Guidelines of the African Studies Association for Ethical Conduct in Research

and Projects in Africa

The African Studies Association Board of Directors has developed and, on April 9,
2000, unanimously adopted the following as Guidelines for its members who
conduct research and projects in Africa.
***
These guidelines for ethical conduct in research are designed as a framework for
orienting members to the issues involved in research across cultures and nations
and especially where there is highly unequal access to the means for conducting
research. These guidelines of the ASA will be superseded in many cases by the
requirements, guidelines, or codes of federal and local governments, universities,
funding agencies, professional organizations, and other bodies with supervisory
responsibility.
The African Studies Association represents a diverse group of people interested in
Africa and its people. The Association has a long history of commitment to
fostering the study of Africa, to supporting research by Africans, and of promoting
collaboration among students of Africa. No guidelines for conduct can presume to
be comprehensive nor universally applicable because the range of activities
conducted by our members is vast and the contexts in which they conduct research
and project work change constantly. Nonetheless, several enduring principles are
foundations for ethical conduct of research across cultures, international
boundaries, and among those with uneven access to financial and professional
resources. These principles are not separate, but form a reasonable framework for
responsible conduct of research.
1. Do No Harm
When conducting research or pursuing professional activities in Africa, members
of the Association shall seek to be conscious of and to minimize the potential risks
in the present and future which their research may pose for those who participate
or are being studied. Responsible conduct necessitates that the researcher be well-
informed about the wider political, cultural, economic, religious, and social
contexts of the research in order to ensure that the research will not put
collaborators, research subjects, students, or assistants at risk of any kind.
Researchers should respect the integrity, morality, and traditions of the people they
study. Researchers should commit themselves to the most ethical practices in the
conduct of responsible research and, as far as possible, to respect prevailing local
practices of hiring, training, and using assistants and subjects. Researchers also
commit themselves to pursue non-discriminatory practices whenever possible.
2. Open and Full Disclosure of Objectives, Sources of Funding, Methods, and
Anticipated Outcomes
Members of the Association are committed to open and full disclosure of the
research to all cooperating African colleagues and institutions, all graduate and
field assistants, and the subjects we study. Each of these should have full access to
the objectives of the research, the sources of funding, the methods to be employed,
and the anticipated outcomes of the research.
Because the findings of our research or recommendations drawn from it may affect
the interests of the peoples and communities we study, members of the Association
should be conscious of the potential uses and abuses of the research data, the
interests of the sponsors and funders of the research, as well as any third parties
who may have access to the findings or data.
When we engage in research in Africa, we shall notify our African colleagues of
the sponsors, funders, and potential uses intended for the information to be
collected. We shall not engage in any research which we know or believe to be
funded secretly, is likely to be used for covert purposes, or to have potentially
negative consequences for our colleagues. We shall make every effort to keep all
of our research, instructional, and service activities free of sponsorship, direct
funding, or secret uses by military and intelligence agencies of all governments.
We shall not knowingly engage or participate in projects which could be
reasonably construed as sustaining or strengthening the powers of political leaders
or states guilty of violations of human rights. Furthermore, we are committed to
keeping in the public domain all research and publications completed under
sponsorship of any government.
3. Informed Consent and Confidentiality
We shall seek to obtain the fully voluntary and informed consent of all the people
participating in our research before any research is undertaken. Researchers should
develop instruments of informed consent that are appropriate to the cultural context
of the research. Such instruments should not only inform the subjects of the nature
of the research and its potential risks, but also should provide guarantee to subjects
that if they wish, their confidentiality will be fully respected. Researchers should
be cognizant of the real difficulties of securing informed consent in contexts of
uneven power relations and should develop strategies or techniques for ensuring
fully informed consent.
4. Reciprocity and Equity
Members of the Association have a responsibility to support and encourage the
professional activities of African collaborators and colleagues and, when
appropriate, to build collaborative research and programs with them. Our research
should build the capacity of our collaborators and their institutions of research and
higher education through programs of training and professional development.
All researchers engaged in collaborative research should explain fully the nature of
such collaboration, including issues of authorship, access to data collected,
intellectual property rights, rights to inventions and copyrights with African
colleagues, professionals, and graduate students.
5. Deposition of Data and Publications
Researchers should return the results of scholarly activities to the communities and
the country in which the research was conducted, including preliminary reports,
papers, dissertations, and all forms of publication. Copies of all findings and
publications should be provided to African colleagues and institutions with whom
they have cooperated or established affiliations. The communities studied or
engaged in the research should receive at least a summary of the research and its
findings in a form and language they can understand.
Eventually and to the extent feasible, the researcher also should return copies of
primary data sets and relevant notes to a responsible archive or depository in the
country of research so that the data and materials can be made available to
indigenous researchers. In both the research reports and the data sets, the identities
of the persons who provided information should be kept confidential and disguised
unless they have given permission for their identities and the information offered
to be revealed. When scholars publish their data, they should make every effort to
see that their publications are not exploited for inordinate profit and that they are
made available to scholars, libraries, and higher education institutions in Africa at
charges that are reasonable in that country.
 Code of Ethics
of the American Anthropological Association
Approved June 1998
I. Preamble
Anthropological researchers, teachers and practitioners are
members of many different communities, each with its own moral
rules or codes of ethics. Anthropologists have moral obligations as
members of other groups, such as the family, religion, and
community, as well as the profession. They also have obligations
to the scholarly discipline, to the wider society and culture, and to
the human species, other species, and the environment.
Furthermore, fieldworkers may develop close relationships with
persons or animals with whom they work, generating an additional
level of ethical considerations
In a field of such complex involvements and obligations, it is
inevitable that misunderstandings, conflicts, and the need to make
choices among apparently incompatible values will arise.
Anthropologists are responsible for grappling with such
difficulties and struggling to resolve them in ways compatible
with the principles stated here. The purpose of this Code is to
foster discussion and education. The American Anthropological
Association (AAA) does not adjudicate claims for unethical
behavior.
The principles and guidelines in this Code provide the
anthropologist with tools to engage in developing and maintaining
an ethical framework for all anthropological work.
II. Introduction
Anthropology is a multidisciplinary field of science and
scholarship, which includes the study of all aspects of
humankind--archaeological, biological, linguistic and
sociocultural. Anthropology has roots in the natural and social
sciences and in the humanities, ranging in approach from basic to
applied research and to scholarly interpretation.
As the principal organization representing the breadth of
anthropology, the American Anthropological Association (AAA)
starts from the position that generating and appropriately utilizing
knowledge (i.e., publishing, teaching, developing programs, and
informing policy) of the peoples of the world, past and present, is
a worthy goal; that the generation of anthropological knowledge is
a dynamic process using many different and ever-evolving
approaches; and that for moral and practical reasons, the
generation and utilization of knowledge should be achieved in an
ethical manner.
The mission of American Anthropological Association is to
advance all aspects of anthropological research and to foster
dissemination of anthropological knowledge through publications,
teaching, public education, and application. An important part of
that mission is to help educate AAA members about ethical
obligations and challenges involved in the generation,
dissemination, and utilization of anthropological knowledge.
The purpose of this Code is to provide AAA members and other
interested persons with guidelines for making ethical choices in
the conduct of their anthropological work. Because
anthropologists can find themselves in complex situations and
subject to more than one code of ethics, the AAA Code of Ethics
provides a framework, not an ironclad formula, for making
decisions.
Persons using the Code as a guideline for making ethical choices
or for teaching are encouraged to seek out illustrative examples
and appropriate case studies to enrich their knowledge base.
Anthropologists have a duty to be informed about ethical codes
relating to their work, and ought periodically to receive training
on current research activities and ethical issues. In addition,
departments offering anthropology degrees should include and
require ethical training in their curriculums.
No code or set of guidelines can anticipate unique circumstances
or direct actions in specific situations. The individual
anthropologist must be willing to make carefully considered
ethical choices and be prepared to make clear the assumptions,
facts and issues on which those choices are based. These
guidelines therefore address general contexts, priorities and
relationships which should be considered in ethical decision
making in anthropological work.
III. Research
In both proposing and carrying out research, anthropological
researchers must be open about the purpose(s), potential impacts,
and source(s) of support for research projects with funders,
colleagues, persons studied or providing information, and with
relevant parties affected by the research. Researchers must expect
to utilize the results of their work in an appropriate fashion and
disseminate the results through appropriate and timely activities.
Research fulfilling these expectations is ethical, regardless of the
source of funding (public or private) or purpose (i.e., "applied,"
"basic," "pure," or "proprietary").
Anthropological researchers should be alert to the danger of
compromising anthropological ethics as a condition to engage in
research, yet also be alert to proper demands of good citizenship
or host-guest relations. Active contribution and leadership in
seeking to shape public or private sector actions and policies may
be as ethically justifiable as inaction, detachment, or
noncooperation, depending on circumstances. Similar principles
hold for anthropological researchers employed or otherwise
affiliated with nonanthropological institutions, public institutions,
or private enterprises.
A. Responsibility to people and animals with whom anthropological
researchers work and whose lives and cultures they study.
1. Anthropological researchers have primary ethical obligations to
the people, species, and materials they study and to the people
with whom they work. These obligations can supersede the goal
of seeking new knowledge, and can lead to decisions not to
undertake or to discontinue a research project when the primary
obligation conflicts with other responsibilities, such as those owed
to sponsors or clients. These ethical obligations include:
• To avoid harm or wrong, understanding that the
development of knowledge can lead to change which may
be positive or negative for the people or animals worked
with or studied
• To respect the well-being of humans and nonhuman
primates
• To work for the long-term conservation of the
archaeological, fossil, and historical records
• To consult actively with the affected individuals or
group(s), with the goal of establishing a working
relationship that can be beneficial to all parties involved
2. Anthropological researchers must do everything in their power
to ensure that their research does not harm the safety, dignity, or
privacy of the people with whom they work, conduct research, or
perform other professional activities. Anthropological researchers
working with animals must do everything in their power to ensure
that the research does not harm the safety, psychological well-
being or survival of the animals or species with which they work.
3. Anthropological researchers must determine in advance
whether their hosts/providers of information wish to remain
anonymous or receive recognition, and make every effort to
comply with those wishes. Researchers must present to their
research participants the possible impacts of the choices, and
make clear that despite their best efforts, anonymity may be
compromised or recognition fail to materialize.
4. Anthropological researchers should obtain in advance the
informed consent of persons being studied, providing information,
owning or controlling access to material being studied, or
otherwise identified as having interests which might be impacted
by the research. It is understood that the degree and breadth of
informed consent required will depend on the nature of the project
and may be affected by requirements of other codes, laws, and
ethics of the country or community in which the research is
pursued. Further, it is understood that the informed consent
process is dynamic and continuous; the process should be initiated
in the project design and continue through implementation by way
of dialogue and negotiation with those studied. Researchers are
responsible for identifying and complying with the various
informed consent codes, laws and regulations affecting their
projects. Informed consent, for the purposes of this code, does not
necessarily imply or require a particular written or signed form. It
is the quality of the consent, not the format, that is relevant.
5. Anthropological researchers who have developed close and
enduring relationships (i.e., covenantal relationships) with either
individual persons providing information or with hosts must
adhere to the obligations of openness and informed consent, while
carefully and respectfully negotiating the limits of the
relationship.
6. While anthropologists may gain personally from their work,
they must not exploit individuals, groups, animals, or cultural or
biological materials. They should recognize their debt to the
societies in which they work and their obligation to reciprocate
with people studied in appropriate ways.
B. Responsibility to scholarship and science
1. Anthropological researchers must expect to encounter ethical
dilemmas at every stage of their work, and must make good-faith
efforts to identify potential ethical claims and conflicts in advance
when preparing proposals and as projects proceed. A section
raising and responding to potential ethical issues should be part of
every research proposal.
2. Anthropological researchers bear responsibility for the integrity
and reputation of their discipline, of scholarship, and of science.
Thus, anthropological researchers are subject to the general moral
rules of scientific and scholarly conduct: they should not deceive
or knowingly misrepresent (i.e., fabricate evidence, falsify,
plagiarize), or attempt to prevent reporting of misconduct, or
obstruct the scientific/scholarly research of others.
3. Anthropological researchers should do all they can to preserve
opportunities for future fieldworkers to follow them to the field.
4. Anthropological researchers should utilize the results of their
work in an appropriate fashion, and whenever possible
disseminate their findings to the scientific and scholarly
community.
5. Anthropological researchers should seriously consider all
reasonable requests for access to their data and other research
materials for purposes of research. They should also make every
effort to insure preservation of their fieldwork data for use by
posterity.
C. Responsibility to the public
1. Anthropological researchers should make the results of their
research appropriately available to sponsors, students, decision
makers, and other nonanthropologists. In so doing, they must be
truthful; they are not only responsible for the factual content of
their statements but also must consider carefully the social and
political implications of the information they disseminate. They
must do everything in their power to insure that such information
is well understood, properly contextualized, and responsibly
utilized. They should make clear the empirical bases upon which
their reports stand, be candid about their qualifications and
philosophical or political biases, and recognize and make clear the
limits of anthropological expertise. At the same time, they must be
alert to possible harm their information may cause people with
whom they work or colleagues.
2. Anthropologists may choose to move beyond disseminating
research results to a position of advocacy. This is an individual
decision, but not an ethical responsibility.
IV. Teaching
Responsibility to students and trainees
While adhering to ethical and legal codes governing relations
between teachers/mentors and students/trainees at their
educational institutions or as members of wider organizations,
anthropological teachers should be particularly sensitive to the
ways such codes apply in their discipline (for example, when
teaching involves close contact with students/trainees in field
situations). Among the widely recognized precepts which
anthropological teachers, like other teachers/mentors, should
follow are:
1. Teachers/mentors should conduct their programs in ways that
preclude discrimination on the basis of sex, marital status, "race,"
social class, political convictions, disability, religion, ethnic
background, national origin, sexual orientation, age, or other
criteria irrelevant to academic performance.
2. Teachers'/mentors' duties include continually striving to
improve their teaching/training techniques; being available and
responsive to student/trainee interests; counseling students/
trainees realistically regarding career opportunities;
conscientiously supervising, encouraging, and supporting
students'/trainees' studies; being fair, prompt, and reliable in
communicating evaluations; assisting students/trainees in securing
research support; and helping students/trainees when they seek
professional placement.
3. Teachers/mentors should impress upon students/trainees the
ethical challenges involved in every phase of anthropological
work; encourage them to reflect upon this and other codes;
encourage dialogue with colleagues on ethical issues; and
discourage participation in ethically questionable projects.
4. Teachers/mentors should publicly acknowledge student/trainee
assistance in research and preparation of their work; give
appropriate credit for coauthorship to students/trainees; encourage
publication of worthy student/trainee papers; and compensate
students/trainees justly for their participation in all professional
activities.
5. Teachers/mentors should beware of the exploitation and serious
conflicts of interest which may result if they engage in sexual
relations with students/trainees. They must avoid sexual liaisons
with students/trainees for whose education and professional
training they are in any way responsible.
V. Application
1. The same ethical guidelines apply to all anthropological work.
That is, in both proposing and carrying out research,
anthropologists must be open with funders, colleagues, persons
studied or providing information, and relevant parties affected by
the work about the purpose(s), potential impacts, and source(s) of
support for the work. Applied anthropologists must intend and
expect to utilize the results of their work appropriately (i.e.,
publication, teaching, program and policy development) within a
reasonable time. In situations in which anthropological knowledge
is applied, anthropologists bear the same responsibility to be open
and candid about their skills and intentions, and monitor the
effects of their work on all persons affected. Anthropologists may
be involved in many types of work, frequently affecting
individuals and groups with diverse and sometimes conflicting
interests. The individual anthropologist must make carefully
considered ethical choices and be prepared to make clear the
assumptions, facts and issues on which those choices are based.
2. In all dealings with employers, persons hired to pursue
anthropological research or apply anthropological knowledge
should be honest about their qualifications, capabilities, and aims.
Prior to making any professional commitments, they must review
the purposes of prospective employers, taking into consideration
the employer's past activities and future goals. In working for
governmental agencies or private businesses, they should be
especially careful not to promise or imply acceptance of
conditions contrary to professional ethics or competing
commitments.
3. Applied anthropologists, as any anthropologist, should be alert
to the danger of compromising anthropological ethics as a
condition for engaging in research or practice. They should also
be alert to proper demands of hospitality, good citizenship and
guest status. Proactive contribution and leadership in shaping
public or private sector actions and policies may be as ethically
justifiable as inaction, detachment, or noncooperation, depending
on circumstances.
VI. Epilogue
Anthropological research, teaching, and application, like any
human actions, pose choices for which anthropologists
individually and collectively bear ethical responsibility. Since
anthropologists are members of a variety of groups and subject to
a variety of ethical codes, choices must sometimes be made not
only between the varied obligations presented in this code but also
between those of this code and those incurred in other statuses or
roles. This statement does not dictate choice or propose sanctions.
Rather, it is designed to promote discussion and provide general
guidelines for ethically responsible decisions.
VII. Acknowledgments
This Code was drafted by the Commission to Review the AAA
Statements on Ethics during the period January 1995-March 1997.
The Commission members were James Peacock (Chair), Carolyn
Fluehr-Lobban, Barbara Frankel, Kathleen Gibson, Janet Levy,
and Murray Wax. In addition, the following individuals
participated in the Commission meetings: philosopher Bernard
Gert, anthropologists Cathleen Crain, Shirley Fiske, David Freyer,
Felix Moos, Yolanda Moses, and Niel Tashima; and members of
the American Sociological Association Committee on Ethics.
Open hearings on the Code were held at the 1995 and 1996 annual
meetings of the American Anthropological Association. The
Commission solicited comments from all AAA Sections. The first
draft of the AAA Code of Ethics was discussed at the May 1995
AAA Section Assembly meeting; the second draft was briefly
discussed at the November 1996 meeting of the AAA Section
Assembly.
The Final Report of the Commission was published in the
September 1995 edition of the Anthropology Newsletter and on
the AAA web site (http://www.aaanet.org). Drafts of the Code
were published in the April 1996 and 1996 annual meeting edition
of the Anthropology Newsletter and the AAA web site, and
comments were solicited from the membership. The Commission
considered all comments from the membership in formulating the
final draft in February 1997. The Commission gratefully
acknowledge the use of some language from the codes of ethics of
the National Association for the Practice of Anthropology and the
Society for American Archaeology.
VIII. Other Relevant Codes of Ethics
The following list of other Codes of Ethics may be useful to
anthropological researchers, teachers and practitioners:
Animal Behavior Society
1991 Guidelines for the Use of Animals in Research. Animal
Behavior 41:183-186.
American Board of Forensic Examiners
n.d. Code of Ethical Conduct. (American Board of Forensic
Examiners, 300 South Jefferson Avenue, Suite 411, Springfield,
MO 65806).
Archaeological Institute of America
1991 Code of Ethics. American Journal of Archaeology 95:285.
1994 Code of Professional Standards. (Archaeological Institute of
America, 675 Commonwealth Ave, Boston, MA 02215-1401.
Supplements and expands but does not replace the earlier Code of
Ethics).
National Academy of Sciences
1995 On Being a Scientist: Responsible Conduct in Research. 2nd
edition. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press (2121
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20418).
National Association for the Practice of Anthropology
1988 Ethical Guidelines for Practitioners.
Sigma Xi
1992 Sigma Xi Statement on the Use of Animals in Research.
American Scientist 80:73-76.
Society for American Archaeology
1996 Principles of Archaeological Ethics. (Society for American
Archaeology, 900 Second Street, NE, Suite 12, Washington, D.C.
20002-3557).
Society for Applied Anthropology
1983 Professional and Ethical Responsibilities. (Revised 1983).
Society of Professional Archaeologists
1976 Code of Ethics, Standards of Research Performance and
Institutional Standards. (Society of Professional Archaeologists,
PO Box 60911, Oklahoma City, OK 73146-0911).
United Nations
1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
1983 United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms
of Discrimination Against Women.
1987 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
 Forthcoming United Nations Declaration on Rights of Indigenous
Peoples.

Some Issues and Sources on Ethics in Anthropology

Murray L. Wax

From its emergence as a distinct discipline, anthropology has been oriented toward ethics
and social policy. Edward B. Tylor concluded his survey of human culture with the
remark that "the science of culture is essentially a reformer's science" (1958[1871]:539).
A. R. Radcliffe-Brown would claim that he was moved to initiate his studies of simpler
peoples on the advice of the celebrated Russian anarchist, Prince Peter Kropotkin, for
whom such peoples manifested a system of organization which could prove an exemplar
in a world dominated by autocracy and nationalism (Srinivas 1958:xviii). In the period
pre-World War I, this ideal of anthropology as an ethical calling above the petty rivalries
of nationalism inspired Franz Boas to moral outrage when he suspected that the
disciplinary role had been used to cloak espionage (1919:797).
Until World War II, much of the anthropological literature on "morals" or "ethics" was
directed from ethnology toward philosophy. The latter discipline was dominated by
linguistic formalism in the service of a positivistic worldview, and philosophical ethics
inquired as to the possible meanings of propositions such as "X is good" (MacIntyre
1981:Chapter 2). In this situation, it was a helpful contribution for MacBeath (1952) to
use anthropological data to exhibit the varieties of ethical systems in natural societies.
Brandt, a professional philosopher, studied Hopi ethics (1954), while Ladd studied
Navajo ethics (1957), and Abraham Edel, the philosopher, collaborated with May Edel,
the anthropologist, in interdisciplinary efforts (1955, 1959). Bidney, a professor of both
anthropology and philosophy, labored to clarify the notion of "value" (1962).
Insofar as "ethics" were topics of serious concern among fieldworking anthropologists,
the central issues were relativism and intervention. Since the history of relativism within
anthropology has recently been neatly summarized by Hatch (1983), there is little need
for me to repeat the review, except to note that the issue did and does provoke
considerable discussion among professional philosophers (e.g., Krausz and Meiland
1982; Wellman 1963). It is sufficient to note the exchanges between the humanistic
student of civilization, Redfield (1953), and the "orthodox" defender of cultural
relativism, Herskovits (1973). On "intervention" the issue was whether or not, or how, to
assist the people with whom one was involved as a fieldworker. Typically, such peoples
were subjects of a Western colonial power, whose administration an anthropologist might
hope to influence. For many fieldworkers the problem was intensified because of the
notion that each culture was an integrated whole whose harmony might be damaged by
casual intervention. Likewise, many felt constrained by the methodological ideal of the
natural scientist, who was intrinsically detached from the objects of study.
These concerns were rendered nugatory by the rise of Nazism, fascism, and
totalitarianism, regimes which conquered, enslaved, or massacred many peoples. In the
ensuing war, anthropologists found themselves encouraged to serve in a variety of
capacities. Faced with the threats of fascism and Nazism, most did so with great
willingness, and, in this context, "ethics" became defined as the willingness to sacrifice
professional career, or even life and limb, in the cause of "the Free World," of which the
U.S. appeared to be the military and spiritual leader. Because of their cross-cultural
training, a number of anthropologists were recruited into military intelligence, including
the Office of Strategic Services (which was to be the forerunner of the CIA); others were
commissioned as officers. Some were also involved in the complex processes after World
War II, which involved peoples who had been enslaved, decimated, or displaced and
were now liberated from brutal regimes. In accepting these roles, anthropologists could
regard their conduct as simply the logical extension of their earlier benevolent roles
acting as cultural broker or mediator, assisting peoples with simpler technology in their
encounter with the civilized world.
After World War II, a polar fission of political worldviews erupted within the discipline.
Federal agencies and private foundations were encouraging the growth of anthropology
to match the responsibilities that the U.S. government now saw itself shouldering. A
generation of dedicated and educated young people were studying anthropology and
conducting fieldwork in the far comers of the earth. They returned with a sober and
disenchanted view; they perceived great misery and continued oppression; projects that
were publicly rationalized as benefiting tribal peoples were in fact actually benefiting
members or strata of the ruling powers. Most important, the new anthropologists were
encountering political rebelliousness guided by a sophisticated elite. Where, in an earlier
age, fieldworkers had dealt with nonliterate peoples isolated from modern
communications, now they were encountering leaders familiar with the rhetoric of
Western political discourse, including its nationalism, populism, and Marxism. (Asad
1975 contains critical appraisals of the roles that anthropologists had played in the earlier
colonial context.)
In North America, the witty satire and sage intercultural critique of Vine Deloria, Jr.,
(Sioux) heralded a new age in which anthropologists were to be called to account by
Indian representatives. While he is known among the public for his ridicule of
fieldworkers, in collegial communication he urges anthropologists to reflect seriously
about the effects of their work and to assume a helpful role in relation to the abundant
problems of Indian peoples (1980). Other Native American leaders have unfurled the
banner of "Red Power" and provoked a series of dramatic confrontations with federal
authorities (e.g., the occupations of Alcatraz, Wounded Knee, and the Bureau of Indian
Affairs offices in Washington, D.C.). These became exciting events for the media but
troublesome cases for anthropologists, because it was not clear what was desired by--or
desirable for--the larger aggregate of Indian communities (Washburn 1985).
Where the pre-World War II generation of anthropologists had regarded their national
military and intelligence services with an ethically neutral (or, in some cases, beneficent)
eye, the following generations developed the suspicious and antagonistic view of Third
World leaders. From this perspective, employment with these national agencies was a
prostitution of valuable professional talents for monies and prestige; it was a betrayal of
the peoples whose welfare anthropology had claimed to cherish. "Ethics" were now
defined as a conscientious refusal to accept such monies or employment. Nevertheless,
many of the older generation continued to have faith in the difference between a
democratic United States and its (past or present) totalitarian rivals (Nazi Germany,
Fascist Italy, Imperial Japan, Stalinist Soviet Union). Where one group was impressed
with the exploitation of peoples struggling under colonial or imperialist rule, the other
was impressed with the miseries under fascist and Bolshevik-Leninist regimes. These
differences erupted with the case of Project Camelot.
Emerging out of the intricate infighting within the federal government, and reflecting the
goal of the Department of Defense to outmaneuver the Department of State, the Project
was inherently self-contradictory. On the one hand, it was to be staffed by academicians
and its data were to be publicly available; on the other hand, it was to be of service to the
military in stabilizing friendly regimes and inhibiting their overthrow. On the one hand,
its orientation was to protect democracy; on the other hand, to safeguard the allies of the
United States, regardless of the shape of their regime. Such an intermixture had led to
successful projects during the Second World War, when the target peoples had been
either enemies or the passive subjects of one or another military hegemony. But, in the
post-World War II era, it encountered the strenuous opposition of the intellectual and
political leadership of the Third World. U.S. social scientists found themselves accused
of being tools of Yanqui imperialism, or, at the least, unforgivably naive. Meanwhile, in
Washington, the rivals of the military used the embarrassment as an opportunity to
restrain its abilities at sponsorship within limits that excluded much of the comparative
studies that were the province of anthropology. The military could sponsor research in
high technology, but not in culture, social organization, and political stability. To the
older generation of anthropologists, this signified that the military was to remain
encapsulated within a technical worldview, and this was a source for regret and concern;
to the younger generation, this was a step in restraining a military service that had
become the instrument of overt imperialism (Beals 1969; Deitchman 1976; Horowitz et
al. 1967; Wax and Cassell 1979).
By the time that the United States had become militarily involved in the conflict in
Southeast Asia, the pendulum had thus swung far in the direction where "ethics" were
defined as a refusal to have any dealings with the military side of government, or with
any aspect of government that seemed to sustain an imperialistic orientation. While the
political rhetoric was heated, the literature dealt with important and difficult issues. (See
the essays by Berreman et al. in "The Social Responsibilities Symposium," 1968.)
In the revulsion following the Nuremberg trials, there emerged a powerful social
movement emphasizing the notion of individual moral responsibility, regardless of the
dictates of the officials of the state or of other organized bodies. Correlatively, there
emerged the notion of monitoring the conduct of physicians and biomedical researchers,
so that they did not abuse or exploit their patients in the name of science or any other
ideological principle. The regulatory system thus instituted spread to include any
scientific discipline that could be regarded as having "human subjects" who were
subjected to procedures that imposed risks, or that might, without their consent, be
inflictive of harm. The resultant biomedical literature is now considerable, and while it is
diverse and uneven, at its core are essays of depth which illuminate the critical social
issues (see National Commission 1978). If there is a weakness to the literature it derives
from the predispositions of mainstream U.S. culture, namely its individualism, its
reluctance to accept the notion that there may be values more significant than life (brute
existence), and its inability to face the dilemmas that ensue when social resources are
finite.
As this movement (Wulff 1979) gained momentum, anthropological fieldworkers found
themselves confronting Institutional Review Boards (IRBs), whose existence was
mandated by the federal government as a condition of institutional eligibility for
participation in the economy of grants, fellowships, and contracts. Since the relevant
commissions had taken no testimony from anthropologists about the moral issues of their
research, the regulations were framed to control the activities of biomedical researchers,
and so applied but clumsily to the process of fieldwork. Meanwhile, university
administrators were using the regulatory system as a device to regulate or even suppress
such activities as public opinion polls conducted by student newspapers. The resulting
institutional friction generated not only movements of protest but of inquiry and research
that have helped to illuminate the ethical issues in anthropological fieldwork (Wax and
Cassell 1979). In this process, "ethics" for anthropologists became redefined as having to
do with the nature of interaction between fieldworker and hosts, and, in particular, with
such issues as "informed consent" and with whether or not benefit (or harm) might issue
from the project (Cassell and Wax 1980). The morality of covert field research remains a
key issue; it is noteworthy that this issue could not and cannot arise in many traditional
anthropological contexts (e.g., Raymond Firth in Tikopia; Jean Briggs among the Utku of
Chantrey Inlet), but it can and does arise when fieldwork is attempted among modern
urban populations (Bulmer 1982).
The ferment among social scientists led the federal government to revise its regulations
(Thomson et al. 1981 appraises the new regulations from the perspective of the American
Association of University Professors). Despite these revisions, some researchers have
continued to be critical of the very premises of the regulatory effort (Douglas 1979; for a
critical British view, note Punch 1986). Critics such as Warwick (1982) assert that social
researchers have wrought much harm; opponents such as Galliher (1980) respond that the
regulatory system serves to protect malefactors from exposure.
An incidental consequence has been that a number of philosophers have moved from the
linguistic analysis of moral statements to an engagement with social policy. Others have
reviewed the history of ethical deliberation from a standpoint that is influenced by the
sociology and anthropology of knowledge. Particularly outstanding has been the work of
Alasdair Maclntyre (1966, 1981), a professional philosopher who has an excellent
familiarity with the social sciences.
Summary Recommendations
Barnes (1979) is oriented historically, viewing social research as having first begun
within a "natural science paradigm" where ethical considerations were minimal. Moving
beyond that paradigm, one realizes that social inquiry initiates dealings with fellow
scientists, citizens (hosts, informants, respondents), project sponsors, and gatekeepers.
From each, one may anticipate criticism and either assistance or restrictions. Familiar
with a wide range of literature, and knowledgeable about the criticisms that inquiry has
provoked, Barnes has performed an anthropological critique that is of great value.
Barnes (1977) contains the texts of three lectures delivered in Bangalore, India, and so is
especially sensitive to the concerns of non-Western peoples. In illuminating fashion, he
reviews a number of instances of research, including the Wichita Jury Study, the Glacier
Project (study of a London factory by a team from Tavistock), Kashmiri Pandits, Zuni,
and Camelot. The issues include deception, and knowledge as power and as property.
Appell has been a pioneer in the modern concern over fieldwork ethics. For those who
are interested in case materials, his 1978 volume contains a large variety solicited from a
number of working anthropologists.
Sieber (1982) and Beauchamp et al. (1982) grow out of the same project, sponsored by
the National Science Foundation (NSF) and attempting to bring social research within the
orbit of discussion of protection of human subjects. The essays in the Beauchamp volume
focus mainly on psychological and sociological research, with the notable exception of an
essay by Cassell. By publishing her collection as two volumes, Sieber has managed to
make of the one listed here a collection of especial interest to anthropologists, with essays
by Cassell, Glazer, Johnson, and Wax.
Cassell and Wax (1980) is the product of a series of conferences of fieldworkers. A
special issue of the journal Social Problems, it contains contributions by the philosopher-
theologian William F. May, the American Indian spokesman Vine Deloria, Jr.,
anthropologists Appell, Chambers, Jacobs, Schensul, Trend, and the team of Hessler,
New, and May, as well as sociologists Galliher and Thome.
Rynkiewich and Spradley (1976) contains a variety of cases focusing predominantly on
the issues created for subordinated peoples (and fieldworkers) by powerful bureaucracies.
While the cases may be dated, the issues remain vital.
Green (1984) is a special issue of The Wisconsin Sociologist featuring essays by
anthropologists Barnes, Montandon, and Wax.
Warwick is experienced in cross-cultural research in the South Pacific. In his 1980 essay
he effectively communicates the criticisms that such research has provoked, and this
makes it of value for cautioning those who hope to conduct overseas projects. Perhaps
because he is himself so critical (1982) of the ethical practices of social researchers, he
does not always take pains to differentiate the rhetorical flailings of Third World
gatekeepers from the actual failings of Western researchers.
Many of the formal textbooks on the protection of human subjects in social research have
concentrated on psychological experimentation and sociological surveys. Depending on
their projects, anthropologists may find value in some of them (e.g., Diener and Crandall
1978; Bower and de Gasparis 1978). Reynolds (1979) has a useful set of appendices
containing such items as "The Nuremberg Code" (1946), "The Declaration of Helsinki
(1964), and "a composite code; use of human subjects in research."
In this review, I have focused on issues as they have been posed for North American
anthropologists, but I have tried to cite some other literature. In addition to the works of
Barnes, Bulmer, and Punch, already cited, I should mention Akeroyd (1984) and Kloos
(1985).

References Cited
Akeroyd, Anne
1984 Ethics in Relation to Informants: The Profession and Governments. In
Ethnographic Research: A Guide to General Conduct. Roy F. Ellen, ed. Pp. 133-154.
London: Academic Press.
Appell, George N.
1978 Ethical Dilemmas in Anthropological Inquiry: A Case Book. Waltham, MA:
Crossroads Press.
Asad, Talal, ed.
1975 Anthropology and the Colonial Encounter. London: Ithaca Press.
Barnes, J. A.
1977 The Ethics of Inquiry in Social Science. Delhi: Oxford University Press.
1979 Who Should Know What? Social Science, Privacy and Ethics. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Beals, Ralph L.
1969 Politics of Social Research: An Inquiry into the Ethics and Responsibilities of
Social Scientists. Chicago: Aldine.
Beauchamp, Tom L., et al., eds.
1982 Ethical Issues in Social Science Research. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.
Berreman, Gerald et al.
1968 Social Responsibilities Symposium. Current Anthropology 9:391-435.
Bidney, David
1962 The Concept of Value in Modern Anthropology. In Anthropology Today:
Selections. Sol Tax, ed. Pp. 436-453. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Boas, Franz
1919 Correspondence: Scientists as Spies. The Nation 109, No. 2842 (December).
Bower, Robert T., and Priscilla de Gasparis
1978 Ethics in Social Research: Protecting the Interests of Human Subjects. New York:
Praeger.
Brandt, Richard B.
1954 Hopi Ethics: A Theoretical Analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Bulmer, Martin, ed.
1982 Social Research Ethics: An Examination of the Merits of Covert Participant
Observation. New York: Holmes and Meier.
Cassell, Joan, and Murray L. Wax, eds.
1980 Ethical Problems of Fieldwork. Social Problems (special issue) 27:259-378.
Deitchman, Seymour J.
1976 The Best-Laid Schemes: A Tale of Social Research and Bureaucracy. Cambridge:
MIT Press.
Deloria, Vine, Jr.
1980 Our New Research Society: Some Warnings to Social Scientists. Social Problems
(special issue) 27:267-271.
Diener, Edward, and Rick Crandall
1978 Ethics in Social and Behavioral Research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Douglas, Jack D.
1979 Living Morality versus Bureaucratic Fiat. In Deviance and Decency: The Ethics of
Research with Human Subjects. C. B. Klockars and F. W. O'Connors, eds. Pp. 13-33.
Beverly Hills: Sage.
Edel, Abraham
1955 Ethical Judgement: The Use of Science in Ethics. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Edel, May, and Abraham Edel
1959 Anthropology and Ethics. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.
Galliher, John F.
1980 Social Scientists' Ethical Responsibilities: Looking Upward Meekly. Social
Problems (special issue) 27:298-308.
Green, Charles S., III, ed.
1984 Sociology as Moral Inquiry. The Wisconsin Sociologist (special issue) 21:4.
Hatch, Eivin
1983 Culture and Morality: The Relativity of Values in Anthropology. New York:
Columbia University Press.
Herskovits, Melville J.
1973 Cultural Relativism: Perspectives in Cultural Pluralism. New York: Vintage.
Horowitz, Irving Louis, ed.
1967 The Rise and Fall of Project Camelot: Studies in the Relationship between Social
Science and Practical Politics. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Kloos, Peter
1985 Anthropological Problems: Whose Problems?: Working Paper No. 54. Leiden:
Institute of Cultural and Social Studies, University of Leiden.
Krausz, Michael, and Jack W. Meiland, eds.
1982 Relativism: Cognitive and Moral. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.
Ladd, John T.
1957 The Structure of a Moral Code: A Philosophical Analysis of Ethical Discourse
Applied to the Ethics of the Navaho Indians. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
MacBeath, Alexander
1952 Experiments in Living: A Study of the Nature and Foundation of Ethics or Morals
in the Light of Recent Work in Social Anthropology. London: Macmillan.
Maclntyre, Alasdair
1966 A Short History of Ethics. New York: Macmillan.
1981 After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame
Press.
National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and
Behavioral Research
1978 The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles for the Protection of Human Subjects of
Research. 2 vols. DHEW Publication Nos. (OS) 78 0013, 78 0014. Washington, D.C.:
USGPO.
Punch, Maurice
1986 The Politics and Ethics of Fieldwork. Beverly Hills: Sage.
Redfield, Robert
1953 The Primitive World and Its Transformations. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Reynolds, Paul Davidson
1979 Ethical Dilemmas and Social Science Research: An Analysis of Moral Issues
Confronting Investigators in Research Using Human Participants. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Rynkiewich, Michael A., and James P. Spradley, eds.
1976 Ethics and Anthropology: Dilemmas in Fieldwork. New York: John Wiley.
Sieber, Joan E., ed.
1982 The Ethics of Social Research: Fieldwork, Regulation, and Publication. New York:
Springer-Verlag.
Srinivas, M. N., ed.
1958 Method in Social Anthropology: Selected Essays by A. R. Radcliffe-Brown.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Thomson, Judith Jarvis, et al.
1981 Regulations Governing Research on Human Subjects: Academic Freedom and the
Institutional Review Board. Academe 67:358-370.
Tylor, Edward Burnett
1958[1871] Primitive Culture. Volume 11: Religion in Primitive Culture. New York:
Harper Torchbook.
Warwick, Donald P.
1980 The Politics and Ethics of Cross-Cultural Research. In The Handbook of Cross-
Cultural Psychology. H. C. Triandis and W. W. Lambert, eds. Pp. 319-371. Boston:
Allyn and Bacon.
1982 Types of Harm in Social Research. In Ethical Issues in Social Science Research.
Tom L. Beauchamp et al., eds. Pp. 101-124. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.
Washburn, Wilcomb E.
1985 Ethical Perspectives in North American Ethnology. In Social Contexts of American
Ethnology: 1984 Proceedings of the American Ethnological Society. June Helm, ed. Pp.
50-64. (Washington, D.C.: American Anthropological Association.
Wax, Murray, L., and Joan Cassell, eds.
1979 Federal Regulation: Ethical Issues and Social Research. AAAS Symposium No. 36.
Boulder: Westview Press.
Weliman, Carl
1963 The Ethical Implications of Cultural Relativity. Journal of Philosophy 60:169-184.
Wulff, Keith M., ed.
1979 Regulation of Scientific Inquiry: Societal Concerns with Research. AAAS
Symposium No. 37. Boulder: Westview Press.

Handbook on Ethical Issues in Anthropology

Edited by Joan Cassell and Sue-Ellen Jacobs
a special publication of the American Anthropological Association
number 23
CONTENTS
 Introduction
Joan Cassell and Sue-Ellen Jacobs
Some Issues and Sources on Ethics in Anthropology
Murray L. Wax
The Committee on Ethics: Past, Present, and Future
James N. Hill
Cases and Solutions
Sue-Ellen Jacobs
Cases and Comments
Joan Cassell
Some Experiences in Teaching Ethics in Fieldwork Classes
Sue-Ellen Jacobs
How to Hold a Workshop on Ethical Problems in Fieldwork
Joan Cassell

AAA Ethics
updated 9/15/00

4350 North Fairfax Drive, Suite 640, Arlington, VA 22203-1620

phone 703/528-1902; fax 703/528-3546

Questions or comments? We want your feedback!

Web Coordinator / Staff Directory
Copyright © 1996-2000, American Anthropological Association
updated 9/18/00

Some Experiences in Teaching Ethics in Fieldwork Classes

Sue-Ellen Jacobs

One of the best ways to encourage students to question research motives and procedures--
their own and those of the anthropologists whose works they study--is to embed this
learning in the fieldwork experience.
Since 1968, 1 have taught at least one experiential field course each academic year,
designed to involve students in the life of at least one other person for a specific period:
during this time, students question that person about their life, family, experiences,
beliefs, and feelings. The purpose of these person-to-person exercises is to augment, in a
dramatic way, the reading and lecture materials covered in class, and to emphasize to
students, through their own personal experience, the value of the subject matter and the
importance of ethical issues.
Elsewhere, I have described long-term, goal-oriented projects where students worked
under the supervision of community and faculty (Jacobs 1979, 1974a, 1974b); because
those research experiences were tied to concrete action projects, students were involved
in ethical issues concerning research and practice throughout the course of their
participation in the field projects. I concentrate here on two shorter field projects,
assigned in courses taught at the University of Washington.

Requirements for Research Involving Human Subjects at the University

of Washington
In common with other institutions receiving federal funds, the University of Washington
has specific guidelines that must be followed when conducting research involving human
beings (subjects). When fieldwork projects designed by individual students vary, each
must be approved on an individual basis. When a course with a specific fieldwork
requirement is offered, however, students in that course are covered by the course
application as approved by the Human Subjects Research Committee (HSRC). In the
Department of Anthropology, each application is reviewed by a subcommittee; this
applies to the field projects of individual students and to projects designed by professors
as a course requirement. If the subcommittee members are confident that protective
measures meet the requirements of the University of Washington Human Subjects
Review Committee, they will approve the application; if not, they forward the application
to the all-university committee. It takes a few weeks to several months for the HSRC to
process an application.

Ethical Issues Addressed in a Basic Kinship Course

/1/
For several years I taught a kinship course that required graduate and advanced
undergraduate students to conduct a field project involving the collection of kinship data
from someone whose first language was not English. Students found the individuals with
whom they worked either among fellow students, or in the community.
On the second day of class, after a brief discussion of the assigned readings in the kinship
texts, I talked about general ethical issues discussed within the American Anthropological
Association and other professional environments, passed out the AAA Principles of
Professional Responsibility, described the research requirements of the University of
Washington, and distributed the application forms for the HSRC. Although the class
project had been approved in advance, I wanted the students to think about how to answer
each question on the form, to gain experience in filling out such forms and to write a draft
consent form. To do this, students had to think about practical issues involved in talking
with someone whose first language is not English in a way that would provide them with
basic knowledge of the kinship systems used by that person. At the next class meeting,
we agreed on the answers to the questions and together wrote a final consent form; then
we discussed the reasons for choosing specific answers to the questions.
Students were often disturbed by the process of writing the consent form, filling in the
application, and by the ethical issues involved in conducting the research described on the
forms. They started discussing among themselves the ethical implications of collecting,
what one student called "esoteric things like kinship labels." Initially, students often
found the procedures to be an annoyance, asking why they should have do this for
something so "nonthreatening as kinship terms." At the beginning of the term, during this
period of HSRC application preparation, it was initially difficult for students to
understand that kinship research may cause the people studied to experience stress. At
this stage in their careers, graduate and upper division students have not yet teamed that
collecting kinship terms can lead a researcher well beyond bits of linguistic and cognitive
data into sensitive details about family matters. Nevertheless, they went through the
exercise and then began to search for someone they could work with. They were required
to find their collaborator by the end of the second week of classes at the latest (the
University of Washington quarter system has ten weeks per term) The consent form
contains so much information about the possible harmful and other aspects of the project
that on occasion people who are going to work with a student become intimidated by it.
Despite this, over the course of four years, only two people changed their minds about
working with a student after reading the consent form.
Students used a standard format for eliciting kinship terms in their informant's native
language (later, they asked for the English words for these terms, as a means of cross-
checking their understanding of the non-English terms). Meeting regularly with their
consultants for these discussions, the students began to develop a sense of closeness to
them. By midterm, they had to give a progress report to the class. At this time, they began
to talk about the ethical dilemmas they were encountering. Some of the students wanted
to stop their consultants from talking about their families, because all the student was
"supposed to get is kinship information." At this point, a deep appreciation of kinship
studies begins to develop: they now understand, in an experiential way, that kinship is
about families. They begin to understand the contextual value of kinship studies, the
ethical issues such research involves, and possible ways to solve certain ethical
dilemmas.
The students were graded on a paper based on the field project. By the end of the quarter,
they could always present a good description of the individual and that person's place
within the family, as well as data on how residence units are customarily formed, the
organization of the extended family, and many other standard kinship questions.
Genealogical and terminological charts were attached. Often students were given
personal information that they did not use because, although they believed it might
increase understanding of the person's kinship organization, they felt inclusion of this
information might be harmful to their informant/friend. Students were learning in a
classroom situation that making judgments about the use of information is part of being
an ethically responsible anthropologist. They also learned that the least threatening field
project or subject may create stress for informants . . . and even some devastating
complications, in terms of individual family structure or individual sense of self, when
research inadvertently calls forth unhappy memories from one's informants.

Ethical Issues in Life History Research

Students who take this course typically expect to learn intimate details about a particular
person. The course grows directly from the three year Washington Women's Heritage
Project, funded by the National Endowment for the Humanities. That project was
designed to document, through oral history interviews and collection of secondary
sources, women's contributions to Washington State. The students (whose ranks range
from second year undergraduate to advanced graduate students) are told on the first day
of class that their work will be a major contribution to a growing state archive. They are
informed that by staying in the course they agree to assume responsibility for conducting
an accurate and complete in-depth interview of one of the women listed in the Heritage
Project file. Although students may choose to interview someone who is not listed in
these files, they are discouraged from interviewing a close friend or relative for their first
experience doing life history research.
The students are then given copies of the HSRC application and approved consent form
to read and are informed about various codes of professional conduct that apply to
research with human beings (subjects). Their first reading assignment includes chapters
in several course texts that discuss professional ethics in life history research. They are
instructed to read from the sources in the following order: (1) pp. 143-155 in L. L.
Langness and Gelya Frank, Lives: An Anthropological Approach to Biography (Novato,
CA: Chandler and Sharp, 198 1); (2) the entire handbook by Sue-Ellen Jacobs, Susan
Armitage, and Katherine Anderson, A Handbook for Life History Research (University of
Washington: Washington Women's Heritage Project, 1982); (3) chapter 2 on
"Interviewing" in Edward D. Ives, The Tape-Recorded Interview: A Manual for Field
Workers in Folklore and Oral History (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1974);
(4) then, "Ethical and Moral Concerns" (pp. 117-143) in Langness and Frank. They are
also required to study the interview schedule they will be using. /2/
In contrast to the kinship course, the focus in the life history course is to get as much
personal information as possible from the person who is interviewed. We are specifically
interested in the women, their experiences, their impressions, their feelings, their life
stories. An open-ended interview format is used to elicit these. When the students have
understood that they are going to make a "real" contribution to women's history sources,
they become thoroughly engaged in discussing the ethical problems they might face when
they are working with their informants. Their concerns range from "touching on taboo
subjects, like abortion back then" to "what if I don't get the whole story right?"
Each student is required to conduct a minimum of three one-hour interviews in the
person's home. More often than not, students wind up with five hours of taped interview.
They must then properly identify, prepare an index for, and summarize each tape. They
also must prepare a brief (10- to 20-page) life history of their person, presenting a copy of
this to their subject and to me. The life history summary, along with all the materials
collected by the student and a release form signed by the interviewee, goes into the
University of Washington Manuscripts and Archives division of the graduate library.
Students give progress reports on their work with their interviewee at least every other
week. They discuss problems in obtaining the kinds of information they "need," mistakes
they have made during the interviews, concerns they have about public access to the
information contained on their tapes, and ways to "protect" their (now) friends from harm
that might come from unconscious or unwitting misuse of the taped interviews. Soon
after they begin taping the interviews, most students realize that harm may come to the
person they are studying if the collected information is not handled with care. In class
discussions their comments begin to reflect a concern for research that makes others
vulnerable, and they note that this vulnerability can exist in all phases of research: data
collection, analysis, storage, and reporting. By the end of the quarter, it is not uncommon
for students to have erased portions of tapes--usually, but not always, after having
discussed this possibility with their interviewees--because they fear that in some way
these sections might cause later embarrassment to "their" person.
By the end of the quarter, it is always true that the hardest task they accomplish is writing
the life history summary. Knowing that the person they have interviewed must pass on
this summary before it can be presented in class, they work very hard to present a "true
but positive" condensation of perhaps 80 years of another's life story. Every time I have
taught this course (seven times as of 1986) at least one student has declared, "If only I
could use the materials she told me off tape and in confidence, then I could explain better
why [or howl that part of her life was like it was! Without that information you can't
really understand her!" When this is stated with exasperation by one student, most of the
others nod or otherwise indicate their support and understanding for the frustration
caused by adherence to the confidentiality demanded by both the human subjects research
consent form and by their own concern for the welfare of the person they studied.

Conclusion
I conclude by noting that Cassell and I are emphatic about our belief that one of the most
effective ways to teach ethics is in the context of practice. In this way, students are faced
with the ethical dilemmas associated with research and actively seek the guidance
provided by the course materials, their classmates, and their teachers. Although courses
devoted entirely to ethical issues in social science can be brilliant, stimulating, and useful,
there is always the disturbing possibility that these will appeal most to the students who
least need them. This is why we both believe that faculty would do well to impart ethics
as an integral part of anthropological methods.

Notes
/1/ An earlier version of this, and the previous part of chapter 5 of this handbook, were
read at the 40th Annual Meeting of the Society for Applied Anthropology in March 1980.
The paper was entitled "The Human Subjects Review Committee Experience for
Students."
/2/ A copy of the most current syllabus for this course is available to those who request it.
 References Cited
Jacobs, Sue-Ellen
1974a Action and Advocacy Anthropology. Human Organization 33:209-215.
1974b Doing it Our Way and Mostly For Our Own. Human Organization 33:380-382.
1979 En Gracias de la Raza: An Approach to Educational Training. In Culture and the
Bilingual Classroom. Henry Toffes-Trueba, ed. College Park, MD: Newberry House.
Table of Contents / Back to Chapter 4 / On to Chapter 6
updated 9/15/00

National Association for the Practice of

Anthropology
Ethical Guidelines for Practitioners
Background
The preparation of the ethics statement involved a unique partnership between the
National Association for the Practice of Anthropology (NAPA) and the Southern
California Applied Anthropology Network (SCAAN). Jean Gilbert, a SCAAN
member and Chair of the NAPA Ethics Committee, worked with a local committee
composed of several of her fellow SCAAN members (Claudia Fishman, Neil
Tashima and Barbara Pillsbury) to create the first draft, which appeared in the
December 1987 Anthropology Newsletter, pp 7-8. Membership comments were
solicited at that time. The Guidelines were also sent to all of the local practitioner
organizations (LPOs) for comment, and in addition were the topic of discussion in
a regular SCAAN monthly meeting.
The final version of the NAPA Ethical Guidelines for Practitioners was published
in the November 1988 Anthropology Newsletter, pp 8-9. Gilbert thanked the
membership of SCAAN and the following individuals who reviewed and
commented on the draft: Fred Hess, Elvin Hatch, Barbara Frankel and Gene
Anderson. The final version incorporated many of their comments.
NAPA Ethical Guidelines for Practitioners
These guidelines have been developed by the National Association for the Practice
of Anthropology as a guide to the professional and ethical responsibilities that
practicing anthropologists should uphold. A practicing anthropologist is a
professionally trained anthropologist who is employed or retained to apply his or
her specialized knowledge problem solving related to human welfare and human
activities. The designation "practicing anthropologist" includes full-time
practitioners who work for clients such as social service organizations, government
agencies and business and industrial firms. This term also includes part-time
practitioners, usually academically based anthropologists, who accept occasional
assignments with such clients. The substantive work of practicing anthropologists
may include applied research, program design and implementation, client advocacy
and advisory roles and activities related to the communication of anthropological
perspectives. These guidelines are provided with the recognition that practicing
anthropologists are involved in many types of policy-related research, frequently
affecting individuals and groups with diverse and sometimes conflicting interests.
No code or set of guidelines can anticipate unique circumstances or direct
practitioner actions in specific situations. The individual practitioner must be
willing to make carefully considered ethical choices and be prepared to make clear
the assumptions, facts and issues on which those choices are based. These
guidelines therefore address general contexts, priorities and relationships which
should be considered in ethical decision making in anthropological practice.
1. Our primary responsibility is to respect and consider the welfare and human
rights of all categories of people affected by decisions, programs or research in
which we take part. However, we recognize that many research and practice
settings involve conflicts between benefits accruing to different parties affected by
our research. It is our ethical responsibility, to the extent feasible, to bring to bear
on decision making, our own or that of others, information concerning the actual or
potential impacts of such activities on all whom they might affect. It is also our
responsibility to assure, to the extent possible, that the views of groups so affected
are made clear and given full and serious consideration by decision makers and
planners, in order to preserve options and choices for affected groups.
2. To our resource persons or research subjects we owe full and timely disclosure
of the objectives, methods and sponsorship of our activities. We should recognize
the rights of resource persons, whether individuals or groups, to receive
recognition for their contributions or to remain anonymous if they so desire or to
decline participation altogether. These persons should be informed of our
commitment to the principle of confidentiality throughout the design of research or
other activities involving resource persons and should thoroughly investigate and
understand all of the limitations on our claims of confidentiality and disclosure.
3. To our employers we owe competent, efficient, fully professional skills and
techniques, timely performance of our work and communication of our findings
and recommendations in understandable, non-jargonistic language.
As practicing anthropologists, we are frequently involved with employers or clients
in legally contracted arrangements. It is our responsibility to carefully review
contracts prior to signing and be willing to execute the terms and conditions
stipulated in the contract once it has been signed.
At the outset of a relationship or contract with an employer or client, we have an
obligation to determine whether or not the work we are requested to perform is
consistent with our commitment to deal fairly with the rights and welfare of
persons affected by our work, recognizing that different constituencies may be
affected in different ways. At this time, we should also discuss with our employer
or client the intended use of the data or materials to be generated by our work and
clarify the extent to which information developed during our activities can be made
available to the public. Issues surrounding the protection of subject confidentiality
and disclosure of information or findings should be thoroughly reviewed with the
potential employer or client. We will not undertake activities which compromise
our ethical responsibilities.
We will carry out our work in such a manner that the employer fully understands
our ethical priorities, commitments and responsibilities. When, at any time during
the course of work performance, the demands of the employer require or appear to
require us to violate the ethical standards of our profession, we have the
responsibility to clarify the nature of the conflict between the request and our
standards and to propose alternatives that are consistent with our standards. If such
a conflict cannot be resolved, we should terminate the relationship.
4. In our relations with students and trainees, we will be candid, fair,
nonexploitative, nondiscriminatory and committed to the student's or trainee's
welfare. We recognize that such mentoring does involve an exchange in which
practitioners share their knowledge and experience in return for the significant
effort and contribution of the students/trainees. We should be honest and thorough
in our presentation of material and should strive to improve our teaching and
training techniques and our methods of evaluating the effectiveness of our
instruction.
As practicing anthropologists we are frequently called upon to instruct, train or
teach individuals, anthropologists and others in nonacademic settings (workshop
participants, in-service trainees, continuation or certification program trainees and
research teams). To such persons, we owe training that is informed, timely and
relevant to their needs.
Our instruction should inform both students and trainees of the ethical
responsibilities involved in the collection and use of data. To our students and
trainees we owe respect for and openness to nonanthropological methods and
perspectives. Student and trainee contributions to our work, including publications,
should be accurately and completely attributed.
5. To our colleagues, anthropologists and others, we have a responsibility to
conduct our work in a manner that facilitates their activities or that does not
unjustly compromise their ability to carry out professional work.
The cross-disciplinary nature of the work of practicing anthropologists requires us
to be informed and respectful of the disciplinary and professional perspectives,
methodologies and ethical requirements of nonanthropological colleagues with
whom we work.
We will accurately report the contribution of our colleagues to our research,
practice-related activities and publications.
6. To the discipline of anthropology we have a responsibility to act in a manner
that presents the discipline to the public and to other professional colleagues in a
favorable light. We will point out the value of anthropological contributions to the
understanding of human problems and humankind. Where appropriate in the
context of our work, we will encourage the use of anthropological approaches and
recommend the participation of other anthropologists.
We will contribute to the growth of our discipline through communicating and
publishing scientific and practical information about the work in which we are
engaged, including, as appropriate, theory, processes, outcomes and professional
techniques and methods.

A Statement of Ethics for the American

Folklore Society
(From the AFSNews, February 1988, volume 17, no. 1)
At its October 1987 meeting, the Executive Board of the Society approved a final
draft of a Statement of Ethics for AFS. Though the Statement printed below has
gained the approval of the Board, this should not be considered the final word on
the subject. The Board expects and in fact urges members to explore the abstract
and practical implications of this statement, and most important, to communicate
their descriptions on and opinions on matters of ethical concern in the Newsletter
and the Journal of American Folklore.
The Board would like to extend its thanks to all members of the State of the
Profession Committee and the membership at large, whose thought, effort,
comments and criticism have gone into the making of this Statement. Particular
thanks are due to Frank de Caro, Lynwood Montell and William Nicolaisen, who
were active in early discussions of the Statement; to Rayna Green, who prepared
early drafts for Committee and Board discussion; to Jack Santino, who drafted the
version of the Statement distributed to the membership for comment in AFSNL
15:5; and to Yvonne Milspaw, who prepared a text based on Santino's draft for
Board consideration in October 1987.
STATEMENT ON ETHICS: PRINCIPLES OF PROFESSIONAL
RESPONSIBILITY
Preamble
This statement of principles is intended to clarify the professional responsibilities of
professional folklorists. Folklorists, more than most other professionals, work with
peoples from many different communities and socioeconomic backgrounds. Their
professional situation is therefore particularly varied and complex. They are involved in
different ways with their discipline, their colleagues, their students, their sponsors, their
own and host governments, the particular individuals and groups with whom they
conduct their fieldwork, and other populations and interest groups in the nations where
they work. Because folklorists study issues and processes that affect general human
welfare, they are faced with unusual complexities and ethical dilemmas. It is a major
responsibility of folklorists to anticipate these and to plan to resolve them in such a way
as to do least damage to those whom they work and their scholarly community.
1. Relations with those studied:
In research, folklorists' primary responsibility is to those they study. When there is a
conflict of interest, these individuals must come first. Folklorists must do everything in
their power to protect the physical, social, and psychological welfare of their informants
and to honor the dignity and privacy of those studied.
a. Where research involves the acquisition of materials and information
transferred on the assumption of trust between persons, the rights, interests, and
sensitivities of those studied must be safeguarded.
b. The aims of the investigation should be communicated as is possible to the
informant.
c. Informants have the right to remain anonymous. The right should be respected
both where it has been promised explicitly and, as much as possible, where no
clear understanding to the contrary has been reached. These strictures apply to the
collection of data by means of cameras, tape recorders, and other data-collecting
devises, as well as to data collected in interviews.
d. There shall be no exploitation of individual informants for personal gain. Fair
return should be given them for all services.
e. There is an obligation to reflect on the foreseeable repercussions of research
and publication on the general population being studied.
 f. The anticipated consequences of the research should be communicated as fully
as possible to the individuals and groups likely to be affected.
2. Responsibility to the public:
Folklorists are responsible to all presumed consumers of their professional efforts. To
them they own commitment to candor and truth in the dissemination of their research
results and in statements of their opinions as students of human behavior.
3. Responsibility to the discipline:
Folklorists bear responsibility for the good reputation of the discipline and its
practitioners.
4. Responsibility to students:
In relations with students, folklorists should be candid, fair, nonexploitative, and
committed to the students' welfare and progress. Folklorists as teachers have
responsibility of instruction in the professional ethics of academe in general and of
folklore in particular in addition to their duties of instruction in the field, career
counseling, academic supervision, evaluation, compensation, and placement.
a. Folklorists must alert students to the ethical problems of research and
discourage them from participating in projects that employ questionable ethical
standards.
b. Folklorists should acknowledge in print the student assistance used in their own
publications; give appropriate credit (including coauthorship) when student
research is used in publication; encourage and assist students in publication of
worthy student papers; and compensate students justly for the use of their time,
energy, and intelligence in research and writing.
5. Responsibilities to sponsors, including one's own and host governments:
In relations with sponsors of research, folklorists should be honest about their
qualifications, capabilities, and aims. Thus, they face the obligation, prior to entering into
any commitment for research to reflect upon the purposes of their sponsors in terms of
those sponsors' past behavior and what the likely uses of their research data will be.
Folklorists should be especially careful not to promise or imply acceptance either of
conditions contrary to their professional ethics or of competing commitments, and they
should demand assurance that they will not be required to compromise their professional
responsibilities and ethics as a condition of the sponsors' permission to pursue research.
Epilogue:
Folklore research is a human undertaking for which the individual bears ethical as well as
scientific responsibility. This statement provided guidelines to the accepted professional
standards of research and the presentation of that research. When folklorists by their
actions jeopardize peoples studied, professional colleagues, students or others, or if they
otherwise betray their professional commitments, the American Folklore Society, through
its State of the Profession Committee, may legitimately inquire into the propriety of those
actions and take such measures as lie within its legitimate powers.