http://www.jstor.org/stable/3563851 .

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The Hastings Center is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to IRB: Ethics and
Human Research.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 139.184.30.133 on Mon, 17 Nov 2014 09:21:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Iieiewo

Hm

Volume14 Number6

Sbc

November-December
1992

Research Ethics in Applied Anthropology

by PatriciaA. Marshall

Improving Readability of Consent Forms:

What the Computers May Not Tell You
by BarryT. Peterson, Steven J. Clancy,KayChampion,
and JerryW. McLarty

Respect for Persons and the Problem

of Informed Consent

How Many Lay Members Can You Have

in Your IRB?-An Overview of the Danish
System by Soren Holm

CALENDAR

INDEX

10

ANNOTATIONS

11

Research Ethics in Applied Anthropology

by PatriciaA. Marshall

The defining characteristics of applied anthropology are first, a strong

commitment
to social
change
through the application of anthropological concepts and skills in collaborative and interdisciplinary research, and second, a fundamental
belief in the importance of utilizing
The
anthropological
knowledge.
type of research conducted by applied anthropologists
may involve
evaluations of ongoing human behavior or interventions designed to
change that behavior. Recognizing
the inherent difficulties of applied
fieldwork, the National Association
for the Practice of Anthropology has
drafted a set of ethical guidelines that
address specific responsibilities incumbent on the anthropologist in advocacy or nonacademic roles:
Our primary responsibility is
to respect and consider the welfare and human rights of all
Patricia A. Marshall, PhD, is assistant director,Medical Humanities Program,Loyola University Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, Ill.

human subjects.3 Taken together,

the principles of respect for persons,
beneficence, and justice form a solid
basis for assessing ethical conduct in
applied anthropological studies.4 In
this paper, I will explore difficulties
encountered by anthropologists in
the application of ethical principles
human
reunderlying
subjects
search. Three areas are addressed:
informed consent, the protection of
confidentiality, and determinations
of risks and benefits. Issues surrounding IRB approval of anthropological research are also discussed.

categories of people affected by

decisions, programs or research
in which we take part ... 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
Ethical considerations in the design and implementation of applied
anthropological investigations are influenced significantly by the research
context, including the population
being studied and the institutional
sponsor. Like other applied social
scientists, anthropologists often confront unique ethical challenges because of the special nature of their
research and the subjects with whom
they work.
Although interpretations of moral
conduct vary among individuals,
and societies, three
communities,
basic principles
have dominated
ethical discussions of research with

Informed consent represents an

important application of the ethical
principle of respect for persons. The
provision of information to research
subjects, their comprehension of the
information, and their voluntary participation are vital to the consent
In biomedical research,
process.
adequate information for potential
subjects generally includes a description of research purposes and a
clear delineation of risks and benefits. However, the application of informed consent in social science research is problematic both from a
psychological and a moral point of
view.6 This is due, in part, to difficulties associated with determining the
degree of risk involved and the extent
to which subjects can be adequately
informed.7 Moreover, in applied anstudies,
especially
thropological
those involving ethnographic
and
qualitative methods, it may be difficult to predefine the exact nature and
scope of the study. Ethnographic
discusfieldnotes,
tape-recorded
sions, and information obtained in
open-ended interviews may cover a
wide range of topics, and not necessarily be limited to the specific focus
of investigation.
Linguistic barriers can also be obstacles to informed consent in apresearch. A
plied anthropological
translator is essential when subjects
speak a different language than the
investigator. The use of a translator,
however, creates a dual problem for
the anthropologist: first, the anthropologist must rely on the translator
to interpret the research objectives
correctly; second, the anthropologist
must depend on the translator to
follow through with the consent,
which means not only providing information, but also requesting participation in the study.
The nuances of linguistic behavior
and the inherent complexity of inter-

A Publicationof TheHastings Center,255 Elm Road, BriarcliffManor,NY 10510 @ 1992

This content downloaded from 139.184.30.133 on Mon, 17 Nov 2014 09:21:49 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

IRB
personal communication both contribute to the informed consent
process. In a recent study, Kaufert
and O'Neil examined the process of
signing consent agreements between
health professionals and Native
Canadians when negotiated through
a Native-speaking interpreter. While
the clinicians approached the consent process emphasizing a biomedical understanding of disease and
treatment, the Native patients drew
on their cultural understandings of
illness, their interpretations of hospital regulations, and their beliefs
about intergroup relations in the
broader society.
The nature and process of obtaining informed consent in nonwestern
cultures can be problematic.9For example, applying western standards
of research ethics to medical or social
studies conducted in developing
countries with different cultural
norms may be construed as a form of
ethical imperialism.10Maintaining a
posture of ethical relativism requires
that investigators are culturally sensitive to local customs. A relativist
perspective, however, does not license an investigator to conduct research without considering potential
risks and without striving to be informative about the purpose and consequences of the study.11 In particular, Angell cautions against an ethical
relativism that would promote the
exploitation or manipulation of Third
World populations in research that
would not be allowed in the investigator's home country.12
One problem surrounding informed consent in nonwestern settings involves identifying the appropriate person to provide consent,
especially when the concepts of autonomy and self-determination conflict with local customs that grant
decisionmaking authority to rehliious
elders or community leaders. The
practical aspects of obtaining consent
to conduct research from"authorities"
is not limited to nonwestern cultures.
Regardless of the specific cultural
setting, the implementation of an applied anthropological study normally
begins by initiating contact with key
persons at the community or institutional level.
An important justification for informed consent is that it provides
subjects with the opportunity to participate in research voluntarily. Freedom of choice requires an ability to
comprehend the meaning of the
study and the impact it may have on
one's life. Applied anthropologists,
however, often conduct studies with
institutionalizedindividualsorvulner-

able populations with limited autonomy. The voluntary nature of consent

is questionable when there is a possibility of coercion by institutional
authorities or social pressure from
community leaders. For example, in
an applied ethnographic study of
staff anger towards adolescents on a
locked psychiatric ward, Scheinfeld
and associates obtained informed
consent from staff participants and
the patients.15 Only one patient declined to participate in the study
during the eighteen-month ethnographic phase. Nevertheless,this particular study calls attention to the
implicit or explicit power of investigators and the institutions they represent. Staff members in an organizational environment
may feel
in
a "volunto
participate
obligated
tary"research project if they believe
their supervisors would frown on
nonparticipation. Similarly, adolescents on a locked psychiatric ward,
especially those hospitalized involuntarily, may feel forced to participate in a study out of fear of repercussions from hospital staff. In
closed institutional settings where
compliance is expected among personnel, residents, patients, or inmates, the degree to which subjects
are capable of voluntary participation may be limited.
Decisions related to research design influence the investigator's approach to informed consent, especially when traditional ethnographic
and qualitative methods are employed.16 In some cases, investigators suggest that obtaining informed
consent can or should be avoided
because the study involves negligible
or no risks or, if the true purpose of
the research was revealed, no one
would give consent.17 Spradley contends that the sensitivity of the research topic rarely justifies the absence of informed consent and that
ambiguous judgments of risk might
best be assessed by the subjects

cates covert techniques, suggesting

that the use of passive or active deception provides access to data not
obtainable by other means.20 Erikson, on the other hand, believes that
one is never justified in using1deception for research purposes. And
while Bernard condones passive deception in which observations do not
involve the manipulation of informants to elicit certain behavior, he is
more cautious about covert deception, noting that if detection risks
harm to others disguised participant
observation should not be considered.22
Bolton makes a compelling argument for using participant observation and passive deception in his
study of sexual behavior among gay
men in Belgium.23He is critical of the
superficiality that characterizes information gathered in standard epidemiological surveys of sex behavior,
particularly given the vital need for
accurate data that would contribute
to AIDS prevention programs. He argues that the special nature of sexuality and social constraints that inhibit frank discussions of sex
severely limit the effectiveness of a
survey approach. Bolton's ethnographic study using participant observation provided evidence which
challenged the Belgian Ministry of
Public Health's belief that gay men
had sufficiently reduced their risk
behavior for HIV and thus did not
require intensive AIDS education.
The importance of gathering accurate information is critical. However,
the use of covert methodologies in
applied anthropological studies must
be approached with caution. Subjects of research who inadvertently
learn they have been deceived may be
distrustful of research findings. In
this situation, it may be difficult to
apply study results effectively. Additionally, the use of deception may
prevent other researchers from conducting studies in the same locale or
themselves.18
organizational setting. It is not alThe use of subtle or overt deception ways possible, moreover, not to anrepresents one alternativeto informed ticipate the potential harm done by
consent. Opinions, however, remain disguised research.
divided in the ongoing debate over
whether deception is an ethicall ap- The Right to Privacy and the Problem
propriateresearch methodology. Anof Confidentiality
thropologists using covert research
The right to privacy implies that
methods in ethnographic studies encounter both practical and ethical individuals have control over infordilemmas, particularly when contro- mation and communication about
versial topics, such as sex behavior, themselves.24 In the context of redrug use, child abuse, or illegal ac- search, protection of confidentiality
tivities are being explored. Yetcertain suggests that an agreement has been
investigators believe that the use of made with study participants to limit
deception or other covert measures is access to private information. This is
necessary or warranted. Punch advo- particularly important given the
2

This content downloaded from 139.184.30.133 on Mon, 17 Nov 2014 09:21:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

November-December1992
populations with whom applied anthropologists work and the sensitive
nature of the information being collected, including, for example,
detailed descriptions of sexual behavior, drug use, and physical or
mental problems. Breaches of confidentiality could result in devastating consequences for individuals
participating in the research, in some
cases threatening their emotional,
physical, and economic well-being.
Studies involving populations engaged in illegal or stigmatized behavior present unique challenges.25
Leonard placed herself at personal
risk in soliciting subject participation
in her investigation of the sexual behavior of male clients of street prostitutes; her subjects were also at risk
if knowledge of their illicit sexual
transactions were made public.26 As
Leonard observes, individuals performing illegal activities "tend to be
distrustful of outsiders who probe
their attitudes, document their behaviors, and, perhaps most important, acknowledge their 'deviance.'"27
The issue here involves both the researcher's ability to elicit the participant's trust and the willingness of the
participant to divulge confidences.
Securing confidentiality can be
problematic for applied anthropologists working in institutionalized settings and community environments
in which the anonymity of participants is difficult to maintain. In certain circumstances, the assurance of
anonymity for subjects represents a
research ideal.28 Promises to secure
data and conceal identities and locations may be extended, but are
sometimes difficult to sustain as information is made public. Appliedanthropologists encounter difficulties
where the behavior of individuals is
closely monitored or in community
settings in which information about
individuals is easily accessed and
shared. Additionally, some investigators point to the special need to
protect confidentiality when interviewing multiple members of one
family. The anthropologist is obligated to create an environment of
trust in which informants understand that information that might
result in punitive sanctions or cause
anxiety for other family members will
not be divulged.
A different problem emerges when
the researcher experiences a conflict
of interest between the traditional
obligation to protect a subject's confidentiality and a broader social obligation to protect third parties who
may be endangered. Does an investigator have theright or the obligation

to disclose information secured in

the course of data collection if it will
prevent harm to a third party? In the
arena of social and behavioral research, the answer is not always
clear. In her discussion of ethical
problems in AIDS research, Levine
notes, "Inthis case, the primary conflict may be, not between the individual's interests and society's, but
between two competing social
claims-the advancement of knowledge and the-protection of third parties at risk.'
Another dilemma encountered in
protecting confidentiality concerns
court action that may expose an individual's identity through disclosure of study data. Hopper confronted this issue when he was asked
to be an expert witness for a class-action suit concerning the right to shelter for homeless men in New York.31
He was requested to produce his
fieldnotes for examination during the
trial; his concern was that the jobs of
his informants would be jeopardized
if it were disclosed that they had
spoken openly about their work and
the treatment of homeless men in
general. A compromise was reached
in which the notebooks remained
under court protection. Opposing
lawyers could study the fieldnotes in
the courtroom but were bound to
withhold information outside of
court. Hopper suggests that anthropologists consider using code names
in fieldnotes and other research
documents that might come under
public scrutiny.
To minimize problems of confidentiality, the U.S. Public Health Service
now has congressional authority to
provide certificates of confidentiality
to investigators working in sensitive
areas.32 These certificates should assure applied anthropologists and
their research subjects that some
legal protection will be provided. To
date, however, the legal standing of
these certificates has not been challenged in court proceedings.

context, applied anthropologists

must take into account the long-term
social and scientific consequences
that may result from investigations.
One issue surrounding the determination of risks and benefits concerns the anthropologist'scontrolover
the use of research findings; problems occur when study results are
withheld from subjects or purposefully used to manipulate, deceive, or
discriminate against them. Applied
anthropologistsoften workwith populations who are stigmatized because
of their sexual orientation, social status, ethnic background, or involvement in illegal activities. These individuals are especially vulnerable to
public discrimination and social controls.
Another issue relates to conflicts of
interest that arise when the anthropologist's allegiance to the individuals and community being served
competes with obligations to the institutional sponsors of the research.
The problem of advocacy is central to
this dilemma.33 The tension between
accountability and advocacy is situated within the context of a moral
commitment for active engagement
with others in relation to a specific
social or medical problem. Ultimately, the anthropologist must take
a stand. The difficulty, however, is
that neither advocacy nor accountability can be considered apart from
the interpretation, definition, and
translation of the research problem
and findings for both sponsors and
subjects. The anthropologist must
maintain a reflexive stance regarding
personal biases and their influence
on communication about the study.
Judgments regarding what constitutes a minimal or serious risk present additional problems in determining the potential harms and
benefits associated with applied anthropological studies. Considerable
ambiguity may surround assessments of risk because evaluations of
the advantages and drawbacks of
conducting a study depend upon individual and cultural value systems.
Assessments of Risks and Benefits
Moreover,in some cases a thorough
Determination of the risks and analysis of risks and benefits may not
benefits associated with research ap- be possible prior to conducting the
peals to and is justified by the ethical investigation. Assessments of risk
principle of beneficence. Minimally, are also more difficult when the conthe principle of beneficence obligates sequences of research appear to be
applied anthropologists to conduct negligible.
research only if some benefit could be
The appropriateness and impact of
derived for individuals or society. research design represents another
Like other investigators, anthropolo- factor in determining the risk/benefit
gists must decide whether the bene- ratio. For example, several ethical
fits of conducting a particular study questions arise in considering the
outweigh the potential risks imposed use of control groups in intervention
on research subjects. In the larger studies. The anthropologist must de3

This content downloaded from 139.184.30.133 on Mon, 17 Nov 2014 09:21:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

IRB
cide, first, who will be selected to
participate in the study, and second,
of these, who will be assigned to the
control and experimental groups. Randomization may be justified when the
benefit of the intervention is not fully
determined until after the study is
completed.34 Problems occur, however, if it is known prior to the study
that the control group would be
denied a potential benefit.
Institutional Review Boards and
Anthropological Research
Institutional review boards have
had a profound impact on the regulation of research with human subjects. There is general consensus
that the IRB's mandate is to protect
individuals from potential harm that
may result from participation in research projects. However, studies of
the nature and function of review
committees call attention to the ways
in which implementin
this charge
Veatch conmay be problematic.
tends that despite having representatives from nonscientific fields
and from the community, most IRBs
are dominated by scientists reviewing the research protocols of colleagues and friends. He expresses
concern that professional bias may
hinder reviewers' objectivity regarding consideration of harm to research
subjects and that the high value
placed on furthering scientific research among most (professional)
IRB members may outweigh the concerns of a lay member. Veatch argues
that both psychological pressure to
reach a consensus and the inclination to accept the arguments of a
"professional" influence assessments
of studies. A minority voice, while
recognized, is often not heeded in
making the final decision about
scientific merit and potential harm to
research participants.
Anthropologists and other social
scientists
have expressed serious
reservations about the applicability
of IRB regulations for basic and applied social research.37 Critics argue
enthat many
ethical
issues
countered in social science research,
especially ethnographic or phenomenological studies, are not addressed
by the federal regulations. Anthropologists working from a university
or federally funded institutional base
often confront obstacles in meeting
standards for IRB approval. For example, in a study of patients' fear of
contracting AIDS from physicians,
Marshall and associates were required by the IRB to obtain written
informed consent from each person

CALENDAR
January 14-15 1993 The National Institutes of Health and the Food
and Drug Administration, in coordination with the University of South
Florida, will sponsor a southeastern
workshop entitled "Barriers to
Informed Consent: Language, Age Factors, Trauma, and Women/Minority Issues" to be held at the Sheraton Sand Key Resort in Clearwater
Beach, Florida. The conference will address barriers to informed consent
in three main areas: mental competence, ethnic and gender issues, and
research with children and the elderly. For information: Ms. Eileen
Highsmith, Executive Secretary, University of South Florida, 4202 E.
Fowler Avenue (MP.FAO-126), Tampa, FL 33620-7900; (813) 974-2897.
workshop, "Contemporary Issues
February 12-13 A southwestern
in Human Subject Research: Challenges for Today's IRBs," to be held in
coordination with Arizona State University at the Sheraton Tempe Mission Palms Hotel, Tempe, AZ. The program is designed to be a practical
working session exploring such ethical/legal issues as regulations and
assurances, categorization of research protocols, experimental design
and scientific merit, and conflict of interest. For information: Ms. Carol
Jablonski, IRB Coordinator, Office of the Assistant Vice President for
Research, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-3403; (602) 9656788.
interviewed in outpatient waiting
areas.38 The IRB insisted that a
"boiler plate" disclaimer used for all
biomedical clinical research within
the university be attached to the informed consent statement since the
within the
study was conducted
medical center. The university attachment indicated that biomedical
or behavioral research in which the
subject has agreed to participate involves the risk of injury and that
emergency medical treatment for
physical injuries resulting from participation would be provided. The
language suggested a scope of potential problems considerably beyond
the intended purpose of the study.
Ambiguity surrounding the extent
of IRB regulatory purview creates additional difficulties for anthropologists. For example, in their report on
a failed attempt to conduct unfunded
ethnographic student research, Murphy and Johannsen found that there
are no clear guidelines distinguishing research conducted by students
for the purposes of education and
research conducted by faculty and
staff.39 The review process may be
particularly problematic in evaluations of short-term participant-observation studies intended as trainin anthropological
ing exercises
fieldwork methods. Moreover, while
IRBs protect human subjects of research, these investigators found
that student researchers have little
recourse if they are the victims of
ethical misconduct or abuse.
Education and advocacy provide
the best means of achieving a fair and
realistic examination of anthropo-

logical and other social science projects. One step toward informing IRB
members about the nature, purpose,
and unique constraints in anthropological investigations might be for
professional associations to prepare
a written statement outlining general
goals and methods. This statement
could be distributed to IRB committee members; it might also be included with materials presented to
IRB members by anthropological inDisciplinary
reprevestigators.
sentation on the IRB, and in lieu of
this, identification of an "advocate"
for anthropological research among
IRB members, may also facilitate the
review process.
Conclusions
Ethical principles governing applied anthropological research are
not unique to this discipline. Respect
for persons, beneficence, and justice
are fundamental concerns for any
scientist. Constraints imposed by the
specific research context influence
the way in which these principles are
expressed in the implementation and
design of a study. In this regard,
anthropologists may encounter more
obstacles than other social scientists, especially anthropologists engaged in policy-related research in
which ethnographic and qualitative
measures are employed. The challenge for the applied anthropologist
is to maintain scientific and moral
integrity in a research reality of competing social values and ambiguous
social facts.

This content downloaded from 139.184.30.133 on Mon, 17 Nov 2014 09:21:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

November-December1992
Note
This paper is an adaptation of the chapter, "Research Ethics in Applied Medical Anthropology,"by Patricia
Marshall, in TrainingManual in Medical Anthropology,ed. Carole E. Hill.
Washington, D.C.: American Anthropological Association, 1991.
References
1. Stull,DD, and Schensul,J: Colaborative
Researh and SocialChangeBoulder,
CoL:WestviewPress, 1987;VanWilligen,
J: Anthrpologyin Use:A SourceBookon
Boulder,Co.:
AnthropokogicalPractice.
WestviewPress, 1991.
Association:
2. AmericanAnthropological
Memoto membersof the associationfrom
EugeneSterud,executivedirector,conAssociatainingunit ballotfor"National
tionforthe PracticeofAnthropology:
15
EthicalGuidelinesforPractitioners,"
March1990,p. 7.
3. U.S.NationalCommissionforthe Protectionof HumanSubjectsof Biomedical
and BehavioralResearch:TheBelmontRecples and Gukieiinesfor
port-in
of HumanSubjectsofRethePmtection
search.Washington,D.C.:U.S. Government PrintingOffice,1978;Katz,J:
Experiment withHumanBeings.New
York:RussellSage, 1972;Levine,RJ:
Ethcs and theRegulation
of CinicalReUrbanand
search;2d ed. Baltimore:
1986.
Schwarzenberg,
4. Marshall,P:Researchethicsin applied
InTriningManual
medicalanthropology.
inMedicalAnthroplogy,ed. CEHill,
Washington,D.C.:AmericanAnthropologicalAssociation,1991.
5. Faden,RR,and Beauchamp,TL:A History
and Theoryof/ fonned Consent.New
UniversityPress,1986.
York:Oxfodbrd
6. Sieber,JE, ed.: he EthicsofSocialResecardiSureys andEleriments. New
York-Springer-Verlag,
1982;Cassel,J:
Riskand benefitto subjectsof fieldwork.
1980;82: 28-41.
AmericanSoddcogist
Rynkiewich,MA,and Spradley,JP:Ethics
andAnthopology:DilemmasinFfeldwork
NewYork:John Wiley,1976.
7. Kimmel,AJ:Ethicsand ValuesinApplied
SocialResearchNewburyPark,Calif.:
Sage Publications,1988;Adair,J G:
Dushenko,'W, and Lindsay,RC:Ethical
regulationsand theirimpacton research
practice.AmericanPsychologist1985;40:

Ethicsin
10.Angell,M:Ethicalimperialism:
clinicalreinternationalcollaborative
search.NEJM1988;319 (16):1081-83;
Newton,LH:Ethicalimperialismand informedconsent IRB1990; 12(3):10-11.
11. DickensB, Gostin,L,and Levine,R J,
eds.:Researchon human populations:
Nationaland international
guidelines.
Law,Medcine&HealthCare1991; 19(3NA
The
ethical
4);Christakis,
designof an
AIDSvaccinetrialin Africa.HastingsCenterReport1988; 18(3):31-37;Barry,M:
of human invesEthicalconsiderations
tigationin developingcountries:TheAIDS
dilemma.NEJM1988;319(16):1083-86.
12. Angell,Ethicalimperialism,
p. 1082.
13. DeCraemer,
W:A cross-cultural
perspectiveon personhood.MilxbankMemorial
FInd Quarterly1983;6(1):19-34;Kunstadter,P:Medicalethicsin cross-cultural
and multi-cultural
perspectives.Social
Science and Medicine 1980; 14B: 289-96;

Fabrega,H:An ethnomedicalperspective
of medicalethics.JournalofMedicineand
Philosophy.1990; 15:593-625;Lieban,
RW:Medicalanthropology
and the comparativestudyofmedicalethics.InSocial
SciencePerspecties onMedicalEthics.ed.
G Weisz.Philadelphia:
Universityof PennsylvaniaPress,1990,pp. 221-39;
and bioethics.
Marshall,P:Anthropology
MedicalAnthropology
Quarterly1992;
6(1): 49-73.

14. VanWilligen,J, Rylko-Bauer,

B, and
A, eds.:MakingOurResearch
McElroy,
Useful.Boulder,Co.:WestviewPress,
1989.
15. Scheinfeld,D, Marshall,P,and Beer,D:
Knowledgeutilizationstructures,
processes,and alliancesin a psychiatric
hospitalstudy.InMakingOurResearch
Usefl. ed. J VanWillegen,B Rylko-Bauer,
andA McElroy,Boulder,Co.:Westview
Press,1989, pp. 201-18.
16. Werner,0, and Schoepfle,GM:SystematicFfelduWrk.
VolumeI:Foundationsof
and ntervwiewing.
Beverly
Ethnography
Hills,Calif.:Sage Publications,1987.
17. Punch,M.:ThePlitics andEthicsofFieldwork.BeverlyHills,Calif.:Sage Publications, 1986.
18. Spradley,JP:Particlpant
Observation.
NewYorklHolt,Rinehart,1980.
19. Douglas,JD:Investigative
SocialResearch.BeverlyHills,Calif.:Sage Publications, 1976;Sieber,J E: Deceptionin
socialresearchII:Evaluatingthe potential
for harm or wrong. IRB 1983; 5(1): 1-6;

Oliansky,A A confederate's
perspective
on deception.Ethicsand Behavior1991;
1(4):
20. Punch,The oliticsand EIthics
ofFieldwork,p. 303.
21. Erikson,K A commenton disguisedobservationin sociology.SocialProblems
1982; 14:366-73.
22. Bernard,HR ResearchMethodsin CulNewburyPark,Calif.:
lturaAnthrcplglogy.
Sage Publications,1988.
23. Bolton,R:Mappingterraincognita:Sex
researchforAIDSprevention,an urgent
and the Law 1986; 26(4): 305-307;
agendaforthe nineties.InTheTimeof
Levine,RJ:Informedconsent Some chalAIDS:
SocialAnalysis, Theory,and
lengesto the universalvalidityof the westMethod.ed. G Herdtand S Lindenbaum.
model.InDevelopment
emrn
oflntemrnational NewburyPark,Calif.:SagePublications,
Eldemioogical ReEhicalGuidelinesfor
1992.
seandhand Puctice.Geneva:CIOMS,
24. Westin,A F:PrivacyandFreedom.New
1991,pp. 47-58.
York:Antheneum,1968.
59-72.

8. Kaufert,JM,and Oleil, JD: Biomedical

ritualsand informedconsent:Native
Canadiansand the negotiationof clinical
trust.InSocialSciencePerspectiveson
MedicalEthics.ed. GWeiszPhiladelphia:
UniversityofPennsylvaniaPress, 1990,
pp. 41-64.
9. Ekunwe,EO,and KesseLRWI:Informed
consentin the developingworld.Hastings
1984; 14(3):22-24;AdityCenterReport
anjee:Informedconsent Issuesfor
developingcountries.Medicin,Science

25. VanMaanen,J: The moralfix On the

ethicsof fieldworkIn ContermporyFIeld
Researdh,ed. RMEmerson.Boston:Little,
Brown,1983,pp. 269-87;Stepick,A, and
Stepick,C:Peoplein the shadows:Survey
researchamongHaitiansin Miami.
HumanOrganization
1990;49(1):64-77;
Page,JB, et al.:Intravenousdruguse and
HIVinfectionin Miami.MedicalAnthrpology Quarterly 1992 4(1): 56-71.

26. Leonard,T:Maleclientsoffemalestreet
prostitutes:Unseenpartnersin sexualdisease transmission.MedibalAnthrcpology
Quarterly1990; 1990;4(1):41-55.
27. Leonard,Maleclients,p. 42.
28. Bulmer,M,ed.:SocialResearchEthics.
London:Macmillan,1982.
29. LaRossa,R, Bennett,LA, and Gelles,R:
Ethicaldilemmasin qualitativefamilyresearch.JournalofManiageand Family
1981;43: 303-13.
30. Levine,C:AIDSand the ethicsofhuman
subjectsresearch.InAIDSandEthics,ed.
FGReamer.NewYorkColumbiaUniversityPress, 1991 pp. 77-104, at p. 87.
31. Hopper,K Researchfindingsas testias exmony:A noteon the ethnographer
1990;
pertwitness.HumanOrganization
4(1):41-55.
32. Mason,J: Researchconfidentiality
protection-certificateof confidentiality-interim
guidance(June8). Washington,D.C.:Officeof the AssistantSecretaryforHealth,
1989.

33. Paine,R:Advocacyand Anthropology.

St
InstituteofSocial
Johns, Newfoundland:
and EconomicResearch,MemorialUniversityof Newfoundland,1985;Partridge,
WL:Towarda theoryof practice.InAp-

ed.EM
inAmerica.
pliedAnthrqlogy

NewYork:ColumEddyand WLPartridge,
bia UniversityPress,1987,pp. 221-33.
34. Campbell,DT,and Cecil,JS:A proposed
systemof regulationforthe protectionof
participantsin low-riskareasof applied
socialresearch.InTheEthicsof SocialResearch.ed JE Sieber,NewYork:SpringerVerlag,1982.
35. Levine,R,Ethicsand theRegulation
of
ClinicalResearch,pp. 326-28.
36. Veatch,RM:ThePatientas Partner:
A
Ethics.
TheoryofHumanExperimentation
IndianaUniversityPress,
Bloomington:
1987.

37. Gray,BH:Theregulatorycontextof social

research.Theworkof the NationalCommissionforthe Protectionof HumanSubjects. InDevianceandDecency:TheEthics
ofResearc withHumanSubjects,ed. CB
Klockarsand FWO'Conner.
BeverlyHills:
Sage Publications,1979,pp. 1197-1224;
Wax,ML,and CassellJ, eds.:FederalRegEthicalIssues and SocialReulationzs:
seard1.Boulder,Co.:WestviewPress,
1979;Seiler,LH,and Muirtha,JM:Federalregulationof socialresearchusing
"humansubjects":
A criticalassessment.
1980; 15: 146-57.
AmericanSooddogist
38. Marshall,P,et al.:Patients'fearof contractingthe acquiredimmunodeficiency
syndromefromphysicians.ArchivesofInternalMedicine 1990; 150: 1501-1506.

39. Murphy,MD,and Johannsen,A Ethical

obligationsand federalregulationsin
ethnographicresearchand anthropological education.HumanOrganization
1990;
49(2): 127-34.

This content downloaded from 139.184.30.133 on Mon, 17 Nov 2014 09:21:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions