There are ethical issues surrounding the data collection, storage, and writing in research. The participants were assured that the study would protect their anonymity. Additionally, I avoid any specific reference to demographic information such as geographic location or occupation. In situations where a quotation might reveal a participant’s identity, I avoid
associating the excerpt with the participant’s pseudonym. Instead, I used more generic language, such as “a father” or “a mother.”
The participants should be aware of exactly what the research project entails and its intent (LaRossa, Bennet, and Gelles 1981). A common approach to qualitative research is that the analysis and data collection run concurrently; thus, the researcher may add or delete questions from the interview guide. This is especially true for unstructured interviews. The concern is the
power the researcher has to guide the conversation into specific areas of the participant’s life. The participant might comply with the direction of the interview probes and ultimately discuss sensitive issues he or she would not discuss outside the context of “research.” LaRossa, et al. (1981) explain that this dynamic is exacerbated in joint interviews. The couple might agree before the interview that only certain subjects can be discussed and that other subjects are off limits. While I do not know if such discussions actually occurred, I did find that the couples tended to have agreement on almost all topics. While I did not expect ugly arguments to ensue during the joint interviews, I did expect the couples to talk about areas of parenting that they continue to negotiate. Only three couples disagreed during the joint interview. During the individual interview, I prefaced the topic as, “I’m not digging for dirt in your marriage. I am interested in the patterns across all parents in terms of areas they continue to negotiate.”
Consequently, ten couples (20 participants) did discuss at least one way they differ in parenting styles from their partner. The other eight couples (16 participants) reported they always agree on parenting. All couples presented an image of harmonious marriages. This display of harmony was demonstrated by an egalitarian dynamic in both their discussions of their marriage and their parenting experiences. While some couples did discuss differences in parenting, none of the couples discussed any problems or concerns about their marriage. In my field notes, I remarked several times how much agreement and harmony existed among the participants.
Another ethical issue involves public and self-exposure. As previously stated, in the published work, it is important not to use details about participants that would identify them to the public. However, details such as the participant’s city of residence, religion, or perhaps ethnicity, may be unavoidable and ultimately identify the participant in the published work. Self- exposure involves the possibility that the participant may view him or herself -- or his or her
social world -- differently at the end of the interview session. Moreover, there is the additional riskof “seeing one’s personal life scrutinized and objectified” (LaRossa et al, 1981: 309). I was concerned that specific questions about Indian culture would lead the participant to feel
objectified. My research ironically could culturally “other” my participants. That is, my interview process could shape a stereotypical view of Indian culture -- similar to the way I critique mainstream American culture for perpetuating similar view of Indians. Certainly, my participants are aware of being Indian American in the United States and all that that entails. However, some of my topics, such as friend networks or family holiday celebrations, could reveal just one more way that my participants are “different” from mainstream America. Prior to the interview, my participants might not have considered their behaviors or responses remarkable and certainly not necessarily “Indian.”
The reverse self-exposure may also have occurred. In other words, as I probed for parenting styles that indicated whether third-generation children are socialized to Indian culture, parents may begin to feel they are not doing enough. Consequently, the interview process heightens a sense of ethnic pride causing parents to exaggerate how they feel about “being Indian.”
I was mostly concerned about inadvertently “othering” my participants. Wilson’s (2004) work researching the markets in Thailand addressed this particular concern, and I chose to employ her strategy. First, on a personal level, I identified my social position to my participants. Many were aware that I am married to an Indian American, but I reviewed this with my
participants as well as my desire to understand and be a part of the Indian American community. If appropriate, I revealed information about my Indian family during the interview process. For example, as participants were describing their wedding, I might offer details about my Hindu
wedding as points of comparison. Second, in my analysis, I attempted to “avoid reproducing racial and national power relations” by being aware of the racial-ethnic hierarchy that exists in the United States (Wilson 2004: p. 27). In this way, I hope my analysis avoids simply recreating Western family cultural hegemony (p. 28).