In ways determined variously by its hostility, intolerance and even criminality, but also its socio-economic vulnerability and political marginalisation, ‘Loyalism’ as a label or ethnographic category represents particular forms of ‘deviance’ (Hobbs 2001). This, in turn, has rendered at least some of my research what Raymond Lee (1993) has termed ‘sensitive’, in that it has involved (and in a sense continues to involve) particular ‘intrusive’ and ‘political’ threats, as well as threats of sanction for both myself as researcher and certain of my participants. In all instances it is the ethical duty of the ethnographer, as far as possible, to protect their respondents, and this duty is all the more acute in instances where a failure to do so could result in sanctions. For instance, even to claim membership of the UVF or the UDA is proscribed under UK law and to be revealed to be a current member of either organisation carries a potential prison sentence of up to 10 years (Home Office 2015). As far as I am aware, none of my respondents were active or current members of a proscribed organisation, but this represents only one particular form of the ‘guilty knowledge’ I have risked acquiring over the course of my research. Much of this knowledge is, on the face of it, fairly innocuous – who does or does not like whom and for what reasons – but in a close-knit community this kind of information can be extremely sensitive, with potentially damaging consequences when ‘they’ can read what ‘we’ write (cf. Lee 1993: 5; See also Brettell ed. 1996).
Becker (1967, cited in Fielding 1982: 91) has suggested that “one should refrain from publishing items of fact or conclusions that are not necessary to one’s argument or would cause suffering out of proportion to the scientific gain of making them public”. I went one step further than this by choosing not to ask questions about expressly illegal activity in the first place. These questions were, in any case, unlikely to be answered by respondents fully aware of the legal issues raised by the so-called and ongoing Boston Tapes controversy. For each of my respondents, the specific boundaries of the research were clearly laid out, and lines drawn as to what information I was prepared to be privy, what activities I was prepared to observe and in which I was prepared to participate (cf. Polsky 1971). Complete anonymity can never be guaranteed, particularly in a context where crucial clues to identity can inhere in information as seemingly innocuous as a street name (Lee 1993: 186). However, all reasonable steps to protect the identity of my respondents has been taken. To this end – and in consultation with respondents – names have been changed and the biographical information pertaining to each interlocutor has been kept to a minimum.
In sum, this research has involved complex ethical and moral negotiations and some compromises on my part which have at times been quite emotionally challenging. The problem of balancing the will to speak out against or challenge forms of intolerance and prejudice versus maintaining good relationships with my respondents has often been difficult to negotiate. Cassell (1988) has argued that in order to gain access to the field it is possible and even desirable to temporarily adopt the views of respondents, and at the very least, it is often not for the anthropologist to openly condemn particular ideas or actions where they are encountered in their setting. Particularly in the early stages of my fieldwork, building relationships with ‘gate-keepers’ to gain ‘access’ (Reed 2012: 209), I found it difficult to judge what I ought or ought not to say, how to respond to certain kinds of provocative questioning or how much of myself – my own views, beliefs and opinions – I ought to reveal. In the end, however, building and maintaining relationships with respondents or interlocutors ‘in the field’ is really no different to building relationships more generally, even where those interlocutors hold views and engage in forms of behaviour which are at odds with or jar with one’s own. Honesty (with the exception of a few white lies which are the stuff of social grace), integrity, flexibility and importantly, a good sense of humour and the capacity to both give and take a good ‘slaggin’’ (cf. Rodham 1998) have all been fundamental to developing reciprocal relationships based on trust, openness and mutual respect. While I have not come to share the worldview of my respondents, I will always have a profound and enduring respect for their opinions, and gratitude for the patience, kindness and generosity they have shown me.
(excerpted from chapter 2)
