Abstract
Among kinds of fieldwork "at home," ethnographies of higher education inevitably draw on informal gleanings of everyday insider experience. Such informality is implicitly outlawed by federal human-subjects research regulations, which presume a clinical biomedical model that formally demarcates research from other activities. Intricately implicated in these circumstances, this article describes a comparative investigation into the methodologically embedded ethical conventions of anthropology and related disciplines for which institutional review board (IRB) participation itself became inadvertently informative, work that also reveals a conflict between the ethics of human-subjects protections (confidentiality) and of collegial exchange (citation).
Original language | English (US) |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 482-491 |
Number of pages | 10 |
Journal | American Ethnologist |
Volume | 33 |
Issue number | 4 |
DOIs | |
State | Published - Nov 2006 |
All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes
- Anthropology
Keywords
- Disciplinarity
- Ethnography of academic life and higher education
- Institutional review boards (IRB)
- Mission creep
- Participant-observation fieldwork
- Research ethics
- Unfunded research