This is an insightful post, Jon. I'd like to take up his call to appeal to empirical grounds rather than ethics. I see an assumption in some of the discussion that engaging in covert ethnography gets a researcher better data than overt ethnography. That seems to serve as a justification for why hiding one's identity is desirable/necessary. Someone (maybe, Nancy? There have been so many good posts, I don't quite remember who) mentioned that hiding one's agenda with a group of people being observed does not necessarily get better insight and information. I'm wondering if anyone has concrete evidence, either empirical studies or their own personal experiences, to support or reject this assumption? Best wishes, ~JSG
-----Original Message----- From: air-l-admin@aoir.org [mailto:air-l-admin@aoir.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Marshall Sent: Friday, May 14, 2004 12:35 AM To: air-l@aoir.org Subject: Re: [Air-l] ethnography and ethics
Ok this is just random.
<snip>
Even if we decide on human 'goods' then there is nothing absolutely compelling about arguments which appeal to them. Thus for instance we could appeal to Eero to announce his doing research to his subjects in many ways, but he could not be forced by the arguments into accepting them. I give arguments i find persuasive below, while admitting they are not really persuasive to everyone.
thus I could appeal to 'fact':
For many people the internet *is* ambiguous as to whether it is private or public, (so is much non-internet space for that matter). Saying that one part is really public and another is really private may be possible on occasions but most things are not clearly marked, and cannot be marked. There are many different kinds of public, which for many will not include the public of research. Privacy and public are social constructs and vague and often contradictory. This is simply a 'fact' as far as i'm concerned, and i'm a bit surprised that some people don't percieve it - which opens up other questions i guess.
I could appeal to 'self interest':
you are much less likely to get sued, your work is likely to be more acceptable to colleagues, or your work will be allowed by your university ethics committee.
I could appeal to a 'love of truth':
When research is announced, you are then able to immerse yourself in the world, feel everything, *and* ask the kinds of questions you would not be able to ask other than as a researcher. Likewise the more people are inclined to trust you (and have tested that trust over a long period), the better will be the information they give you, the more they are able to criticise your work the better it will be, the deeper your understanding will be.
<snip>