Content area
Full Text
Laud Humphreys' Tea Room Trade: Impersonal Sex In Public Places (1970) is commonly presented in many sociological methods texts as an example of covert and deceptive research methods that endangered subjects without their consent. The following excerpt is reasonably representative of how this work tends to be presented:
"In Laud Humphreys' tearoom trade study (a study of male homosexual encounters in public restrooms), about 100 men were observed engaging in sexual acts as Humphrey's pretended to be a "watchqueen" (a voyeur and lookout). Subjects were followed to their cars, and their license numbers were secretly recorded. Names and addresses were obtained from police registers when Humphreys posed as a market researcher. A year later, in disguise, Humphreys used a deceptive story about a health survey to interview the subjects in their homes. Humphreys was careful to keep names in a safety deposit boxes, and identifiers with subject names were burned. He significantly advanced knowledge of homosexuals who frequent "tearooms" and overturned previous false beliefs about them. There has been controversy over the study: The subjects never consented; deception was used; and the names could have been used to blackmail subjects, to end marriages, or to initiate criminal prosecutions" (Neuman 1997: 447).
Regarding these issues surrounding research on human subjects, this paper will argue that this dominant view of Humphreys' tearoom trade study, focusing primarily upon respect for autonomy (informed consent), misinforms the reader as much as it informs of the underlying moral and ethical foundations for research with human subjects. Three moral and ethical principles provide the foundations for most medical, scientific, and social research methodologies: beneficence, justice, and respect for autonomy (informed consent) (Faden and Beauchamp 1986: 5). I will first review each of these three ethical foundations for sociological research, then, I will examine Humphreys' Tearoom Trade study through the vantage point of each and the historical facts surrounding the controversies.
Humphreys' study in casual public sex, when historically situated and examined through each of the three ethical and moral pillars, will provide a more balanced framework from which to view his work. In addition, this more balanced view may promote better understanding of how ethical and methodological dilemmas arise when the underlying principles for human research come into conflict with each other.