This paper explores ethical dilemmas in situated fieldwork ethics concerning ethnographic studies of adolescent students. While consequentialist and deontological ethics form the basis of the ethical stances shared by ethnographers and research ethics committees, the interpretation of those principles may diverge in school-based ethnography with adolescent students because of the particular role of the adult ethnographer vis-à-vis developmentally immature adolescents not held legally responsible for many of their actions. School ethnographers attempt to build trust with adolescent participants in order to learn about their hidden cultural worlds, which may involve activities that are very harmful to the youths involved. They face many difficult and sometimes unexpected choices, including whether to intervene and how to represent events and adolescents in published findings. Scenarios with examples drawn from research conducted in public high schools are used to illustrate and explicate dilemmas in formal research and latent insider/outsider roles and relations involving harmful adolescent behaviors, advocacy, and psychological trauma. Also examined are analytical procedures used to construct interpretations leading to representations of research participants in the resulting publication.
BoskC. L. & De VriesR. G. (2004). Bureaucracies of mass deception: Institutional review boards and the ethics of ethnographic research. Annals, 595, 249–263.
2.
CaulfieldM. D. (1979). Participant observation or partisan participation? In HuizerG. & MannheimB. (Eds.), The politics of anthropology: From colonialism and sexism toward a view from below (pp. 309–318). The Hague, Netherlands: Mouton.
3.
CollinsP. H. (1986). Learning from the outsider within: The sociological significance of black feminist thought. Social Problems, 33, 14–32.
4.
di NorciaV. (2006). The ethics in human research ethics. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 1(2), 1–2.
5.
DingwellR. (1980). Ethics and ethnography. Sociological Review, 28(4), 871–891.
6.
EmondR. (2005). Ethnographic research methods with children and young people. In GreeneS. & HoganD. (Eds.), Researching children's experience: Methods and approaches (pp. 123–139). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
FineG. A. & SandstromK. L. (1988). Knowing children: Participant observation with minors. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
9.
FineM.WeisL.WeseenS., & WongL. (2000). For whom? Qualitative research, representations, and social responsibilities. In DenzinN. K. & LincolnY. S. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 107–131). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
10.
FonowM. M. & CookJ. A. (1991). Back to the future: A look at the second wave of feminist epistemology and methodology. In FonowM. M. & CookJ. (Eds.), Beyond methodology: Feminist scholarship as lived research (pp. 1–15). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
11.
FreemanM.deMarraisK.PreissleJ.RoulstonK., & St. PierreE. A. (2007). Standards of evidence in qualitative research: An incitement to discourse. Educational Researcher, 36(1), 25–32.
12.
GlaserB. G. & StraussA. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine Publishing Co.
13.
HallK. (1995). “There's a time to act English and a time to act Indian”: The politics of identity among British-Sikh teenagers. In StephensS. (Ed.), Children and the politics of culture (pp. 243–264). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
14.
HammersleyM. (2002). Ethnography and the disputes over validity. In WalfordG. (Ed.), Debates and developments in ethnographic methodology (pp. 7–22). Amsterdam, Netherlands: JAI Elsevier Science.
15.
HemmingsA. (1996). Conflicting images? Being Black and a model high school student. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 27(1), 20–50.
16.
HemmingsA. (1998). The self transformations of African American achievers. Youth & Society, 29(2), 330–368.
17.
HemmingsA. (2004). Coming of age in U.S. high schools: Economic, kinship, religious, and political crosscurrents. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
18.
HemmingsA. (2006a). Navigating cultural crosscurrents: (Post)anthropological passages through high school. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 37(2), 128–143.
19.
HemmingsA. (2006b). Shifting images of Blackness: Coming of age as Black students in urban and suburban high schools. In HorvatE. M. & O'ConnorC. (Eds), Beyond acting white: Reframing the debate on Black student achievement (pp. 91–110). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
20.
HemmingsA. (2006c). Great ethical divides: Bridging the gap between Institutional Review Boards and researchers. Educational Researcher, 35(4), 12–18.
21.
KnappM. & KnappH. (1976). One potato, two potato The secret education of American children. New York, NY: Norton.
22.
LincolnY. S. & GubaE. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
23.
LlewellynM. (1980). Studying girls at school: The implications of confusion. In DeemR. (Ed.), Schooling for women's work (pp. 42–51). London, England: Routledge.
24.
MadisonD. S. (2005). Critical ethnography: Methods, ethics, and performance. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
25.
MarcusG. & FischerM. (1986). Anthropology as cultural critique: An experimental moment in the human sciences. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
26.
MetzM. H. (1983). What can be learned from educational ethnography?Urban Education, 17(4), 391–418.
27.
MurphyE. & DingwallR. (2001). The ethics of ethnography. In AtkinsonP.CoffeyA.DelamontS.LoflandJ. & LoflandL. (Eds.), Handbook of ethnography (pp. 339–351). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
28.
NaplesN. (1996). A feminist revisiting of the insider/outsider debate: The “outsider phenomenon” in rural Iowa. Qualitative Sociology, 19, 83–106.
29.
NarayanK. (1997). How native is a “native” anthropologist? In LamphereL.RagoneH., & ZavellaP. (Eds.). Situated lives: Gender and culture in everyday life (pp. 23–41). New York, NY: Routledge.
30.
PapanekH. (1964). The woman fieldworker in a Purdah society. Human Organization, 23, 160–163.
31.
Raider-RothM. B. (2005). Trusting what you know: The high stakes of classroom relationships. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
SimmelG. (1921). The sociological significance of the ‘stranger.’ In ParkR. E. & BurgessE. W. (Eds.), Introduction to the science of sociology (pp. 322–327). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
34.
SpradleyJ. (1980). Participant observation. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
35.
St. PierreE. A. (1999). The work of response in ethnography. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 28(3), 266–287.
36.
StraussA. & CorbinJ. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
37.
ThorneB. (1993) Gender play: Girls and boys in school. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
38.
TurnerV. (1969). The ritual process: Structure and ***anti-structure. Chicago, IL: Aldine Publishing Co.
39.
WestonK. (1996). Requiem for a street fighter. In LewinE. & LeapW. L. (Eds.), Out in the field: Reflections of lesbian and gay anthropologists (pp. 274–286). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
40.
WolfD. L. (1996). Situating feminist dilemmas in fieldwork In WolfD. L. (Ed.), Feminist dilemmas in field work (pp. 1–55). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
