Ross Woods, Rev. 2018
These ethical principles were first written for ethnographers working in restricted environments, and most of them are more widely applicable. However, most disciplines have their own ethical standards, often because they face particular challenges.
As an underlying principle, you are required to treat people as valuable and worthy of trust. This brings up issues of your personal ethnocentricity and prejudices, potential favouritism toward some individuals, and your bias toward some viewpoints.
Clearly, you do not need to agree with everything that people say and do, and you could be exposed to practices that may be seen as grossly immoral. Nevertheless, your starting point is your respect toward them.
In some ethical codes, you are legally required fully explain any risks and to get subjects' written approval.
Ethnography is quite different; it is enough to ask orally. Anything more formal might make them suspicious or act unnaturally and result in invalid data. For example, I'm new here and I'm learning your culture. I don't understand some things. Could you help me please?
(Of course you'd adapt the example to your situation.) Then, as much as possible, keep interviews to friendly conversations and make notes immediately afterwards, not during the conversation. Technically these are called free informal interviews
.
Some interviewees give permission to be quoted with their names, especially on matters that are not sensitive and perhaps enhance their prestige. You can reference them fully as formal interviews.
In some countries, privacy laws require you to obtain the written consent of informants, but the general trend this that this does not apply to free informal interviews if you keep specific identities confidential.
Some topics become impractical if laws require you to disclose fully the nature of the research project for getting informants' or subjects' permission. In many cases, providing that information is just unscientific, because it predisposes people toward particular responses, making your conclusions invalid.
First, avoid any way in which informants' cooperation and personal information could be used against them. In some cases, people can be arrested and imprisoned based on your information. For example, Spradley's ethnography of the homeless in the US could have been used to arrest many of his informants had it been published locally. Your research could lead you to knowledge of illegal activities. Your commitment to your informants generally means that you should prefer to protect their interests. In some cases, you might even need to "pull the plug" on your research to protect a victim. Besides, simply by being present and observing an illegal act may lead you to be deemed to be an accomplice. The danger is even greater in countries with oppressive regimes or persecution policies.
Protecting your research subjects includes various ways of keeping informantation private:
Your research, including your relationships with informants and any means used to acquire information, may not be exploitative, or seen to be so. Besides the obvious problems of inappropriate relationships (e.g. romantic entanglements), your information gathering gives you the ability to become power-broker or mediator, which is a potentially exploitive position. You also have a duty to protect them from exploitation.
You may not use deceptive means to obtain information. While it is normal to select information that you should disclose, you may not provide misinformation.
Maintain a safe environment for yourself and others. This is rather obvious with the current emphasis on workplace safety and the aversion to risk.
Your reporting needs to be honest and representative of what you have observed, read, and heard. You need to protect the intellectual property of authors, informants, colleagues and research assistants. The list of prohibitions is more illustrative of the kinds of potential problems: