The Ethical Dilemmas and Social Scientific Trade-offs of Masking in Ethnography

Colin Jerolmack, Alexandra K. Murphy

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    Abstract

    Masking, the practice of hiding or distorting identifying information about people, places, and organizations, is usually considered a requisite feature of ethnographic research and writing. This is justified both as an ethical obligation to one’s subjects and as a scientifically neutral position (as readers are enjoined to treat a case’s idiosyncrasies as sociologically insignificant). We question both justifications, highlighting potential ethical dilemmas and obstacles to constructing cumulative social science that can arise through masking. Regarding ethics, we show, on the one hand, how masking may give subjects a false sense of security because it implies a promise of confidentiality that it often cannot guarantee and, on the other hand, how naming may sometimes be what subjects want and expect. Regarding scientific tradeoffs, we argue that masking can reify ethnographic authority, exaggerate the universality of the case (e.g., “Middletown”), and inhibit replicability (or “revisits”) and sociological comparison. While some degree of masking is ethically and practically warranted in many cases and the value of disclosure varies across ethnographies, we conclude that masking should no longer be the default option that ethnographers unquestioningly choose.

    Original languageEnglish (US)
    JournalSociological Methods and Research
    DOIs
    StateAccepted/In press - Jan 1 2017

    Fingerprint

    ethnography
    sense of security
    guarantee
    obligation
    social science
    moral philosophy
    Values

    Keywords

    • disclosure
    • ethics
    • ethnography
    • generalizability
    • masking
    • pseudonyms

    ASJC Scopus subject areas

    • Social Sciences (miscellaneous)
    • Sociology and Political Science

    Cite this

    The Ethical Dilemmas and Social Scientific Trade-offs of Masking in Ethnography. / Jerolmack, Colin; Murphy, Alexandra K.

    In: Sociological Methods and Research, 01.01.2017.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    @article{04b2fe6f92864e1faefbc088c5127670,
    title = "The Ethical Dilemmas and Social Scientific Trade-offs of Masking in Ethnography",
    abstract = "Masking, the practice of hiding or distorting identifying information about people, places, and organizations, is usually considered a requisite feature of ethnographic research and writing. This is justified both as an ethical obligation to one’s subjects and as a scientifically neutral position (as readers are enjoined to treat a case’s idiosyncrasies as sociologically insignificant). We question both justifications, highlighting potential ethical dilemmas and obstacles to constructing cumulative social science that can arise through masking. Regarding ethics, we show, on the one hand, how masking may give subjects a false sense of security because it implies a promise of confidentiality that it often cannot guarantee and, on the other hand, how naming may sometimes be what subjects want and expect. Regarding scientific tradeoffs, we argue that masking can reify ethnographic authority, exaggerate the universality of the case (e.g., “Middletown”), and inhibit replicability (or “revisits”) and sociological comparison. While some degree of masking is ethically and practically warranted in many cases and the value of disclosure varies across ethnographies, we conclude that masking should no longer be the default option that ethnographers unquestioningly choose.",
    keywords = "disclosure, ethics, ethnography, generalizability, masking, pseudonyms",
    author = "Colin Jerolmack and Murphy, {Alexandra K.}",
    year = "2017",
    month = "1",
    day = "1",
    doi = "10.1177/0049124117701483",
    language = "English (US)",
    journal = "Sociological Methods and Research",
    issn = "0049-1241",
    publisher = "SAGE Publications Inc.",

    }

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - The Ethical Dilemmas and Social Scientific Trade-offs of Masking in Ethnography

    AU - Jerolmack, Colin

    AU - Murphy, Alexandra K.

    PY - 2017/1/1

    Y1 - 2017/1/1

    N2 - Masking, the practice of hiding or distorting identifying information about people, places, and organizations, is usually considered a requisite feature of ethnographic research and writing. This is justified both as an ethical obligation to one’s subjects and as a scientifically neutral position (as readers are enjoined to treat a case’s idiosyncrasies as sociologically insignificant). We question both justifications, highlighting potential ethical dilemmas and obstacles to constructing cumulative social science that can arise through masking. Regarding ethics, we show, on the one hand, how masking may give subjects a false sense of security because it implies a promise of confidentiality that it often cannot guarantee and, on the other hand, how naming may sometimes be what subjects want and expect. Regarding scientific tradeoffs, we argue that masking can reify ethnographic authority, exaggerate the universality of the case (e.g., “Middletown”), and inhibit replicability (or “revisits”) and sociological comparison. While some degree of masking is ethically and practically warranted in many cases and the value of disclosure varies across ethnographies, we conclude that masking should no longer be the default option that ethnographers unquestioningly choose.

    AB - Masking, the practice of hiding or distorting identifying information about people, places, and organizations, is usually considered a requisite feature of ethnographic research and writing. This is justified both as an ethical obligation to one’s subjects and as a scientifically neutral position (as readers are enjoined to treat a case’s idiosyncrasies as sociologically insignificant). We question both justifications, highlighting potential ethical dilemmas and obstacles to constructing cumulative social science that can arise through masking. Regarding ethics, we show, on the one hand, how masking may give subjects a false sense of security because it implies a promise of confidentiality that it often cannot guarantee and, on the other hand, how naming may sometimes be what subjects want and expect. Regarding scientific tradeoffs, we argue that masking can reify ethnographic authority, exaggerate the universality of the case (e.g., “Middletown”), and inhibit replicability (or “revisits”) and sociological comparison. While some degree of masking is ethically and practically warranted in many cases and the value of disclosure varies across ethnographies, we conclude that masking should no longer be the default option that ethnographers unquestioningly choose.

    KW - disclosure

    KW - ethics

    KW - ethnography

    KW - generalizability

    KW - masking

    KW - pseudonyms

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85041338009&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85041338009&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    U2 - 10.1177/0049124117701483

    DO - 10.1177/0049124117701483

    M3 - Article

    AN - SCOPUS:85041338009

    JO - Sociological Methods and Research

    JF - Sociological Methods and Research

    SN - 0049-1241

    ER -