Notes on Adler 1985: Researching Dealers and Smugglers (Field Research Methods)

GETTING IN

Context: Ethnographic field research in Southwest County, California, 1974–1980, studying upper-level drug dealers and smugglers through participant-observation.
Entry strategy: Move to the area with husband Peter; form friendships with local social world to gain access; aim to understand from insiders’ perspectives (per Blumer’s stance).
Entry conditions: Peripheral membership rather than full immersion; compatibility with peers due to age, appearance, and prior drug research; openness to soft drugs; prior field experience with urban heroin use.
Breakthrough moment: A conversation with Dave’s visiting associates revealed smuggling and dealing, leading to Dave’s confession and entry into his inner circle.
Key players: Dave (major marijuana dealer and smuggler), Ben (smuggler), Jean (Dave’s ex-wife, later partner in Coke dealing); women peers (“dope chicks”).
Research scope and plan: Opportunistically shifted to study the broader subculture with Dave and close associates; collected life histories via taped, depth interviews over time.
Time frame and data collection: Conducted taped interviews over 6 ext{ years} (until 1980) with several informants; total hours per informant ranged approximately from 10 to 30 ext{ hours}.
Access strategy: Built “informant networks” to snowball into a wider study population; initial entry relied on key informants to vouch and introduce others.
Prior groundwork: Relevant background in drug research (urban heroin use), open stance toward soft drug use, and prior fieldmethod models (Becker, Becker-inspired approaches).
Research stance: Employed a mix of overt and covert roles to balance access with safety and confidentiality.

THE COVERT ROLE

Why covert: Illicit nature of activities and high suspicion require discreet inquiry; to enter without triggering resistance or danger.
Entry posture: Adopted a covert, peripheral social membership to be accepted as “wise” by the crowd; unable to be fully “peers” due to not participating in illicit acts.
Courtesy membership and stigma: Gained access through introductions; accepted as courteous outsiders, bearing a courtesy stigma that sometimes forced concealment of the research purpose from lay outsiders and academics.
Limitations of covert role: Difficult to ask probing questions or tape conversations; risk of not capturing certain data; needed gradual conversion to overt role.

DEVELOPING TRUST

Process: Trust-building is slow and non-linear; no formal gatekeeper; trust varies across individuals.
Web of trust: Built through reciprocal favors and exchanges (phone use, then car, then home access) to foster safety and access.
Trust dynamics: Cocaine use among dealers produced alternating warmth and coldness in relations; trust could wax and wane over time.
Outcome: Some informants adopted the researchers’ perspective, actively prompting or shaping data and conceptual development.

THE OVERT ROLE

Transition strategy: Move from covert to overt as trust increases; two approaches to introduce the study: indirect (through informants) and direct (approach ourselves).
Progression: From established informants to direct discussions, then taped life-history interviews.
Challenges: Some subjects resisted overt engagement; others broke appointments; risk of blurring lines between investigators and participants; concerns about cover being blown.
Early misstep: An attempt with an old dealer’s associate failed when she overstepped during a direct interview, prompting a slower, more cautious approach.

CROSS-CHECKING

Data validation: Rely on multiple independent sources and cross-check against common sense and general knowledge.
Primary source: Daily involvement with principals; Dave living with the researchers allowed direct comparison of statements with observed actions.
Multiple perspectives: Jean’s reinvolvement provided alternate views on Dave’s past and connections; jack Douglas’s earlier tapes offered historical corroboration.
Documentary verification: Newspapers, arrest records, possessions, and observable evidence used where possible.
Methodology outcome: The combination of insider observation and corroboration strengthened data validity and pushed informants to be more accurate.

PROBLEMS AND ISSUES

Drug effects on data gathering: Marijuana tended to hinder interviews (confusion, drowsiness, dissimulation), while cocaine facilitated talking and openness.
Risk and danger: Fieldworkers faced potential hostility; informants could become volatile; protection of tapes and data against theft or police action was critical.
Legal and ethical tensions: Researchers faced potential legal exposure (guilty knowledge, guilty actions, guilty observations) and had to avoid secret tapings; some data had to be concealed to protect confidences.
Guilt and deception: Covert role required lying or creating stories to guard informants’ confidences; felt conflicted about manipulation and the line between friendship and research goals.
Personal toll: Feelings of being used or “whored for data”; tensions between staying detached scientifically and maintaining warm, reciprocal relationships.
Cultural clash: Differences in present vs. future orientation, risk tolerance, spontaneity vs. self-discipline; forced researchers to reassess their own identities and life choices.
Privacy and safety strategies: Occasional concealment or modification of identities to protect informants; careful handling of sensitive information in reporting.

CONCLUSIONS

Methodological stance: Aggressive, immersive field strategy was essential to accessing insider knowledge and the subculture’s norms, values, and activities.
Reciprocal exchange: Built a web of research contacts through mutual aid, favors, and personal involvement rather than waiting for data to come to them.
Team effort: Husband Peter played an equal role; collaboration mitigated gendered stereotypes and enabled broader access.
Self-reflection and insights: Fieldwork prompted researchers to re-evaluate their own identities and life choices, sometimes becoming the most “straightest” members of the crowd.
Implications for fieldwork: The study supports the claim that deviant groups require natural settings and extended immersion to understand social organization, stratification, lifestyle, and motivation—avoiding artificial settings like institutions.
Enduring message (Polsky): Studying criminals in their natural habitat reveals dimensions inaccessible behind bars, supporting the value of field-based criminal ethography.
Overall takeaway: The deepest insights arise from a carefully managed balance of overt and covert roles, ethical reflexivity, cross-checking, and sustained reciprocal trust within a dangerous, secretive world.

KEY CONCEPTS AND TERMS

peripheral membership: partial, non-fully-immersed entry into a subculture to gain insider access
courtesy membership: accepted social status allowing limited participation without full affiliation
courtesy stigma: social stigma attached to outsiders who are affiliated with insiders
web of trust: interconnected network of trusted informants that expands research access
opportunistic research: leveraging existing access and relationships to study related topics beyond the initial scope
guilty knowledge/actions/observations: legal/ethical concerns arising from being aware of crimes, being present at crimes, or participating in illegal acts
snowball sampling: expanding the study population by asking informants to refer others
dual-role navigation: switching between covert and overt researcher roles to balance access and data quality
cross-checking: validating data through multiple sources and corroboration
reflexivity: researchers’ awareness of how their own identities and biases affect the research

REFERENCES (SELECTED)

Adler, Patricia A., and Peter Adler. 1987. Membership Roles in Field Research.
Becker, Howard. 1963. Outsiders.
Douglas, Jack D. 1972. Observing Deviance; 1976. Investigative Social Research.
Polsky, Ned. 1969. Hustlers, Beats, and Others.
Whyte, William F. 1955. Street Corner Society.
Goffman, Erving. 1963. Stigma.
Carey, James T. 1972. Problems of access and risk in observing drug scenes.