In general, I would agree with you although I suspect that a lot of “observational research” is never put out for comment. For example, I now that I do a lot of observational research “automatically” – you know, just walking around observing things – that may never be written up. Despite that, I have noticed time and again how often I will draw on that “data” in my work.

Part of the reason why I brought up purely observational research is because I believe that in the heat of the debate, we are not being careful about why type of research the HTT’s may be conducting. Just as an example, there’s an incident in Steve Featherston’s Harpers article about observing needles in front of the doctor’s office, and treating that as a clue (in the Piercian sense) regarding local Taliban and AQ activity; it’s pure “observation”, but it could have a major impact on US forces activity in that village.

The other reason I brought it up was that it is the type of “research” (along with “just chatting”) that is being done by soldiers in the field. They may or may not be able to analyze it in the same way we would, but they are certainly using the same basic observational (and “chatting”) skills that we do.

This leads us, or me at any rate, into questioning what, exactly, is our “professional knowledge” and how much of it is common knowledge? We certainly can’t claim to have basic observation and chatting as “unique skills” . So, what sets us apart from non-Anthropologists in terms of access to a professional knowledge base? Is it a training of those skills in a manner analogous to training a singer? Is it a “database” we carry around in our heads? Is it a toolkit of analytic skills? Is it something else?

I’m just tossing this out for discussion, since I actually think it is all of the above plus some pretty specialized knowledge of self tools as well, but I haven’t sat down and done a rigorous analysis on it yet.

To answer your question,

“Let me invert that for a minute and ask, do you consider pure observational research (no interviews, no informant relationships) to invoke an informant (host) bond?”

I would say “no.” I have nothing against observational research of whatever is freely put “out there” in public view, and I engage in such research all the time. But I also know that it is not participant observation and normally does not involve the kinds of ties that organizations such as the AAA are concerned about when producing their codes of ethics. My only comment in this case is that whatever you got from the public scene, should be put back out in public for comment, just to see if the author can defend his/her claims and interpretations in light of the feedback offered by the “producers” of whatever the reseacher studied. You are already practicing this, so obviously this comment does not apply to you.

As always, some very good points. Let me see if I can respond to them.

One you point about to being “us” who decides, I would say that a part (not all) of that has to be assumed. Any code of ethics will be a guideline for a articular group and will contain the definitions, assumptions and perceptions of that group. As such, “we” definitely should be part of the decision as to what we feel is right, wrong, hurt and harm.

At the same time, I agree that we cannot be all of that decision. But if we don’t even recognize the difference between harm and hurt, sticking only with a “good” or “bad” dichotomy, I think we, and the other stakeholders including our informants, are being naive. At any rate, some of what is irritating me is that I feel that the right to decide has, in some cases, already been abrogated by a smallish group inside the discipline.

On the benefits vs. potential harm/hurt issue, let me give you an example from my own fieldwork. When I was working with career transition counsellors which, BTW, was a cut throat business at the time (2 Billion/year in North America and totally unregulated), one of the potential dangers for them, which we all recognized, was that they might loose business as a result of what I published. Right at the start of that fieldwork, I sat down with my main informants and mentioned this to them. Their response was a) they recognized it as a danger, and b) they wanted me to give them an interim set of observations that would allow them to improve based on my observations. I should also note that they required me to use their real names. They felt that the long term risk was greater if their practices were not studied. And, quite honestly, some of my observations were taken by them and used to rework heir own practices.

On the “uninvited presence”, I suspect hat we are dealing with somewhat different ways of entering the field . And, yes, that is a key point, especially if we are looking at something like the HTS.

Let me invert that for a minute and ask, do you consider pure observational research (no interviews, no informant relationships) to invoke an informant (host) bond? To my mind, this moves beyond the reciprocity relationship of such a bond, at least as we usually talk about it, and I would like to explore the implications of it more fully.

On whether or not this is a “rationale”, I wouldn’t go that far. I would say it is the beginning of examining a possible rationale and, certainly one that appears to have more face validity for most people than that of “pure research” or “naive ideology” (I’m sure you’ve run across this as well, the type of argument that goes “I want to study oppressed people because they are oppressed and, if they don’t know it, I’ll teach them” – an extension of the old London Missionary Society ethic that Bush used as a rationale for his invasion of Iraq).

Honestly, a lot of this goes back to what the metaphysical “ground of being” is for our research – something I’ll be looking at in he next few days.

Anyway, thanks again for the critique, Max – I appreciate it .

Marc, this is a ‘rationale’ you are offering — whether it is rational or not is something open to debate. I can’t see how it is rational to expect people to work with you if you intend to either hurt or harm or whatever that goes against their interests.