Monetary
involvement
can be a particularly tricky aspect of fieldwork
(Goldstein 1964).
(Goldstein 1964).
Childens - Folklore
39060010034923 Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives / http://www.
hathitrust.
org/access_use#cc-by-nc-nd-3.
0
? ? formant spontaneously raises it. Even though the folklorist does not raise
sensitive topics, some parents may object to the researcher who does not
prevent the child from expressing this material.
Another ethical problem, perhaps more significant for folklore stud-
ies than for any other discipline, is that of confidentiality and attribution.
In most social-scientific research, one explains to informants that their names
will never be used. Occasionally, when the information is unique (as in psy-
chiatric case studies or life histories of deviants), attribution could harm the
informant. In contrast, in the humanities one assumes that all informants
will be fully identified and may even share in the royalties. It would be lu-
dicrous to publish a poem or reproduce a painting without identifying the
poet or painter-even if the artist is a child. People deserve credit (and fi-
nancial rewards) for their creations.
A discipline squarely situated between the humanities and the social
sciences, folklore occupies an awkward position. Material collected from
informants might, under certain circumstances, be harmful or embarrassing,
and yet, simultaneously, might be an aesthetic performance that deserves
credit. Although folklorists do not often consider the ethical ramifications
of their work, a hidden and painful contradiction exists. Folklorists know
of the psychological and social harm that even well-intentioned publicity can
cause a folk informant, even when that folk informant requests that the work
be identified. Fame can be a harsh taskmaster. When one deals with adults,
and particularly when one's research focuses on a few informants, probably
the most ethically justified stance is to allow the informants to choose how
and where they will be identified. The folklorist should point out the fore-
seeable advantages and drawbacks, perhaps signing a contract that permits
remuneration. With numerous informants, informants are not usually iden-
tified by name because no individual's contribution is so central as to be-
come the focus of attention.
In conducting research with children the ethical problems are more
difficult, because children may not have the competence to foresee what is
best for them. In instances in which a small number of children is highlighted
(particularly in those studies that emphasize "artistic" genres-a fiendishly
difficult judgment) parents might be asked, with royalties placed in a trust
fund (royalties, for example, from record albums or published life histories).
The standard practice when collecting from many children should be to avoid
using the children's names, but only their age, sex, place of residence, and,
sometimes, ethnic background. Although this procedure denies "credit,"
most folklorists would agree that it is an ethically defensible position.
I25
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-24 15:02 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/usu. 39060010034923 Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#cc-by-nc-nd-3. 0
? ? SURVEYS AND QUESTIONNAIRES
We most frequently think of surveys as election-year devices for measuring
the public mood. A survey is essentially a structured interview given to a large
number of individuals. Often the questions require the respondent to select
among a limited set of options,2 although that is not always required. Sur-
veys can be carried out face-to-face, over the telephone, or by written re-
spondent responses. The basic advantages of the survey are that one can
collect a lot of data quickly and, depending on the circumstances, it can be
done with minimal effort. One may employ a random or representative
sample. If one asks questions that require numerical answers or that have
categories of answers, statistical tests are possible (see Fine 1979a). One
should at least be able to compare answers or among groups, something not
always possible with the smaller number of participants in most in-depth
interview studies.
Some surveys are quite extensive. Mary and Herbert Knapp (1976)
in their study of American childlore collected questionnaires from children
throughout the United States. An even more extensive national survey was
conducted in Finland:
[I used] as my main material unstructured descriptions written by chil-
dren and young people. The material used in this book is taken largely
from the results of a collective effort organised in Finnish schools in
1969, in which over 30,000 writers, mostly aged between ten and eigh-
teen, took part. This body of material is not suitable for statistical analy-
sis, but it gives a vivid and many-sided picture of the life of the tradi-
tion and its social basis. . . . For instance game-starting situations are
described in writings which had as title "How a game starts in the
yard," play-languages are described under the heading "How I learnt
the secret language," and so on . . . Teachers were asked to emphasise
that the writers were free to write as they wished, without worrying
about grammar or spelling. They were also asked to write truthfully,
directly, without embellishment, and using slang and swear words
where necessary. Many of the writers delighted in taking advantage of
the freedom thus offered them. (Virtanen 1978, 10)
Although the author does not detail the nature of the sample or how this
sample was selected, this research is an example of national surveys found
in Europe produced with the support of a national folklore commission. Such
studies are useful in delineating the range of folklore within a nation.
Surveys that depend on numerical or categorical responses allow folk-
i6 METHODOLOGICAL PROBLEMS OF COLLECTING FOLKLORE
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-24 15:02 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/usu. 39060010034923 Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#cc-by-nc-nd-3. 0
? ? lorists to estimate how frequently a folk tradition is performed, how many
perform or know of it, the characteristics of active or passive tradition bear-
ers, and the occasions on which this tradition is performed. The open-ended
questionnaire does not permit this type of systematic analysis, but it does
display what is performed and how it is performed. The technique seems
particularly appropriate for obtaining texts of short or fixed forms, such as
riddles and folk speech.
The basic problem with these approaches is that the researcher is lim-
ited by the questions asked. Anyone who has conducted open-ended inter-
views is aware that the answers one receives direct the next questions. That
is impossible in a structured survey in which the order of questions is pre-
determined. When one is questioning hundreds or thousands of informants,
some structure is necessary. A related problem is that questionnaire re-
sponses, even those based on open-ended questions, are not very detailed,
and one may not learn about what folk traditions mean for one's informant.
The researcher receives a description of the content, form, or even context
of the folk tradition, but its personal or communal significance is absent.
Researchers must ensure that children understand the questions asked
them-an obvious but sometimes overlooked point. It is crucial when the
survey is designed to be completed by children of various ages. One won-
ders about the scope or utility of a questionnaire that can be understood by
children between the ages of eight and eighteen. Such a questionnaire must
be designed for the youngest child; as a consequence, one loses valuable in-
formation from older children.
The ethical problems in survey research are relatively straightforward,
similar to those of interviewing. Neither deception nor possible harm are
significant dangers, as long as confidentiality is maintained. Informed con-
sent may be a troubling issue for those questionnaires distributed in school,
where it is not always possible for parents to be made aware of what their
children are asked to complete.
OBSERVATIONAL METHODOLOGIES
The methodologies I have described above ask children (or adults) to talk
about things, rather than do things (excepting the performance interview).
In contrast, in observational methodologies the field researcher views chil-
dren interacting in their "natural" environment. A long tradition of obser-
vational work in folklore (Newell 1903 [1963]), in psychology (Sherif and
Sherif 1964), and in sociology (Thrasher 1927) exists. Indeed, observation
is likely the most popular methodology for research on children's culture.
Through observation one feels that one is learning what children "really"
127
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-24 15:02 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/usu. 39060010034923 Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#cc-by-nc-nd-3. 0
? ? do, and not what they can be made to do or say.
Researchers conduct observational studies in several ways, enacting
different roles. Some researchers, particularly those examining child devel-
opment, observe "systematically. " They have a predetermined category sys-
tem, and every time a behavior occurs that is covered by their categories,
they make a notation. This approach, appropriate for certain research ques-
tions, is rarely applicable to children's culture because it doesn't allow re-
searchers to capture the meaning, content, or context of the child's behav-
ior. Category systems are generally too confining for folklore research.
More relevant to the collection of childlore is what has been variously
called "ethnography," "participant observation," or "unsystematic obser-
vation. " Here the observer attempts to capture what children are doing
as accurately and as completely as possible (Fine and Sandstrom 1988).
The children's performances are rarely directed, so one weakness of obser-
vation is that one may have to wait a long time for anything interesting to
happen.
The adult "participant" observer can select one of several roles. They
include that of the supervisor, leader, observer, and friend (Fine and Glassner
1979; Fine 1980a). The role that the adult researcher adopts affects accep-
tance by the children as well as the content and context of children's cul-
ture that can be observed.
FIGURE 1. Roles of Adult Researchers in Observational Settings
With Children
Direct Authority
Positive
Contact
Present
Absent
Present
Leader
Supervisor
Absent
Friend
Observer
From Fine and Glassner 1979, 156.
Supervisor
The supervisor is a researcher who has direct control over the child, yet lacks
positive contact. Supervisors may be teachers, camp supervisors, or religious
instructors. This role provides access to a relatively limited range of children's
culture. The preadolescent must follow the orders of the authority when
under observation; as a result, behavior often differs when the supervisor is
absent. Children carefully manage the impressions that adults have of them
(Fine 1987). Although the observed behavior may be natural, it does not
I28 METHODOLOGICAL PROBLEMS OF COLLECTING FOLKLORE
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-24 15:02 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/usu. 39060010034923 Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#cc-by-nc-nd-3. 0
? ? represent the range of behaviors of preadolescents. With this research role,
many barriers between adults and children cannot be eliminated. Supervi-
sors will be uncomfortable collecting sensitive traditions from children, al-
though they may be confident in their authority.
Leader
The leader is essentially a supervisor with positive contact, a friendly teacher,
Little League coach, or scoutmaster. A wider range of childhood behaviors
are displayed in front of a leader and, even if preadolescents overstep the
line, some tolerance typically will be shown by the adult; the frame of ref-
erence for all behavior when the leader is present, however, is that of the
adult. Preadolescents may feel constrained to act "politely" so as not to
embarrass their adult leader, and that may prevent them from behaving in
"naughty" ways, which may be precisely what the researcher wishes to ob-
serve. Their respect is a barrier for the adult who wishes to understand
childlore.
Observer
The observer role is the inverse of the leader role. The observer is an adult
who lacks both formal authority and affective ties, who rather stands back
and watches. Although preadolescents do not try to gain this person's ap-
proval, neither do they admit the observer into their confidence. Children
know which of their activities upsets adults, and may avoid them when
strangers are present. Some preadolescent groups watch out for adults and
change their behavior accordingly. The pure observer has no more right to
observe preadolescent behavior than has any member of the public, although
that depends on how the observer presents the research. Because of the ab-
sence of positive relations, questioning preadolescents about sensitive top-
ics is difficult. The observer witnesses behavior, but its meanings and moti-
vations are frequently opaque.
Friend
The fourth major research role in observation studies involves befriending
one's informants. No adult can ever completely achieve peer status because
of age and power differentials. Differences between adults and children can
be made less salient, however, leading the adult to the hidden recesses of
children's culture. Friendship is conducive to the development of trust be-
tween researcher and subject, although this trust must be cultivated. Chil-
dren may set aside their normal reserve at first, but this extraordinary rela-
tionship takes time to develop. During my research with Little League base-
I29
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-24 15:02 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/usu. 39060010034923 Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#cc-by-nc-nd-3. 0
? ? ball players I was once awarded the title of "honorary kid" to recognize my
special role-a role that allowed them to talk freely in my presence (Fine
1987). The key to the friend role is the explicit expression of positive affect
combined with lack of authority and a desire not to direct behavior.
Each of these methodological roles has value for collecting children's
folklore, although for the folklorist who is interested not only in observing
but also in understanding, the roles of leader and friend seem to be most
effective. For successful observation, the researcher must witness a wide range
of behavior, and must be concerned with rapport, access, and trust.
One's choice of role affects what one learns (Vidich 1955); most ob-
servers desire access to as many aspects of the child's world as is feasible.
Generally this access can be most easily achieved when the observer is rela-
tively passive and nonjudgmental (Bogdan and Taylor 1975; Schatzman and
Strauss 1973). Yet, the observer's presence affects the situation in subtle and
unpredictable ways (McCall 1969). Adults are always salient in children's
societies by virtue of the authority that is implicit in their status, and all data
collected from children by adults must be examined for effects arising from
their presence.
Two techniques may increase rapport and access. The first is for the
adult to adopt the behavior and values of the children-having the adult
become, as much as possible, a peer. The second is for the adult to provide
social rewards and material gifts to promote acceptance.
Access Through Adoption of Values and Behavior
Although the adult participant observer can not completely "go native,"
some researchers mimic the behaviors of the children and adolescents whom
they study. Hollingshead describes his classic study of Elmtown's youth: "We
'ganged' and 'clowned' with the adolescents in their 'night spots' and favorite
'hangouts,' after the game, dance, or show" (Hollingshead 1975, 15). He
courteously refrained, however, from observing lovers' lanes.
A thin line separates what is appropriate and what is awkward for
both parties. In general, one should avoid behaving in ways that make one
feel uncomfortable. Because of the difference between acceptable adult be-
havior and acceptable child behavior, this discomfort may be particularly
evident when the adult attempts to be a peer. Children sense whether a re-
searcher seems a good bet as a friend (Cottle 1973a) and can spot those who
attempt to be something they are not.
Although being approving, sympathetic, and supportive promotes
rapport, a false attempt to be "with it" may backfire. For example, children's
slang is hard for an adult to master, and even when learned correctly often
130 METHODOLOGICAL PROBLEMS OF COLLECTING FOLKLORE
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-24 15:02 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/usu. 39060010034923 Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#cc-by-nc-nd-3. 0
? ? sounds strange when uttered by an adult. Knowing what one is not and what
one cannot be is as important as knowing feasible role possibilities. Chil-
dren frequently guard their privacy; by preadolescence, presentation of self
is highly developed, particularly as it relates to adults. Any intimate, shar-
ing relationship takes time to develop, and may never develop if pressured.
Access Through Rewards and Gifts
Because of the adult's greater access to social resources, particularly though
not exclusively monetary, a researcher may feel that it is advantageous to
employ some of these resources to gain rapport with a group. This approach,
although sometimes quite successful, may lead to difficulties. There is a wide
range of possible services that a participant observer may be expected to
perform, including companionship, providing educational expertise,
complimenting, sharing food, and loaning money. One useful rule of thumb
whenever the researcher is being a friend is that one should behave as any
friend might. When in a role with some authority one must be careful to
avoid misusing that responsibility merely to curry favor.
Loaning money may produce tension in the relationship (Whyte 1955;
Wax 1971), but there are some situations in which loans may be necessary
to gain rapport and trust. One must ensure, however, than it not be expected
that loans will be forthcoming. I resorted on occasion to claiming that I had
no money when it seemed that demands for loans were becoming too fre-
quent. I always insisted that the loan was for that one time only, and thus
had justification for refusing to loan money to that same person in the fu-
ture.
Monetary involvement can be a particularly tricky aspect of fieldwork
(Goldstein 1964).
There is a danger in providing any services, even those that do not
relate to money. Researchers may become accepted for what they can pro-
vide, not for what they are. They will be seen as useful only so long as they
provide rewards. I learned this when I first studied preadolescents. The first
few days I brought sticks of chewing gum, eating them in public view. I was
more than happy to share gum with whoever asked. This unfortunately led
to an insistent demand for gum that was counterproductive to my research
goals. After a few days on which I "forgot" to bring gum, the requests halted.
Trust
The observer of children, like the researcher who studies deviant groups,
finds that trust is essential. Polsky (1962) argues that a researcher who wishes
to be accepted by a criminal group must (1) be willing to break some laws
(if only as an accessory to crimes and not reporting information to the au-
131
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-24 15:02 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/usu. 39060010034923 Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#cc-by-nc-nd-3. 0
? ? thorities); (2) make his or her contacts believe these intentions; and (3) prove
that these acts are consistent with relevant beliefs. In the case of children,
the issues are similar. The participant observer may be tested, as I was. This
testing appears to be a precondition for acceptance in private settings. One
key area in which this testing occurred was in determining my reaction to
rowdiness, including shouting, shoving, fighting, insulting, and arguing (see
also Glassner 1976). Repressing my adult desire to intervene at the slight-
est provocation led to my being allowed to observe on other occasions, as
an adult who knew how to behave around children.
Once I was in a park with a group of preadolescent boys who, over
five weeks, had begun to trust me. Suddenly, these boys spotted a group of
girls they did not know, seated around a park bench near a thermos of wa-
ter. One boy decided that it would be great fun to bother them (and simul-
taneously pay attention to them). He and his friends plotted to rush them,
steal their thermos, and pour out the contents, disrupting their gathering.
After a short period of insults between boys and girls (mostly about physi-
cal attractiveness), the plan was put into effect-with the expected scream-
ing and squealing by the girls. At one point, several of the girls turned to
me (busily taking notes and appearing, I assume, furtively guilty) and asked
me, as the adult presumably in charge, why I didn't stop them. This reason-
able question placed me in a difficult situation. Since no serious harm seemed
to be occurring, and since I felt that the behavior was not being done for
my benefit, I didn't intervene and said only that I had no control over their
behavior. The boys were gleeful at hearing this and soon left the scene of
battle. In retrospect, this occasion was a major step in my acceptance. I in-
dicated to the boys that I would not excessively restrain them and that I knew
"my place. " After that episode the boys told me more about the aggressive
and sexual dimensions of their traditions.
The Key Informant
Often crucial to a researcher's acceptance in a field setting is a "key infor-
mant. " This individual gives time, energy, and prestige to help the researcher
understand what is going on and to get others to reveal sensitive matters.
Within a group, several potential key informants may be found. One crite-
rion for this position is that the individual have a central position in the so-
cial structure of the group, with access to persons or knowledge. I differen-
tiate two components of the key informant's role: that of sponsor and source.
These two components need not necessarily be embodied in the same per-
son. Other adults may help in acting as sponsors in making introductions
to children, and low-status children may be the source of much valuable in-
132 METHODOLOGICAL PROBLEMS OF COLLECTING FOLKLORE
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-24 15:02 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/usu. 39060010034923 Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#cc-by-nc-nd-3. 0
? ? formation, although they provide little aid in gaining entry into their group.
The convergence of ability and willingness to supply the researcher with in-
formation and entry is the mark of the key informant. This willingness is
connected to security in one's social position; those boys who became my
key informants were socially self-confident, leaders in their group, and gre-
garious. They were preadolescent teachers willing to suggest how I should
act or react; they were willing and able to invert the normal adult-child re-
lationship. Of course, the relationship is not entirely one-sided. These chil-
dren reap status and material rewards from their association with the adult
researcher. One develops exchange relationships that are essentially balanced,
even though different sets of commodities are exchanged.
ETHICAL ISSUES OF OBSERVING CHILDREN
Ethnographic observation poses an array of challenging ethical issues. In
most ethnographic investigations research depends on relationships among
peers-actual or theoretical equals. One cannot, however, pretend that
either adults or children would be comfortable in a situation in which
equality was expected. The age-based power differential can never be
eliminated, and adult researchers must recognize the immaturity of their
subjects. Although issues of direct harm or overt deception do not occur
frequently, ethical issues do arise, and one must also consider how to achieve
"informed consent. " I consider three substantive ethical issues in this sec-
tion: (1) the responsibility of the adult in managing potentially harmful situ-
ations; (2) the implications of the adult "policing" or disciplinary role; and
(3) problems of explaining the research in a clear and comprehensible fash-
ion. In considering ethical issues, programmatic rules are not possible.
Adult responsibility
When one deals with children in situations without a clear authority struc-
ture, difficulties may arise. Children are mischievous, sometimes aggressive,
and on occasion cruel. What is the responsibility of the researcher in such
situations? Clearly, researchers have an ethical requirement to protect their
subjects from harm, particularly since on some occasions the observer's pres-
ence increases aggression (Polsky 1962; Glassner 1976). The researcher
should remember that other adults, who might intervene if the adult re-
searcher were not present, will refrain, feeling that the children are already
under adult supervision. The adult cannot be entirely passive, even though
he or she alters the behavior of the group.
Fortunately few situations are clearly dangerous. Boys get into fights,
and on occasion girls do as well. Many children's groups contain members
133
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-24 15:02 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/usu. 39060010034923 Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#cc-by-nc-nd-3. 0
? ? whose roles include breaking up fights and minimizing physical danger. In
one group one child acted as a sort of medic, providing paper tissues for
bloody noses, counseling for hurt feelings, and companionship during emer-
gencies (Glassner 1976).
If a fight is sufficiently serious, however, intervention is necessary, and
steps must be taken to end the dispute. If the fight caused permanent dam-
age to one or more participants, the observer would properly have been held
morally responsible, and had the observer been in a position of responsibil-
ity, legally responsible as well.
Other situations develop that, although not physically dangerous,
involve behaviors generally condemned by adult society, such as racism or
theft. I vividly recall the day I escorted some preadolescent friends for ice
cream, and discovered to my acute discomfort that they were stealing candy.
My first reaction was to stop them and insist that they return what they took.
This emotion was partly attributable to ethical concerns and partly to the
fear that I might be blamed or held responsible. I also realized that if I made
a public display I would likely not alter their behavior, but only ensure that
I was never privy to such behaviors again. Also, since I had by this time de-
veloped attachments to many of these children, I was afraid that I might
cause them embarrassment or legal trouble. I decided to do nothing-a de-
cision as much from indecision as from ethical concern, although in retro-
spect the decision was probably theoretically sound. As we were driving
home, the boys discussed what had occurred, and by nonevaluative prob-
ing I was able to learn of stealing in other situations. This episode indicates
the difficulty of making moral decisions in the fast-moving events of the real
world.
Adult policing role
Should adult researchers allow themselves to police children? Authorities
often hope that researchers will perform their job for them (see, for example,
Geer 1970). No difficulty, however, is more serious than for the researcher
not to be considered an "honest broker. " The adult must prove him/herself
worthy of trust. Most researchers working with children will not be accorded
trust at first; only after a series of "tests" does trust develop (see Fine and
Glassner 1979; Glassner 1976). In attempting to pass these "tests," how-
ever, adult researchers can sometimes get in trouble with adult authorities
(Birksted 1976).
The conflict over the policing role is most clearly evident when the
researcher desires positive relations with his/her subjects and also avoids
authority-the "friend" role. The "observer," because of role distance from
134 METHODOLOGICAL PROBLEMS OF COLLECTING FOLKLORE
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-24 15:02 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/usu. 39060010034923 Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#cc-by-nc-nd-3. 0
? ? the subjects, is rarely asked to police-the "leader" and "supervisor" are
supposed to be in charge. Yet, it is essential in all cases that the precise na-
ture of what this policing entails be made clear to all parties. Elizabeth Tucker
(personal communication, 1976), for instance, found herself called before
a local Girl Scout council for not adequately disciplining her troop (in the
council's view), while researching the informal behavior of preadolescent
girls. Although Tucker was eventually cleared, the period was difficult for
her and the parents were involved. The solution for the researcher who
wishes to avoid responsibility seems to be to emphasize to both adults and
children that one will not be a disciplinarian, and to back this up with con-
sistent behavior. Whenever the adult feels it imperative to intervene, it should
be made clear that the intervention is being done as an individual and not
as an agent for society or the institution.
Informed Consent
When the participant observer is not in a formal position of authority (and
even in some cases when he or she is) the observer must inform the subjects
of the research intent. The need for informed consent has perhaps not been
sufficiently recognized in ethnographic research. When the adult has little
authority, an honest explanation of the research is important (Konopka
1966). Yet, even a well-meaning explanation will not adequately convey to
children what the research entails. When I studied Little League baseball
teams I was asked if I were a reporter, writing a movie like The Bad News
Bears, working with Little League headquarters, or selling drugs. During the
time I was in graduate school I could convey the purpose of the research by
saying I was a student and this was homework; later I explained that I was
writing a book. These did not answer every question, but they seemed to
work reasonably well (Fine 1987).
Although explanation is important, actions are the main way in which
children learn the intentions of the researcher. The questions asked, and the
situations during which the observer scribbles furiously or fiddles with the
tape recorder, provide clues to the observer's true interests. Informed con-
sent, while a goal toward which we must always strive, will frequently be
only partially achieved.
EXPERIMENTS
A common methodology in several branches of the social sciences, most
particularly in psychology, is the experiment. Although this approach is not
common in folklore, some suggest that experimentation is an appropriate
methodology for folklorists (Goldstein 1967a). Most experiments that have
135
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-24 15:02 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/usu. 39060010034923 Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#cc-by-nc-nd-3. 0
? ? been conducted using folkloric materials have been attempts to understand
the processes of diffusion (Bartlett 1932; Anderson 1951; Wesselski 1931).
Some of this research, such as that of Wesselski, used children-in his case
elementary school girls. The girls were told a version of Sleeping Beauty, and
in their retellings changes were noted, confirming Wesselski's view that oral
tradition was unreliable and that the Mairchen were transmitted primarily
in printed form. This experiment, and others similar, do not directly address
children's folklore content, but they do indicate the processes of change of
children's lore.
More directly relevant to the use of experimentation for researching
children's traditions is Paul Gump and Brian Sutton-Smith's examination of
differences between "high-power" "it" roles and "low-power" "it" roles-
the games black Tom and dodge the skunk respectively (Gump and Sutton-
Smith 1955). Applying folklore to social work, these researchers discovered
that when children played high-power "it" roles they were more successful
and, further, that the high-power "it" roles led to fewer negative reactions
of the playing group to "it," and more positive feelings by the "it" toward
himself. This was particularly significant for those less skilled boys who were
able to exploit the power edge inherent in the high-power "it" role. Gump
and Sutton-Smith could make these claims because they had each child play
every role and could compare reactions across conditions. This suggests the
greatest value of experiments: They permit the systematic comparison of
groups under controlled conditions. One observes what happens in a speci-
fied situation, and compares this to a second situation with other constraints.
Experimentation also permits a random or systematic selection of subjects,
often permitting statistical analysis.
An experiment is a technique in which the researcher manipulates
some aspect of a subject's experience in order to determine its effect on be-
havior or attitudes. Typically this involves comparing groups that each have
been manipulated, or comparing a manipulated group with a
nonmanipulated group-a "control group. " The major weakness of this
approach stems from the experimenter's control-it is an artificial situation,
since it is controlled or created by the researcher. Before we become too criti-
cal, however, remember that the same is true of surveys and interviews. For
some research problems, such as comparative analysis, and for confidence
based on statistical evidence, the experiment may be the research method
of choice.
Much has been written about the ethical problems faced by experi-
mental researchers. Since experimentation has not become a major meth-
odology in folklore, it is not necessary to discuss the ethical issues in the same
136 METHODOLOGICAL PROBLEMS OF COLLECTING FOLKLORE
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-24 15:02 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/usu. 39060010034923 Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#cc-by-nc-nd-3. 0
? ? detail as discussed for interviews and observation (see Diegner and Crandall
1978). I have previously discussed how one obtains informed consent with
children and their guardians, and this problem remains in experimentation.
Although potential harm may exist in experiments (particularly in the medi-
cal domain), it is unlikely that any experiment on children's folklore is likely
to cause irreparable damage. Of more significance is the legitimacy of de-
ception. I refer to the situation in which the experimenter tells his/her sub-
jects that the experiment is testing something that it is "really" not testing,
or simply (as in the Gump and Sutton-Smith study) not informing subjects
that they are being studied.
Even when harm is not done directly by the experimental deception,
some researchers (for example, Kelman 1968, 211-21) argue that deception
by its nature raises serious ethical problems. Is it justified to deceive a per-
son, even though during the experiment that deception will not cause harm?
Doesn't deception, once uncovered, undermine the confidence that subjects
have in social science and decrease the confidence that individuals have in
one another? Do we wish to reside in a world in which deception is legiti-
mate behavior? Are we willing to do to our friends that which we willingly
do to our subjects: lie, make promises we don't intend to keep, deceive them
about the purposes of the interaction, or withhold relevant information? The
experimenter-subject relationship is, after all, a real relationship. Some an-
swer these fears by pointing to the value of the information which is gath-
ered. Further, some of the information might not have been collected if the
subjects knew what the experimenter wanted. If the children tested by Gump
and Sutton-Smith knew that the researchers were interested in influencing
their self-esteem through the games they played, they might have responded
quite differently. Further, some might question whether deception is uncom-
mon or harmful. Might deception not be viewed as similar to the "little white
lies" that are common elsewhere in life? Children, in particular, are deceived
constantly for their own good. A child who is told not to go out at night
because "the goblins" may get him or through similar threats (see
Widdowson 1977) is being deceived and may not be disabused of these ideas
for years. No fiat can be given, but it is essential that the researcher con-
sider the special responsibilities that derive from the choice to work with
children.
CHILDREN AS COLLECTORS
Although most childlore has been, and will continue to be, collected by
adults, children can serve as folklore collectors in certain circumstances. The
most publicized example of this phenomenon is the books, edited by Eliot
137
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-24 15:02 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/usu. 39060010034923 Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#cc-by-nc-nd-3. 0
? ?
? ? formant spontaneously raises it. Even though the folklorist does not raise
sensitive topics, some parents may object to the researcher who does not
prevent the child from expressing this material.
Another ethical problem, perhaps more significant for folklore stud-
ies than for any other discipline, is that of confidentiality and attribution.
In most social-scientific research, one explains to informants that their names
will never be used. Occasionally, when the information is unique (as in psy-
chiatric case studies or life histories of deviants), attribution could harm the
informant. In contrast, in the humanities one assumes that all informants
will be fully identified and may even share in the royalties. It would be lu-
dicrous to publish a poem or reproduce a painting without identifying the
poet or painter-even if the artist is a child. People deserve credit (and fi-
nancial rewards) for their creations.
A discipline squarely situated between the humanities and the social
sciences, folklore occupies an awkward position. Material collected from
informants might, under certain circumstances, be harmful or embarrassing,
and yet, simultaneously, might be an aesthetic performance that deserves
credit. Although folklorists do not often consider the ethical ramifications
of their work, a hidden and painful contradiction exists. Folklorists know
of the psychological and social harm that even well-intentioned publicity can
cause a folk informant, even when that folk informant requests that the work
be identified. Fame can be a harsh taskmaster. When one deals with adults,
and particularly when one's research focuses on a few informants, probably
the most ethically justified stance is to allow the informants to choose how
and where they will be identified. The folklorist should point out the fore-
seeable advantages and drawbacks, perhaps signing a contract that permits
remuneration. With numerous informants, informants are not usually iden-
tified by name because no individual's contribution is so central as to be-
come the focus of attention.
In conducting research with children the ethical problems are more
difficult, because children may not have the competence to foresee what is
best for them. In instances in which a small number of children is highlighted
(particularly in those studies that emphasize "artistic" genres-a fiendishly
difficult judgment) parents might be asked, with royalties placed in a trust
fund (royalties, for example, from record albums or published life histories).
The standard practice when collecting from many children should be to avoid
using the children's names, but only their age, sex, place of residence, and,
sometimes, ethnic background. Although this procedure denies "credit,"
most folklorists would agree that it is an ethically defensible position.
I25
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-24 15:02 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/usu. 39060010034923 Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#cc-by-nc-nd-3. 0
? ? SURVEYS AND QUESTIONNAIRES
We most frequently think of surveys as election-year devices for measuring
the public mood. A survey is essentially a structured interview given to a large
number of individuals. Often the questions require the respondent to select
among a limited set of options,2 although that is not always required. Sur-
veys can be carried out face-to-face, over the telephone, or by written re-
spondent responses. The basic advantages of the survey are that one can
collect a lot of data quickly and, depending on the circumstances, it can be
done with minimal effort. One may employ a random or representative
sample. If one asks questions that require numerical answers or that have
categories of answers, statistical tests are possible (see Fine 1979a). One
should at least be able to compare answers or among groups, something not
always possible with the smaller number of participants in most in-depth
interview studies.
Some surveys are quite extensive. Mary and Herbert Knapp (1976)
in their study of American childlore collected questionnaires from children
throughout the United States. An even more extensive national survey was
conducted in Finland:
[I used] as my main material unstructured descriptions written by chil-
dren and young people. The material used in this book is taken largely
from the results of a collective effort organised in Finnish schools in
1969, in which over 30,000 writers, mostly aged between ten and eigh-
teen, took part. This body of material is not suitable for statistical analy-
sis, but it gives a vivid and many-sided picture of the life of the tradi-
tion and its social basis. . . . For instance game-starting situations are
described in writings which had as title "How a game starts in the
yard," play-languages are described under the heading "How I learnt
the secret language," and so on . . . Teachers were asked to emphasise
that the writers were free to write as they wished, without worrying
about grammar or spelling. They were also asked to write truthfully,
directly, without embellishment, and using slang and swear words
where necessary. Many of the writers delighted in taking advantage of
the freedom thus offered them. (Virtanen 1978, 10)
Although the author does not detail the nature of the sample or how this
sample was selected, this research is an example of national surveys found
in Europe produced with the support of a national folklore commission. Such
studies are useful in delineating the range of folklore within a nation.
Surveys that depend on numerical or categorical responses allow folk-
i6 METHODOLOGICAL PROBLEMS OF COLLECTING FOLKLORE
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-24 15:02 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/usu. 39060010034923 Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#cc-by-nc-nd-3. 0
? ? lorists to estimate how frequently a folk tradition is performed, how many
perform or know of it, the characteristics of active or passive tradition bear-
ers, and the occasions on which this tradition is performed. The open-ended
questionnaire does not permit this type of systematic analysis, but it does
display what is performed and how it is performed. The technique seems
particularly appropriate for obtaining texts of short or fixed forms, such as
riddles and folk speech.
The basic problem with these approaches is that the researcher is lim-
ited by the questions asked. Anyone who has conducted open-ended inter-
views is aware that the answers one receives direct the next questions. That
is impossible in a structured survey in which the order of questions is pre-
determined. When one is questioning hundreds or thousands of informants,
some structure is necessary. A related problem is that questionnaire re-
sponses, even those based on open-ended questions, are not very detailed,
and one may not learn about what folk traditions mean for one's informant.
The researcher receives a description of the content, form, or even context
of the folk tradition, but its personal or communal significance is absent.
Researchers must ensure that children understand the questions asked
them-an obvious but sometimes overlooked point. It is crucial when the
survey is designed to be completed by children of various ages. One won-
ders about the scope or utility of a questionnaire that can be understood by
children between the ages of eight and eighteen. Such a questionnaire must
be designed for the youngest child; as a consequence, one loses valuable in-
formation from older children.
The ethical problems in survey research are relatively straightforward,
similar to those of interviewing. Neither deception nor possible harm are
significant dangers, as long as confidentiality is maintained. Informed con-
sent may be a troubling issue for those questionnaires distributed in school,
where it is not always possible for parents to be made aware of what their
children are asked to complete.
OBSERVATIONAL METHODOLOGIES
The methodologies I have described above ask children (or adults) to talk
about things, rather than do things (excepting the performance interview).
In contrast, in observational methodologies the field researcher views chil-
dren interacting in their "natural" environment. A long tradition of obser-
vational work in folklore (Newell 1903 [1963]), in psychology (Sherif and
Sherif 1964), and in sociology (Thrasher 1927) exists. Indeed, observation
is likely the most popular methodology for research on children's culture.
Through observation one feels that one is learning what children "really"
127
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-24 15:02 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/usu. 39060010034923 Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#cc-by-nc-nd-3. 0
? ? do, and not what they can be made to do or say.
Researchers conduct observational studies in several ways, enacting
different roles. Some researchers, particularly those examining child devel-
opment, observe "systematically. " They have a predetermined category sys-
tem, and every time a behavior occurs that is covered by their categories,
they make a notation. This approach, appropriate for certain research ques-
tions, is rarely applicable to children's culture because it doesn't allow re-
searchers to capture the meaning, content, or context of the child's behav-
ior. Category systems are generally too confining for folklore research.
More relevant to the collection of childlore is what has been variously
called "ethnography," "participant observation," or "unsystematic obser-
vation. " Here the observer attempts to capture what children are doing
as accurately and as completely as possible (Fine and Sandstrom 1988).
The children's performances are rarely directed, so one weakness of obser-
vation is that one may have to wait a long time for anything interesting to
happen.
The adult "participant" observer can select one of several roles. They
include that of the supervisor, leader, observer, and friend (Fine and Glassner
1979; Fine 1980a). The role that the adult researcher adopts affects accep-
tance by the children as well as the content and context of children's cul-
ture that can be observed.
FIGURE 1. Roles of Adult Researchers in Observational Settings
With Children
Direct Authority
Positive
Contact
Present
Absent
Present
Leader
Supervisor
Absent
Friend
Observer
From Fine and Glassner 1979, 156.
Supervisor
The supervisor is a researcher who has direct control over the child, yet lacks
positive contact. Supervisors may be teachers, camp supervisors, or religious
instructors. This role provides access to a relatively limited range of children's
culture. The preadolescent must follow the orders of the authority when
under observation; as a result, behavior often differs when the supervisor is
absent. Children carefully manage the impressions that adults have of them
(Fine 1987). Although the observed behavior may be natural, it does not
I28 METHODOLOGICAL PROBLEMS OF COLLECTING FOLKLORE
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-24 15:02 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/usu. 39060010034923 Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#cc-by-nc-nd-3. 0
? ? represent the range of behaviors of preadolescents. With this research role,
many barriers between adults and children cannot be eliminated. Supervi-
sors will be uncomfortable collecting sensitive traditions from children, al-
though they may be confident in their authority.
Leader
The leader is essentially a supervisor with positive contact, a friendly teacher,
Little League coach, or scoutmaster. A wider range of childhood behaviors
are displayed in front of a leader and, even if preadolescents overstep the
line, some tolerance typically will be shown by the adult; the frame of ref-
erence for all behavior when the leader is present, however, is that of the
adult. Preadolescents may feel constrained to act "politely" so as not to
embarrass their adult leader, and that may prevent them from behaving in
"naughty" ways, which may be precisely what the researcher wishes to ob-
serve. Their respect is a barrier for the adult who wishes to understand
childlore.
Observer
The observer role is the inverse of the leader role. The observer is an adult
who lacks both formal authority and affective ties, who rather stands back
and watches. Although preadolescents do not try to gain this person's ap-
proval, neither do they admit the observer into their confidence. Children
know which of their activities upsets adults, and may avoid them when
strangers are present. Some preadolescent groups watch out for adults and
change their behavior accordingly. The pure observer has no more right to
observe preadolescent behavior than has any member of the public, although
that depends on how the observer presents the research. Because of the ab-
sence of positive relations, questioning preadolescents about sensitive top-
ics is difficult. The observer witnesses behavior, but its meanings and moti-
vations are frequently opaque.
Friend
The fourth major research role in observation studies involves befriending
one's informants. No adult can ever completely achieve peer status because
of age and power differentials. Differences between adults and children can
be made less salient, however, leading the adult to the hidden recesses of
children's culture. Friendship is conducive to the development of trust be-
tween researcher and subject, although this trust must be cultivated. Chil-
dren may set aside their normal reserve at first, but this extraordinary rela-
tionship takes time to develop. During my research with Little League base-
I29
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-24 15:02 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/usu. 39060010034923 Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#cc-by-nc-nd-3. 0
? ? ball players I was once awarded the title of "honorary kid" to recognize my
special role-a role that allowed them to talk freely in my presence (Fine
1987). The key to the friend role is the explicit expression of positive affect
combined with lack of authority and a desire not to direct behavior.
Each of these methodological roles has value for collecting children's
folklore, although for the folklorist who is interested not only in observing
but also in understanding, the roles of leader and friend seem to be most
effective. For successful observation, the researcher must witness a wide range
of behavior, and must be concerned with rapport, access, and trust.
One's choice of role affects what one learns (Vidich 1955); most ob-
servers desire access to as many aspects of the child's world as is feasible.
Generally this access can be most easily achieved when the observer is rela-
tively passive and nonjudgmental (Bogdan and Taylor 1975; Schatzman and
Strauss 1973). Yet, the observer's presence affects the situation in subtle and
unpredictable ways (McCall 1969). Adults are always salient in children's
societies by virtue of the authority that is implicit in their status, and all data
collected from children by adults must be examined for effects arising from
their presence.
Two techniques may increase rapport and access. The first is for the
adult to adopt the behavior and values of the children-having the adult
become, as much as possible, a peer. The second is for the adult to provide
social rewards and material gifts to promote acceptance.
Access Through Adoption of Values and Behavior
Although the adult participant observer can not completely "go native,"
some researchers mimic the behaviors of the children and adolescents whom
they study. Hollingshead describes his classic study of Elmtown's youth: "We
'ganged' and 'clowned' with the adolescents in their 'night spots' and favorite
'hangouts,' after the game, dance, or show" (Hollingshead 1975, 15). He
courteously refrained, however, from observing lovers' lanes.
A thin line separates what is appropriate and what is awkward for
both parties. In general, one should avoid behaving in ways that make one
feel uncomfortable. Because of the difference between acceptable adult be-
havior and acceptable child behavior, this discomfort may be particularly
evident when the adult attempts to be a peer. Children sense whether a re-
searcher seems a good bet as a friend (Cottle 1973a) and can spot those who
attempt to be something they are not.
Although being approving, sympathetic, and supportive promotes
rapport, a false attempt to be "with it" may backfire. For example, children's
slang is hard for an adult to master, and even when learned correctly often
130 METHODOLOGICAL PROBLEMS OF COLLECTING FOLKLORE
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-24 15:02 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/usu. 39060010034923 Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#cc-by-nc-nd-3. 0
? ? sounds strange when uttered by an adult. Knowing what one is not and what
one cannot be is as important as knowing feasible role possibilities. Chil-
dren frequently guard their privacy; by preadolescence, presentation of self
is highly developed, particularly as it relates to adults. Any intimate, shar-
ing relationship takes time to develop, and may never develop if pressured.
Access Through Rewards and Gifts
Because of the adult's greater access to social resources, particularly though
not exclusively monetary, a researcher may feel that it is advantageous to
employ some of these resources to gain rapport with a group. This approach,
although sometimes quite successful, may lead to difficulties. There is a wide
range of possible services that a participant observer may be expected to
perform, including companionship, providing educational expertise,
complimenting, sharing food, and loaning money. One useful rule of thumb
whenever the researcher is being a friend is that one should behave as any
friend might. When in a role with some authority one must be careful to
avoid misusing that responsibility merely to curry favor.
Loaning money may produce tension in the relationship (Whyte 1955;
Wax 1971), but there are some situations in which loans may be necessary
to gain rapport and trust. One must ensure, however, than it not be expected
that loans will be forthcoming. I resorted on occasion to claiming that I had
no money when it seemed that demands for loans were becoming too fre-
quent. I always insisted that the loan was for that one time only, and thus
had justification for refusing to loan money to that same person in the fu-
ture.
Monetary involvement can be a particularly tricky aspect of fieldwork
(Goldstein 1964).
There is a danger in providing any services, even those that do not
relate to money. Researchers may become accepted for what they can pro-
vide, not for what they are. They will be seen as useful only so long as they
provide rewards. I learned this when I first studied preadolescents. The first
few days I brought sticks of chewing gum, eating them in public view. I was
more than happy to share gum with whoever asked. This unfortunately led
to an insistent demand for gum that was counterproductive to my research
goals. After a few days on which I "forgot" to bring gum, the requests halted.
Trust
The observer of children, like the researcher who studies deviant groups,
finds that trust is essential. Polsky (1962) argues that a researcher who wishes
to be accepted by a criminal group must (1) be willing to break some laws
(if only as an accessory to crimes and not reporting information to the au-
131
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-24 15:02 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/usu. 39060010034923 Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#cc-by-nc-nd-3. 0
? ? thorities); (2) make his or her contacts believe these intentions; and (3) prove
that these acts are consistent with relevant beliefs. In the case of children,
the issues are similar. The participant observer may be tested, as I was. This
testing appears to be a precondition for acceptance in private settings. One
key area in which this testing occurred was in determining my reaction to
rowdiness, including shouting, shoving, fighting, insulting, and arguing (see
also Glassner 1976). Repressing my adult desire to intervene at the slight-
est provocation led to my being allowed to observe on other occasions, as
an adult who knew how to behave around children.
Once I was in a park with a group of preadolescent boys who, over
five weeks, had begun to trust me. Suddenly, these boys spotted a group of
girls they did not know, seated around a park bench near a thermos of wa-
ter. One boy decided that it would be great fun to bother them (and simul-
taneously pay attention to them). He and his friends plotted to rush them,
steal their thermos, and pour out the contents, disrupting their gathering.
After a short period of insults between boys and girls (mostly about physi-
cal attractiveness), the plan was put into effect-with the expected scream-
ing and squealing by the girls. At one point, several of the girls turned to
me (busily taking notes and appearing, I assume, furtively guilty) and asked
me, as the adult presumably in charge, why I didn't stop them. This reason-
able question placed me in a difficult situation. Since no serious harm seemed
to be occurring, and since I felt that the behavior was not being done for
my benefit, I didn't intervene and said only that I had no control over their
behavior. The boys were gleeful at hearing this and soon left the scene of
battle. In retrospect, this occasion was a major step in my acceptance. I in-
dicated to the boys that I would not excessively restrain them and that I knew
"my place. " After that episode the boys told me more about the aggressive
and sexual dimensions of their traditions.
The Key Informant
Often crucial to a researcher's acceptance in a field setting is a "key infor-
mant. " This individual gives time, energy, and prestige to help the researcher
understand what is going on and to get others to reveal sensitive matters.
Within a group, several potential key informants may be found. One crite-
rion for this position is that the individual have a central position in the so-
cial structure of the group, with access to persons or knowledge. I differen-
tiate two components of the key informant's role: that of sponsor and source.
These two components need not necessarily be embodied in the same per-
son. Other adults may help in acting as sponsors in making introductions
to children, and low-status children may be the source of much valuable in-
132 METHODOLOGICAL PROBLEMS OF COLLECTING FOLKLORE
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-24 15:02 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/usu. 39060010034923 Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#cc-by-nc-nd-3. 0
? ? formation, although they provide little aid in gaining entry into their group.
The convergence of ability and willingness to supply the researcher with in-
formation and entry is the mark of the key informant. This willingness is
connected to security in one's social position; those boys who became my
key informants were socially self-confident, leaders in their group, and gre-
garious. They were preadolescent teachers willing to suggest how I should
act or react; they were willing and able to invert the normal adult-child re-
lationship. Of course, the relationship is not entirely one-sided. These chil-
dren reap status and material rewards from their association with the adult
researcher. One develops exchange relationships that are essentially balanced,
even though different sets of commodities are exchanged.
ETHICAL ISSUES OF OBSERVING CHILDREN
Ethnographic observation poses an array of challenging ethical issues. In
most ethnographic investigations research depends on relationships among
peers-actual or theoretical equals. One cannot, however, pretend that
either adults or children would be comfortable in a situation in which
equality was expected. The age-based power differential can never be
eliminated, and adult researchers must recognize the immaturity of their
subjects. Although issues of direct harm or overt deception do not occur
frequently, ethical issues do arise, and one must also consider how to achieve
"informed consent. " I consider three substantive ethical issues in this sec-
tion: (1) the responsibility of the adult in managing potentially harmful situ-
ations; (2) the implications of the adult "policing" or disciplinary role; and
(3) problems of explaining the research in a clear and comprehensible fash-
ion. In considering ethical issues, programmatic rules are not possible.
Adult responsibility
When one deals with children in situations without a clear authority struc-
ture, difficulties may arise. Children are mischievous, sometimes aggressive,
and on occasion cruel. What is the responsibility of the researcher in such
situations? Clearly, researchers have an ethical requirement to protect their
subjects from harm, particularly since on some occasions the observer's pres-
ence increases aggression (Polsky 1962; Glassner 1976). The researcher
should remember that other adults, who might intervene if the adult re-
searcher were not present, will refrain, feeling that the children are already
under adult supervision. The adult cannot be entirely passive, even though
he or she alters the behavior of the group.
Fortunately few situations are clearly dangerous. Boys get into fights,
and on occasion girls do as well. Many children's groups contain members
133
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-24 15:02 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/usu. 39060010034923 Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#cc-by-nc-nd-3. 0
? ? whose roles include breaking up fights and minimizing physical danger. In
one group one child acted as a sort of medic, providing paper tissues for
bloody noses, counseling for hurt feelings, and companionship during emer-
gencies (Glassner 1976).
If a fight is sufficiently serious, however, intervention is necessary, and
steps must be taken to end the dispute. If the fight caused permanent dam-
age to one or more participants, the observer would properly have been held
morally responsible, and had the observer been in a position of responsibil-
ity, legally responsible as well.
Other situations develop that, although not physically dangerous,
involve behaviors generally condemned by adult society, such as racism or
theft. I vividly recall the day I escorted some preadolescent friends for ice
cream, and discovered to my acute discomfort that they were stealing candy.
My first reaction was to stop them and insist that they return what they took.
This emotion was partly attributable to ethical concerns and partly to the
fear that I might be blamed or held responsible. I also realized that if I made
a public display I would likely not alter their behavior, but only ensure that
I was never privy to such behaviors again. Also, since I had by this time de-
veloped attachments to many of these children, I was afraid that I might
cause them embarrassment or legal trouble. I decided to do nothing-a de-
cision as much from indecision as from ethical concern, although in retro-
spect the decision was probably theoretically sound. As we were driving
home, the boys discussed what had occurred, and by nonevaluative prob-
ing I was able to learn of stealing in other situations. This episode indicates
the difficulty of making moral decisions in the fast-moving events of the real
world.
Adult policing role
Should adult researchers allow themselves to police children? Authorities
often hope that researchers will perform their job for them (see, for example,
Geer 1970). No difficulty, however, is more serious than for the researcher
not to be considered an "honest broker. " The adult must prove him/herself
worthy of trust. Most researchers working with children will not be accorded
trust at first; only after a series of "tests" does trust develop (see Fine and
Glassner 1979; Glassner 1976). In attempting to pass these "tests," how-
ever, adult researchers can sometimes get in trouble with adult authorities
(Birksted 1976).
The conflict over the policing role is most clearly evident when the
researcher desires positive relations with his/her subjects and also avoids
authority-the "friend" role. The "observer," because of role distance from
134 METHODOLOGICAL PROBLEMS OF COLLECTING FOLKLORE
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-24 15:02 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/usu. 39060010034923 Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#cc-by-nc-nd-3. 0
? ? the subjects, is rarely asked to police-the "leader" and "supervisor" are
supposed to be in charge. Yet, it is essential in all cases that the precise na-
ture of what this policing entails be made clear to all parties. Elizabeth Tucker
(personal communication, 1976), for instance, found herself called before
a local Girl Scout council for not adequately disciplining her troop (in the
council's view), while researching the informal behavior of preadolescent
girls. Although Tucker was eventually cleared, the period was difficult for
her and the parents were involved. The solution for the researcher who
wishes to avoid responsibility seems to be to emphasize to both adults and
children that one will not be a disciplinarian, and to back this up with con-
sistent behavior. Whenever the adult feels it imperative to intervene, it should
be made clear that the intervention is being done as an individual and not
as an agent for society or the institution.
Informed Consent
When the participant observer is not in a formal position of authority (and
even in some cases when he or she is) the observer must inform the subjects
of the research intent. The need for informed consent has perhaps not been
sufficiently recognized in ethnographic research. When the adult has little
authority, an honest explanation of the research is important (Konopka
1966). Yet, even a well-meaning explanation will not adequately convey to
children what the research entails. When I studied Little League baseball
teams I was asked if I were a reporter, writing a movie like The Bad News
Bears, working with Little League headquarters, or selling drugs. During the
time I was in graduate school I could convey the purpose of the research by
saying I was a student and this was homework; later I explained that I was
writing a book. These did not answer every question, but they seemed to
work reasonably well (Fine 1987).
Although explanation is important, actions are the main way in which
children learn the intentions of the researcher. The questions asked, and the
situations during which the observer scribbles furiously or fiddles with the
tape recorder, provide clues to the observer's true interests. Informed con-
sent, while a goal toward which we must always strive, will frequently be
only partially achieved.
EXPERIMENTS
A common methodology in several branches of the social sciences, most
particularly in psychology, is the experiment. Although this approach is not
common in folklore, some suggest that experimentation is an appropriate
methodology for folklorists (Goldstein 1967a). Most experiments that have
135
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-24 15:02 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/usu. 39060010034923 Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#cc-by-nc-nd-3. 0
? ? been conducted using folkloric materials have been attempts to understand
the processes of diffusion (Bartlett 1932; Anderson 1951; Wesselski 1931).
Some of this research, such as that of Wesselski, used children-in his case
elementary school girls. The girls were told a version of Sleeping Beauty, and
in their retellings changes were noted, confirming Wesselski's view that oral
tradition was unreliable and that the Mairchen were transmitted primarily
in printed form. This experiment, and others similar, do not directly address
children's folklore content, but they do indicate the processes of change of
children's lore.
More directly relevant to the use of experimentation for researching
children's traditions is Paul Gump and Brian Sutton-Smith's examination of
differences between "high-power" "it" roles and "low-power" "it" roles-
the games black Tom and dodge the skunk respectively (Gump and Sutton-
Smith 1955). Applying folklore to social work, these researchers discovered
that when children played high-power "it" roles they were more successful
and, further, that the high-power "it" roles led to fewer negative reactions
of the playing group to "it," and more positive feelings by the "it" toward
himself. This was particularly significant for those less skilled boys who were
able to exploit the power edge inherent in the high-power "it" role. Gump
and Sutton-Smith could make these claims because they had each child play
every role and could compare reactions across conditions. This suggests the
greatest value of experiments: They permit the systematic comparison of
groups under controlled conditions. One observes what happens in a speci-
fied situation, and compares this to a second situation with other constraints.
Experimentation also permits a random or systematic selection of subjects,
often permitting statistical analysis.
An experiment is a technique in which the researcher manipulates
some aspect of a subject's experience in order to determine its effect on be-
havior or attitudes. Typically this involves comparing groups that each have
been manipulated, or comparing a manipulated group with a
nonmanipulated group-a "control group. " The major weakness of this
approach stems from the experimenter's control-it is an artificial situation,
since it is controlled or created by the researcher. Before we become too criti-
cal, however, remember that the same is true of surveys and interviews. For
some research problems, such as comparative analysis, and for confidence
based on statistical evidence, the experiment may be the research method
of choice.
Much has been written about the ethical problems faced by experi-
mental researchers. Since experimentation has not become a major meth-
odology in folklore, it is not necessary to discuss the ethical issues in the same
136 METHODOLOGICAL PROBLEMS OF COLLECTING FOLKLORE
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-24 15:02 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/usu. 39060010034923 Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#cc-by-nc-nd-3. 0
? ? detail as discussed for interviews and observation (see Diegner and Crandall
1978). I have previously discussed how one obtains informed consent with
children and their guardians, and this problem remains in experimentation.
Although potential harm may exist in experiments (particularly in the medi-
cal domain), it is unlikely that any experiment on children's folklore is likely
to cause irreparable damage. Of more significance is the legitimacy of de-
ception. I refer to the situation in which the experimenter tells his/her sub-
jects that the experiment is testing something that it is "really" not testing,
or simply (as in the Gump and Sutton-Smith study) not informing subjects
that they are being studied.
Even when harm is not done directly by the experimental deception,
some researchers (for example, Kelman 1968, 211-21) argue that deception
by its nature raises serious ethical problems. Is it justified to deceive a per-
son, even though during the experiment that deception will not cause harm?
Doesn't deception, once uncovered, undermine the confidence that subjects
have in social science and decrease the confidence that individuals have in
one another? Do we wish to reside in a world in which deception is legiti-
mate behavior? Are we willing to do to our friends that which we willingly
do to our subjects: lie, make promises we don't intend to keep, deceive them
about the purposes of the interaction, or withhold relevant information? The
experimenter-subject relationship is, after all, a real relationship. Some an-
swer these fears by pointing to the value of the information which is gath-
ered. Further, some of the information might not have been collected if the
subjects knew what the experimenter wanted. If the children tested by Gump
and Sutton-Smith knew that the researchers were interested in influencing
their self-esteem through the games they played, they might have responded
quite differently. Further, some might question whether deception is uncom-
mon or harmful. Might deception not be viewed as similar to the "little white
lies" that are common elsewhere in life? Children, in particular, are deceived
constantly for their own good. A child who is told not to go out at night
because "the goblins" may get him or through similar threats (see
Widdowson 1977) is being deceived and may not be disabused of these ideas
for years. No fiat can be given, but it is essential that the researcher con-
sider the special responsibilities that derive from the choice to work with
children.
CHILDREN AS COLLECTORS
Although most childlore has been, and will continue to be, collected by
adults, children can serve as folklore collectors in certain circumstances. The
most publicized example of this phenomenon is the books, edited by Eliot
137
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-24 15:02 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/usu. 39060010034923 Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#cc-by-nc-nd-3. 0
? ?
