My biases are those that Bruyn attributes to the participant observer, who "is interested in people as they are, not as he thinksthey ought to be according to some standard of his own
This reminds me to avoid having a set of pre-conceived notion or setting a standard/definition while I study my research subject.
First, thelatter have the greatest notoriety in the homosexual subculture
Makes me wonder how does the most nascent phase of choosing a research and research subjects look like? Is it observation and curiosity?
The subjects of this study have but one thing incommon: each has been observed by me in the course of a homosexual act in a public park restroom
I am wondering if this comes under severe ethical issues!?
To study "homosexuals" or "schizophrenics,"however, one must first overcome the vague, stereotypical generalizations to which even social science falls victim in order to define(much less isolate and sample) the population
an example of this line could be- I am doing an ethnography on women of a marginalized caste, Dalits in India. As a researcher I may fall prey to the notion that the women from this caste lack agency altogether. But my data turns out to be otherwise- it says that there are women from this marginalized caste who have been excersising their agency and have been resisting to oppressive forces in their everyday lives- Did i get it right?
Ethical and emotional problems, I suspect, provide themore serious obstacles for most prospective researchers.
Something I feel could be dilemma as a prospective researcher. Detaching emotionality is a crucial conditioning when one is doing a research.