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.

No abstract

Wheelchair accessibility is more than a matter of grab bars, ramps, and door widths. Accessibility can also be understood as a way of thinking and talking about the rights of people with disabilities that contains a critique of the notion of disability itself. This article examines the social and cultural construction of accessibility in the context of a particular kind of nonprofit rental housing in Canada. We present findings from a study of 17 urban housing cooperatives with varying degrees of accessibility, including three “fully accessible” co‐ops. We are particularly concerned with issues of power and control in narratives about building accessible co‐ops. We are also interested in spatial assumptions and how residents express their experience in spatial terms. Spaces framed by a discourse of accessibility and built to the standards of wheelchair‐users express a shift in power toward people with disabilities. Yet these spaces also reveal the diversity of people's needs. We conclude that discourses and practices of accessibility both inscribe difference in the built environment and deny it, allowing people to assert individual freedom, control, and choice. [accessibility, space, housing, cooperatives, Canada]

No abstract

No abstract