Covert Research Methods,, Pro et Contra

Natalija Krstova, International Relations Studies2
Mentor: Proffesor D-r. Anica Dragovikj Mentor: Proffesor D-r. Anica Dragovikj Natalija KrstovaInternational Relations Studies, Conflict ResolutionNatalija KrstovaInternational Relations Studies, Conflict ResolutionPros VS Cons
Covert method ResearchResearch MethodologyPros VS Cons
Covert method ResearchResearch Methodology
Mentor: Proffesor D-r. Anica Dragovikj

Mentor: Proffesor D-r. Anica Dragovikj

Natalija Krstova
International Relations Studies, Conflict Resolution


Natalija Krstova
International Relations Studies, Conflict Resolution


Pros VS Cons
Covert method Research
Research Methodology
Pros VS Cons
Covert method Research
Research Methodology



PRO'S VS.CON'S
Research Methodology Presentation
Covert methods in social research

What does covert method represents?
Covert participant observation is a method in social science research. Participant observation involves a researcher joining the group he or she is studying, and in the case of covert observation, the researcher's status is not made known to the group
Covert research is discouraged in guidelines, although it is recognized that covert designs are necessary in exceptional cases
Unlikely to get consistent or comparable results on a large scale, because gathered data is qualitative and there is variation in group dynamics of different small groups. 
Covert observation is conducted in three contexts:
Public and open settings where everyone has a right to be
Closed settings where the researcher is already a member
Closed settings where the researcher gains access by adopting methods of the under-cover investigator
The moral problem
Research that exploits naive trust, and where data-collection relies on a 'cover' story
Apparent separation between the honest, open study and the 'covert' one.
The difficulty in knowing where the transition between the open and the covert occurs should not be taken as proof that the distinction is illusory
PRO'S for Covert Method Research
The principle of non-maleficence
Covert methods can keep that select few subjects from turning hostile and possibly dangerous
Researchers go undercover primarily for the subjects' benefit
Covertness is pervasive and unavoidable in human communication. So-called covert' methodology would thus mimic interaction that occurs naturally.
Covert methods are the researcher's attempts to turn the prevalence of deceit for to the benefit t of social inquiry
Researchers can deduce what subjects tacitly consent to, which wouldn't happen in explicitly agreed upon situations and researches
It provides personal first-hand experience of the role and thus heightens understanding of it.
It gives the researcher access to the same places, people and events as the subjects

CON'S for Cover Method Research
There is a possibility of conflict between one's role as a participant and one's role as a researcher.
The Risk that people might not appreciate the researcher's attention. (opposite to his bona fide non-maleficence approach)
The risk that the subject becomes aware that he is part of a research, it is unlikely to predict his reaction
Covert methods may not offer an acceptable mediation between risk and benefit (interpretation of what counts as risk and benefit is necessarily selective)
People who occasionally deceive consider covert methods just another form of deception
Covert methods amplify the difficulties in knowing how people evaluate trust and openness in their everyday affairs
The tacit consent is often over-emphasized as accurate, reliable and measurable as the explicit consent (which is not correct, it is proven by the fact that the results from covert method research are always purely qualitative and cannot be applied on large scale)

Conclusion:
The Covert Method research is a highly controversial Social Research Method. There are different theories, examples, summaries and also explanation why, or why it shouldn't be used as legitimate social research method. The public and especially scientific world opinion that prevails, leans over to the con's side emphasizing the moral dilemma that arises when doing covert research: "If the researches behavior is undistinguishable than the group's (which is condition for it to give genuine and natural results) why then not to ask consent when the members of the group are already comfortable with the researcher?"
Which can't annihilate the fact that Covert Research is not only necessary, but essential in explicit cases. Mainly the theses that theorist support depend largely in their personal support of one or the other side of the coin called Covert Method Research, although in most cases, the safe bet is that that coin falls on the CON'S side for it.

Sources:
http://www.edu.plymouth.ac.uk/resined/qualitative%20methods%202/qualrshm.htm#Observation
The British Journal of Sociology Volume 50 issue 2 1999 [doi 10.1111%2Fj.1468-4446.1999.00331.x] C. D. Herrera -- Two arguments for 'covert methods' in social research.pdf
http://srmo.sagepub.com/view/sage-encyc-qualitative-research-methods/n74.xml
http://www.edu.plymouth.ac.uk/resined/observation/obshome.htm
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O88-covertobservation.html
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O88-researchethics.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observational_techniques
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_participant_observation