Personal Sex in Public Places by Laud Humphreys - Book Report/Review Example

Critical Review Tearoom Trade: Impersonal Sex in Public Places By Laud Humphreys and number As a doctoral candidate at Washington University, Laud Humphreys, author of the Tearoom Trade: Personal Sex in Public Places, the critique of which appears in this report, began researching what he referred to as "tea room trade" or the act of fellatio between two anonymous men in public restroom. Humphreys spent time learning about this practice and determined to become an insider so that he could study these behaviors, focusing primarily on the restrooms in public parks. Taking the insider approach by becoming a part of the scene, he observed and interviewed participants without telling them he was conducting sociological research, an omission that caused great consternation and charges of unethical behavior in the academic community. The omission also resulted in costing him his PhD. Humphrey’s defense of this behavior does not justify his lack of adherence to the rules of research. The following from Neuman conveys the severity of the ethical criticisms and level of concerned: ...about 100 men were observed engaging in sexual acts as Humphrey’s pretended to be a “watchqueen” (a voyeur and lookout). Subjects were followed to their cars, and their license numberswere secretly recorded. Names and addresses were obtained from police registers when Humphreys posed as a market researcher. A year later, in disguise, Humphreys used a deceptive story about a health survey to interview the subjects in their homes. Humphreys was careful to keep names in a safety deposit boxes, and identifiers with subject names were burned. He significantly advanced knowledge of homosexuals who frequent “tearooms” and overturned previous false beliefs about them. There has been controversy over the study: The subjects never consented; deception was used; and the names could have been used to blackmail subjects, to end marriages, or to initiate criminal prosecutions (447). Lenza, in his article in the International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, argues from the opposite perspective and contends, “this dominant view of Humphreys’ tearoom trade study, focusing primarily upon the lack of respect for autonomy (informed consent), misinforms the reader as much as it informs of the underlying moral and ethical foundations for research with human subjects” (20). There are few who defend it. Any critique of the work and its ethical questions must include the lack of empirical sociological and methodological correctness regarding the study of this group—were the information and statistics legally obtained so to speak under circumstances that have been judged by many professionals highly unethical. One might say Humphreys himself provided a somewhat weak defense of his methods in admitting he chose not to reveal his intentions in gathering statistics in his study. When analyzed, the study said little about why these people engaged in the behavior, a seemingly trivial point Humphreys leaves to other researchers more willing to take the ethical route. By ethical route it is meant that the researcher and “...give[s] his respondents sufficient assurance of anonymity and [is] sensitive enough in his contacts with them to avoid threatening the balance by which they maintain a “straight” stance away from the homosexual setting” (Humphreys, Forward, xiv). In essence he is saying here that he was not in a position or not of a methodological mind to conduct his study in a way that would have allowed him to do that. Meanwhile, the fact that Humphreys was able to get the contact information through the police department via license plate number he had dutifully noted as part of his methodology is not only questionable from an ethical standpoint, but highly controversial in terms of individual privacy and the possibility that the information could be then used by the police to detain and arrest those involved. It is a clear example of the need for separation of science from the public realm, such as law enforcement. It in fact indicates a degree of complicity between the scientist and a “henchman” of sorts, the latter enabling the former in his unethical methods, the former while gathering information passing that information onto individuals and agencies to be used for non-scientific purposes. The conduct of the study essentially puts the enhancement of scientific knowledge and possible unethical behavior before human concerns. The study of the deviant behavior revealed in the research had ramafications far beyond that of the simple application of a methodology judged deviant itself by many professionals. The fact that the study was supposed to enhance self knowledge does not justify the unethical activity. Humphreys used a disguise of sorts to gain his information, to enter a social situation for the purpose of scientific research, something that is simply not allowed under the rules of empirical data collection. In an effort to assuage the criticism, Humphrey in his summary regarding ethics tells of an incident he witnessed between a man and a young boy that for him was not a pleasant experience—as if this justifies his behavior. Some professionals said he should have avoided research altogether and “let sleeping dogs lie,” a proposal unacceptable to Humphreys in that he contends that both the media and the police have made the activity a public concern from the sociological perspective.(Humphreys 168) And what of the unintended consequences of the study once revealed: a crackdown on homosexuals in Boise Idaho, of which his work was a part, led to arrests, a son getting kicked out of West Point, a boy murdering his father, a police chief fired. All of this clearly goes against what Lenzi terms “The Pillar of Benficience” in that any such study “requires the researcher [to] avoid harming the subject” (21) In essentially pretending to be someone he was not, Humphreys also offends the other two pillars suggested by Lenzi: The Pillar of Respect for Autonomy and The Pillar of Justice. The former demands a subject’s right to “informed consent”—a free will aspect of methodology disregarded by Humphreys. The latter is of particular relevance and a bit more complex as it involves concepts of distributive justice. The Belmont Report maintains an injustice occurs when some benefit to which a person is entitled is denied without good reason or when some burden is imposed unduly (3. Justice ). The Report, created by the former U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare as "Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research," applies to medical and behavioral research. The six fundamental ethical principles for using any human subjects for research include: protecting the autonomy of all people and treating them with courtesy and respect and allowing for informed consent; maximizing benefits for the research project while minimizing risks to the research subjects; ensuring reasonable, non-exploitative, and well-considered procedures are administered fairly; fairness and equality; do no harm, and truthfulness and absence of deception. These principles remain the basis for the HHS human subject protection regulations. Taken together it can be easily concluded that Humphreys overstepped the boundries of these strictures time and time again. He hardly minimized risk to subjects by working in conjunction with local police; fairness had little place in the gathering of information and certainly exploited the subjects by keeping them in dark regarding his identity and what he was doing. Truthfulness was set aside when he claimed to be a willing participant in their activities by becoming the “watch queen,” thereby deceiving the men involved and relieving them of their autonomy. As Humphreys clearly admits, his willingness to deceive is relayed in his contention that “he [scientist] is not suspected of being a social scientist” (26). Humphrey’s also does a considerable amount of generalizing, which calls into question the empirical reliability of the study. For instance Humphreys generalizes and encourages readers to “consider the public restrooms as sexual marketplaces” (Humphreys 150). He considers the sex a product of those seeking the activity without the danger of obligation or commitment. One wonders how he came to that conclusion given his follow up interviews involved such a small segment of the subject population. Yet, he asks those reading the study to accept this on face value. He goes so far as to say the incidents such as deprivation of heterosexual contact in the military “may mark an individual as a prospective customer” (150). There is also another question that alludes even many of the hyper-critical opponents of the study, and that is how the information gained by Humphreys through interviews would negatively feed into the notion that all homosexuals are deviants. Relating the comments of a certain subject, Humphreys relates a particularly damaging quote: “The more I get, the happier I am, whether it happens in a head, through a glory hole, or dilly dallying in the bushes with four or five guys in a row” (Humphreys 149). Humphreys’ recommendations are also quite given to the assumption that the behavior is deviant and by association damaging to the society at large. His recommendations simply summarized in his recommendation for a change in social policy to get rid of the damaging “side affects” of covert sexual activities in tearooms. He recommends police and society turn somewhat of a blind eye to it. In doing so he contends the men will feel better about themselves and somehow this will all culminate in a sub-culture that will be less of a threat to society at large. These are singularly odd and prejudical statements from an empirical and scientific point of view. Humphreys is clearly suggesting that if the law turns a blind eye to the activity it will somehow become less attractive for the deviant homosexual population engaged in it. He does this without any conclusive evidence to that affect—a non-empirical approach to be sure. Conclusion It is generally acknowledged that Humphreys did everything in his power to protect the identity of his subjects, although I would have to insert that his involvement with law enforcement rendered that attempt precarious at best. As Lenza contends, and rightly so, “It was the publicity and homophobic hysteria surrounding Humphreys’ dissertation work at Washington University that created a dangerous situation for the subjects” (25). To say that the study in fact did not do harm except for a few anxious calls from extrinsic forces is hardly a defense and does nothing to ameliorate the severity of the scientific rules breached. Good intentions on the part of the researcher has little to do with actuality--the reason that research is so strictly performed and judged by professional peers. Question is not whether a sociologist might endanger his ethical integrity,and that of his profession, but that a group of law students and their advisors would knowingly become involved. Use Lenza. Go back and forth from Lenza to the actually text and discuss both sides. To say his intent was pure is not enough to justify..... To say the information provided for further research into this topic is invaluable helps somewhat in ameliorating the “means justifies the end” .. Works Cited Humphreys, Laud. Tearoom Trade: Impersonal Sex in Public Places. New York: Aldine de Gruyter 1970. Lenza, Michael. “Controversies Surrounding Laud Humphreys’ Tearoom Trade: An Unsettling Example of Politics and Power in Methodological Critiques. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 24.3 (April 5, 2004) 20-31.Retrieved July, 20, 2010 from: http://www.convictcriminology.org/pdf/mlenza/Humphreys%20tearoom%20trad e.pdf Neuman, Lawrence W. Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. 3rd ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon 1997 The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research.The Belmont Report : Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research”, April 18, 1979. Retrieved July 18, 2010 from: http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/belmont.htm Read More