“Field research can, at bottom, be considered as an act of betrayal, no matter how well intentioned or well integrated the researcher. You make the private public and leave the locals to take the consequences.” (Miles & Huberman (1994, p.265) in Qualitative Data Analysis)
Very few researchers have tackled this issue, choosing instead to work within the mainstream and with the assumption that promises of confidentiality and anonymity are essential in social science research. Jan Nespor in Anonymity and Place in Qualitative Inquiry unpacks the idea of anonymity and focuses on a multiplicity of roles anonymity plays in qualitative research beyond protecting research participants.
Good read…
Yvonna Lincoln’s Institutional Review Boards and Methodological Conservatism
Following up on the previous post on the embedded social scientists in Iraq and Afghanistan, is the question about whether IRB approval is needed for this military work. Leaving aside the moral issues about embedded social scientists, one wonders if this is simply IRB creep, i.e., does everything that involves people require IRB approval? Read on, Are IRB’s Needed for War Zones?
The United States government has embedded anthropologists in troops in Iraq and Afghanistan to help them understand local culture. Does this amount to militarizing anthropology or anthropologizing the military? There is no end of controversy and many anthropologists see this as using anthropologists in counterinsurgency activities, as happened in Vietnam and Latin America. The NY Times has a story today on the matter.
The increased use of virtual space as a cultural site for communication and social interaction opens a new space for social inquiry. The latest issue of the Forum: Qualitative Social Inquiry is devoted to this topic.
This peer reviewed journal is completely online and is truly international in its scope, indeed articles are available in several languages. You can subscribe to the journal and will get an email when each issue is published.
