{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.013169446883230905, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.785714285714286, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Phrónēsis and the ethical regulation of ethnographic research

This chapter focuses on the sharp tension between the ‘creep’ of ethical regulation from medicine and psychology across the whole of social science and the practical requirements of doing ethnographic research in education in ways that are ethically satisfactory. One source of this tension is the essential role of phronēsis (wise judgment) in educational ethnography, as in other forms of research and professional activity. It has been argued that the sort of procedural ‘transparency’ demanded by ethical regulation is impossible, and that attempts to achieve it necessarily have undesirable effects: that they lead ethnographers to become primarily concerned with whether or not they are compliant with regulatory requirements, rather than with making good ethical and methodological judgments. This chapter discusses how ethics committees could facilitate the development of phronēsis on the part of ethnographers, by encouraging greater attention to the complexities of methodological and ethical issues and exposing individual researchers to diverse views about these.