Ethnocentric Ethics in Anthropological Research: Sjaak Van Der Geest
Ethnocentric Ethics in Anthropological Research: Sjaak Van Der Geest
Ethnocentric Ethics in Anthropological Research: Sjaak Van Der Geest
In 1971 I was collecting life histories and some other data from as many as possible
members of an extended family in Kwahu Tafo, Ghana. The main purpose of the research
apart from writing a master thesis was to question the harmonious picture of the Afri-
can family that anthropologists tended to produce at the time (Bleek 1975). A practical
problem I faced was that half of the about 75 adult members of the family were living
elsewhere. Most of these were trading in Accra or another commercial town or farming
in a remote village that could not or hardly be reached by wheeled transport. I was
able to follow up some of these absent members by visiting them or during visits they
paid to the family in Kwahu Tafo. There was however one person, Yaw Berko,1 that I
was unable to catch, because his farming village was far and difficult to find. Stories
from others about him had fed my curiosity. I wanted to meet him. I was lucky: one day,
someone came to tell me that Yaw Berko was in town. He had come for the funeral of his
sister (cousin to be precise) who had died a few days before.
The next day I went to see him. He was mourning. I offered my condolences and
introduced myself. After a short conversation I asked him if I could interview him about
his life and some other matters. He apologised and said he could not talk to me because
he was too upset and sad about his sisters death. I realised that he was escaping me
and insisted on having the interview. After much pressure he gave in. He was too polite
I vividly remember that event and still feel ashamed about my action. Whenever a
discussion arises about the ethics of fieldwork, this memory returns. I consider it one
of my most unethical acts during my fieldwork.
There are other events in my research that have been criticised by some colleagues
as unethical but which I do not regret or regard wrong. This one is from my diary:
My old landlord has two wives who seem to get on well together. It looks a harmonious
polygamous marriage. One night I wake up from a loud noise. Two women are shouting
at one another. The door of my room leaves a big split. Through it I can see one of the two
wives. The old man tries in vain to calm them down. It is difficult for me to understand
what they are saying. It goes too fast and there are many unfamiliar words in it. I hold the
microphone of the cassette recorder in the split of the door and record their conversa-
tion. The next morning my assistant translates it word by word: You with your crooked
ass, You are black and dirty, You better take your bath in the afternoon than in the
evening, You with your cracked heel, and so on.
The quarrel had causes and consequences, which kept me busy the following days. I
had to readjust my understanding of the old mans marriage and to change my some-
what romantic ideas about polygyny.
Two years after my first research I returned to Kwahu Tafo to study sexual relation-
ships and birth control which led to my doctoral dissertation (Bleek 1976). I employed
several dubious methods during that research. One was to find out more about secret
love affairs in the family:
I asked a young boy (about fourteen years old) who lived in the same house, to check
who slept with who in four adjacent houses of the family. In the evenings he hung around
the four houses and observed who entered. The next morning he came to have breakfast
with me and delivered his report about the sleeping partners of the past night. He became
my spy and enjoyed the work. Moreover, he needed the money that I paid him. As far as
I know, noone ever found out about his spying activities.
I was not aware, at that time, of an official ethical code for anthropological research.
But I dont think I needed such a code to realize that my treatment of Yaw Berko was
wrong and unethical and to explain why I thought that my secret recording of the
fighting wives and of the nightly visits of lovers was acceptable. I will return to these
doubtful ethics in fieldwork later on.
In their plea for empirical ethics research in health care, Willems and Pols (2010:
167-168) write that
Ethnocentrism
Over the past three decades or so, anthropology as a profession has become increas-
ingly more conscious of the ethical implications and complications of doing research
and publishing its results. National associations of anthropology in several European
and in the Americas have attempted to design guidelines for correct ethical conduct
during and after research. The most influential is the Code of Ethics from the Ameri-
can Anthropological Association (AAA 2000). I will, therefore, use this code as ref-
erence for my exploration into potential ethnocentrism in the conceptualisation and
application of ethical codes. The AAA code explains in its preamble:
Speaking about research, the AAA code refers to three parties to whom the researcher
bears responsibility: to the people (and animals) they study; to their discipline; and to
the general public. Focusing on the first (the research participants) the code brings up
six issues that boil down to these three: (1) respect for people (which may imply that
the research is cancelled because it fails to honour the principle of respect); (2) not
harming the safety, dignity or privacy of people (which may necessitate anonymisa-
tion of the respondents); (3) obtaining informed consent. Missing in this list, in my
view, is the obligation to inform the population about the findings and conclusions of
the research.
Duplexity
In an article on ethics and fieldwork, Peter Pels (1999) calls anthropology a profes-
sion of duplexity. Anthropologists, he argues, serve two masters; they have to satisfy
opposing demands. Those different masters or demands change over time and vary
over places but anthropologists find themselves always in a situation where they have
to apply considerable impression management to achieve what they came to do:
(1) building friendly relationships with the people they study in order (2) to collect
the best data that will enable them to write a text that will be appreciated by academic
colleagues, funding organizations or policymakers. Thus duplexity easily leads to du-
plicity, deceit, double-dealing. I agree, anthropologists walk a tight rope; they must
balance between sincere friendship and instrumental friendship (which is not friend-
ship). Going by the title of her article Friendship as methodology, one would think
that Tillmann-Healy (2003) has fallen from that tight rope, but I dont think she has.
She rather argues that the intersubjectivity that is found in friendship provides a firm
base for qualitative research and empathic understanding. Simply said, her message is
not: make friends to get better data, but: carry out research among your friends.
In my own experience, friendship was in yet another way linked to research: friend-
ship developed in the course of doing research, because of the research. Convers-
ing, exchanging personal views and experiences, sharing data and discussing them,
forged mutual appreciation, interest in one another, trust. Assistants who helped me
in the research among older people became friends through our common interest in
the pains and pleasures of growing old. That kind of friendship, which dissolved most
of my duplexity, developed also in my contract with the young boy who reported
over breakfast on the nightly lovers in the family. My growing involvement in family
rumours and gossips, thanks to my anthropological observations, meant both meth-
odological and personal progress.
I am not denying that conflicting demands during fieldwork can lead to ambiva-
lence, discomfort and double standards2 but is that a uniquely anthropological field-
work experience? Of course not. Playing two, three, four roles is a necessity of life in
general. Without impression management no one can socially survive, as Goffman
(1969) has shown so eloquently, whether he/she is an anthropologist, a medical doc-
tor, a teacher, a politician or a shopkeeper.
How respectful the researcher has been towards the participants in the field and
how he handled the problem of duplexity is difficult to verify by others. It is mainly
fieldwork confessions and reflection that show how the researcher associated with the
people in his study. Occasionally a third person reveals certain unethical activities,
Informed consent
Informed consent is the most concrete ethical rule, which for that reason is most
frequently applied by editors and publishers in judging the ethical correctness of re-
search before publishing. The American Anthropological Association says the follow-
ing about informed consent:
The above formulation is liberal enough to allow for adjusting informed consent to
local conditions and type of research. The code does not insist on a written and signed
form, which would be quite out of place and preposterous in most anthropological
research situations. It is the quality of the consent that is important. What this qual-
ity entails can best be illustrated with examples from my own research.
I began this paper with the worst example of my style of interviewing but most
of my interviews resembled normal conversations that often started as conversations
do, spontaneously and informally, with the implicit understanding that both parties
agree, otherwise they would not engage in it. But I also approached people more
formally for a long conversation (or discussion) on a specific subject. I would for
example ask: Can we talk today about how it feels to be an old person? Or: How
you built your house? Nearly all older people enjoyed my visits and were happy that
there was someone who took an interest in what they had to say. I soon discovered
why: it rarely happened that someone came to them with questions about their life his-
But she did not convince the editor I agreed with her defence and was relieved that
her article was eventually published elsewhere after two years and several more failed
attempts (Van den Borne 2007).5 In retrospect, I believe that she could have collected the
same information through her excellent relationship with some of the women. Yet, see-
ing the womens indulgence to clients pressure in actual practice was more convincing
and therefore was likely to have greater policy impact.
Not harming
My triple disguise (informants, location and author) in Ghana did work.10 Twenty
years later my measure proved still effective. There was no copy of my thesis in a local
library and no one had established a link between my publications and the community.
I should have been content, but I was not. My decision to go into hiding had a num-
ber of consequences that I found both unethical and simply annoying. I had kept the
outcome of my research study from them, for their own good. On the one hand, I had
respected their wish (and the first article of the anthropological ethical code) to keep
delicate information confidential; on the other hand, I had deprived them of the pos-
sibility to read what I had written about them (which, surprisingly, is not demanded
by the anthropological code). They would never be able to talk back. Trying to make
their voices heard by writing about them, I had effectively silenced them. Lairumbi et
al. (2008) rightly comment that informed consent also implies that the participants are
informed about the results of the research. I could not inform them.
When in 1973 I finished my fieldwork in Ayere, I asked the head of the family to
assemble as many relatives as possible in his compound. I took a number of pictures
of the entire group and promised the old man that I would send him a large print of the
picture to hang in his house. The mans reaction was significant: A photograph would be
nice, but the book was more important. I nodded, but knew that I would never be able to
Conclusion
Notes
The author is a cultural and medical anthropologist at the University of Amsterdam. He has
done fieldwork in Ghana and Cameroon on a variety of topics including sexual relationships
and birth control, the use and distribution of medicines, popular song texts, meanings of grow-
ing old, and concepts of dirt and hygiene. Personal website: www.sjaakvandergeest.nl; e-mail:
[email protected].
I am grateful to Kodjo Senah for his suggestions and for all comments received during the sym-
posium Ethics, Health Care & Anthropology where I presented an earlier version of this paper.
1 This name is a pseudonym to protect his identity. I named him after a character in a famous
Highlife song. Yaw Berko, in the song, was a tragic figure; he had travelled from town to
town, but never found his luck. Yaw Berko died in 2010, at home in Kwahu Tafo.
2 See my chapter on etic and ethic (Bleek 1978: 80-92), and my discussion with Wim van
Binsbergen on dilemmas of instrumentality and friendship in fieldwork (Bleek 1979, 1980;
Van Binsbergen 1979). Wolf Bleek was the pseudonym I used for myself to protect the
identity of the family members among whom I did my research (see further below, and: Van
der Geest 2003).
3 Most of Thierneys accusations were later on proved false and slanderous, but his book did
bring out some other less dramatic dubious practices of the researchers.
4 I see the absence of people asking questions as the core experience of loneliness among
older people in Kwahu Tafo (Van der Geest 2004).
5 This case was also presented in another article (Van der Geest 2003) and discussed in Cash
et al. 2009.
6 The next paragraphs draw on an earlier article on confidentiality and use of pseudonyms
(Van der Geest 2003).
7 I know only a few examples of anthropologists (and sociologists) using a pseudonym: Carl
Withers (James West 1945), Laura Bohannan (Elenore Bowen 1964), and Karla Poewe
(Manda Cesare 1982).
8 The only problem I encountered was when the organizers of a conference invited me to
present a paper and sent me a prepaid air ticket on the name of Wolf Bleek. Having no of-
References
Bleek, W.
1975 Marriage, inheritance and witchcraft: A case study of a rural Ghanaian family.
Leiden: African Studies Centre.
1976 Sexual relationships and birthcontrol in Ghana: A case study of a rural town. Am-
sterdam: Antropologisch Sociologisch Centrum.
1978 Achter de coulissen: Antropologisch veldwerk in Ghana. Assen: Van Gorcum.
1979 Envy and inequality in fieldwork: An example from Ghana. Human Organization 38
(2): 200-05.
1980 Envy and inequality in fieldwork: A rejoinder. Human Organization 39 (3): 291-93.
Bowen, E.S.
1964 Return to laughter. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Cash, R. et al.
2009 Case book on ethical issues in international health research. Geneva: WHO.
Cesara, M.
1982 Reflections of a woman anthropologist: No hiding place. London: Academic Press.
Goffman, E.
1969 The presentation of self in everyday life. Harmondsworth: Pelican Books [1959].
Greenhalgh, T.
1987 Drug prescription and self-medication in India: An exploratory survey. Social Sci-
ence & Medicine 25: 307-19.
Nijhof, G.
2001 Ziekenwerk: Een kleine sociologie van alledaags ziekenleven. Amsterdam: Aksant.
Pels, P.
1999 Professions of duplexity. A prehistory of ethical codes in anthropology. Current
Anthropology 40 (2): 101-14.
Thierney, P.
2000 Darkness in El Dorado: How scientists and journalists devastated the Amazon. New
York / London: W.W. Norton & Company.
Tillmann-Healy, L.
2003 Friendship as method. Qualitative Inquiry 9 (5): 729-49.
Tomson, G. & G. Sterky
1986 Self prescribing by way of pharmacies in three Asian developing countries. The
Lancet 1986 (2): 620-22.
Van Binsbergen, W.M.J.
1979 Anthropological fieldwork: There and back again. Human Organization 38 (2):
205-09.