Citation

Ellefsen R. Crit. Criminol. 2017; 25(2): 231-244.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2017, American Society of Criminology, Publisher Holtzbrinck Springer Nature Publishing Group)

DOI

10.1007/s10612-017-9355-x

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

The article unpacks the issues of bias and partisanship--and the risk of being accused of these--which confront social scientists who study socio-political conflict. Drawing on the author's experience when conducting research on the conflict between animal liberation activists and their state and corporate adversaries in Britain (1999-2014), the article argues for a relational research approach--focusing on the interaction between contending parties, rather than study stakeholders singly--as a way to overcome challenges of taking sides when studying socio-political conflict. The debate generated by Howard Becker's classic essay "Whose side are we on?" (1967), now 50 years old, is used throughout the article as a point of reference for addressing the issues involved. The argument is made for constant reflexivity during research on radical social movements, and for "temporary bias" during qualitative fieldwork.

Language: en