伦理学、认识论和民族志:德国伦理审查过程的人类学辩论的必要性

IF 0.1 4区 社会学 Q4 Social Sciences Sociologus Pub Date : 2017-12-01 DOI:10.3790/SOC.67.2.191
Hansjörg Dilger
{"title":"伦理学、认识论和民族志:德国伦理审查过程的人类学辩论的必要性","authors":"Hansjörg Dilger","doi":"10.3790/SOC.67.2.191","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Over the last years, debates on research ethics – and the way the ethicality of ethnographic research is assessed by institutional boards and committees – have flourished in national and international anthropology. This article discusses the state of the debate in Germany where ethical review boards have remained so far largely absent in regard to anthropological research and where the commitment to ‘act ethically’ during fieldwork (and beyond) remains largely voluntary. By drawing on ethnographic fieldwork on HIV / AIDS and social relations in Tanzania, I highlight that medical anthropologists may face particular ethical challenges in their work, due to the often close relationship of their research with human suffering. Furthermore, however, I argue that the sub-discipline can raise important questions concerning the potential institutionalization of ethical review processes in anthropology in Germany and the pitfalls that should be avoided with regard to the ‘fetishization’ of certain ethical ...","PeriodicalId":42778,"journal":{"name":"Sociologus","volume":"67 1","pages":"191-208"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2017-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"12","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Ethics, Epistemology and Ethnography: The Need for an Anthropological Debate on Ethical Review Processes in Germany\",\"authors\":\"Hansjörg Dilger\",\"doi\":\"10.3790/SOC.67.2.191\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Over the last years, debates on research ethics – and the way the ethicality of ethnographic research is assessed by institutional boards and committees – have flourished in national and international anthropology. This article discusses the state of the debate in Germany where ethical review boards have remained so far largely absent in regard to anthropological research and where the commitment to ‘act ethically’ during fieldwork (and beyond) remains largely voluntary. By drawing on ethnographic fieldwork on HIV / AIDS and social relations in Tanzania, I highlight that medical anthropologists may face particular ethical challenges in their work, due to the often close relationship of their research with human suffering. Furthermore, however, I argue that the sub-discipline can raise important questions concerning the potential institutionalization of ethical review processes in anthropology in Germany and the pitfalls that should be avoided with regard to the ‘fetishization’ of certain ethical ...\",\"PeriodicalId\":42778,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Sociologus\",\"volume\":\"67 1\",\"pages\":\"191-208\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"12\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Sociologus\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3790/SOC.67.2.191\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sociologus","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3790/SOC.67.2.191","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 12

摘要

摘要在过去的几年里,关于研究伦理的辩论——以及机构董事会和委员会评估民族志研究伦理的方式——在国家和国际人类学中蓬勃发展。这篇文章讨论了德国的辩论状况,在德国,人类学研究的伦理审查委员会迄今为止基本上没有,在实地调查(及以后)期间“道德行为”的承诺在很大程度上仍然是自愿的。通过借鉴坦桑尼亚关于艾滋病毒/艾滋病和社会关系的民族志实地调查,我强调,医学人类学家在工作中可能面临特殊的伦理挑战,因为他们的研究往往与人类苦难密切相关。然而,我认为,该子学科可能会提出一些重要问题,涉及德国人类学中伦理审查过程的潜在制度化,以及对某些伦理的“恋物癖”应该避免的陷阱。。。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Ethics, Epistemology and Ethnography: The Need for an Anthropological Debate on Ethical Review Processes in Germany
Abstract Over the last years, debates on research ethics – and the way the ethicality of ethnographic research is assessed by institutional boards and committees – have flourished in national and international anthropology. This article discusses the state of the debate in Germany where ethical review boards have remained so far largely absent in regard to anthropological research and where the commitment to ‘act ethically’ during fieldwork (and beyond) remains largely voluntary. By drawing on ethnographic fieldwork on HIV / AIDS and social relations in Tanzania, I highlight that medical anthropologists may face particular ethical challenges in their work, due to the often close relationship of their research with human suffering. Furthermore, however, I argue that the sub-discipline can raise important questions concerning the potential institutionalization of ethical review processes in anthropology in Germany and the pitfalls that should be avoided with regard to the ‘fetishization’ of certain ethical ...
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Sociologus
Sociologus Multiple-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Struggle to be an Icon. Iranian Women’s Perspectives on Female Identities in Transnational Contexts (Dis)avling Sacrifice: Veterans’ Classification in Iran Discussion Paper. The Anti-Refugee Machine: A Draft Framework for Migration Studies Tagungsbericht. „Terrains Mouvants. L’ethnologie de Hilde et Richard Thurnwald/Unsichere Felder. Hilde und Richard Thurnwalds Ethnologie/Changing Fields. Hilde And Richard Thurnwald’s Ethnology“,7.–9. Juli 2021, Paris A Bridge that Divides: Hostile Infrastructures. Coloniality and Watchfulness in San Diego, California
×
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