{"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?
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.