Derek Dragseth

Final Paper
Summer 2017

Ethical Ethnography: The Morals Behind Ethnographic Research in Life-Threatening

Scenarios

The field of ethnographic research is one that is widely used throughout social
science. Because of my interest reading the work of Ronaldo Rosaldo, I came to
wonder how anthropologists decide what course of action to take during ethnographic
research during life threatening scenarios. During this research I have discovered
examples, policies, and understand how difficult ethical decision making can be during
field research.
I asked myself: where do anthropologists get their rules of ethics? Meaning that I
sought to know if there was a higher power holding researchers accountable for
decisions they made in the field. It turns out that there are multiple differing agencies
who do in fact have regulations for the social science research field. One for an
example is the American Anthropological Association, who first created their statements
on ethics in 1971 and was continually amending the document through 1986. In this
document, it is clearly stated that an anthropologist “must do everything in their power to
protect the physical, social, and psychological welfare” of the people they study (AAA
Statement on Ethics). This is not a view simply held by the Americans however, as the
European Commission also has a recorded, official stance, stating “Researchers have a
duty to attempt to protect all participants in a study from any harmful consequences that
may arise out of their participation” (Iphofen, Ethics and Research in
Anthropology/Ethnography, Page 49). It is clear that the western idea of ethical study
has protection of those being studied as a main point in the research, and avoiding
death as a high point. This takes a more passive approach in maintaining the welfare of
research subjects.
 A confusing addition to this is included in the Belmont report, under the US
Department of Health and Human Services. In this document, the concept of
beneficence is brought up, and is stated as an obligation to “(1) do not harm and (2)
maximize possible benefits and minimize possible harms” (Protections, Office for
Human Research). While not seemingly conflicting, I do find some difficulty for a
researcher to adhere to multiple of these codes. For instance, the American
Anthropological Association’s statement focuses on protection, while the Belmont report
is more proactive and expects an anthropologist to go out of their way in order to
provide benefits to the community they are engaged in. If I myself were an
anthropologist, I would find it confusing to discern to what degree to be involved with my
community that I am studying. There is quite a difference between actively protecting
others, and going out of your way to bring benefit to those around you. This will bring
ethnographers to the ethical dilemma of whether or not to use their power to influence
their community, which in itself can be seen as unethical. With this in mind, it is difficult
to expect anthropologists to have one baseline of action while in the field. If statements
and codes are not uniform, then a grey area appears, where it is difficult for an
anthropologist to make a snap decision while in crisis mode in the field. Having even
slightly different codes is unfair to social scientists.
These codes however do serve an overarching purpose, to help researchers
form ethical decisions during ethnographic research. From this a researcher is
supposed to decide how to best serve their population, which usually includes
preventing death. This is why the work of Rosaldo was so interesting and seemingly
unethical to me. During his time in the Philippines, Renato Rosaldo spent multiple years
with the Ilongot tribes. These people widely use the ritual of headhunting, that is the
beheading of others, as a grieving process (Rosaldo, Grief and a Headhunter's Rage).
While reading this, questions of ethics came to mind. It is apparent in his writing that
Rosaldo was a witness to multiple cases of headhunting. It occurred to me however that
it is possible that Rosaldo had no ethical regulations in place during his time in the field.
This is somewhat the case. As noted previously, the first principles set out for
anthropologists in the United States were adopted in 1971 by the American
Anthropological Association. This code takes a passive approach to intervention, where
the priority for a researcher lies in protecting their subjects, and their subjects only
(AAA). There are a few things here that might explain why Rosaldo watched these
instances take place with no attempt to save a life. For one, the people Rosaldo studied
were those doing the headhunting, and not the victim. These people fall out of the
protection of those being studied. On top of this, the code clearly states to not only
protect the physical, but psychological welfare of the subjects. In this instance, there is a
deliberate conflict no matter which course of action Rosaldo could have taken. Had he
prevented a killing, there would be lingering psychological damage to the observed
population. It is also likely that this code did not exist while Rosaldo was in the field,
meaning that there was no sense of guidance and direction to those doing ethnographic
research. Rosaldo was simply on his own to decipher what was ethical in quick time
scenarios. This can help us to understand that while one might not personally agree
with Rosaldo taking a step back as an observer, in his eyes what he was doing was
ethical. He was going off of his own moral compass, and chose the psychological well
being of his patients over the physical well being of a stranger. This would have been a
different case however, had this matter affected one of his subjects.
We can take into account for instance, the story of Alice Goffman, who while
conducting ethnographic research on gang members, presented serious risks she
provided to her subjects. In her book discussing her research, Goffman came under
heavy criticism for not only failing to protect people, but deliberately putting them in
danger. One scene in the book depicts Goffman driving another gang member around,
searching for the killer of their friend, seeking vengeance (Neyfakh, “Yes, there are
inaccuracies…”). It is apparent to most people that Goffman in this instance did not act
in an ethical way. Whether those ethics involve personal ethics or written ones, Goffman
failed to protect her subject by putting him in danger of injury and legal punishment.
When questioned about this action, Goffman responded that this action was not
unethical, as “it was a mourning ritual in honor of a friend” (Neyfakh). Whether this is
true or not, it is clear that in the practice of this ritual, serious risk was presented to
multiple parties. While the use of this action being classified as a ritual has been up for
debate, assuming this is true, where does the line for ethics lie here? Is mourning more
important than laws and safety? All of the ethics codes presented earlier discuss
protecting not only physically, but psychologically as well. Is the psychological aspect
more important than safety? It seems to be no. The majority of readers believe here that
Goffman was unethical in her practices. From this, I gather that while maintaining ritual
is important, safety and protection from harm trump all. With this in mind, it is interesting
that others who have made the same choices have come under much less fire.
One appearance of this is in the writing of Scheper-Hughes, who in her research
wrote about a Brazilian village where mothers did not weep or show grief for their dying
children. In one section, Scheper-Hughes writes on the birthday of a child, which while
elaborate, also overshadows the dying of an infant in the family (Scheper-Hughes,
Death Without Weeping, Page 183). Nowhere in this piece does the author attempt to
even question trying to save this child, despite the fact that she sees the baby, sickly
and pale. Perhaps one reason this is the case is that the author might have been in
shock at seeing a baby she thought was healthy die three days later. The baby at this
point had not gained their grievability, therefore their death was not one to weep over. It
seems that because of this, the loss of grievability transfers to the reader, who in turn
does not question whether Scheper-Hughes should have intervened in any way.
The case of Wynne Maggi is another tragic instance, yet educational one. In her
story, Maggi, an anthropologist working in Pakistan, grew close with the population of a
village she studied closely. In this case, a baby boy dies because she chooses to take
the route of no action. Even in the beginning of the video, Maggi attempts to justify her
actions by stating “I was supposed to be an observer” (Maggi, Participant/Observation).
Wynne decidedly became an observer in this instance. While she personally had the
power to save a life, she opted to preserve the ritual of the woman waiting for her
husband to return home. While it is easy to criticize the actions of Maggi, one vital point
that should be remembered is that this is a high stress scenario, where no choice is
made easy. She also cared deeply about the well being of the child, and decided to wait
in hopes that she could respect ritual, while assisting in saving a life. What also
intrigued me about this piece is the discussion that followed. Some students in the class
seemed to be critical not only of her choice to wait, but also of the emotional effect this
had on Maggi, who never returned to fieldwork. Students said phrases such as “well she
should toughen up” or “it’s just one death, in the grand scheme of things it’s no big
deal.” What interests me about this is that it was so easy to be critical when removed
from the situation. Had students been in the scenario Maggi encountered, there is no
telling whether they would have taken it as well as they thought she should have.
Because students were removed from the situation, the capacity to grieve in some was
lost.
The loss of this grievability is not only sorrowful for the dying patient, but also for
the researcher. When this happens, the humanity is lost from a human person, who is
regarded to and thought of as just another death in this world. Their story turns to their
death rather than their life. Yet this is what impacts an ethnographer so much in these
cases; this is not just another number to them, this is the loss of someone important in
their lives. When the grievability of a person is lost, it is difficult to empathize with a
researcher, because as readers, we often neglect to read into the emotional trauma that
can be occurring during high stress scenarios. This allows one to easily criticize actions
taken in the field that have been taken. As readers, it is vital to remember that what we
read is one single story, yet the living person dying here is more than that, especially to
the anthropologist. Having power over the life of this person, or watching them die in
your arms, is not simple.
From conducting this research, I read a substantial amount regarding the
difficulty these scenarios had on a researcher. For instance Alice Goffman stated that
while hunting down a rival gang member, the amount of vengeance she had scared her
(Neyfakh). While this action is questionable, it was clouded by grief, anger, and sorrow.
On top of this we have Maggi, who when in time of crisis, felt an internal conflict at the
intersection of power and ritual. Which was more important? Exerting her power and
saving the life while disrespecting those whom she grew so close with? Maggi had
every intention of saving the life of that child, but was caught up in stress, fear, and
indecision. Under the pressures of this extremely stressful time, she was required to
make a decision that came with negative outcomes no matter which way she went.
The main takeaway I got from writing this paper is that ethics are probably the
most difficult aspect about any sort of study or research. Each individual person has
their own scope of view, which can return outcomes that differ and are often easy to
criticize. On top of this, making an ethical decision in a crisis is an extremely difficult
task. Which should be held higher? Ritual? Value? Or Power? Fighting with oneself to
make this decision in the short term can produce results that are not preferable, yet are
the best that they can be. It is possible to be critical of ethical decisions of a researcher,
however with the more and more difficult they become, and the more gray area there is,
an ethnographer should be criticized less and less. While it is easy to be the one to give
feedback about a situation, it is difficult for a bystander such as a reader to put
themselves inside the shoes of an anthropologist who lived a traumatic experience, and
who might still think about the decisions they made in the past. Ritual, Power, and Value
are all three highly prized aspects of culture, and it is of utmost importance that while
reading and judging the actions of an anthropologist, to find empathy and compassion
for these people who have been put in difficult and confusing circumstances.

Works Cited
"AAA Statements on Ethics." ​AAA Statements on Ethics - Participate & Advocate​.
American Anthropological Association, n.d. Web. 30 July 2017.
<​http://www.americananthro.org/ParticipateAndAdvocate/Content.aspx?Item
Number=1656​>.

Iphofen, Ron. "Research Ethics in Ethnography/Anthropology." ​European

Commission​ (n.d.): n. pag. Web.
<​http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/other/hi/ethics-guid
e-ethnog-anthrop_en.pdf​>.

Maggi, Wynne. "Participant/Observation." N.p., n.d. Web.

Neyfakh, Leon. "Yes, There Are Inaccuracies in Alice Goffman’s On the Run. She
Put Them There. On Purpose." ​Slate Magazine​. N.p., 18 June 2015. Web. 30
July 2017.
<​http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2015/06/alice_goffma
n_s_on_the_run_is_the_sociologist_to_blame_for_the_inconsistencies.html​>.

Protections, Office For Human Research. "The Belmont Report." ​HHS.gov​. US

Department of Health and Human Services, 15 Mar. 2016. Web. 30 July
2017.
<​https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/index.html#
xrespect​>.

Rosaldo, Renato. "Grief and a Headhunter's Rage." N.p., n.d. Web.

Scheper-Hughes, Nancy. "Death Without Weeping." ​Death, Mourning, and Burial;

A Cross-Cultural Reader​. N.p.: Blackwell, 2004. 179-93. Print.