Criticism
Humphreys revealed his role to some of those he observed, but he noted that those who tended to talk with him openly were better educated; as he continued his research, he decided to conceal his identity in order to avoid response bias. Humphreys' rationale was that because of public stigma associated with the homosexual activities in question, and his subjects' desires to keep their activities secret, many were unlikely to allow him an opportunity for observation and follow-up interview were he to reveal himself as a researcher.
Humphreys' study has been criticized on ethical grounds in that he observed acts of homosexuality by masquerading as a voyeur, did not get his subjects’ consent, used their license plate numbers to track them down, and interviewed them in disguise without revealing the true intent of his studies (he claimed to be a health service interviewer, and asked them questions about their race, marital status, occupation, and so on). "Tearoom Trade" has been criticized for privacy violations, and deceit - both in the initial setting, and in the follow-up interviews. After the study was published, the controversy in Humphreys' own department at Washington University resulted in about half the faculty leaving the department. There was also a lively debate in the popular press; notably journalist Nicholas von Hoffman, writing for The Washington Post at that time, condemned all social scientists, accusing them of indifference.
Nonetheless, others have defended "Tearoom Trade," pointing out that participants were conducting their activities in a public place and that the deceit was harmless, since Humphreys designed the study with respect for their individual privacy, not identifying them in his published work.
As Earl R. Babbie notes, the "tearoom trade controversy has never been resolved"; and it is likely to remain a subject of debates in the conceivable future.
Read more about this topic: Tearoom Trade
Famous quotes containing the word criticism:
“I am opposed to writing about the private lives of living authors and psychoanalyzing them while they are alive. Criticism is getting all mixed up with a combination of the Junior F.B.I.- men, discards from Freud and Jung and a sort of Columnist peep- hole and missing laundry list school.... Every young English professor sees gold in them dirty sheets now. Imagine what they can do with the soiled sheets of four legal beds by the same writer and you can see why their tongues are slavering.”
—Ernest Hemingway (1899–1961)
“Nothing would improve newspaper criticism so much as the knowledge that it was to be read by men too hardy to acquiesce in the authoritative statement of the reviewer.”
—Richard Holt Hutton (1826–1897)
“The visual is sorely undervalued in modern scholarship. Art history has attained only a fraction of the conceptual sophistication of literary criticism.... Drunk with self-love, criticism has hugely overestimated the centrality of language to western culture. It has failed to see the electrifying sign language of images.”
—Camille Paglia (b. 1947)