hi, 

i'm really sorry if it seemed like i was making that suggestion. Ý do not at 
all intend to lie to my informants and would not encourage anyone else to do 
so. 

Ýn some cases this general rule is not so easy to apply, though. For instance, 
a researcher in the Netherlands recently completed a study on cocaine trade. 
He did not tell everybody he was writing about that he was writing a book on 
them. Perhaps that can be justified because all the persons are anonymous in 
his book. Still, this would not be enough for the code Ý was asked to sign 
since people should at all times be aware that they are giving information 
before they do so. This type of research could not be carried out if the code 
was fully implemented. Ý'm not saying that this necessarily is a bad thing: 
perhaps this research has dangers regardless of how careful the researcher is. 
But there is a trade-off and it's a bit more complex than "lie and have a 
juicy story" 

Another example that was on my mind when Ý wrote the sentence you refer to: A 
colleague of mine who conducted research in two distressed schools did 
participant observation as a teacher and both the school and the pupils were 
informed that he was undertaking research. Ý'm not sure if parents were 
informed but let's assume that's the case. Ýn any case, he did his very best 
to ensure that people cannot be indentified in his book.
 
However, to follow the rules that Ý was asked to sign, he would have had to 
ask prior permission from all the parents of the pupils he was teaching, which 
is technically impossible. Many of the parents were not responding to postings 
from the school and some were just lost. Research then becomes so difficult to 
carry out that it is de facto impossible.

Ýn a lecture on this topic at the ASA, Loic Wacquant cited many examples of 
research that formally was against the code yet it did conform to basic 
ethical considerations (don't lie, etc). Fortunately that research was still 
being reported but he, and many others present, argued that it was getting 
increasingly difficult to carry out ethnographic research. 

Ý'm, in short, not against rules of conduct per se but it seems, as you 
yourself suggest, that in practice universities may increasingly feel the need 
to polýce their employees. 

Ýf this was necessary to protect respondents, Ý could see the benefit. But 
actually Ý don't think it's sufficient in many cases. Ýt may be possible for 
well-educated and well-informed people to file a complaint against a 
researcher who did not act in accordance with the code but most people will 
never see what is written about them. The code offers them only protection tot 
the extent that research designs are monitored prior to application but, as Ý 
said, that is not the case here.

Most importantly, Ý think there are other ways to make sure that people do not 
lie or otherwýse act "unethically" - education, peer pressure, collective 
reflection, etc. So far these have proven quite effective in Netherlands as 
far as Ý know but there may be needs to improve them. 

Ý personally still think it's better that universities focus on these methods 
for promoting ethics. Ýf there are any other suggestions to ensure ethics 
without raising a bureaucracy, I'd really like to know. 

best
Justus







> I can see why ethical codes like this can be frustrating for individuals
> involved in qualitative work - and it seems to be the rules are applied
> so arbitrarily between different institutions.  And I agree, my
> experience is that these codes are generally enforced to stop
> universities getting their asses sued off.  
> 
> But I do wonder quite how getting someone's permission to be
> interviewed, informing them of the purposes of the research, and
> ensuring the subject's anonymity "excludes the very possibility of
> ethnographic or other qualitative research".  What are we saying here,
> that it's alright to lie about what you're doing?  That despite it being
> the - I think - morally correct thing to do to keep the subject fully
> informed of what's happening, it gets in the way of a juicy story?  
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: A forum for critical and radical geographers
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Justus Uitermark
> Sent: 06 October 2006 13:56
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: codes of conduct for research
> 
> 
> Dear critters,
> 
> I recently received a message from my department that I'm required to
> sign a code of conduct for the collection, processing and presentation
> of data. I did some quick research and found out that all permanent
> employees were automatically subject to this code. Ýt is, in fact,
> a specification a law that protects the privacy of individuals. All
> temporary employees (including PhD-students like myself) have to sign
> it. I would like to ask list members to share negative, neutral or
> positive experiences with such codes or the institutions that enforce
> them, either privately or via the list.
> 
> Some background:
> 
> I am very concerned about the ethics of research but I have big problems
> with this code since it is:
> 
> - imposed from above;
> 
> - contains numerous vague statements. For example, we can share data
> with other people provided that we have made 'sufficient' effort to
> ensure that they 'know about' the code. What is sufficient seems quite
> arbitrary to me and also I wonder what happens if others know about the
> code but have not signed it;
> 
> - it appears to exclude  since individuals (or their parents) have to
> consent to being researched prior to the investigation, should be fully
> informed of the purposes of the research and only information that has
> been provided with their full knowledge can be used for research. Before
> publication everything that could identify the persons in question
> should be removed;  
> 
> - apparently without consequences. There is no agency that will enforce
> the code. For the next 3 years they will only register complaints;
> 
> - no real (or for that matter: ethical) reasons are given to sign the
> code. The only reason I heard is that it allows researchers to use each
> others data for educational purposes but ironically this contradicts a
> statement in the code (data will only be used for research, i.e. a
> publication, i.e. not for education). 
> 
> I fear that in reality this code will lead to more bureaucracy and a
> separation of ethical considerations and research practice. I mean that
> I can imagine that ethical research is equated with research that
> conforms to the letter of the code and that real ethical questions are
> evaded because of it. Alternatively, it could be that the code remains a
> dead letter and that people continue their research as they do now. But
> then again, it may happen at some point that the rules are enforced.  
> 
> My suspicions only grow stronger because of some experiences I heard
> from people abroad, especially in Australia and the US (to simplify:
> ethics is in reality more or less the same as avoiding a court case and
> ethics commissions take months to approve a plan before the researcher
> can proceed without making a single change).
> 
> Thanks a lot in advance,
> 
> Very best wishes
> 
> Justus
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------
> Dit bericht is verzonden via Postbakje Free. http://www.postbakje.nl/ -
> Gratis WebMail
Gratis WebMail


---------------------------------------------
Dit bericht is verzonden via Postbakje Free.
http://www.postbakje.nl/ - Gratis WebMail