Spies like us? Respondent perceptions of research sponsors in 20 African Countries

L. Fry
{"title":"Spies like us? Respondent perceptions of research sponsors in 20 African Countries","authors":"L. Fry","doi":"10.4314/IJMA.V1I7.4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A continuing debate has been the roles and responsibilities of anthropologists acting as fieldworkers concerning espionage and covert research. As Ratha (2013) indicated, the ethical foundations of scientific anthropology are the basis upon which fieldworkers develop a genuine and committed empathy for the people they study. Fieldworkers are therefore obliged to help, not harm those they study. Those who would use anthropologists as spies are seen to act contrary to the cannons of scientific and or academic research. As more and more anthropologists find employment in government and the corporate world, the lines between academia and legitimate applied research become blurred. The purpose of this paper is to suggest that the most important question has been totally neglected in this polemic. This paper argues that the real question is “do respondents think fieldworkers are possible spies?’ To preview the findings, based on the responses of 27,713 persons in 20 African countries, the answer to that question is that few respondents thought fieldworkers were sent by intelligence or secret service agencies. Only 82 respondents thought that an intelligence agency had sent the fieldworker. The paper profiles those respondents who did think an intelligence agency sent the fieldworker/interviewer to their homes, and explores the factors that appear to distinguish them from other respondents. The significant factors were; the respondent’s educational level; whether the respondent checked with others during the interview; the respondent’s ease during the interview, whether the interviewer felt threatened, and whether others influenced the respondent. Key words : Afrobarometer, fieldwork, spy, research sponsor","PeriodicalId":14088,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Modern Anthropology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-01-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.4314/IJMA.V1I7.4","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Modern Anthropology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4314/IJMA.V1I7.4","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

A continuing debate has been the roles and responsibilities of anthropologists acting as fieldworkers concerning espionage and covert research. As Ratha (2013) indicated, the ethical foundations of scientific anthropology are the basis upon which fieldworkers develop a genuine and committed empathy for the people they study. Fieldworkers are therefore obliged to help, not harm those they study. Those who would use anthropologists as spies are seen to act contrary to the cannons of scientific and or academic research. As more and more anthropologists find employment in government and the corporate world, the lines between academia and legitimate applied research become blurred. The purpose of this paper is to suggest that the most important question has been totally neglected in this polemic. This paper argues that the real question is “do respondents think fieldworkers are possible spies?’ To preview the findings, based on the responses of 27,713 persons in 20 African countries, the answer to that question is that few respondents thought fieldworkers were sent by intelligence or secret service agencies. Only 82 respondents thought that an intelligence agency had sent the fieldworker. The paper profiles those respondents who did think an intelligence agency sent the fieldworker/interviewer to their homes, and explores the factors that appear to distinguish them from other respondents. The significant factors were; the respondent’s educational level; whether the respondent checked with others during the interview; the respondent’s ease during the interview, whether the interviewer felt threatened, and whether others influenced the respondent. Key words : Afrobarometer, fieldwork, spy, research sponsor
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
像我们这样的间谍?受访者对20个非洲国家研究资助者的看法
关于人类学家在间谍活动和秘密研究中充当田野工作者的角色和责任,一直存在争论。正如Ratha(2013)所指出的那样,科学人类学的伦理基础是实地工作者对他们所研究的人产生真正和坚定同理心的基础。因此,实地工作者有义务帮助而不是伤害他们所研究的对象。那些把人类学家当作间谍的人被视为与科学或学术研究的大炮背道而驰。随着越来越多的人类学家在政府和企业界找到工作,学术界和合法应用研究之间的界限变得模糊了。本文的目的是指出,在这场争论中,最重要的问题被完全忽视了。本文认为,真正的问题是“受访者认为实地工作者可能是间谍吗?”根据来自20个非洲国家的27,713人的回答,这个问题的答案是,很少有受访者认为现场工作人员是由情报机构或秘密服务机构派遣的。只有82名受访者认为是情报机构派来的外勤人员。这篇论文描述了那些认为是情报机构派实地工作者/采访者到他们家的受访者,并探讨了将他们与其他受访者区分开来的因素。显著因素有;被调查者的受教育程度;被访者在访谈中是否与他人核对;面试者在面试中的轻松程度,面试者是否感到受到威胁,以及其他人是否影响了面试者。关键词:空气气压计;野外考察;间谍
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
8
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊最新文献
Information management and cultural evolution in Aboriginal Australia (In light of the cultural heterochrony hypothesis) Tindaya Guanche sacred mountain, Fuerteventura (Canary Islands, Spain) and its Ibero-Guanche (Latin) rock inscriptions Second funeral rituals and integration of the dead with the living among the Nawfia of Southeastern Nigeria Parallelism of Prehistoric Lanzarote (Canary Islands) Quesera/Cheeseboard Lunisolar Calendar and intriguing strip band channels of the City of David archaeological site (Middle East) The long lost Ebionites. A relook at the Ibo region of West Africa
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1