Front and Back Covers, Volume 40, Number 2. April 2024

IF 1.5 Q2 ANTHROPOLOGY
{"title":"Front and Back Covers, Volume 40, Number 2. April 2024","authors":"","doi":"10.1111/1467-8322.12805","DOIUrl":null,"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 cultural contexts in which ethnographers operate. They question the prioritization of legal compliance over the relational ethical responsibilities developed through deep, long-term engagement.</p><p>Conflicting demands pit the protection of sensitive knowledge against transparency mandates, emphasizing written consent versus culturally specific expectations of trust in verbal agreements and existing personal attachments. Ethnographers increasingly find themselves pressured to adapt their methodologies, sometimes in ways that feel fundamentally at odds with the core ethics of personal commitment and the inevitable unpredictability of a discipline so conceived.</p><p>While ethics committees aim to reduce risk and uphold standards, they can unintentionally stifle the very approaches that make ethnography unique and valuable.</p><p>Can we find a path that allows for genuine ethical oversight while preserving the core of ethnographic research – its commitment to in-depth understanding, the prioritization of participants’ voices and the flexibility to respond to the dynamic realities of lived experience?</p>","PeriodicalId":46293,"journal":{"name":"Anthropology Today","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1467-8322.12805","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anthropology Today","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-8322.12805","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANTHROPOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Front and back cover caption, volume 40 issue 2

THE ETHNOGRAPHER'S LABYRINTH

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?

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?

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?

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.

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.

BUREAUCRACY VS ETHNOGRAPHY

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.

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 cultural contexts in which ethnographers operate. They question the prioritization of legal compliance over the relational ethical responsibilities developed through deep, long-term engagement.

Conflicting demands pit the protection of sensitive knowledge against transparency mandates, emphasizing written consent versus culturally specific expectations of trust in verbal agreements and existing personal attachments. Ethnographers increasingly find themselves pressured to adapt their methodologies, sometimes in ways that feel fundamentally at odds with the core ethics of personal commitment and the inevitable unpredictability of a discipline so conceived.

While ethics committees aim to reduce risk and uphold standards, they can unintentionally stifle the very approaches that make ethnography unique and valuable.

Can we find a path that allows for genuine ethical oversight while preserving the core of ethnographic research – its commitment to in-depth understanding, the prioritization of participants’ voices and the flexibility to respond to the dynamic realities of lived experience?

封面和封底,第 40 卷第 2 号。2024 年 4 月
第 40 卷第 2 期封面和封底标题人种学研究者的迷宫人种学研究的道路蜿蜒于伦理程序的迷宫之中,每一个程序都可能是充满疑虑和不确定性的雷区。当我的每一步都面临着可能是出于好意但理论上脱离实际的监督机构的审查时,我该如何坚持我对研究对话者的承诺呢?如果只有在建立了信任之后才能提供最有启发性的见解,而没有任何文件来封存契约呢?我的线人,我的朋友,可能会改变主意,收回他们的话。但我怎么能确定呢?我应该猜测他们的微笑和犹豫吗?我有什么权利对他们同意的复杂性进行剖析和分类?如果他们的传统或过去的经历禁止签字呢?如果他们签字时高深莫测地耸耸肩呢?如果我不够了解他们的非语言信号怎么办?我是否应该完全放弃我所珍视的研究?但是......如果我的工作,无论多么不完美,可能对我研究的人有用或让他们感到自豪呢?伦理委员会里的同事不熟悉我的研究对象的世界和我的研究方法,他们认为友谊是可疑的,会威胁到客观性。然而,联系不正是我们工作的核心吗?与此同时,律师们也迫不及待地援引晦涩难懂的法规,威胁着我的大学,并通过大学威胁着我的工作。曾经遥不可及的道德监督的幽灵凝固成了一道屏障,它的声音是怀疑的大合唱。我拼命坚持我的道德原则,但它们会被理解为道德原则吗?我能否在这个迷宫中游刃有余,既维护参与者的信任,又向那些掌握着我的研究--以及我的职业生涯--的人证明我的方法是正确的?本特刊探讨了民族志学者在应对伦理紧张局势时所面临的挑战,这些紧张局势正在使知识和理解的基础变得更加复杂。研究伦理的官僚化对民族志研究构成了根本性的挑战。伦理委员会通常优先考虑生物医学或法律模式,却难以把握我们的工作所具有的身临其境、关系驱动的现实。本特刊探讨了民族志学者如何经历和面对这些矛盾,如何在伦理原则与尊重所研究社区的实践和观点之间取得平衡。撰稿人探讨了普遍主义伦理框架与民族志工作者所处的特定文化背景之间的脱节。他们质疑将遵守法律放在首位的做法,而不是通过深入、长期的参与所形成的关系伦理责任。相互冲突的需求将敏感知识的保护与透明度的要求对立起来,强调书面同意与对口头协议和现有个人感情的信任的文化特定期望对立起来。民族志学者越来越多地发现自己面临着调整方法论的压力,有时调整的方式从根本上违背了个人承诺的核心伦理,也违背了如此构想的学科不可避免的不可预测性。虽然伦理委员会的目标是降低风险和维护标准,但它们可能无意中扼杀了使民族志具有独特价值的方法。我们能否找到一条既能进行真正的伦理监督,又能保留人种学研究的核心--致力于深入理解、优先考虑参与者的声音、灵活应对生活经验的动态现实--的道路呢?
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 求助全文
来源期刊
Anthropology Today
Anthropology Today ANTHROPOLOGY-
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
7.70%
发文量
71
期刊介绍: Anthropology Today is a bimonthly publication which aims to provide a forum for the application of anthropological analysis to public and topical issues, while reflecting the breadth of interests within the discipline of anthropology. It is also committed to promoting debate at the interface between anthropology and areas of applied knowledge such as education, medicine, development etc. as well as that between anthropology and other academic disciplines. Anthropology Today encourages submissions on a wide range of topics, consistent with these aims. Anthropology Today is an international journal both in the scope of issues it covers and in the sources it draws from.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信