The story of Dian Fossey and her level of research that was collected with groups of gorillas in Rwanda, although suffering from a tragic ending, paved the way for a higher understanding for animals and their behaviors that had not been studied before. Fossey could be described as an activist, her one true desire in life to study and protect what she discovered to be gentle giants from poachers and other human harm. Fossey always withheld a “wish to see and live with wild animals in a world that hadn’t yet been completely changed by humans” (Krajicek, n.d.). Her first experience with this great gorillas that would become the focus of her studies began when she saved money as well as took out a loan to visit Africa, coming into contact with two wildlife filmmakers by the names of Alan and Joan Root. Accompanying them she discovered the mountain gorillas that she so grew to cherish (Krajicek, n.d.). 
With little funds it took her time to return to the mountains, later being propositioned by Dr. Leakey to help him research the mountain gorillas. With his funding, Fossey was able to establish her Karisoke Research Center and begin her work (Krajicek, n.d.). There was much time spent with the gorillas in this habitat that they soon began to accept her, allowing her to hold their infants, groom and be groomed by the others, play, and even eat with them. In this time she also formed a relationship with a gorilla that she had named Digit (Krajicek, n.d.). The affection that was formed for these gorillas was never found in her reactions to other humans. In acts of protection for this new relationships formed she would often shoot the livestock of locals that grazed in the area that had been deemed private park property, as well as used corporal punishment against those who poached the gorillas for their hands and heads (Krajicek, n.d.).
(Image depicts traps set by poachers.)
With each act there was more and more development of group conflicts, the gorillas being her new in-group complete with its own social hierarchies. This was all stemmed from the choice of being active in her participatory research and becoming one with the culture of the gorillas. As this conflict grew with the out-group and several losses were suffered with the in-group, Fossey left her research and became an activist in a sort of retaliation of the loss of Digit to the local poachers. Her in-group bias expanded the longer that she spent time isolated in the mountains. The complaints of the change in her focus grew and grew through the years as she became lost in the society of the gorillas, unable to draw the line between her research anymore. Ultimately and tragically these conflicts lead to the death of Dian Fossey (Krajicek, n.d.).
Even though our minds automatically think that the research for social change and participatory research are strictly about human nature, these terms can be expanded over the area of other mammals and animals as well. With Fossey’s research she learned how to interact with the gorillas, she learned their behavior and became one with their in-group. She was able to completely immerse herself in this society and was unable to see any bad that may come from the hearts of these animals, the in-group bias a common response from those who have become lost in their own research.
Krajicek, D. (n.d.) Dian Fossey Life and Death. Crime Library. Retrieved from http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/celebrity/dian_fossey/8.html
As seen in Fossey’s research social change research can be done with humans and with animals. Here she used social change research to better understand gorillas and to stop the attacks on these animals. She also worked with other researchers in which she learnt more about what she was trying to research. Where this varies from social change research is I think she was too involved with these animals that she was more about feelings rather than facts. There is a point that as you even stated she was fully invested in her research which is where I feel it became too personal to her. This alters the findings from facts to opinions. Therefor I feel this is more participatory research because she was in a sense part of the gorilla group and she did have a in-group bias due to being part of the group. This in-group bias as you mentioned made her forget about the fact that these animals have negatives to them. Ultimately this in-group bias was the cause of her death. Had she have focused more on the social change aspect of the research she would have probably not died. She also may have not died if she did not fall into the trap of in-group bias because this caused her to be blinded from the negatives of the animal.
This blog was extremely interesting to me. I have a love for a show called “Fatal Attraction” which is about people that raise wild animals basically as pets. These people because so involved with these animals that they forget that these animals have the potential to take their lives, some of these people actually do not believe that these animals would do such a thing. These people fall hard into the in-group bias so much that they risk and even lose their lives because of this.
I am glad that you addressed the issue of in group bias within this research. Being an activist can often be very rewarding however sometimes you become so entwined in understanding the group being researched and become to entwined in the group.
As we learned in this weeks lesson activist research is a type of social research where the researcher is pushing a certain value that they are looking to achieve through their research (PSYCH424, PSU, LESSON13). In this case she may have been looking to show how gorillas are not aggressive or dangerous by living with them for such a long period of time.
As you indicated the issue arose because she remained so long she became isolated. The issue arising here is that her goal was to see the interactions of these mammals in a natural setting unaffected by humans. However just like in society we humans are animals and when faced with fear or danger we react as well to protect ourselves. Her continued isolation with the gorillas made her biased to how they acted in a natural environment and lead to her justification of their aggressive behavior towards other humans.
The issue we see is that she was too entwined in the research as the activist and as this weeks lesson indicated it would have been beneficial for her to have several assistants that would conduct the research for her based on her interactions with the gorillas. These individuals would spend less time with the animals and therefore be less biased towards different interactions they view.
Pennsylvania State University World Campus (2014, October). PSYCH 424 Lesson 13: Social Change/Participatory Research. Retrieved from https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/fa14/psych424/001/content/14_lesson/01_page.html