4. Social exclusion within the scientific community
4.4 How the process of social exclusion was intensified?
4.4.2 The role of the emotions in the debate
One can recognise two kinds of criticism in case of the Solt debate. In the first place, criticism originated in publicly available sources, which were accessible to the wider professional audience. Such sources were the study itself, the articles which had been published in reference to the study, the exchange of letters between Ágnes Solt and her critic, Csaba Dubcsik which was published in the journal of social sciences “Esély”. The second stream of criticism contains much more diverse but publicly not available
“proofs” – emails, non-published critiques and fragments of articles. I analysed two main sources from the second stream, such as an unpublished article and the private debate of the Hungarian Sociological Association held on 16 February 2010. The following tables summarise these kinds of criticism.
72 1. table: Criticism that was not available to outsiders – source: private debate of the
Hungarian Sociological Association
Criticism regarding methodology
1 There may have been systematic distortion that resulted from poor sampling design as the extrovert residents of the settlements under investigation were probably more prone to communicate with the researcher.
2 The opinions of the interviewees were influenced and distorted because of the different ethnical background, as the Roma people were probably less open towards the non-Roma researcher.
3 It is not possible to follow the way the theory of the researcher changed in the mirror of the empirical experiences.
4 There is no historical perspective in Solt’s study. She writes about characteristics of ’mentality’ of the people under investigation. It is a mistake as these characteristics are probably the results of social processes of the past.
5 Solt does not ensure anonymity for her interviewees.
6 Researchers mustn’t give presents during the field work.
7 Solt’s sampling was not based on an up-to-date data base (from 1990).
8 The researcher was not able to bridge the cultural gap that appeared between her and members of the target group.
9 As the researcher had not enough time to spend in the field, she was probably able to talk only with a specific sub-group (the most disadvantaged one who stayed at home during working hours as well).
10 The interview guideline (and therefore the study itself) did not fit the professional standards due to the preconceptions and prejudices of the researcher.
Criticism regarding ethics 1 Solt gave a negative description about the Roma.
2 She had negative sentiments towards the Roma.
3 The researcher violated human dignity of the interviewees.
4 The research report increased prejudices towards the Roma.
The picture becomes even more complex if we compare two versions of an article.
Although, the first version of it was not published but as a manuscript was available for a small professional informal network. Later on, the author re-wrote this article and published it in the journal of the ‘Esély’. As both of the sources are accessible for the author of the current study, it is an interesting experiment to compare them.
73 2. table: Alteration of the criticism
Criticism that was not available to outsiders – the unpublished article
Criticism that was available to outsiders – the published article
Criticism regarding methodology 1 Solt did not spend enough time in the field thereby
it was not possible to resolve the disinclination between the Roma and the researcher.
Solt did not spend enough time in the field thereby it was not possible to resolve the disinclination between the Roma and the researcher.
2 Conducting structured interviews was not an appropriate method (as it was not possible to conduct 45 minutes long interviews and as she should have combined interviews with
participatory observation).
Conducting structured interviews was not an appropriate method (as it was not possible to conduct 45 minutes long interviews and as she should have combined interviews with
participatory observation).
3 Solt did not study the relevant professional literature.
Solt did not study the relevant professional literature.
4 Sampling method was not appropriate (as Solt did not use an up-to-data database).
Sampling method was not appropriate (as Solt did not use an up-to-data database).
5 Solt did not have well-based information about the Roma themselves.
Solt did not have well-based information about the Roma themselves.
6 Some conversation (from the non-Roma interviews) were incorporated into the research report without any reflection from the researcher.
Some conversation (from the non-Roma interviews) were incorporated into the research report without any reflection from the researcher.
7 The negative attitudes of Solt were probably recognised by the Roma interviewees therefore their answers were influenced.
-
8 Solt did not aim at understanding the ‘subject’ of her investigation – what is a basic requirement towards a professional social scientist.
-
9 Solt’s knowledge was limited about the way
Grounded Theory should have been applied. -
10 The applied concepts and terms are not
well-defined. -
11 Solt did not take the characteristics and determinants of the context (the society) into consideration.
-
12
-
There is no information (e.g. length, information) about the interviews that were conducted with non-Roma.
13 - It is not clear how many Roma people gave
interview more than once.
14 There is no historical perspective in Solt’s study.
She writes about characteristics of ’mentality’ of the people under investigation. It is a mistake as
74 these characteristics are probably the results of social processes of the past.
15
-
The interview guideline (and therefore the study itself) did not fit the professional standards due to the preconceptions and prejudices of the
researcher.
16
-
Sometimes, Solt comes to unfounded conclusions (e.g. describing the fertility of Roma women without statistical evidences).
17 - The number of the categories that was created by
Solt was too small.
18
-
The database that was created by Solt did not provide the opportunity to draw conclusions about the Roma settlements nationwide.
19
-
During the content analysis Solt created categories but these units incorporated primarily negative characteristics.
20
-
Solt was not reflexive: the messages of the interviewees may have primarily aimed at
influencing the research (and not mainly at giving information).
21
-
Solt did not clarify that some characteristics of the target group are Roma-specific and/or it is also the trait of the non-Roma society.
Criticism regarding ethics
1 Solt had negative sentiments towards the Roma. -
2 Solt was not able to set apart her negative sentiments towards the Roma during the field work.
-
3 Solt gave negative descriptions about the Roma in her study.
Solt gave negative descriptions about the Roma in her study.
4 The putative differences between the Roma and the non-Roma are reinforced due to the study.
The putative differences between the Roma and the non-Roma are reinforced due to the study.
As it is clear to see, the first version of the criticism focused primarily on methodology.
Altogether, 11 mistakes were identified by the author who – similarly to the opponents of the private debate of the Hungarian Sociological Association – pointed at the deficiencies of the research methodology, sampling, field work etc. The manuscript enumerated some violations of the ethical norms as well. It pointed at the negative stereotypes of Solt, the way the research report increased prejudices towards the Roma and the fact that the researcher violated the human dignity of the interviewees.
75 However, if we take the second (re-written) version of the article into consideration, we can conclude that more emphasis was put on the methodological concerns while the violation of the ethical rules stayed in the background. The published version pointed at altogether 16 types of methodological mistakes and only at 2 problems regarding the ethical issues.
It is an interesting investigation to analyse even the two different texts from the point of view of emotions. The author of the unpublished article described Solt as ‘naïve’ who was filled not only with incomprehension but even indisposition, disgust and astonishment towards the Roma. As the reviewer underlined, Solt had been annoyed as she had not been able to create proper interview situations. She organised her findings in a ‘very strange table’, her knowledge about the content of the professional literature was ‘scary’ as ‘it is somewhere close to zero’. The degree of her ignorance was described as ‘surreal’. As it clear to see, the author used rough language – and thereby made his attitude towards the debate clear and more identifiable. He attacked the character or motivations of Solt and this way tried to destroy the credibility of her position and argument. All in all, the clear case of (an abusive type of) ad hominem argument could be observed. As Walton emphasised, this kind of personal attack did not make real contribution to the advancement of the discussion and ‘may even pose a serious obstacle in this regard’ and even ‘it has the effect of turning a reasoned critical discussion of an issue into a personal quarrel’ (1998, p. XII. and 4.) Elsewhere, Walton pointed at the consequences of using an ad hominem argument emphasising that ‘once a certain level of derogatory language has been used to classify one’s opponents in the argument, a kind of poisoning the well takes effect’ (1992, p. 210) as participants of the debate were more and more bound to find prejudicial terms while describing each other. Tension, quarrel, prejudicial terms and derogatory language obviously result in intense conflict and opposition while dialogue gets more and more personal. Social psychologists also proved that negative emotions trigger anti-outgroup reactions as they made creating stereotypes easier (Mackie and Hamilton, 1993), exacerbated and encouraged conflicts (Forsyth, 2010) and provoked aggression and retaliation (Meier et al, 2008).
One could argue that in case of the Solt debate, the style of the published text was completely different. Most of the emotions disappeared and the author removed his negative comments and attributes connected to Solt’s personality. The two changes –
76 more methodological criticism and less emotions – made those ‘aspects of style that focus attention away from people and toward things’ (Gross – Harmonn – Reidy 2002, p. 228) stronger and thereby tried to convince the readers that ‘reason has subjugated the passions’ (Gross 2006, p. 29). All in all, some of the real concerns with regard to the study – and to the author herself – were gone. As a counterargument, I would like to emphasise that the non-published text (and thereby the hostile attitude towards the research report and its author) was well-known for the members of the professional network and even for Ágnes Solt. All in all, the well had been already poisoned when the re-written text was published. Moreover, due to the modification even the problem of the ‘unstated premises’ (Govier 2010, p. 41) evolved as the premises of the arguments of the actor – i.e. Solt is incompetent – were not explicitly uncovered, the participants of the dispute did not properly reveal and interpret their arguments. All in all, unexpressed premises that were taken for granted by the author but the audience was not able to recognise, also hindered the solution of the debate.