民族志责任:研究伦理的官僚化是否合乎伦理?

IF 1.5 Q2 ANTHROPOLOGY
Michael Herzfeld
{"title":"民族志责任:研究伦理的官僚化是否合乎伦理?","authors":"Michael Herzfeld","doi":"10.1111/1467-8322.12811","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Globally, ethics reviews exhibit four significant flaws: (1) they transpose institutional fears of liability onto individual researchers; (2) they presuppose a universal ethical standard; (3) they create conflicts among formal requirements, academic freedom and respect for local ethics; and (4) they deny agency to informants. The author has nearly a half-century of research experience in a Cretan mountain community that was often at odds with officialdom. This exemplifies the kind of research and social engagement now increasingly unfeasible because rigid ethical review procedures ignore local values. Anthropologists are subject to more restrictive rules than journalists, despite the discipline’s greater attention to local values, practices (including language) and concerns. The article ends with a call for global action to protect anthropology’s commitment to respecting cultural diversity, especially as it appears in the form of local (and sometimes labile) ethics.</p>","PeriodicalId":46293,"journal":{"name":"Anthropology Today","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Ethnographic responsibility: Can the bureaucratization of research ethics be ethical?\",\"authors\":\"Michael Herzfeld\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/1467-8322.12811\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Globally, ethics reviews exhibit four significant flaws: (1) they transpose institutional fears of liability onto individual researchers; (2) they presuppose a universal ethical standard; (3) they create conflicts among formal requirements, academic freedom and respect for local ethics; and (4) they deny agency to informants. The author has nearly a half-century of research experience in a Cretan mountain community that was often at odds with officialdom. This exemplifies the kind of research and social engagement now increasingly unfeasible because rigid ethical review procedures ignore local values. Anthropologists are subject to more restrictive rules than journalists, despite the discipline’s greater attention to local values, practices (including language) and concerns. The article ends with a call for global action to protect anthropology’s commitment to respecting cultural diversity, especially as it appears in the form of local (and sometimes labile) ethics.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46293,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Anthropology Today\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Anthropology Today\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-8322.12811\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ANTHROPOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anthropology Today","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-8322.12811","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: 1

摘要

在全球范围内,伦理审查表现出四个重大缺陷:(1)将机构对责任的担忧转移到研究人员个人身上;(2)它们以普遍的道德标准为前提;(3)在正式要求、学术自由和尊重当地伦理道德之间造成冲突;(4)拒绝对线人的代理。作者在一个经常与官方不和的克里特岛山区社区有近半个世纪的研究经验。这种研究和社会参与现在越来越不可行,因为严格的伦理审查程序忽视了当地的价值观。尽管人类学家更关注当地的价值观、习俗(包括语言)和关注点,但与记者相比,人类学家受制于更多的限制性规则。文章最后呼吁全球采取行动,保护人类学尊重文化多样性的承诺,特别是当它以当地(有时是不稳定的)伦理的形式出现时。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Ethnographic responsibility: Can the bureaucratization of research ethics be ethical?

Globally, ethics reviews exhibit four significant flaws: (1) they transpose institutional fears of liability onto individual researchers; (2) they presuppose a universal ethical standard; (3) they create conflicts among formal requirements, academic freedom and respect for local ethics; and (4) they deny agency to informants. The author has nearly a half-century of research experience in a Cretan mountain community that was often at odds with officialdom. This exemplifies the kind of research and social engagement now increasingly unfeasible because rigid ethical review procedures ignore local values. Anthropologists are subject to more restrictive rules than journalists, despite the discipline’s greater attention to local values, practices (including language) and concerns. The article ends with a call for global action to protect anthropology’s commitment to respecting cultural diversity, especially as it appears in the form of local (and sometimes labile) ethics.

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
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