When laud humphreys was a sociology graduate student at washington university in st. louis, he wrote his dissertation on the "tearoom trade," anonymous homosexual encounters in the men's rooms of public parks. to gather data, he acted as a lookout for his subjects, but he also surreptitiously noted license-plate numbers as the men left, so he could get their names and addresses. the next year, he picked about fifty men from the "tearooms" and interviewed them in their homes, claiming to be performing a health survey. his descriptions of the interviews made it possible for many of the men (and their families) to recognize themselves when the dissertation was published. why do many sociologists consider this research method to be unethical?

I believe the answer is: It failed to protect the biographical anonymity of his subjects

What humpreys did for his research could be considered a violation of privacy. Ethical standard comittee usually require the reseasrchers to ensure that the personal information of every single subject shall be guarded properly. Because of this, the subjects now had a legal ground to bring a lawsuit to Humphreys.

its c i google it wish u luck

an informal structure in a bureaucracy would be something like so-called "office politics". where there's a formal structure set up for the organization, but then an informal subculture as well that has a way of organizing the bureaucracy further. this can be positive because it sets up an added degree of organization, albeit informal, within the bureaucracy.