3.5 Ethical Considerations
3.5.1 Ethical Guidelines in Anthropological Research
From the earliest days of anthropology as a discipline, concern about the ethical treatment of people who take part in studies has been an important consideration. Ethical matters are central to any research project and anthropologists take their ethical responsibilities particularly seriously. As discussed throughout this chapter, anthropologists are oriented toward developing empathy for their informants and understanding their cultures and experiences from an emic perspective. Many also have a sense of personal responsibility for the well-being of the local people with whom they work in the field.
Building trust through rapport and mutual understanding is paramount to any ethnographic endeavor. We are often asking for our informants to share a look into some of the most personal aspects of their lives. How can we expect such openness without a sense of trust? Trust building is therefore arguably the most important step in beginning any anthropological study.
Trust is Earned
On the evening of February 15, 2012, I (Vanessa Martínez) was sitting in the conference room that Universal Community Voices Eliminating Disparities (UCVED) shared with other organizations in their (previous) office building at 640 Page Boulevard in Springfield, Massachusetts. I was waiting to interview Betty Agin, the community leader who founded UCVED in 2009 after co-leading monthly health roundtable discussion groups and monthly community conversations with another community leader, Juan Montoya* and a health professional, Dr. Joseph Frames*. That day, Betty arrived frantic because she was late and then proceeded to inform me she had to leave early. We would only have about 60 minutes for the interview, but she said she would be available again if I wanted. When Betty sat down next to me, she told me “to begin.” I asked her some questions about her life, her work as a community organizer, and her passions. I ran the interview informally, probing her for more details throughout the interview. I have observed Betty and her facilitation style for over two years and was interested in getting more information about why she was a community organizer trying to improve health disparities and increase community involvement in Springfield.
The most salient part of this discussion was when we discussed the idea of collaboration and trust. At first, Betty said that she does not “really think about trust, it’s intuitive.” Yet as we continued the interview discussing the concept of trust, the pattern that arose was that while she wanted to trust people to do the work she did, it was actually really hard for her to trust them. In fact, when I asked her if she wanted my help, she said yes. But when I asked if she would allow me to assist in my own way and without her micromanaging me, she hesitated. She said she “likes things done her way, because she knows how to do it (i.e. organize) in her community”. Her hesitation comes from a history of working with people who did NOT step up to the leadership roles she asked of them.
As a researcher collaborating with community leaders from historically marginalized communities, I am aware of community members’ past negative experiences with academics. I try to walk the walk of true collaboration. I remember the legacy of grave robbing and of medical experimentation on Black bodies and other marginalized populations. And this history is never truly forgotten, nor do I believe it should be. In fact, the misinformation and stigmatization of people of color continues with our media today. And so, I believe it is up to the researcher to show the community that they are there with the best of intentions and with the goal of collaboration. The concept of reciprocity also comes to mind. Betty needed, from me and others like me, to see that our relationship was mutually beneficial and that I was not working with her to get my research done and then leave. And so, I must remember that I am both an academic (outsider in the community) and a woman of color (an insider or part of communities of color). And both of these social positions influence my research, my collaborations, and my power in the community.
Author’s Note: names have been changed for anonymity
Building rapport is critical to being able to engage in the research in the first place. Once trust is earned, we need to think about what comes next to ensure ethical consideration of the research and our informants. The American Anthropological Association has developed a Code of Ethics that all anthropologists should follow in their work. Among the many ethical responsibilities outlined in the code, doing no harm, obtaining informed consent, maintaining subjects’ anonymity, and making the results of the research accessible are especially important responsibilities.
3.5.2 Do No Harm
First and foremost, anthropologists must ensure that their involvement with a community does not harm or embarrass their informants. Researchers must carefully consider any potential harm associated with the research, including legal, emotional, political, economic, social, and cultural dimensions, and take steps to insulate their informants from such harm. Since it is not always possible to anticipate every potential repercussion at the outset, anthropologists also must continually monitor their work to ensure that their research design and methods minimize any risk.
Regrettably, the proscription to do no harm is a deceptively complex requirement. Despite their best efforts, anthropologists have run into ethical problems in the field. Work by Napoleon Chagnon among an isolated indigenous tribe of the Amazon, the Yonomami, is a well-known example of ethical problems in anthropological research. In his groundbreaking ethnography Yanomamö: The Fierce People (1968), Chagnon portrayed the Yanomami as an intensely violent and antagonistic people. The ethnography was well received initially. However, not long after its publication, controversy erupted. Anthro- pologists and other scholars have accused Chagnon of encouraging the violence he documented, staging fights and scenes for documentary films and fabricating data.
The (w)hole story: Researchers and Community need to be on the same page
While writing this chapter, I (Vanessa Martínez) am struck by a story I remember hearing at a day-long workshop training in Boston on November 20, 2010. This training, titled Racism: The Deadliest Disease in America, was presented by Critical Mass & Center for Community Health Education Research and Services at Northeastern University. As part of an afternoon workshop on Participatory Health Research for Understanding and Eliminating Health Disparities, I heard an allegory highlighting the extreme differences in researcher and community perspectives on a social problem or community issue. Researchers and community members see different things. The story goes something like this… There was once a hole in the ground. Researchers are interested in studying the hole and ask the community for permission to study the hole. The community wants the hole fixed because the hole is not productive for the community. The researchers gather data about the hole’s physical makeup (its length, its width and its depth) and explain how and why the hole exists. When the researchers are done collecting data, they leave and the community is left with a hole in the ground, feeling used and unheard. In this story, the researchers did not connect their goals of study with the community they were studying. Instead, the researchers held the academic power by taking from the community with no distribution of data, resources and power for the community.
Today, Do No Harm is a central ethical value in anthropology. However, it can be difficult to predict every challenge one may encounter in the field or after the work is published. Anthropologists must continually reevaluate their research and writing to ensure that it does not harm the informants or their communities. Before fieldwork begins, researchers from universities, colleges, and institutions usually must submit their research agendas to an institutional review board (IRB). IRBs review research plans to ensure that the proposed studies will not harm human subjects. In many cases, the IRB is aware of the unique challenges and promise of anthropological research and can guide the researcher in eliminating or mitigating potential ethical problems.
3.5.3 Obtain Informed Consent
In addition to taking care to do no harm, anthropologists must obtain informed consent from all of their informants before conducting any research. Informed consent is the informant’s agreement to take part in the study. Originally developed in the context of medical and psychological research, this ethical guideline is also relevant to anthropology. Informants must be aware of who the anthropologist is and the research topic, who is financially and otherwise supporting the research, how the research will be used, and who will have access to it. Finally, their participation must be optional and not coerced. They should be able to stop participating at any time and be aware of and comfortable with any risks associated with their participation.
In medical and psychological research settings in the United States, researchers typically obtain informed consent by asking prospective participants to sign a document that outlines the research and the risks involved in their participation, acknowledging that they agree to take part. In some anthropological contexts, however, this type of informed consent may not be appropriate. People may not trust the state, bureaucratic processes, or authority, for example. Asking them to sign a formal legal-looking document may intimidate them. Likewise, informed consent cannot be obtained with a signed document if many in the community cannot read. The anthropologist must determine the most appropriate way to obtain informed consent in the context of the particular research setting.
3.5.4 Maintain Anonymity and Privacy
Another important ethical consideration for anthropologists in the field is ensuring the anonymity and privacy of informants who need such protection. When I did research among undocumented Mexican immigrant college students, I recognized that my informants’ legal status put them at considerable risk. I took care to use pseudonyms for all of the informants, even when writing field notes. In my writing, I changed the names of the informants’ relatives, friends, schools, and workplaces to protect them from being identified. Maintaining privacy and anonymity is an important way for anthropologists to ensure that their involvement does no harm.
3.5.5 Make Results Accessible
Finally, anthropologists must always make their final research results accessible to their informants and to other researchers. For informants, a written report in the researcher’s native language may not be the best way to convey the results. Reports can be translated or the results can be converted into a more accessible format. Examples of creative ways in which anthropologists have made their results available include establishing accessible databases for their research data, contributing to existing databases, producing films that portray the results, and developing texts or recommendations that provide tangible assistance to the informants’ communities. Though it is not always easy to make research results accessible in culturally appropriate ways, it is essential that others have the opportunity to review and benefit from the research, especially those who participated in its creation.
Reflection: How are these ethical considerations reflected in the American Anthropological Association’s code of ethics introduced in Chapter 1?
