The researcher as hooligan: Where 'participant' observation means breaking the law

International Journal of Social Research Methodology

Volumn 12, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 243-255

  Pearson, Geoff ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LIVERPOOL MANAGEMENT SCHOOL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Criminality; Ethics; Football hooliganism; Participant observation

Indexed keywords

EID: 70449631508     PISSN: 13645579     EISSN: 14645300     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/13645570701804250     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Armstrong, G. (1993). Like that Desmond Morris? In D. Hobbs & T. May (Eds.), Interpreting the field - Accounts of ethnography (pp. 3-44). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
2. Armstrong, G. (1998). Football hooligans: Knowing the score. Oxford: Berg.
3. Armstrong, G., & Hobbs, D. (1994). Tackled from behind. In R. Giulianotti, N. Bonney, & M. Hepworth (Eds.), Football, violence and social identity (pp. 196-228). London: Routledge.
4. Bruyn, S. (1970). The new empiricists: The participant observer and the phenomenologist. In W. Filstead (Ed.), Qualitative methodology: Firsthand involvement with the social world (pp. 283-287). Chicago, IL: Markham.
5. Bulmer, M. (1982). The merits and demerits of covert participant observation. In M. Bulmer (Ed.), Social research ethics (pp. 217-251). New York: Holmes & Meier.
6. Coomber, R. (2002). Protecting our research subjects, our data and ourselves from respective prosecution, seizure and summons/subpoena. Addiction Research and Theory, 10(1), 1-5.
7. Crow, G., Wiles, R., Heath, S., & Charles, V. (2006). Research ethics and data quality: The implications of informed consent. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 9(2), 83-95.
8. Denzin, N., & Erikson, K. (1982). On the ethics of disguised observation. In M. Bulmer (Ed.), Social research ethics (pp. 142-151). New York: Holmes & Meier.
9. Drury, J., & Stott, C. (2001). Bias as a research strategy: The case of intergroup conflict. Field Methods, 13(1), 47-67.
10. Erikson, K. (1967). A comment on disguise observation in sociology. Social Problems, 14, 366-373.
11. Feenan, D. (2002). Researching paramilitary violence in northern Ireland. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 5(2), 147-163.
12. Giulianotti, R. (1994). Taking liberties: Hibs casuals and Scottish law. In R. Giulianotti, N. Bonney, & M. Hepworth (Eds.), Football, violence and social identity (pp. 229-261). London: Routledge.
13. Greenfield, S., & Osborn, G. (1996). After the act: The (re)construction of football fandom. Journal of Civil Liberties, 1(1), 7-28.
14. Hammersley, M. (2006). Are ethical committees ethical? Qualitative Researcher, 2, 4-8.
15. Hobbs, D. (1995). Bad business: Professional crime in modern Britain. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
16. Hobbs, D. (1996). Doing the business: Entrepreneurship, detectives and the working class in the east end of London. Oxford: Clarendon.
17. Hobbs, D., Hadfield, P., Lister, S., & Winlow, S. (2003). Bouncers: Violence and governance in the night-time economy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
18. Homan, R. (1991). The ethics of social research. London: Longman.
19. James, M., & Pearson, G. (2006). Football banning orders: Analysing their use in court. Journal of Criminal Law, 70(6), 509-530.
20. Norris, C. (1993). Some ethical considerations on field-work with the police. In D. Hobbs & T. May (Eds.), Interpreting the field - Accounts of ethnography (pp. 122-144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
21. Patrick, J. (1973). A Glasgow gang observed. London: Eyre-Methuen.
22. Pearson, G. (1998). The English disease? The socio-legal construction of football hooliganism. Youth and Policy - The Journal of Critical Analysis, (60), 1-15.
23. Pearson, G. (1999). Legitimate targets? The civil liberties of football fans. Journal of Civil Liberties, 4(1), 28-47.
24. Pearson, G. (2000). Legislating for the football hooligan: A case for reform. In S. Greenfield & G. Osborn (Eds.), Law and Sport in Contemporary Society (pp. 182-200). London: Frank Cass.
25. Pearson, G. (2006). Contextualising the football disorder act: Proportionality under the hammer. In S. Greenfield & G. Osborn (Eds.), Readings in law and popular culture (pp. 91-118). London: Routledge.
26. Polsky, N. (1969). Hustlers, beats and others. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
27. Reynolds, P. (1982). Moral judgements: Strategies for analysis with application to covert participant observation. In M. Bulmer (Ed.), Social research ethics (pp. 185-216). New York: Holmes & Meier.
28. Scraton, P., Jemphrey, A., & Coleman, S. (1995). No last rights: The denial of justice and the promotion of myth in the aftermath of the Hillsborough disaster. Liverpool: LCC/Alden Press.
29. Sellitz, C., Jahoba, H., Deutsch, M., & Cook, S. W. (1965). Research methods in social relations. London: Methuen.
30. Stott, C., Hutchinson, P., & Drury, J. (2001). 'Hooligans' abroad? Inter-group dynamics, social identity and participation in collective 'disorder' at the 1998 World Cup finals. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 359-384.
31. Stott, C., & Pearson, G. (2006). Football banning orders, proportionality and public order. Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 45(3), 241-254.
32. Stott, C., & Pearson, G. (2007). Football 'hooliganism', policing and the war on the 'English disease'. London: Pennant Books.
33. Warwick, D. (1982). Tearoom trade: Means and ends in social research. In M. Bulmer (Ed.), Social research ethics (pp. 38-58). New York: Holmes & Meier.
34. Williams, T., Dunlap, E., Johnson, B., & Ansley, H. (1992). Personal safety in dangerous places. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 21(3), 343-374.