Campus committees for supervising research ethics have developed rules and procedures that are indifferent to the emergent nature of ethnographic research. As a result, participant‐observing fieldworkers have appreciated that, independent of their ethical commitments, they cannot comply with official regulations. Resolution of the fieldworker's dilemma requires limiting review jurisdiction to funded studies; articulating the meaning of regulatory language defining auspices, exemptions, waiver, and research; and, above all, developing a culture of legality in campus ethics administration.
In this issue we present a variety of examples of recent and ongoing ethnographic research in which investigators are working self-consciously in dialogue with one or more traditions within the phenomenological movement in philosophy. Each article makes a contribution to a given substantive field. As a set they pose a range of issues: the variety and distinctiveness of phenomenologically influenced ethnography, the relationship between philosophy and empirical inquiry, the evolution of phenomenological influences in social research, and issues about convergence and segregation in the disciplines of anthropology and sociology. We comment briefly on the last.One historically emergent difference is the contrasting moral postures that author and reader take toward the subjects of study. Anthropological writings characteristically have illuminated native groundings for subjects' perspectives, enhancing respect for local cultures by uncovering reasons that outsiders had not appreciated. Sociological ethnography began in a similar posture, but for over 40 years now, and especially in phenomenologically influenced works, ethnographies produced out of academic sociology departments have frequently been critical or at least agnostic about claims made by their subjects, and the suspension of belief has ranged from the political to the ontological.The anthropological articles in this issue restore credibility to native graphy
“Assuming your argument is empirically sound, so what?” Ethnographers are especially vulnerable to this question because their warrants are commonly diffused throughout their texts, because they aim to describe what is obvious to their subjects, and because such rude questions usually are raised only silently. Perhaps the most common warrant for ethnography is a claim that social forces have created a moralized ignorance that separates research subjects and the research audience. The author discusses several dilemmas that plague ethnographers when they attempt to bridge the gap, and then he describes the strategy of naturalistic ethnography. Last, he briefly addresses a broader range of warrants, identifying five additional, frequently used, complementary justifications for ethnographic studies.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.