In the shadow of deception

Author:

Liong Mario

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to discuss the problems and potential of conducting ethnographic research among people with ideologies that are opposed by the researcher and the importance of reflexivity in confronting ethical issues at the field site. Design/methodology/approach – This paper is a reflective account of the author’s ethnographic fieldwork, during which the author studied Chinese fatherhood in Hong Kong. The author chose a men’s center as a primary field site but later found that the men held views on gender and family to which the author was opposed. Neither remaining silent nor confronting the men was an option. The author was concerned that the informants would interpret the silence as agreement with their views and would then accuse the author of deception when they read the later publications. Findings – Being reflexive of the positionality as a young research student in the research milieu allowed the author to come up with a passively active approach to tackle the situation. The author shared own experiences or stories that the author had heard and asked if a feminist interpretation of an issue would be a better alternative. This approach not only solved the ethical risk of deception but also provided possibilities to acquire data that provided deeper insight. Originality/value – This paper argues that bureaucratic ethical guidelines are not enough to yield ethical ethnography because ethnographic research involves intense human interactions and complex ethical issues specific to the research milieu. Rather, an ethnographer’s being self-reflexive is the key to an ethical ethnographic research.

Publisher

Emerald

Subject

General Social Sciences,Education

Reference82 articles.

1. Adler, P.A. and Adler, P. (2002), “Do university lawyers and the police define research values?”, in Van den Hoonaard, W.C. (Ed.), Walking the Tightrope: Ethical Issues for Qualitative Researchers , University of Toronto Press, Toronto, pp. 175-187.

2. American Anthropological Association (2012), Statement on Ethics: Principles of Professional Responsibilities , American Anthropological Association, Arlington, VA.

3. Barnbaum, D.R. and Byron, M. (2001), Research Ethics: Text and Readings , Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

4. Bauman, Z. (1993), Postmodern Ethics , Blackwell, Oxford.

5. Birsch, D. (1999), Ethical Insights: A Brief Introduction , Mayfield, Mountain View, CA.

Cited by 10 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3