Tearoom Trade - Criticism

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.