A., 2001. Social research methods. Oxford ; New York: Oxford University Press.
BULMER, M., 1982. The merits and demerits of covert participant observation. In: M. BULMER, ed, Social research ethics: an examination of the merits of covert participant observation. London: Macmillan, pp. 217-251.
BURGESS, R.G., 1984. In the field : an introduction to field research. London: Allen & Unwin.
ERIKSON, K.T., 1967. A Comment on Disguised Observation in Sociology. Social Problems, 14(4), pp. 366-373.
HOFFMAN, M., 1971. Book Review: Tearoom Trade. Arvhices of Sexual Behaviors, 1(1), pp. 98-100.
HOMAN, R., 1991. The ethics of social research. London: Longman.
HUMPHREYS, R.A.L., 1980. Social Science: Ethics of Research. Science, 207(4432), pp. 712-714.
REISS, I.L., 1971. Book Review: Tearoom Trade. American Sociological Review, 36(3), pp. 581-583.
REYNOLDS, P.D., 1982. Moral Judgemnets: strategies for analysis with applicaiton to covert participant observation. In: M. BULMER, ed, Social research ethics : an examination of the merits of covert participant observation. London: Macmillan, pp. 185-213.
ROSEN, L., 1972. Book Review: Tearoom Trade. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 34(2), pp. 382-384.
WARWICK, D.P., 1982. Tearoom Trade: Means and Ends in Social Research. In: M. BULMER, ed, Social research ethics: an examination of the merits of covert participant observation. London: Macmillan, pp. 38-58.
WIENS, A.N., 1971. Book Review: Tearoom Trade. Contemporary Psychology, 16(7), pp. 430-432.

Endnotes
[1] In the first book review about this study in academic journals, see Hoffman, 1970. There seems an interesting shift of how Tearoom Trade was reviewed in different time. This will be explored in p.
[2] See Bulmer (1982 222). Homan (1991 101), in a more neutral tone, also identify Tearoom Trade as “one of the most noticed and controversial cases of arguable unethical methodology in the history of social research.” In a popular methodology textbook (Bryman 2001 477), this study was presented as one of the “infamous” cases.
[3] He carried out this project between 1965-1968. Therefore he was roughly half-completed his project when Erikson published his critiques.
[4] He wrote (172) “[t]he question I have always asked in this connection is: Could the respondent still recognize himself without having any others recognize him? I may have failed in a few cases to meet the first part of this standard, but I am confident that I have not failed to meet the second.” I consider this quotation a gold standard in handling interview material.
[5] See, e.g., Bulmer (1982 222), Burgess (1984 187) and Homan (1991 110-111).
[6] However, this does not means that Warwick’s argument was without question. For instance, he illustrated the power relation issue by supposing the case that Humphrey “passed as a voyeuristic gardener or chauffeur for a prominent family,” then he alleged, “he would have been subject to legal and other kinds of reaction.” However, I don’t see this would be the case if Humphrey did what Warwick supposed and also took pain to conceal the “prominent family’s” identity. Because any significant reaction that family took would simply reveal their connection with Humphrey’s work.
[7] Humphrey in a letter he wrote to Science reflected that (1980) “research ethics” was not even mentioned in his graduate training.
[8] See Reiss (1971), Wiens (1971), Hoffman (1971) and Rosen (1972).
[9] Reynolds (1982 199), among others, suggested this connection.
[10] He was even elected to a position in the National Committee of Sexual Civil Liberties.