{"title":"在压力下打开","authors":"C. Hansen, Elisabeth L’orange Fürst","doi":"10.18261/issn.1504-2898-2021-02-04","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this article we present two of the consultative responses to the document round for the new ethic guidelines for research that was published by NESH autumn 2020 (Fürst m-fl. 2020, Sosialantropologisk institutt 2020). The backÅrgang 32, nr. 2-2021, s. 87–101 ISSN online: 1504-2898 CAMILLA HANSEN OG ELISABETH L’ORANGE FÜRST 88 ground for the consultative round is the new GDPR regulation that have several practical consequences for disciplines in the Humanities and Social Sciences, not least for Social Anthropology. The article contextualizes the consultation texts focusing what we call a silent import of hard science and quantative methods into qualitative research methods like participant observations and ethnography. We analyse the texts using concepts like management practises and governmental rationality. We argue that the new ethic guidelines for research has consequences that put participant observation methodology, research freedom and openness as well as ethical courage under pressure. Requirement of beforehand approved research questions, informed consent, anonymity, ethical considerations of vulnerability/ sensitivity limit the fields of study, as well as methodological approaches, research processes and ways of writing. Bureaucratic practices enact a power displacement, we argue, that limit diversity in research and education.","PeriodicalId":38612,"journal":{"name":"Norsk Antropologisk Tidsskrift","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Åpenhet under press\",\"authors\":\"C. Hansen, Elisabeth L’orange Fürst\",\"doi\":\"10.18261/issn.1504-2898-2021-02-04\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In this article we present two of the consultative responses to the document round for the new ethic guidelines for research that was published by NESH autumn 2020 (Fürst m-fl. 2020, Sosialantropologisk institutt 2020). The backÅrgang 32, nr. 2-2021, s. 87–101 ISSN online: 1504-2898 CAMILLA HANSEN OG ELISABETH L’ORANGE FÜRST 88 ground for the consultative round is the new GDPR regulation that have several practical consequences for disciplines in the Humanities and Social Sciences, not least for Social Anthropology. The article contextualizes the consultation texts focusing what we call a silent import of hard science and quantative methods into qualitative research methods like participant observations and ethnography. We analyse the texts using concepts like management practises and governmental rationality. We argue that the new ethic guidelines for research has consequences that put participant observation methodology, research freedom and openness as well as ethical courage under pressure. Requirement of beforehand approved research questions, informed consent, anonymity, ethical considerations of vulnerability/ sensitivity limit the fields of study, as well as methodological approaches, research processes and ways of writing. Bureaucratic practices enact a power displacement, we argue, that limit diversity in research and education.\",\"PeriodicalId\":38612,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Norsk Antropologisk Tidsskrift\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Norsk Antropologisk Tidsskrift\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.18261/issn.1504-2898-2021-02-04\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Norsk Antropologisk Tidsskrift","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18261/issn.1504-2898-2021-02-04","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
摘要
在这篇文章中,我们介绍了对NESH于2020年秋季发布的新研究伦理指南文件的两份咨询回复(Fürst m-fl.2020,Sosiarantopologisk institutt 2020)。背面Årgang 32,2021年2月2日,第87–101页ISSN在线:1504-2898 CAMILLA HANSEN OG ELISABETH L’ORANGE FÜRST 88咨询回合的基础是新的GDPR法规,该法规对人文和社会科学学科,尤其是社会人类学产生了一些实际影响。这篇文章将咨询文本置于背景中,重点关注我们所说的硬科学和定量方法对参与者观察和民族志等定性研究方法的无声导入。我们使用管理实践和政府理性等概念来分析文本。我们认为,新的研究伦理准则给参与者观察方法、研究自由和开放以及伦理勇气带来了压力。事先批准的研究问题、知情同意、匿名、脆弱性/敏感性的伦理考虑的要求限制了研究领域,以及方法论方法、研究过程和写作方式。我们认为,官僚主义的做法造成了权力的转移,限制了研究和教育的多样性。
In this article we present two of the consultative responses to the document round for the new ethic guidelines for research that was published by NESH autumn 2020 (Fürst m-fl. 2020, Sosialantropologisk institutt 2020). The backÅrgang 32, nr. 2-2021, s. 87–101 ISSN online: 1504-2898 CAMILLA HANSEN OG ELISABETH L’ORANGE FÜRST 88 ground for the consultative round is the new GDPR regulation that have several practical consequences for disciplines in the Humanities and Social Sciences, not least for Social Anthropology. The article contextualizes the consultation texts focusing what we call a silent import of hard science and quantative methods into qualitative research methods like participant observations and ethnography. We analyse the texts using concepts like management practises and governmental rationality. We argue that the new ethic guidelines for research has consequences that put participant observation methodology, research freedom and openness as well as ethical courage under pressure. Requirement of beforehand approved research questions, informed consent, anonymity, ethical considerations of vulnerability/ sensitivity limit the fields of study, as well as methodological approaches, research processes and ways of writing. Bureaucratic practices enact a power displacement, we argue, that limit diversity in research and education.