This article critiques the expanding influence of research ethics committees (RECs) on social research, emphasizing their adverse effects on ethnographic methodologies. It argues that the bureaucratization of ethics, emphasizing compliance over contextual understanding, fundamentally misunderstands and impedes the nuanced nature of ethnographic work. Drawing on personal experiences and broader critiques, the article proposes the need for an alternative system that better accommodates the ethical complexities of social research, advocating for a more tailored approach that respects disciplinary methodologies and fosters genuine ethical engagement.
{"title":"The bureaucratization of ethical integrity: Research ethics committees and imaginaries of risk","authors":"Cris Shore","doi":"10.1111/1467-8322.12872","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8322.12872","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 <p>This article critiques the expanding influence of research ethics committees (RECs) on social research, emphasizing their adverse effects on ethnographic methodologies. It argues that the bureaucratization of ethics, emphasizing compliance over contextual understanding, fundamentally misunderstands and impedes the nuanced nature of ethnographic work. Drawing on personal experiences and broader critiques, the article proposes the need for an alternative system that better accommodates the ethical complexities of social research, advocating for a more tailored approach that respects disciplinary methodologies and fosters genuine ethical engagement.</p>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":46293,"journal":{"name":"Anthropology Today","volume":"40 2","pages":"8-10"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1467-8322.12872","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140333248","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article critiques research ethics committees (RECs) for stifling social sciences research through rigid, one-size-fits-all ethics protocols. It highlights how these protocols, rooted in medical science perspectives, ignore the complexities of fieldwork, and prioritize institutional protection over knowledge advancement. The article illustrates the bureaucratic barriers to sociological and gender studies research through a case study involving fieldwork in a Greek hospital, showing how intersecting hierarchies in the field can render REC instruments invasive or moot. This article aims to enrich academic enquiry by acknowledging the diverse realities of research subjects and methodologies.
{"title":"Far from neutral: Research ethics committees, interdisciplinarity and fieldwork","authors":"Alexandra Halkias","doi":"10.1111/1467-8322.12876","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8322.12876","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 <p>This article critiques research ethics committees (RECs) for stifling social sciences research through rigid, one-size-fits-all ethics protocols. It highlights how these protocols, rooted in medical science perspectives, ignore the complexities of fieldwork, and prioritize institutional protection over knowledge advancement. The article illustrates the bureaucratic barriers to sociological and gender studies research through a case study involving fieldwork in a Greek hospital, showing how intersecting hierarchies in the field can render REC instruments invasive or moot. This article aims to enrich academic enquiry by acknowledging the diverse realities of research subjects and methodologies.</p>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":46293,"journal":{"name":"Anthropology Today","volume":"40 2","pages":"21-24"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1467-8322.12876","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140333260","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article explores the intersection of ethics and methodology in anthropological research, focusing on squats in Rome. It juxtaposes traditional ethnographic practices with contemporary ethical regulations, such as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), to examine the nuanced relationship between researchers and their subjects in socially vulnerable and legally sensitive environments. The article critiques the reductionist view of ethnographic data as mere information to be extracted, arguing for a more engaged and reciprocal approach to anthropology that respects the agency of research subjects and emphasizes the co-production of knowledge. The document challenges conventional ethical frameworks and advocates for anthropology's commitment to listening and giving voice to marginalized communities through examining interactions with squatters and the Roma population. This enquiry scrutinizes the bureaucratic imposition on ethnographic research and reaffirms the discipline's role in contributing to a broader understanding of ethics in anthropological practice.
{"title":"Data mining, research ethics and practice: A view from Italy","authors":"Pietro Vereni","doi":"10.1111/1467-8322.12874","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8322.12874","url":null,"abstract":"<p>This article explores the intersection of ethics and methodology in anthropological research, focusing on squats in Rome. It juxtaposes traditional ethnographic practices with contemporary ethical regulations, such as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), to examine the nuanced relationship between researchers and their subjects in socially vulnerable and legally sensitive environments. The article critiques the reductionist view of ethnographic data as mere information to be extracted, arguing for a more engaged and reciprocal approach to anthropology that respects the agency of research subjects and emphasizes the co-production of knowledge. The document challenges conventional ethical frameworks and advocates for anthropology's commitment to listening and giving voice to marginalized communities through examining interactions with squatters and the Roma population. This enquiry scrutinizes the bureaucratic imposition on ethnographic research and reaffirms the discipline's role in contributing to a broader understanding of ethics in anthropological practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":46293,"journal":{"name":"Anthropology Today","volume":"40 2","pages":"14-17"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140333258","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article explores the challenges of maintaining ethical ethnographic practices amid the evolving bureaucratic regulations of research ethics. Drawing on the author's fieldwork experiences in Lesvos, Greece, during different periods, including the recent European ‘refugee crisis’, it reflects on the deep ethics inherent in the ethnographic encounter, shaped by long-term commitments and mutual exposure between the researcher and interlocutors. It critiques the bureaucratization of research ethics, arguing that legalistic guarantees, such as consent forms, undermine the nuanced, context-dependent nature of ethnographic work. By contrasting engagements with locals, activists and professional humanitarians, the author highlights the tensions between bureaucratic regulation and the need for a flexible, situated approach to ethics, calling for a critical assessment of ethical frameworks to preserve the ‘breathing space’ essential for responsible and insightful ethnography. The article advocates for resistance against one-size-fits-all ethical regulations constraining the rich potential of ethnographic research.
{"title":"Claiming breathing space for anthropology: Ethnographic responsibility in changing times","authors":"Evthymios Papataxiarchis","doi":"10.1111/1467-8322.12877","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8322.12877","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 <p>This article explores the challenges of maintaining ethical ethnographic practices amid the evolving bureaucratic regulations of research ethics. Drawing on the author's fieldwork experiences in Lesvos, Greece, during different periods, including the recent European ‘refugee crisis’, it reflects on the deep ethics inherent in the ethnographic encounter, shaped by long-term commitments and mutual exposure between the researcher and interlocutors. It critiques the bureaucratization of research ethics, arguing that legalistic guarantees, such as consent forms, undermine the nuanced, context-dependent nature of ethnographic work. By contrasting engagements with locals, activists and professional humanitarians, the author highlights the tensions between bureaucratic regulation and the need for a flexible, situated approach to ethics, calling for a critical assessment of ethical frameworks to preserve the ‘breathing space’ essential for responsible and insightful ethnography. The article advocates for resistance against one-size-fits-all ethical regulations constraining the rich potential of ethnographic research.</p>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":46293,"journal":{"name":"Anthropology Today","volume":"40 2","pages":"25-30"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1467-8322.12877","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140333029","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article advocates for a deeper engagement with the organizational structures that shape the governance of research ethics in anthropology. The authors argue that anthropological critiques of bureaucracy often sidestep the kinds of knowledge needed to pursue meaningful institutional change. They show how different regulatory dynamics and organizational arrangements across jurisdictions produce more or less responsive bureaucracies, comparing Institutional Review Boards in the United States with a case study of a European university's Ethics Review Committee. The authors suggest that such organizational understandings of bureaucratic processes can more meaningfully inform their redesign and contribute to developing more appropriately scaled ethics governance. In so doing, ethics review promises greater responsiveness to the particular demands of ethnographic research while remaining legible to regulatory stakeholders.
{"title":"Towards meaningful institutional change: Responsive bureaucracy and the governance of anthropological ethics","authors":"Timothy W. Elfenbein, Andrew S. Hoffman","doi":"10.1111/1467-8322.12871","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8322.12871","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 <p>This article advocates for a deeper engagement with the organizational structures that shape the governance of research ethics in anthropology. The authors argue that anthropological critiques of bureaucracy often sidestep the kinds of knowledge needed to pursue meaningful institutional change. They show how different regulatory dynamics and organizational arrangements across jurisdictions produce more or less responsive bureaucracies, comparing Institutional Review Boards in the United States with a case study of a European university's Ethics Review Committee. The authors suggest that such organizational understandings of bureaucratic processes can more meaningfully inform their redesign and contribute to developing more appropriately scaled ethics governance. In so doing, ethics review promises greater responsiveness to the particular demands of ethnographic research while remaining legible to regulatory stakeholders.</p>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":46293,"journal":{"name":"Anthropology Today","volume":"40 2","pages":"4-7"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1467-8322.12871","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140333028","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This introduction to the ‘Ethics in ethnography’ special issue analyzes a crisis facing anthropology and especially ethnography, its primary research method. It highlights how an outdated and parochial ethics model, strengthened by fears of litigation and simplistic views of ethnographic research, threatens the spontaneity and investigative freedom necessary to the method's exploratory character. Contributors to the discussion explore the spectrum of strategies – from compromise to confrontation – for addressing the challenges posed by the bureaucratic oversight of ethics, unrealistic expectations of predictability in fieldwork, the impact of legitimate post-colonial critique and funding constraints on research freedom. They variously address the arbitrariness of bureaucratic procedures and the potential stifling of anthropological enquiry under the guise of ethical oversight. Drawing on the range of experience in anthropology and related fields represented here, the introduction opens the collection with a call to maintain ethical sensitivity while challenging attempts to police fieldwork using inappropriate conceptions of science and ethics.
{"title":"Introduction to ethics in ethnography: The practical politics of predictability","authors":"Michael Herzfeld","doi":"10.1111/1467-8322.12870","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8322.12870","url":null,"abstract":"<p>This introduction to the ‘Ethics in ethnography’ special issue analyzes a crisis facing anthropology and especially ethnography, its primary research method. It highlights how an outdated and parochial ethics model, strengthened by fears of litigation and simplistic views of ethnographic research, threatens the spontaneity and investigative freedom necessary to the method's exploratory character. Contributors to the discussion explore the spectrum of strategies – from compromise to confrontation – for addressing the challenges posed by the bureaucratic oversight of ethics, unrealistic expectations of predictability in fieldwork, the impact of legitimate post-colonial critique and funding constraints on research freedom. They variously address the arbitrariness of bureaucratic procedures and the potential stifling of anthropological enquiry under the guise of ethical oversight. Drawing on the range of experience in anthropology and related fields represented here, the introduction opens the collection with a call to maintain ethical sensitivity while challenging attempts to police fieldwork using inappropriate conceptions of science and ethics.</p>","PeriodicalId":46293,"journal":{"name":"Anthropology Today","volume":"40 2","pages":"3-4"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140333027","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
<p>Front and back cover caption, volume 40 issue 2</p><p><b>THE ETHNOGRAPHER'S LABYRINTH</b></p><p>The path of ethnographic research winds through a labyrinth of ethics procedures, each a potential minefield of doubt and uncertainty. How do I uphold my commitment to my research interlocutors when my every step faces scrutiny from probably well-meaning but theoretically detached oversight bodies?</p><p>The overseers demand consent forms, but what of those unspoken moments of shared understanding? What if the most illuminating insights are offered only after trust is established, with no document to seal the pact? My informants, my friends, might change their minds and withdraw their words. But how can I know with certainty? Should I second-guess their smiles, their hesitation? What right do I have to dissect and categorize the complexities of their consent?</p><p>The questions spiral endlessly. What if their traditions or past experiences forbid signing? What if they sign with an inscrutable shrug of the shoulders? What if I do not know enough to read their non-verbal signals? Should I abandon my cherished research altogether? But … what if my work, however imperfect, might be useful or a source of pride for the people I study? What would they say if I never used all the precious insights they gave me?</p><p>Ethics committees, populated by colleagues unfamiliar with my informants’ worlds and my methods, view friendship as suspect, threatening objectivity. Yet isn't connection at the heart of what we do? Meanwhile, lawyers loom, citing obscure regulations that threaten my university and, through it, my work. The once distant spectre of ethics oversight solidifies into a barricade, its voices a chorus of suspicion.</p><p>I desperately cling to my ethical principles, but will they be understood as such? Can I navigate this maze, safeguarding the trust of my participants while justifying my approach to those who hold my research – and my career – in their hands? This special issue explores the challenges ethnographers face as they navigate the ethical tensions now complicating the very foundations of knowledge and understanding.</p><p>BUREAUCRACY VS ETHNOGRAPHY</p><p>While presumed to be well-intentioned and designed to protect researchers and participants, the bureaucratization of research ethics poses a fundamental challenge to ethnography. Ethics boards, often prioritizing biomedical or legalistic models, struggle to grasp our work's immersive, relationship-driven reality. Rigid protocols replace nuanced and contextual insight, forms undermine painstakingly built trust and fixed-term approval timelines clash with the open-ended nature of long-term fieldwork.</p><p>This special issue investigates how ethnographers experience and face these tensions, balancing ethical principles with respect for the practices and perspectives of the communities they study. Contributors explore the disconnect between universalist ethics frameworks and the specific cul
{"title":"Front and Back Covers, Volume 40, Number 2. April 2024","authors":"","doi":"10.1111/1467-8322.12805","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8322.12805","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Front and back cover caption, volume 40 issue 2</p><p><b>THE ETHNOGRAPHER'S LABYRINTH</b></p><p>The path of ethnographic research winds through a labyrinth of ethics procedures, each a potential minefield of doubt and uncertainty. How do I uphold my commitment to my research interlocutors when my every step faces scrutiny from probably well-meaning but theoretically detached oversight bodies?</p><p>The overseers demand consent forms, but what of those unspoken moments of shared understanding? What if the most illuminating insights are offered only after trust is established, with no document to seal the pact? My informants, my friends, might change their minds and withdraw their words. But how can I know with certainty? Should I second-guess their smiles, their hesitation? What right do I have to dissect and categorize the complexities of their consent?</p><p>The questions spiral endlessly. What if their traditions or past experiences forbid signing? What if they sign with an inscrutable shrug of the shoulders? What if I do not know enough to read their non-verbal signals? Should I abandon my cherished research altogether? But … what if my work, however imperfect, might be useful or a source of pride for the people I study? What would they say if I never used all the precious insights they gave me?</p><p>Ethics committees, populated by colleagues unfamiliar with my informants’ worlds and my methods, view friendship as suspect, threatening objectivity. Yet isn't connection at the heart of what we do? Meanwhile, lawyers loom, citing obscure regulations that threaten my university and, through it, my work. The once distant spectre of ethics oversight solidifies into a barricade, its voices a chorus of suspicion.</p><p>I desperately cling to my ethical principles, but will they be understood as such? Can I navigate this maze, safeguarding the trust of my participants while justifying my approach to those who hold my research – and my career – in their hands? This special issue explores the challenges ethnographers face as they navigate the ethical tensions now complicating the very foundations of knowledge and understanding.</p><p>BUREAUCRACY VS ETHNOGRAPHY</p><p>While presumed to be well-intentioned and designed to protect researchers and participants, the bureaucratization of research ethics poses a fundamental challenge to ethnography. Ethics boards, often prioritizing biomedical or legalistic models, struggle to grasp our work's immersive, relationship-driven reality. Rigid protocols replace nuanced and contextual insight, forms undermine painstakingly built trust and fixed-term approval timelines clash with the open-ended nature of long-term fieldwork.</p><p>This special issue investigates how ethnographers experience and face these tensions, balancing ethical principles with respect for the practices and perspectives of the communities they study. Contributors explore the disconnect between universalist ethics frameworks and the specific cul","PeriodicalId":46293,"journal":{"name":"Anthropology Today","volume":"40 2","pages":"i-ii"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1467-8322.12805","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140333218","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号