Forskningsetikk og forskningens frihet: utfordringerfor antropologifaget

Vike, Halvard; Fürst, Elisabeth L’orange

doi:10.18261/issn.1504-2898-2020-03-02

Cited by 7 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The categories used in their online forms were based on notions of 'data' drawn from the natural sciences and register data, which do not apply to ethnographic, descriptive material. Also, some anthropologists felt that the excessively literal interpretation of the law placed so many restrictions on the types of information that could be recorded that they precluded ordinary observational field research (Vike 2015a). The epistemological paradox we face -that ethnographic validity requires close encounters with people and minute descriptions of actions and events and social relations, but that the outcomes do not concern individual persons -appears difficult to understand for non-anthropologists.…”

Section: Responses From the Anthropological Communitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Three years later, in 2018, anthropologists employed in interdisciplinary departments on health, childhood studies and schooling mobilized at the Association's annual meeting, again raising the issue of connections among regulations, access and epistemology (Hansen 2020; Lundh 2020; Rysst 2020). They echoed concerns about the epistemological effects of the increased regulation of research raised since the Data Act came into effect in 2000 (see Øye & Bjelland 2012;Vike 2001). More co-ordinated action was deemed necessary by those participating, and an interim committee was established (Hansen & Fürst 2021;Vike & Fürst 2020).…”

Section: Responses From the Anthropological Communitymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Experiences of GDPR in Norway: Politics of autonomy and control

Simonsen,

Fürst

2024

Anthropology Today

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article explores the challenges Norwegian anthropologists face owing to the implementation of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). The authors’ analysis reveals a tension between the need to comply with data protection regulations and preserve research autonomy and methodological integrity. The authors document how GDPR's bureaucratic control mechanisms have influenced researchers’ conceptualization of ethics, leading to a split between legalistic adherence and critical responses within the anthropological community. This situation has necessitated negotiations with various stakeholders and re‐evaluating participatory observational methods, particularly in health research, where access has become increasingly difficult. The article highlights the anthropological community's efforts to navigate these regulations through national debates, establishing forums for ethics in ethnographic research and developing strategies to maintain methodological standards while ensuring GDPR compliance. The authors advocate vigilance against the colonization of bureaucratic logic and seek to secure anthropological representation in regulatory bodies to safeguard the discipline's interests.

show abstract

Section: Responses From the Anthropological Communitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Responses From the Anthropological Communitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Experiences of GDPR in Norway: Politics of autonomy and control

Simonsen,

Fürst

2024

Anthropology Today

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Forskningsetikken har de senere årene hatt en dreining mot datasikkerhet og personvernrettigheter som i liten grad støtter de komplekse etiske prosessene som møter forskere som utfører feltarbeid. Dette fremmes med rette som en bekymring blant feltarbeidere (Hansen & Fürst 2021;Simonsen & Koksvik 2020;Vike & Fürst 2020). Feltarbeid involverer ofte langvarige og mangefasetterte relasjonelle dimensjoner.…”

Section: Innledningunclassified

«Ingen visste hvor jeg var»

Svendby

2023

Etikk Praksis - Nord J Appl Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Denne autoetnografien diskuterer en situasjon som oppsto på et feltarbeid i Norge, der jeg opplevde å være i fare i rollen som forsker. Først i det øyeblikket gikk det opp for meg at jeg ikke hadde tatt noen forholdsregler for å ivareta min egen sikkerhet i felt. Det skjedde selv om de øvrige deltagernes sikkerhet var grundig diskutert og hensyntatt gjennom en rekke tiltak i studien, som var motivert av kulturelt responsiv, relasjonell, refleksiv etikk. I artikkelen drøfter jeg mulige konsekvenser av manglende oppmerksomhet i etiske retningslinjer og forskningspraksis rettet mot forskeres sikkerhet i felt. Jeg argumenterer for at veiledere har et etisk ansvar for å støtte uerfarne forskere i en refleksiv prosess om risikoen ved å delta i feltarbeid – samt å ta forholdsregler for å minimere risiko i den grad det er mulig for å unngå at forskere utsettes for fare.

show abstract

Ethnographic responsibility: Can the bureaucratization of research ethics be ethical?

Herzfeld¹

2023

Anthropology Today

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Globally, ethics reviews exhibit four significant flaws: (1) they transpose institutional fears of liability onto individual researchers; (2) they presuppose a universal ethical standard; (3) they create conflicts among formal requirements, academic freedom and respect for local ethics; and (4) they deny agency to informants. The author has nearly a half‐century of research experience in a Cretan mountain community that was often at odds with officialdom. This exemplifies the kind of research and social engagement now increasingly unfeasible because rigid ethical review procedures ignore local values. Anthropologists are subject to more restrictive rules than journalists, despite the discipline’s greater attention to local values, practices (including language) and concerns. The article ends with a call for global action to protect anthropology’s commitment to respecting cultural diversity, especially as it appears in the form of local (and sometimes labile) ethics.

show abstract

Forskningsetikk og forskningens frihet: utfordringerfor antropologifaget

Cited by 7 publications

References 7 publications

Experiences of GDPR in Norway: Politics of autonomy and control

Experiences of GDPR in Norway: Politics of autonomy and control

«Ingen visste hvor jeg var»

Ethnographic responsibility: Can the bureaucratization of research ethics be ethical?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About