Researchers recently have argued that offering to share research results with study participants should be an “ethical imperative.” This article considers that suggestion in light of the practice of ethnographic, particularly anthropological, research. Sharing results is discussed in relation to several issues, e.g., whether it occurs during or after completion of a project, whether the research is long-term, the complexities involved in depositing field materials in archives, the changing politics of ethnographic research, research not concerned with communities, situations in which participants and the anthropologist may be in danger, and changing styles of ethnographic research. I argue that, ideally, sharing should be a regular component of ethnographic research but should not be an ethical requirement. Given the complexity, variety and changing political contexts of ethnographic research, implementing such a requirement would often be practically impossible and sometimes would be inadvisable. I recommend instead that research ethics boards educate themselves about the nature of ethnographic research. Further, they should approach decision making on the issue of data or results sharing on a case-by-case basis. For researchers, I recommend that discussion of data and result sharing should become part of the education of all ethnographers and that discussion of the issue should be fostered.
AkinD., & CreelyK. (2002). A Kwaio case study from the Melanesian Archive. In JaarsmaS. R. (Ed.), Handle with care: Ownership and control of ethnographic materials (pp. 81–93). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
2.
AlbroRobert (2007). Anthropology's terms of engagement with security. Anthropology News, 48(1), 20–21.
American Indian Law Center. (1999). Model Tribal Research Code (3rd ed.). Albuquerque, NM: American Indian Law Center.
7.
BellJ.G.BradyM., & CopelandL.J.The ethics of reporting and disseminating results of clinical research trials. Cancer, 100, 1107–1109.
8.
BernardH.R. (2005). Research methods in anthropology: Qualitative and quantitive approaches. (4th ed.). Lanham, MD., Altamira Press.
9.
BishopRussell. (2005). Freeing ourselves from neo-colonial domination of research: A Kaupapa Maori approach to creating knowledge. In DenzinN. K., & LincolnY. S. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 109–138). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
10.
BosterJames (2006). Towards IRB reform. Anthropology News47(5), 21–22.
11.
BourgoisP. (2002). In search of respect: Selling crack in El Barrio (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
12.
BrettellC.B. (Ed.). (1996). When they read what we write: The politics of ethnography. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.
13.
BrownM.F. (1998). Can culture be copyrighted?Current Anthropology, 39, 193–222.
14.
BurawoyMichael (1991). Teaching participant observation. In BurawoyM.BurtonA.FergusonA. A.FoxK.GamsonJ.HurstL.KurzmanC.SalzingerL.SchiffmanJ., and UiS., Ethnography unbound: Power and resistance in the modern metropolis (pp. 291–344). Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
15.
BurgessM.M. (2001). Beyond consent: Ethical and social issues in genetic testing. Nature Reviews Genetics, 2(2), 147–151.
16.
Canadian Institutes of Health Research. (2005). CIHR guidelines for health research involving aboriginal peoples—draft for consultation. Retrieved September 20, 2006 from http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/29134.html#29.
17.
Canadian Sociology and Anthropology Association. (1994). Statement of professional ethics. Retrieved August 24, 2006 from http://www.csaa.ca/structure/Code.htm.
18.
CastellanoM.B. (2004). Ethics of aboriginal research. Journal of Aboriginal Health, 1(1), 98–114.
19.
ChambersA.ChambersK.CountsD.CountsD.FalgoutS., & GuyN. (2002). Epilogue: Returning ethnographic materials. In JaarsmaS. R. (Ed.), Handle with care: Ownership and control of ethnographic materials (pp. 211–214). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
20.
CliffordJames and MarcusGeorge, (Eds.) (1986). Writing culture: The poetics and politics of ethnography. Berkeley: University of California Press.
21.
CliggetL. (2002). Multigenerations and multidisciplines: Inheriting fifty years of Gwembe Tonga research. In KemperR. V., & RoyceA. P. (Eds.), Chronicling cultures: Long-term field research in anthropology (pp. 239–251). Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press.
22.
CruickshankJulie (1993). The politics of ethnography in the Canadian North. In DyckNoel and WaldramJames (Eds.). Anthropology, public policy and native peoples in Canada. (pp. 133–145). Montreal & Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press.
23.
DavisDena S. (2000). Groups, communities, and contested identities in genetic research. Hastings Center Report, 30(6), 38–45.
24.
DavisDona L. (1996). Unintended consequences: The myth of “the return” in anthropological fieldwork. In BrettellC. B. (Ed.), When they read what we write: The politics of ethnography (pp. 27–36). Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.
25.
DeloriaV.Jr. (1969). Custer died for your sins: An Indian manifesto. New York: Macmillan.
26.
DenzinN.K., & LincolnY.S. (2005). Preface. In DenzinN.K., & LincolnY. S. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. ix–xix). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
DickertN., & SugarmanJ. (2005). Ethical goals of community consultation in research. American Journal of Public Health, 95(7), 1123–1127.
30.
FernandezC.V.KodishE., & WeijerC. (2003). Informing study participants of research results: An ethical imperative. IRB, 25, 12–19.
31.
FernandezC.V.SkedgelC., & WeijerC. (2004). The ethics of reporting and disseminating results of clinical research trials. Cancer, 100, 1107–1109.
32.
Fluehr-LobbanC. (2003). Ethics and anthropology 1890–2000: A review of issues and principles. In Fluehr-LobbanC. (Ed.), Ethics and the profession of anthropology: Dialogue of ethically conscious practice (2nd ed. ed., pp. 1–28). Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press.
33.
FosterG.M. (2002). A half century of field research in Tzintzuntzan. In KemperR.V., & RoyceA.P. (Eds.), Chronicling cultures: Long-term field research in anthropology (pp. 252–283). Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press.
34.
GarciaMaria Elena (2000). Ethnographic responsibility and the anthropological endeavor: Beyond identity discourse. Anthropological Quarterly, 73(2), 89–101.
35.
GeertzClifford (2002). An inconstant profession: The anthropological life in interesting times. Annual Review of Anthropology31, 1–19.
36.
GlazierS.D. (1996). Responding to the anthropologist: When the Spiritual Baptists of Trinidad read what I write about them. In BrettellC. B. (Ed.), When they read what we write: The politics of ethnography (pp. 37–48). Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.
37.
GoldsteinDaniel (2002). Desconfianza and problems of representation in urban ethnography. Anthropological Quarterly, 75(3), 485–517.
38.
GreenwoodD.J., & LevinM. (2005). Reform of the social sciences, and of universities through action research. In DenzinN. K., & LincolnY.S. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 43–64). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
39.
HaggertyKevin D. (2004). Ethics creep: Governing social science research in the name of ethics. Qualitative Sociology27(4), 391–414.
HopkinsM. (1996). Is anonymity possible? writing about refugees in the United States. In BrettellC. B. (Ed.), When they read what we write: The politics of ethnography (pp. 121–130). Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.
42.
HowellN. (1990). Surviving fieldwork. Washington, D.C.: American Anthropological Association.
43.
Interagency Advisory Panel on Research Ethics (2004). Giving Voice to the Spectrum. Ottawa.
44.
JaarsmaS.R. (Ed.). (2002). Handle with care: Ownership and control of ethnographic materials. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
45.
JaarsmaS.R. (2002). Thinking through repatriation: Introduction. In JaarsmaS. R. (Ed.), Handle with care: Ownership and control of ethnographic materials (pp. 1–13). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
46.
KaufertJ.GlassK.C., & FreemanW.L. (2004). Background paper on issues of group, community or first nation consent in health research (Contract No.: 270-03-0042). Working Paper Commissioned by the Aboriginal Ethics Policy Development Project, Canadian Institutes of Health Research and Institute for Aboriginal Peoples Health.
47.
KemperR.V., & RoyceA.P. (Eds.). (2002). Chronicling cultures: Long-term field research in anthropology. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press.
48.
Kovats-BernatJ.C. (2002). Negotiating dangerous fields: Pragmatic strategies for field work amid violence and terror. American Anthropologist, 104, 1–15.
49.
LassiterL.E. (2005). The Chicago guide to collaborative ethnography. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
50.
LawlessE. (2000). 'Reciprocal ethnography: No one said it was easy. Journal of Folklore Research, 37, 197–205.
51.
LedermanRena (2006). Introduction: Anxious borders between work and life in a time of bureaucratic ethics regulation. American Ethnologist33(4): 477–481.
LeeR.B., & BieseleM. (2002). Local cultures and global systems: The Ju/'hoansi-!Kung and their ethnographers fifty years on. In KemperR. V., & RoyceA. P. (Eds.), Chronicling cultures: Long-term field research in anthropology (pp. 160–190). Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press.
54.
LevineR.J. (1988). Ethics and regulation of clinical research. New Haven: Yale University Press.
55.
MacNeilS.D., & FernandezC.V. (2006). Informing research participants of research results: Analysis of Canadian university based research ethics board policies. Journal of Medical Ethics, 32, 49–54.
56.
MannH. (2002). Research ethics committees and public dissemination of clinical trial results. Lancet, 360, 406–408.
57.
MarcusGeorge E., and FischerMichael M.J.. 1986. Anthropology as cultural critique: An experimental moment in the human sciences. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
58.
MarshallP. A., & BergJ. W. (2006). Protecting communities in biomedical research. American Journal of Bioethics, 6(3), 28–30.
59.
Medical Research Council of Canada, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, & Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. (1998). Tri-council policy statement: Ethical conduct for research involving humans.
60.
National Bioethics Advisory Commission. (1999). Research involving human biological materials: Ethical issues and policy guidance. Rockville, MD: U.S. Government Printing Office.
61.
National Health and Medical Research Council. (2003). Values and ethics: Guidelines for ethical conduct in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health research. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.
62.
NordstromC., & RobbenA.C.G.M. (Eds.). (1995). Fieldwork under fire: Contemporary studies of violence and survival. Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press.
63.
NutiPaul (2006). US security and intelligence commission charts ethnographic course. Anthropology News47(9), 19.
64.
PartridgeA.H., & WinerE.P. (2002). Informing clinical trial participants about study results. Journal of the American Medical Association, 288(3), 363–365.
65.
PoffDeborah C. (2006). The importance of story-telling: Research protocols in aboriginal communities. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics1(3), 27–28.
66.
PoseyD. A. (1990). Intellectual property rights and just compensation for indigenous knowledge. Anthropology Today, 6, 13–16.
67.
PriceDavid (1998). Cold war anthropology: Collaborators and victims of the national security state. Identities4(3–4), 389–430.
68.
PriceDavid. (2002). Interlopers and invited guests: On anthropology's witting and unwitting links to intelligence agencies. Anthropology Today18, 16–21.
69.
PriceDavid. (2003). Subtle means and enticing carrots: The impact of funding on American cold war anthropology. Critique of Anthropology23, 373–401.
70.
PriceDavid. (2004). Threatening Anthropology: McCarthyism and the FBI's surveillance of activist anthropologists. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
71.
RavitskyVardit & WilfondBenjamin S. (2006). Disclosing individual genetic results to research participants. American Journal of Bioethics6(6), 8–17.
72.
SchnarchB. (2004). Ownership, control, access, and possession (OCAP) or self-determination applied to research: A critical analysis of contemporary First Nations research and some options for First Nations communities. Journal of Aboriginal Health, 1(1), 80–95.
73.
ScudderT., & ColsonE. (2002). Long-term research in Gwembe Valley, Zambia. In KemperR. V., & RoyceA. P. (Eds.), Chronicling cultures: Long-term field research in anthropology (pp. 197–238). Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press.
74.
SharpR.R., & FosterM. (2000). Involving study populations in the review of genetic research. Journal of Law Medicine & Ethics, 28(1), 41-+.
75.
SharpR.R. & FosterM.W. (2002). Community involvement in the ethical review of genetic research: Lessons from American Indian and Alaska Native populations. Environmental Health Perspectives, 110, 145–148.
76.
SlukaJ. (Ed.). (2000). Death squad: The anthropology of state terror. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
77.
SlukaJ. (1995). Reflections on managing danger in fieldwork: Dangerous anthropology in Belfast. In NordstromC., & RobbenA.C.G.M. (Eds.), Fieldwork under fire: Contemporary studies of violence and survival (pp. 276–294). Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press.
78.
SmithL.T. (2005). On tricky ground: Researching the native in the age of uncertainty. In DenzinN.K., & LincolnY.S. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 85–108). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
79.
StanleyN. (1998). Being ourselves for you: The global display of cultures. London: Middlesex University Press.
80.
TolichM. & FitzgeraldM. (2006). If ethics committees were designed for ethnography. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 1(2), 71–78.
University of California at San Diego, Social Sciences and Humanities Library & Melanesian Studies Resource Center. (n.d.). Guide to archival and library resources. Retrieved Sept, 12, 2006 from http://sshl.ucsd.edu/melanesia/.
83.
Van den HoonaardWill (2002). Walking the tightrope: Ethical issues for qualitative researchers. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
84.
WeijerC. (1999). Protecting communities in research: Philosophical and pragmatic challenges. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 8, 501–513.
85.
WeijerC. (2000). Benefit-sharing and other protections for communities in genetic research. Clinical Genetics, 58(5), 367–368.
86.
WilkinsonT.M. (2004). Individualism and the ethics of research on humans. HEC Forum, 16(1), 6–26.
WeijerC.GoldsandG., & EmanuelE.J. (1999). Protecting communities in research: Current guidelines and limits of extrapolation. Nature Genetics, 23(3), 275–280.
89.
ZulaikaJ. (1995). The anthropologist as terrorist. In NordstromC., & RobbenA.C.G.M. (Eds.), Fieldwork under fire: Contemporary studies of violence and survival (pp. 206–222). Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press.
