Ethnographic responsibility: Can the bureaucratization of research ethics be ethical?

Abstract

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.