Gang Leader For A Day Summary

Gang Leader for A Day Response Paper
“Just another day as an outsider looking at life from the inside”, says Sudhir Venkatesh, who is referring to his research study. Venkatesh is a self proclaimed “rogue sociologist” who wanted to study the lives of poor black families living in Chicago. Instead of solely conducting interviews and surveys, Venkatesh took it a step further and immersed himself in the environment that he was studying. Gang Leader for A Day describes Venkatesh’s experiences with the Black Kings, and ultimately explores gang life through a lens that not many would be willing to adopt.
The methods and techniques that were used in both of the research projects were actually very similar. In Venkatesh’s study, he uses the

snowball sampling method in order to get information on the lifestyles and occupations of the residents of Robert Taylor. This is seen when Sudhir begins to investigate the underground economy of three of the buildings in Robert Taylor. J.T., the gang leader, was very enthusiastic about the project, and suggested that he “talk to all the pimps… the wh*res.. People stealing cars” (Venkatesh 90). He was also responsible for arranging the interviews between Sudhir and the pimps, which additionally led to him meeting the freelance prostitutes who lived in the building. This method was effective because it allowed Venkatesh to come into contact with the people who participated in these economic activities, who would then connect him to other individuals. In addition to this, it enabled Venkatesh to adopt a first-person point of view on lifestyles of the pimps and prostitutes without having to rely on literature or other people’s data. It provides raw data that can be analyzed and interpreted without any hints of bias, per say.
I thought that Venkatesh’s method was appropriate to his research question, as it allowed him to become more involved. He adopted an etic approach, because he was not part of the community that he was studying this. He becomes aware of this after J.T. asks him “how’d you get to do this if you don’t even know who we are, what we’re about?” (Venkatesh 16). J.T. essentially makes it clear to Sudhir that the only way that he will understand the lives of these black families is by immersing himself in the community. The initial failure of his survey highlights the importance of Venkatesh’s shift from using an etic approach to an emic approach. Venkatesh begins to immerse himself within the Robert Taylor community, using the snowball sampling method. This is evident when Sudhir meets Clarisse, a cousin of J.T. She informs him about the type of people that live in the building, saying that “Regulars like me, we hustle to make our money, but we only go with guys we know. We don’t do it full time… then you got hypes that are just in i for the drugs. They don’t live around here, but J.T. lets them work here..” (Venkatesh 56). This would later lead to Venkatesh associating with these individuals in order to learn more about the reasons why they’re involved with prostitution, or drugs. If Venkatesh hadn’t adopted these approaches, then he would have had far less data to work with.
Venkatesh’s background somewhat affected the manner in which he initially approached the research study.

According to the book, Venkatesh was an Indian male who came from an immigrant background. He was a graduate student at the University of Chicago, and he essentially led a sheltered life. Sudhir describes his homeplace as the “lily-white suburbs of Southern California” and lived in “a studio apartment in a ten-story building” next to “a beautifully manicured Gothic campus” (Venkatesh 1). Sudhir didn’t struggle through life the same way that the residents of Robert Taylor did. Robert Taylor was composed of I think his background affected the results of the study because Venkatesh had his own opinions and perspectives on certain situations, and reacted differently because of them. For example, when Clarisse tells Sudhir that Ms. Bailey has not fed her children, he takes it upon himself to find food and water for her family. Ms. Bailey informs him later on that she feeds all the hungry children of the building, and that he cannot trust everyone, because “they’ll take advantage of you, and you won’t know what hit you. And I won’t be there to protect you” (Venkatesh 157). Sudhir’s need to protect and provide for these women, who are less fortunate than he is, causes him to react quickly to the situation. This affected the data in a positive manner because it highlights the need for truth and lack of interference. Sudhir learned that he could not take everything at face

value, and would thus have to differentiate between those that were truly in need and those who weren’t. It affected the data in a negative manner because he directly manipulated the findings of his research, which could have been different had he not interfered at all.
When reading this ethnography, I noticed that Venkatesh’s research was not always ethical.

In the beginning of the book, Sudhir convinces J.T. that he is observing him because he wants to write a biography about the life experiences of a gang leader. Venkatesh is aware that he is conducting this research study in order to understand how black families live in poverty, but he never clarifies what the research project intends to do. In addition to this, there is another ethical issue revolving around the “cause no harm to subjects” clause. After Venkatesh collected the information about the underground economy and the wages that each individual earned, he shared that information with Ms. Bailey and J.T. This led to the suspension of aid from Ms. Bailey, or violence from J.T. and his gang members. Sudhir was responsible for causing harm to his subjects, and he was unable to remediate the issues that had arisen between the tenants and J.T. Another issue that was prevalent in Venkatesh’s study was the idea of “benefits outweighing risks”. To be quite frank, the only person that benefited from the research study was Venkatesh. At the end of the day, he was the one receiving academic recognition for partaking in a study that was deemed “dangerous” and “unique”. The residents of Robert Taylor ended up losing their homes, and Venkatesh experienced economic and social success. It demonstrates that researchers cannot always deem what is ethical or unethical, and thus calls for a

greater need to reflect on the future of the subjects.
Gang Leader for a Day was a research study that constantly teetered between being both ethical and unethical. However, the study reinforces the notion that ethnographies are powerful because it provides the researcher with a first-hand perspective into the issue that is studied. The first-hand perspective is valuable in understanding the unique experiences of each individual in a certain field, and thus creates a new dynamic between the researcher and the participant. Researchers should still conduct ethnographies, but must not forget that the welfare of the participant could be at stake. It leaves us with the question: who benefits more from research studies, researchers or participants?