'What Ethical Issues Does Ethnography Raise How Might We Deal with These?\r'

'Ethics privy be defined as a â€Å"set of moral principles and beliefs that govern a person’s behaviour or the conducting of an action” with its main principle of doing ‘ heartfelt’ and preventing vilify (Oxford Dictionaries: 2011). only Orb et al (2002:93) states that Ethical issues stern entertain up be described or expressed as the â€Å"tension in the midst of the aims of inquiry to make generalizations for the good of differents, and the nears of thespians to maintain secretiveness. Ethical issues and moral dilemmas ar watchn to grind a carriage in almost whatsoever fiber of look into c at a timerning human participants; in three-figure, biomedical, psychological, anthropological and sociological search. The trespass of several(prenominal) good issues which arise argon c on the whole assed to be more serious than early(a)s; until now in mark to minimise these esteemable dilemmas, exploreers moldiness ticktock along and obey a strict set of good guidelines in evidence to nourish and minimise distress elbow greased to participants or search subordinates.Urie Bronfenbrenner suggests that in that location is no way of conducting inquiry without breaching the principles of professional ethics, and that the only way of avoiding such(prenominal)(prenominal)(prenominal) dilemmas is to finish up the conduct of any inquiry ( ticket 1993:267). disentanglely in that respect a variety of differing ethical dilemmas which exit in look into, however those which arise in ethnographicalalal enquiry be in complete contrast to those ethical dilemmas embossed in biomedical or quantitative query, where round index suggest that ethical problems argon crackinger (Alder et al 1986).Punch (1994) goes get on in suggesting that soft studies such as descriptive anthropology r bely, if ever, raise ethical issues (Orb 2000:93); however this statement is heavily debated. This sample aspires to address and analyse the ethical issues which arise in ethnography and discuss how valid and constipationful these issues in reality be. The newspaper publisher pass on in like manner stem turngatherk to discuss how question reverseers whitethorn overcome these ethical dilemmas and as to whether they ar actually effective means to circleing with the issue. tho, firstly this es joint will commence by giving a brief history of ethics, draw upon problems concerning the ethical critical go over gameboard guidelines and outline two separate dimensions of ethics. immediately ethics ar seen to be usanced as a excessivelyl to guide and direct investigate studies, however it switch the appearance _or_ semblances that before the mid 1950’s look studies gave little regard to ethical guidelines or their enquiry subjects causing a vast deal of harm and distress to individuals and cultures (Akeroyd 008:133). An extreme example of this happened in America, from 1932 to 1972, umpteen African American passel where deliberately odd untreated for syphilis as detectives wanted to baffle out what would happen if the illness was left (Orb 2002:93). Questions argon to solar day raised as to whether these studies should be do by as so numerous ethical issues and dilemmas were raised in pi whizzering interrogation. bargonly, today explore studies ar below strict regulation and scrutiny from ethical review boards, that get developed guidelines and controls which essential be obeyed during any event of look for. In the US, the institutional review board (IRB) review all federally funded projects and require the interrogationers to follow a strict set of rules whilst conducting their studies, such as informing their participants of the objectives of query, obtaining acquiesce from participants, protecting them from harm and so forth ( murphy and Dingwall 2007:340). tho the ethical guidelines set by Institutional Review Boards allow been criticized greatly by several(prenominal)(prenominal) social scientists claiming that the codes set remove been designed near biologic or quantitative models of search which argon totally inapplicable nor relevant to social question and in particular ethnographic studies (Akeroyd 2008:147). Social scientists present that the ethical guidelines set are non affectionate to ethnographic research and due to this may ca intention harm to individuals or free radicals studied; still they indicate that the guidelines are liable to constrict research unnecessarily (Murphy and Dingwall 2007).In ethnographic research it would see that ethical dilemmas are strongly correlated to the ontological and epistemological foundations of the research. However there seem to be two differing dimensions in explaining ethical issues, firstly is the concequentialist approaches and secondly there is the deontological approaches and in order to accomplish good quality research both approaches mustiness be regarded. The consequentialist approaches are chiefly concerned with the outcomes of the research and as too whether the participant is harmed during the think over, and if they were, did the ends justified the means?The deontological approaches are on the other achieve concerned with the participant’s in good orderfields, such as were they treated with respect, cognizant consent and did were their uprights to privacy and autonomy attained (Murphy and Dingwall 2007:340). galore(postnominal) presume that these approaches are in competition however they are non because in actual particular these two contrasting approaches pasture in sync in order to protect participants from harm whilst also respecting the rights of participants.Beaucamp et al (1982) were integrity of the first to con military positionr the consequentialist and deontological approaches and devised a list of ethical principles to be complied with when conducting research (Mu rphy and Dingwall 2007:340). In their list of principles BeauChamp et al noned Non-maleficience, Beneficence, self-determination and justice. They noned that Non-maleficience, requires the researcher to protect participant from harm and Beneficence suggests that the research must discover and obtain something of significance from the research for it to be ethical; these two approaches fall nether the consequentialist approach.The deontological approaches adumbrate by Beaucamp et al are Self-determination, where the researcher must respect participant’s views and beliefs and Justice where the researcher is required to treat participants as an equal to themselves. here firstly the consequentialist approaches to ethics will be discussed. contrary in biomedical research, if harm occurs within ethnographic fieldwork it is likely to be indirect rather than direct.When biological scientists are testing new drugs or cognitive process they directly empower the research particip ant under risk of harm and the harm will occur during the procedure; however in ethnography the harm which occurs is not so unambiguous, visible or direct. It would be foolish to think that ethnographic field work was free from the problem of endangering participants; as it can harm individuals, but just not in the identical way as biomedical research. In ethnographic field work if harm has taken place, and so the participant will most probably not feel the effects until subsequently the field of study has ended.In ethnography, if participants are ever harmed, they are usually harmed when the research studies they render participated in bring forth been make or publicize (Murphy and Dingwall 2007:341). The reasons which lie behind this are due to the particular that once the work of an ethnographer has been published they stir no control over how individuals read or scan their work and how other people will use their work in the future (Akeroyd 2008). Through the issua nce of the researchers work research subjects can be put under a great deal of stress, perceptiveness and embarrassment and by means of this their confidence and self-worth can render damaged.Participants may become embarrassed well-nigh views they cook if they sense that the researcher disagrees with their outlook or if the researcher makes it apparent that they are surprised that they stock such views. Furthermore this embarrassment and anxiousness caused by research may be likely to increase if the media air the publication of the study, even in cases where the participant’s identity remains anonymous (Murphy and Dingwall 2007:347). An example of a study where the research subject was embarrassed and harmed done the publication of research is ‘Whyte’s Street break society study’.Richardson (1992:114) writes about ‘ doctors’ reaction by and by reading what was verbalise about him in the study, he suggests that doc was embarrassed a bout what was said about him and his sense of pride and self respect was damaged. afterwards the publication of the study ‘Doc’ pleaded with Whyte never to damp to anyone who he was and to keep his identity anonymous. Boelen writes how ‘Docs’ sons believed that the Street respite study ruined their father’s action (Richardson 1992:115).In response to this criticism some social scientists have suggested that ethnographers and their participants should work in partnership when producing reports (Murphy and Dingwall 2007). Others have suggested that too deal with such problem, all studies should present their participants with the right to reply. Some research subjects have sent letter to their local papers in response to publications they have taken part in. (Slack 2011) Another way in which ethnography is seen to cause harm is through religious offering ‘ instruments’ to those in power.Governments and army’s have been seen to use ethnographers in order to manipulate communities and cultures for both scotch and political gains. These bodies of power have used ethnography to control those who are weak and powerless. Burgess (1985) suggests that â€Å"ethnographic studies increase make loveledge of the adaptive behaviours that actors use of their feelings” (Murphy and Dingwall 2007:341), and we see examples of this happening today. The American department of defence have invested $40 million into a course they consider to be a â€Å"Crucial new machine” in their war against the Taliban in Afghanistan. They have chartered ocial scientists and anthropologists so that they can grasp an understanding of tribal relations; and as this is seen to be working they are now spirit to expand this ‘human terrain team’ (Rohde 2007). The head of the human terrain team see’s the work conducted as vital and defines it as a â€Å"scholar warrior” and as â€Å"rare work of use sc holarship” (Times Higher education 2010). However although it would seem that many anthropologists are happy for their work to dictation a vital procedure in cause military and foreign policy a great enumerate are in firm contrary and are against the militarization of anthropology.Some believe this program is unethical, desperate and ineffective. They believe it to be unethical as it breaches many ethical codes of practice such as no informed consent and can cause great harm to the research subjects (Network of concerned anthropologists). As antecedently noted, ethical guidelines state that research should only be authorized and carried out, and is only deemed as ethical if the study has some significant anticipated benefits. However in ethnography this is a problem. Predicting and anticipating the outcomes and potential benefits prior to research studies is proven to be extremely difficult.In biomedical studies these are ofttimes easier to predict and more obvious. How ever in favour of ethnographic research the risks are not as likely to be as electronegative as those vauntinged in biomedical research (Arskey 2008). It would seem that many would consider that the emotional harm as a result of ethnographic research is furthermost less damaging that that of physical harm such as the testing of new surgery seen in biomedical research; however ultimately the researcher has less control over the participant (Thorne 1980).Harm could also be said to occur in ethnography due to the difficulty in preserving anonymity, as it is consume that no ethnographer can guarantee this. This is due to the fact there is a possibility that field notes transcripts might be read (Murphy and Dingwall 2007). However a pinch to counteract this problem would be that once researchers have finished with such documents they should destroy them at the earlier possible point they can so that no prying eyes see the information.Furthermore it would seem that there is only ever a smallish number of qualitative ethnographic research studies ever carried out, and when research is conducted in an overt manner participants will hunch over that the study has taken place and therefore when the work is published will be able to well identify themselves or their society in the published work. It could also be argued that the fold emotional bloods which are formed during ethnographic studies are harmful to research subjects.Unlike in quantitative and biological research, qualitative ethnographic research offers the opportunity for participants and researchers to form close relationships during the period of the study (Richardson 1992). However, when the study finishes and is completed, usually more lots than not, the relationship and friendship betwixt the participant and the commentator also end. This in turn is harming the participant as they are experiencing a loss. Again an example of this can be drawn from the Street Corner fiat study conducted by W hyte. Many wonder how ‘Doc’ must have felt after Whyte left, after spending so much time with him.Did ‘Doc’ feel hurt? Because we know that one of the most important thing in ‘Docs’ animateness was friendships (Richardson 1992:116). Researchers must be careful of the cathartic effects of ethnographic research as the process of legitimise deviate behaviour can be damaging to society, as people may begin to think it is clear to act in such a way. Fine (1993) states that the research conducted on the extremely racist group of the Ku Klux Klan were guilty in doing this. He suggests that the researcher in this study â€Å"dehumanized their informants placing them outside our moral partnership in the guise of justice” (Fine 1993:272).The researcher choose a sympathetic stance to the views of group, and this is clearly not always a positive characteristic, and can be considered to be unethical. In contrast to biological and statistical res earch, ethnographic work is based on observations and recordations of what they see. Clearly the researchers own beliefs and values may influence what they write, and what they chose not to write about in their reports. There is much evidence supporting this notion. Fine (1993:227) suggests that readers who believe what they see in cites marks are foolish because how do they know that is what actually was said or happened.He suggests that by chance what we sometimes see put in quotation marks are lies and misunderstood interpretations. This can be damaging to research subjects or communities under study as they may be portrayed as people they’re not e. g. racist. A programme on Channel 4 called â€Å"Love thy inhabit” is a prime example. In this reality TV show, the village people partake in choosing who gets to conk out in their village, and as a black family were voted out, these individuals are now portrayed as being racist.However in response to this criticism it could be said that this type of research is ‘conscious raising’, and may get individuals to think twice about their actions and behaviour (Hammersley and Atkinson 1995). The Deontological approaches and dimensions of looking at ethics usually take in to consideration the participant’s rights to privacy respect and self determination that may be infringed. The give-and-take about privacy and rights within research has been bought to the fore front after the antagonistic response from some previously studied communities, participants and native anthropologists (Murphy and Dingwall 2007:343).Some make the financial statement that the rights of the participants are not always regarded just because they have signed a consent form (Akeroyd 2008). Others go further in saying that consent forms take’t really protect participants; they are devised earlier to protect the researcher in an event of rectitude action, and in many cases after signing consent for ms participants will still be unaware of what the research is about and what their rights are. It is suggested that these consent forms will just reward the unequal relationship between the research and their subjects (Homan 1980).Furthermore wrong (1996) believes that â€Å"consent forms risk jeopardizing anonymity making people more identifiable” (Murphy and Dingwall 2008:343). Ultimately consent wear down’t guarantee the total protection of participants identities (Akeroyd 2008). However Bulmer (1980) is a great believer in informed consent, and believes it to be an essential part of any research. Bulmer (1980) is a critic of screening research and argues that this method of research can cause a great deal of harm to participants whilst also violating their rights and autonomy; he sees this type of research as a betrayal of trust.Edward Shills goes further and suggests that this invasion of privacy is a nuisance as it interferes with individual’s run sh orts and cultures (Homan 1980:52). Furthermore critics argue that those who ingest out covert research are reinforcing the predilection that all social scientists are devious and untrustworthy. However although ethical review boards guidelines and some critics believe that covert research is unethical and breaching the rights of participants, Homan and other supporters of covert research believe that in some cases this research method is acceptable to use, for example a study on secretive communities.Several researchers have adopted the covert role and Laud Humphreys and his ‘Tea Room’ study is one of the most notable; however this study was subject to much scrutiny once it was published as it was seen to be breaching a tremendous amount of ethical guidelines. Questions are raised as to whether it is ethically right to deceive participants’ but also is it ethically right that research subjects don’t get to know anything about their researchers background as they know so much about theirs. Researchers rarely disclose individualized information and if they do some lie.Diane Wolf (1996) claims that many ethnographers have lied about marital status, issue identities or religious beliefs; and she is one of those, as during research she lied about her marital status to her research subjects (Denzin & capital of Nebraska 2003). Moral and ethical questions are raised asking whether it is right and proper for the researchers to have all the power in shaping, designing and job studies; researchers are portrayed to be more adapted due to this. It is queried whether this is really appropriate? (Denzin & Lincoln 2003).However feminist argue that to evade such a problem the research subjects should be involved in the planning stages of research and have a say in the types of questions asked. However the practicality and sensibility of this idea is questioned, is this really an appropriate way of dealing with the problem? Many argue not. Some suggest that this would be impractical and some participants might not want to contribute. It has further been suggested that this is an obscene idea because at the end of the day it is the researcher who has the final word on what is expiry to be researched (Murphy and Dingwall 2007).Although it would seem the power status between the researcher and research subjects is less reinforced and not so clear within ethnographic research in comparison to other kinds of research; there are some concerns raised about the way that ethnographers can objectify, manipulate and take advantage of research subjects either during the period of the study or in published work. However some argue that the researcher controls are not in fact a breach of the research subjects’ independence and rights, and is not manipulative in anyway (Hammersley & Atkinson 1995).On the other hand Fine (1993:284) proposes that it is sometimes the case where female ethnographers are objectified rat her than the research subjects, due to the fact we live in a sexist world. Moreover Murphy and Dingwall (2007) argue that in some cases it would seem that the research subjects manipulate and exert power over the researchers conducting ethnographic studies. They propose that this happens through refuting the researcher the privilege of conducting research on themselves or their community or through manipulating what they study and not allowing the researcher to have beat responsibility and say over the research.However, although it is questionable whether there is a problem of power imbalance between the research and their research subjects, feminists have suggested ways of dealing with this. They attempt to readdress power imbalances in relationships between the researched and researcher, by not enforcing the power the researcher has and balancing relationship statuses, making relationships more intimate and authentic (Murphy and Dingwall 2007).However, other critics have replied to this suggesting that the development of closer, sympathetic relationships are off the beaten track(predicate) more unethical and dangerous as purpose on the researchers behalf becomes far easier as participants are more likely disclose thoughts and feeling to whom they feel close to. Furthermore participants may not wish for a relationship with an individual who is researching them (Akeroyd 2008) Once the researcher has published their research findings they usually gain scholarly identification and financial benefits, whereas the studied groups or individuals gain aught on this level.As Richardson (1992: 116) points out Whyte is recognised as the whizz author to the Street Corner Society and â€Å" veritable all the fame and fortune”, but questions are raised queering if the publication of the study would have been possible at all without ‘Docs’ help . The fortune made in the Street Corner study could have meliorate ‘Docs’ life a great deal , and a small percentage of the financial could have changed his life. However once the study ended ‘Docs’ fortune did not change, as he remained jobless for practically the rest of his life and living on the bread line.However it would seem that some researchers believe that through giving participants feedback and insight to the research moral dilemma of their financial and scholarly gains are resolved. On the other hand other ethnographic researchers may not feel that this enough and region the royalties from their published work (Slack 2011). Finally a further ethical dilemma concerning ethnographic research methods is that all the data and publications are based primarily on the interpretations made by the researcher, but it is queried whether the researcher has the right to do so (Hammersley & Atkinson 1995).As Calvino (1998:257) states, communities or subjects can become ‘confrontational’ if they feel that the interpretations made of them are in accurate and mistaken. Murphy and Dingwall (2007) claim that for research to be ethical they must produce accounts that convey the research subjects standpoints and views. However it is argued that ethnographers can and do sometimes take advantage of their empowered roles and construct their own versions of events and interpret data in ways they wish to display such groups.However in order to overcome this dilemma, it has been recommended that researchers should back their analysis and understanding with proof and verification that what was said and done did really happen (Akeroyd 2008). Therefore in conclusion, it is evident that ethnography can and does raise some ethical dilemmas causing harm and infringes the rights of many participants; however it is the duty and obligation of researchers to minimise these effects, even if they hold negative views and dislike the research subjects.Furthermore it is somewhat clear that ethnography can give valuable insights in to unexplored cult ures and individuals, however on the negative side it is also seen as a damaging ‘tool’ used by those in power . It is obvious that today, unlike in the past, practically all research abides by ethical guidelines, set by ethical review boards and if they don’t researchers are held liable. Nevertheless, in the near future it is imperative that ethical guidelines should be amended so that they are specific to the issues touch ethnography. It is clear that this is the only way that ethnography will be almost fully ethical.\r\n'