A different kind of ethics

Abstract

Drawing on four `tales from the field', provided one each by the authors, this article examines the ethical and moral dilemmas ethnographers can face during their research. In particular, we address two key questions. First, what does being ethical actually involve? Second, is there a moral duty owed by researchers and, if so, to whom is this duty owed? The article reviews current debates over ethics in ethnographic research, specifically the responsibilities of the researcher to his/her research subjects, before turning to the four `tales from the field'. These tales form the basis for a discussion of a researcher's ethical responsibilities when confronted with wrongdoing, in different forms, in the course of their fieldwork.

Evidence in Practice : On Knowledge Use and Learning in Social Work

“…However, as already indicated, some concepts, theories and indeed a certain pre-understanding were part of the research process from the start. According to Ferdinand et al (2007) this is expected, as the kinds of stories that research tells are a mixture of the theoretical and conceptual questions that inform the research. Interpretation of any research requires a judgment to be made (Humphries 2003); and judgments are made by individuals and are not free form political, social, moral or ethical concerns and the views the researcher may have about the research carried out (Ferdinand et al 2007).…”

“…Moreover, verbal consent was obtained from the social workers as well as from the clients involved in the different cases, and assurances of confidentiality were given. Informed consent is important to protect participants from being exploited, but also to legitimize the research (Ferdinand et al 2007).…”

Monitorização neoliberal e decisões éticas na etnografia: algumas reflexões

“…(Haimes 2002: 113). Ethnographers of crime and deviance, given the tensional, often radically contrasting settings in which they conduct their studies, are almost inevitably pushed to embracing personally challenging meta-ethical questions (see, for instance, recent research by Castellano 2007;Ferdinand et al 2007;Diphoorn 2013;Haimes 2002). Elsewhere, Neves and Malafaia (2016: 52-53) highlight how impression management aimed at naturalizing the ethnographer's presence in the field involves a degree of relational manipulation and parasitical predation of the expectations of the research subjects.…”

“…Informed consent (Tolich 2004;Murphy and Dingwall 2007), reciprocity (Whyte 1993(Whyte [1943; Ferdinand et al 2007), and the ethnographer's more overt or covert status (Adler, Adler and Rochford 1986;Van Deventer 2009) for instance, are commonly regarded as nuclear ethical issues. The interaction of these three elements necessarily involves a degree of what Erving Goffman describes as being a process of strategic impression management (Goffman 1969;Fine 1993;Hammersley and Atkinson 2007).…”

A commentary on ‘<i>Little Hooliganz: The Inside Story of Glamorous Lads, Football Hooligans and Post-Subculturalism</i>’ by Professor Steve Redhead

“…The reason for adopting such a methodology, despite severe practical and ethical difficulties (see Ferdinand et al 2007;Pearson 2009) was that I had serious doubts about the reliability of other accounts of 'hooligan events', most notably newspaper reports, police and Home Office press releases, interviews with 'self-confessed' hooligans and, as we will see, hooligan memoirs. In particular, early attempts at conducting interviews to establish the truth of events during research conducted at Blackpool FC revealed a number of problems.…”