Doing Ethnographic Research. Kimberly Kirner
to meet multiple “goods” or resolve conflicts between community members’ or participants’ needs
Being insufficiently clear and detailed in the justification of ethical decisions
Ask Yourself
How do I take notes or call out important terms or concepts while reading?
Sample Problem
Mary Jones had spent three years working as an applied medical anthropologist in an urban Black community in the United States. In order to provide the social science communities with some data on her project, she wrote a series of articles to be published in relevant professional journals. The data included sensitive materials concerning specific health problems faced by members of the community, as well as strategies used to improve health care delivery by the local community. Before submitting her articles for publication, Jones asked specific individuals from the community health center who had been part of the applied project to read the papers for comments and criticism and set up a meeting for discussion of the contents of the manuscripts. The discussion began with several individuals complimenting Jones on her accurate characterization of the local situation and the sensitive way in which she addressed their health care problems and ways they chose to solve some of these. Then an elder asked Jones why she had not given the accurate name of the community health center where much of this activity took place. Immediately, someone else asked why she had not given the accurate name of the town where the center was located. A third person asked why there were no names given for the people who were involved in the “struggle to improve health care for our people.” Jones countered with explanations regarding anthropological conventions that specified the use of pseudonyms in certain types of anthropological reporting, specifically if there was any chance that individuals or a community might be harmed. She provided some examples of instances in a nearby town where people had been harmed because the actual name of the town and the names of people there had been published in a scientific report. The participants at the meeting told her that she should use her own judgment in the final analysis, but they felt that at least she should name some of the people who had helped Jones and her students during their three years of work.
Jones’s dilemma:Should she defer to the community health center members’ desire that she publish the name of the health center, the town in which the health center was located, and/or the names of individuals who had asked or given permission for their names to be published (during the meeting described)? Or should she retain the use of pseudonyms throughout her papers?
Example
Decision: Jones should adhere to the usual anthropological ethical codes regarding anonymity in her report, but she should acknowledge key informants who provided her with a lot of time and support in an acknowledgment section (separate from the report).
Justification: The need for anonymity is especially important because Jones noticed that another group of people nearby were harmed by using their real names under similar circumstances. At the same time, it is important for her to recognize the feelings of the community members that they were insufficiently thanked for their assistance and knowledge that they shared. By separating their names from the information in the report and not publishing the name of the town and health center, Jones finds a compromise between her concerns for anonymity and for properly reciprocating with her participants.
Non-example
Decision: Jones should defer to the health center members’ desire that she publish the names of the health center, the town, and the individuals who gave permission for her to use their real names.
Justification: The participants should be able to have things done the way they want because Jones wouldn’t even have a study if they didn’t cooperate and agree to be part of her work. They are adults and can accept responsibility for their own decisions, like using their real names.
Problem
Jerry Vaughn contracted with a federal agency to conduct a social impact assessment of proposed topographic changes in an aboriginal habitat in a far north region of North America. The contract contained no stipulations regarding ownership of data. In order to determine the potential impacts on the culture of peoples living in that region, Vaughn engaged in participant observation (keeping a detailed field notebook of the same); conducted in-depth personal interviews; and took more than one thousand photographs of people working, socializing, and enjoying other everyday and special activities. This work was carried out over a one-year period. Vaughn was paid 75 percent of his contracted salary and other expenses before the fieldwork. Vaughn then wrote a 150-page report detailing the areas of social life that would be adversely affected if the plans were implemented. He further noted that if the plans were implemented as proposed, there could be no mitigations that could prevent the people’s culture from being totally altered. Because of these severe conclusions, the agency director instructed Vaughn to turn over his entire research record so that the agency could solicit another opinion on the matter. Furthermore, the director told Vaughn that unless he would turn over the record, no further payment would be made to him.
Vaughn’s dilemma: Should he turn over the interview materials, the photographs, and his field notes, all of which contained sensitive and personal information? Should he turn over only part of his record? Or should he refuse to turn anything over to the agency?
Decision:
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
Justification:
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
Activity 2.5: Research Design Decisions: Recruitment
Background: We must make decisions regarding ethical dilemmas and justify these decisions based on a professional code of ethics. Researchers must strategize about how to recruit participants and how ethical issues are embedded in selecting participants in their research projects, as well as how such problems might be alleviated.
This activity will help you strategize about the way you will recruit participants (i.e., advertise your research project to potential participants), ethical issues that your recruitment plan could pose, and how you might alleviate these problems.
Instructions
Either independently or in small groups of three to four, answer the questions using the formal statement you wrote in Activity 1.7b (the description of your project question, your population and justification, and your chosen field site and justification).
Common Mistakes
Common mistakes students make when strategizing recruitment techniques:
Underestimating the difficulty of finding willing participants
Not carefully considering how recruitment techniques might exclude some people from participating or skew results through selection bias
Ask Yourself
If