What if I want to write a book about how stupid the working poor are and so I do what Ehrenreich did to get close to working poor people. I buddy up, lie to them and tell them I'm 'one of them' and get them to open up and tell me things they might not tell a researcher. Then I turn and use that information and rake them over the coals and cite numerous examples of just how stupid they are to support the idea that they are poor because they are stupid. You'll be OK with the fact that I lied to them, and misrepresented myself so I could get the story I wanted?
Or can you only deliberately deceive such people if you have their best interests at heart?
What if you think it would be best to have them simply accept that are are poor because they are stupid so you believe you are acting in their best interests?
If you want to engage in and/or condone that behaviour please go ahead but don't imagine that there is something wrong with persons who object to it. There isn't.
If her way were the only way to glean the information one could easily ignore the subterfuge as a necessary methodology however distasteful. It isn't the only method or even necessarily the best method so what is wrong with questioning it? Why are you so certain it is no big deal and anyone who disagrees is trying to hold to some impossible moral purity?
John Thornton