Abstract
That reflexivity is a characteristic of high modernity is now a truism, but its ethical and practical implications for field research have not been explored. The article is based on research conducted among complementary medical practitioners, focusing on issues of professionalisation. This research revealed the problematic and permeable nature of boundaries in ethnographic work. For example, in the course of interviews and observation therapists vouchsafed information to us which seemed controversial, even indiscreet. Was this a matter of their own naivety, their failure to demonstrate the mature ‘professionalism’ to which they aspired? Or was it a conscious strategy, conducted in the expectation that we would make such material public without attributing it to them by name? We were obliged to reflect on the nature of our own ‘professionalism’ as researchers, the ways in which private and public selves interact in the course of research. The confessional nature of some ethnographic writing raises further issues about trust, privacy and the preservation of professional boundaries between researcher and researched. We conclude that social scientists are entitled to critique ‘professionalism’ as a historically situated ‘folk’ concept whose rhetoric often obscures material interests, but they would do well not to abandon it themselves if they are to claim a responsible and ethical form of practice.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.