Cookie policy: This site uses cookies to simplify and improve your usage and experience of this website. Cookies are small text files stored on the device you are using to access this website. For more information on how we use and manage cookies please take a look at our privacy and cookie policies. Your privacy is important to us and our policy is to neither share nor sell your personal information to any external organisation or party; nor to use behavioural analysis for advertising to you.

Place-hacker Bradley Garrett: research at the edge of the law

Bradley Garrett, whose fieldwork was seized and used in court against the urban explorers he studied, says researchers need clear support

Man standing on city crane at night

Source: Bradley Garrett

Such a methodological orientation embodies a troubling tangle of ethical contradictions and legal ambiguities.” – Jeff Ferrell, 1998

In 2008, I began a four-year doctoral research project with urban explorers in London. Urban explorers are groups of people interested in sneaking into, and often photographing, off-limits architecture, trespassing into abandoned buildings, infrastructure systems and under-construction skyscrapers. Given the nature of what they do, conducting research with them was always going to require a level of deep participation; passive “observers” are swiftly identified, censured and disregarded in this community. I chose to undertake ethnographic work in the tradition of the Chicago School of Sociology. What followed over the next few years was, by any stretch of the imagination, an incredible series of events that concluded two weeks ago with a qualified victory for me and eight of my project participants after beating a charge of “conspiracy to commit criminal damage”, which carries with it a 10-year maximum jail sentence. Elated as we were to be out of the dock, this was a victory with sombre caveats for me as a researcher.

This case raises important concerns about how we might, and perhaps should, react when our research takes us close to, and even across, lines, whether these be lines the law draws for us, the ethical lines we negotiate with our institutions or the moral lines we draw for ourselves. While the groups we study may occupy positions close to legal boundaries for a wide variety of reasons, to argue that because they operate at these boundaries we should not work with them is deeply problematic. As researchers we have a responsibility to engage with people and places that society as a whole might find perturbing. It remains up to individual researchers, and also their institutions, to be aware of how close to the edge they work, and to choose carefully and in full awareness of the consequences, whether to cross over such boundaries in the course of their research.

Ethnography (what anthropologist Clifford Geertz called “deep hanging out” – immersing oneself completely in a culture, group or social experience) has been long practised by geographers, sociologists, criminologists and anthropologists. Running parallel to my project, on the other side of the Atlantic, Alice Goffman, assistant professor of sociology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, spent six years in an inner-city Philadelphia neighbourhood where precarious legal existences were part of everyday life on the streets. Her research, detailed in On the Run: Fugitive Life in an American City, often brought her close to the law. Her work, however, is also a testament to the value of spending long periods of time in legally murky social contexts to learn more about marginalised members of society, people who often have less voice.

While I certainly would not want to conflate ethnographies of socially marginalised groups with the particular kinds of politics opened out by urban exploration, the range of ethnographic work undertaken with groups involved in illicit activities over the past 150 years is vast. Researchers have worked with sewer scavengers, homeless communities, protesters, sex workers, squatters, train hoppers, dealers and dopers – and in each case have raised awareness about parts of our society that likely would have otherwise remained hidden. My research with urban explorers, while harbouring obvious demographic and motivational differences from many of these studies, laid bare the consequences of working in legally edgy environments in the present-day political climate, especially in heavily surveilled and policed cities such as London.

Group of young men sitting on top of crane

Source: Bradley Garrett

My research with urban explorers laid bare the consequences of working in legally edgy environments in the present-day political climate

The goal of the urban explorers I worked with is deceptively simple – to explore the hidden city and to share their discoveries with the public. London’s disused Tube stations, obvious sites of urban heritage, were primary points of interest. From Mark Lane to Brompton Road, Aldwych to City Road and Down Street, the group was eager to “catch them all”, as one of my project participants once said. The designated “scribe for the tribe”, I detailed our explorations for various academic and popular outputs. As the years progressed, and we built a public following, Transport for London took an increasingly severe stance towards our activities. In the lead-up to the publication of my 2013 monograph, Explore Everything: Place-Hacking the City, TfL’s lawyers sent a letter to my publishers, Verso Books, that stated: “TfL is considering all legal remedies it may have available to it to prevent the publication of illegally obtained information.” That was (and is) an incredible suggestion – that because the group had trespassed to take photos and collect stories, for academic purposes or otherwise, those materials were “illegally obtained information” that a government organisation would seek to censor.

Shortly after my very public arrest at Heathrow Airport in August 2012, where I was dragged off a plane in handcuffs and all my research materials were seized, a team of British Transport Police appeared in the corridors of Royal Holloway, University of London, where I did my PhD, taking witness statements and causing the registrar to send a strongly worded email to my supervisor, adviser and head of department indicating that, “as it is neither prosecution nor defendant, the college has no direct involvement in [the case]”. It seemed to me that staff had been cautioned about communication with me. Only a few brave colleagues dared to continue to do so. This was despite the fact that my project had gone through all the necessary ethics procedures and had been reviewed annually and been signed off by my PhD committee and, during my viva voce, by an internal and external examiner who found no fault in my methodology. This situation exposed the limitations we all inevitably encounter when conservative bureaucratic structures clash with idealistic expectations. In the face of legal action, the university was apparently unable to offer any protection or support to me or my project participants, or even come close to attempting to uphold the anonymity of the data I had collected, as I had assured my project participants I would.

The explorers would have done what they did with or without me there. My presence obviously changed the course of events in various ways; no serious practising researcher who works with people would make any pretence of objective observation, especially when they are running through Tube tunnels at 2am with their project participants wearing a ski mask. However, as a participant/observer, my thesis and the very publications I was producing were at the same time the material that earned me my doctorate and the material that ended up gaining me a central place at the head of the alleged conspiracy. In placing me thus, the BTP gained access to personal text messages, quotes from my thesis, fragments of field notes, photographs, video footage and even chat logs from social media, all collected from me in August 2012 off my person and from my house, which they raided while I was in custody after taking my door down with a battering ram. These materials were then “extracted” over the next two years and delivered as thousands of pages of evidence in seemingly endless bundles to me and my project participants, along with material from their houses and computers. This scenario is every ethnographer’s worst nightmare. In a strange way, it felt a bit like being observed by a particularly cack-handed anthropologist operating without their subject’s permission.

For any social researcher, especially one working with groups whose activities may cross legal lines, the idea that all your communication with your project participants over many years could be open to police scrutiny, and indeed even become evidence, is a chilling one. I invested a great deal of time and money instructing my solicitors to make clear to the BTP that the material on my drives was “special procedure material”, collected under an ethical framework that also should have guided its “inspection”. The police ignored these representations and opened up my password-protected drives.

Young man walking along suspension bridge at night

Source: Bradley Garrett

The idea that all your communication with your project participants over many years could be open to police scrutiny is a chilling one

As an even more serious political battle has been waged over access to Boston College Belfast Project materials by police in Northern Ireland, it seems clear that as a research community we need to ask ourselves some difficult questions. These questions concern whether we will stand up to authorities who wilfully undermine our integrity as researchers in order to undertake fishing expeditions for “incriminating” data. Furthermore, we need to put more thought into how we can realistically, not idealistically, protect our research participants and ourselves from the potentially devastating consequences of these sorts of investigations. These are pressing issues that are compounded by the neoliberal academy’s pressures to engage with the media (I did this prolifically and, I thought at the time, beneficially), which can bait those wielding the battering rams.

I feel an enormous amount of guilt over the knowledge that I exacerbated the legal problems of my project participants by unintentionally supplying the police with a (very well organised) ready-made package of evidence that I naively had stored on my computer unencrypted. This was driven home in the opening statement of the prosecution barrister (Queen’s Counsel, no less) who told the court that the investigation stemmed from “material recovered from Dr Garrett’s hard drive”, a statement that caused the blood to drain from my face in the dock, even as one of my project participants grabbed my shoulder in solidarity.

We need to think more carefully about our data collection and protection procedures in UK academia. Rapidly changing technology, covert collection tools, off-site storage methods, new police powers and increasing social unrest are challenging our ethical frameworks and the flaccid protections we offer our project participants. We might question whether these frameworks and protections are still fit for purpose. It’s time for more open and honest discussion about ethical frameworks. And rather than establishing restrictive prescriptions counterproductive to the intellectual spirit of our work (as many of my US-based colleagues describe the institutional review board process in that country), what we need are discursive ethics fit for purpose on a project-by-project basis, robust yet responsive in the face of change, especially in the heat of the moment during intense fieldwork.

A good place to start is in thinking about how we handle our data. It seems to me that password protection and encryption need to become as commonplace as referencing software, both in terms of institutional licensing purchases and training. We also might want to consider abandoning unsecure software packages, as Adam Fish, lecturer in sociology and media studies at Lancaster University, has suggested. The point, of course, in becoming more dogmatic in our handling of data is not to create inflexible, draconian procedures that prevent work from taking place, but to provide a safer space where edgy research can happen. It is also time that researchers, hopefully supported by our unions, lobby for legislation to provide them and their research participants the same levels of protection as journalists and their “sources”, so that valuable work on difficult topics can continue. Because even if we succeed in convincing institutions to support our work, participants may flee for fear of the consequences if we can’t protect them.

I began this piece by suggesting that ours was a qualified victory. It is precisely the “conditional” in the “conditional discharge” I was given that continues to cause me angst. The condition, as spelled out in law, is that I commit no further offence in the next three years, lest I be brought up on these charges again. While I’m delighted to be free again, I’ve also been prevented, in no uncertain terms, from doing research on any social practice that may cross legal lines for the next few years, an unfortunate by-product of an already disconcerting attempt to stifle reasonable academic research.

Group of people in sewer tunnels

Source: Bradley Garrett

Court and controversy: Garrett in the dock

Bradley Garrett was one of a group of nine people charged with conspiracy to commit criminal damage after scaling London’s skyscrapers and exploring the city’s disused Underground tunnels.

Court proceedings began at the end of April. All but two of the defendants had the charges against them dropped.

The two remaining defendants, Garrett and co-defendant Christopher Reinstadtler, 32, of Riverside Close, Farnborough, also had charges of conspiracy dropped and replaced with counts of criminal damage, for which Reinstadtler received an 18-month conditional discharge and Garrett a three-year conditional discharge on 21 May. Garrett was also ordered to pay costs of £2,000.

Garrett pleaded guilty to five counts of criminal damage to railway property, including removing a wing nut from a door and removing a board and replacing it again.

Photographs of Garrett on top of the Shard have appeared in the national press, and the author Robert Macfarlane, a fellow of Emmanuel College, Cambridge, joined Garrett on a visit to an empty 19th-century subterranean reservoir for a feature published in The Guardian in September last year.

In the Evening Standard on 25 April, the author Will Self called the court case “bizarre” and argued that Garrett “was working in the tradition of ethnographers from Malinowski to Margaret Mead when he joined the place-hackers on their nocturnal adventures”.

Danny Dorling, Halford Mackinder professor of human geography at the University of Oxford, told Times Higher Education that “it’s perfectly clear from the outcome reached that it was a mistake to bring [the case] in the way it was”.

But a spokesman for the British Transport Police said: “The railway, whether disused or in operation, is a dangerous place for those not meant to be there and access restrictions, which should not be taken lightly, are in place to protect members of the public from harm.”

A spokeswoman for Royal Holloway, University of London, where Garrett obtained his PhD, issued the following statement.

“Dr Garrett raises some important issues which are worthy of debate in the academic community and beyond. As things stand, Royal Holloway, like all universities, is not in a position to offer protection to researchers from police investigations or criminal charges, and cannot hinder their investigations.”

The statement continues: “Like all individuals and organisations, we also cannot make any public comment, whether in support or otherwise, about ongoing criminal proceedings in which our staff are witnesses, without being in contempt of court. For us the key debate is around the extent of protection in law for bona fide academic research, as Dr Garrett suggests himself.”

Times Higher Education reporters

Times Higher Education free 30-day trial

Rate this article  (4.64 average user rating)

Click to rate

  • 1 star out of 5
  • 2 stars out of 5
  • 3 stars out of 5
  • 4 stars out of 5
  • 5 stars out of 5

0 out of 5 stars

Readers' comments (2)

  • Unfortunately even if you were to " lobby for legislation to provide them and their research participants the same levels of protection as journalists and their “sources”" it's protection would be very limited, as a growing number of 'approved' journalists have discovered.

    The 'free-press' is an illusion, as to obtain a 'press-card' and the limited protections offered you must first pass the Police's approved 'gate-keepers' assessment of suitability, this is one reason the 'citizen press' is feared by those in authority, it's members aren't approved and checked!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • This is a geneuinely complex issue since both sides have legitimate 'public interest' arguments.

    The BTP do have to keep people away from dangerous areas and part of this will involve prosecuting trespassers (they would be correctly criticised - and could be taken to court e.g. by the parents of an electrocuted child - if they didn't enforce the law); although my guess is that their fervancy here was fuelled by a deep irritation of 'yobs on the tracks', not only law enforcement.

    At the same time, as ably argued by Bradley, there is public interest in researchers being free to research society, including protecting sources.

    It would be interesting - and I'd encourage the Guardian and Bradley too - to ask for the Crown Prosecution Service's public interest assessment, under the freedom of information act. Whether this should have gone to court was a matter for the CPS, which must have decided it was in the public's interest, on balance. Perhaps this has been done already, or CPS deliberations are protected against FOI requests, I don't know.

    Having read the article in full, including the section under Bradley's article (which stated "Garrett pleaded guilty to five counts of criminal damage to railway property, including removing a wing nut from a door and removing a board and replacing it again."), I'd be curious to know what Bradley did with respect to damage to property. I am guessing these were minor things required for Bradley to conduct his research but it raises questions of whether Bradley did contribute to the behaviour of his subjects (which might be interpreted by them as encouraging) or even enable them. Given Bradley's article, I'm guessing he judged these offenses would not do either of these things but it does raise questions.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

Remember you need to be a registered THE member and logged in to comment on stories. Please read our terms and conditions for posting guidance.

  • Print
  • Share
  • Comments (2)
  • Rate
  • Save
  • Print
  • Share
  • Comments (2)
  • Rate
  • Save
Jobs