>> and personal details (names, places they talk about) before archiving.
>>
>> Sarah
>>
>
> I don't understand the second reason in many cases.
>
> Why is it necessary to always anonymize informants? (And why are they
> "informants" anyhow - are they not "interviewees"?) Why must interviews
> originate (for example) from Mr. A who works for ABC rather than from Mr.
> John Smith who is a Senior Researcher at Microsoft?
>
> I can understand that some people are speaking "off the record" and some
> people are in sensitive positions where they do need to be anonymised.
> This may be particularly true when dealing with vulnerable people. It's
> entirely understandable to anonymise every facet of their identity in such
> situations.
>
> But I often see papers where people are quoted saying something anodyne
> yet
> they and their organization are unnecessarily vague. Surely it is more
> interesting to know where the speaker is based? How much detail can be
> removed before the quote is meaningless ("Mr A. works for a large
> corporation somewhere in England.")
>
> What is the point of such "censorship"?
>
> --
> Matthew Rippon
> School of Geography
> Queen Mary, University of London
> Mile End Road, London, E1 4NS
>
>
[log in to unmask]
>
http://www.geog.qmul.ac.uk/staff/ripponm.html
>
>