Anonymity, according to Tilley and Woodthorpe, refers to removing or obscuring participant information, whereas “confidentiality refers to the management of private information.” Both are major considerations for ethics review boards, but can be challenges when “studying up” in qualitative research because of the depth, precision, and uniqueness of the information, and the prominence of research participants. In anthropology, providing detailed and nuanced accounts of particular spaces, events, and conditions is essential. Actions taken to hide or gloss over these particulars would impede the ability to demonstrate authenticity, validity, and verisimilitude. As social science moves into field sites such as cutting-edge genomics, where when studying up, participants through their particular contributions might be identified, strategies to decrease the friction between descriptive methodologies and the requirement for anonymity need to be developed. We conclude with recommendations for researchers and members of research ethics boards regarding how to anticipate and mitigate this tension.
AamotH.KohalC. D.RichterD.Knaup-GregoriP. (2013). Pseudonymization of patient identifiers for translational research. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision-Making, 13, 75.
2.
BurgessR. G. (1985). The whole truth? Some ethical problems of research in a comprehensive school. In BurgessR. G. (Ed.), Strategies of educational research: Qualitative methodsLondon: Falmer.
3.
Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, & Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. (2010). Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans. Retrieved from www.pre.ethics.gc.ca
4.
EdwardsE. (2007). An ethics for working up? Japanese corporate scandals and rethinking lessons about fieldwork. Critical Asian Studies, 39, 561–582.
5.
FassinD. (2006). The end of ethnography as collateral damage of ethical regulation?American Ethnologist, 33(4), 522-524.
6.
GeertzC. (1973). The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays. New York: Basic Books.
7.
GiordanoJ.O’ReillyM.TaylorH.DograN. (2007). Confidentiality and autonomy: The challenge(s) of offering research participants a choice of disclosing their identity. Qualitative Health Research, 17, 264–275.
8.
GoodwinD.PopeC.MortM.SmithA. (2003). Ethics and ethnography: An experiential account. Qualitative Health Research, 13, 567–577. doi:10.1177/1049732302250723
9.
GustersonH. (1997). Studying up revisited. PoLAR: Political and Legal Anthropology Review, 20, 114–119.
10.
HeatherlyR. D.LoukidesG.DennyJ. C.HainesJ. L.RodenD. M.MalinB. A. (2013). Correction: Enabling genomic-phenomic association discovery without sacrificing anonymity. PLoS One, 8(2), e53875. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0053875
11.
HoeyerK.DahlagerL.LynoeN. (2005). Conflicting notions of research ethics: The mutually challenging traditions of social scientists and medical researchers. Social Science & Medicine, 61, 1731–1749.
12.
KaiserK. (2009). Protecting respondent confidentiality in qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research, 19, 1632–1641. doi:10.1177/1049732309350879
13.
KellyA. (2009). In defence of anonymity: Rejoining the criticism. British Educational Research Journal, 35, 431–445.
14.
LatourB. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to Actor-Network Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
15.
LawlessE. (1992). ‘I was afraid someone like you…an outsider…would misunderstand’: Negotiating interpretive differences between ethnographers and subjects. Journal of American Folklore, 105, 302–314.
16.
MilesS. H. (2004). The Hippocratic Oath and the ethics of medicine. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
17.
NaderL. (1969). Up the anthropologist: Perspectives gained from “studying up.” In HymesD. (Ed.), Reinventing anthropology (pp. 284–311). New York: Pantheon Books.
18.
NesporJ. (2000). Anonymity and place in qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 6, 546–569.
19.
RichardsonL. (2004). Writing: A method of inquiry. In Hesse-BiberS. N.LeavyP. (Eds.), Approaches to qualitative research: A reader on theory and practice (pp. 473–495). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
20.
Scheper-HughesN. (2000). Ire in Ireland. Ethnography, 1, 117–140.
21.
Scheper-HughesN. (2009). Making anthropology public. Anthropology Today, 25, 1–3.
22.
SimpsonB. (2011). Ethical moments: Future directions for ethical review and ethnography. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 17, 377–393.
23.
SynderL. (2002). Confidentiality and anonymity: Promises and practices. In van den HoonardW. (Ed.), Walking the tightrope: Ethical issues for qualitative researchers (pp. 70–78). Toronto, ON, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
The Nuremberg Code. (1949). Trials of war criminals before the Nuremberg military tribunals under control council law No. 10, Vol. 2, pp. 181-182. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1949. Retrieved from http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/NT_war-criminals_Vol-II.pdf
26.
TilleyL.WoodthorpeK. (2011). Is it the end of anonymity as we know it? A critical examination of the ethical principle of anonymity in the context of 21st Century demands on the qualitative researcher. Qualitative Research, 11, 197–212.
Van den HoonaardW. (2003). Is anonymity an artifact in ethnographic research?Journal of Academic Ethics, 1, 141–151.
29.
WalfordG. (2005). Research ethical guidelines and anonymity. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 28, 83–93.
30.
World Medical Association. (1964). Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. Helsinki, Finland. Retrieved from http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/b3/
