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
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'The perils of working at home: IRB "mission creep" as context and content for an ethnography of disciplinary knowledges'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver