This article argues that the growth of social media and other forms of digital communication make it impossible for ethnographers to offer anonymity to research sites or to those significant people involved in the research sites. Indeed, it was never actually fully possible to offer anonymity in ethnography. Ethical Guidelines need to recognise these facts and researchers need to modify their research procedures such that the advantages of more openness in research are exploited.
American Educational Research Association (2011) Code of Ethics. Washington: AERA.
2.
BallSJ (1981) Beachside Comprehensive. A Case Study of Secondary Schooling, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
3.
BallSJ (1984) Beachside reconsidered: reflections on a methodological apprenticeship. In: BurgessRG (ed.) The Research Process in Educational Settings: Ten Case Studies. Lewes: Falmer Press.
4.
British Educational Research Association (2011) Ethical Guidelines for Educational Research. London: BERA.
5.
DelamontSStephensNCamposC (2017) Embodying Brazil: An Ethnography of Diasporic Capoeira. London: Routledge.
6.
KulzC (2017) Factories or Learning. Maintaining Race, Class and Inequality in the Neoliberal Academy. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
7.
LivingstoneSSefton-GreenJ (2016) The Class. Living and Learning in the Digital Age. New York: New York University Press.
8.
NesporJ (2000) Anonymity and place. Qualitative Inquiry (6)4: 564–569.
9.
PerryKH (2007) ‘I want the world to know’: the ethics or anonymity in ethnographic literacy research. In: WalfordG (ed.) Methodological Developments in Ethnography. (Studies in Educational Ethnography. Volume 12). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
10.
PeshkinA (2001) Permissible Advantage? The Moral Consequences of Elite Schooling. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
11.
ReichJA (2015) Old methods and new technologies: social media and shifts in power in qualitative research. Ethnography16(4): 394–415.
12.
SelwynNNemorinSBulfinSJohnsonNF (2017) Left to their own devices: the everyday realities of one-to-one classrooms. Oxford Review of Education43(3): 289–310.
13.
TromanG (1996) No entry signs: educational change and some problems encountered in negotiating entry to educational settings. British Educational Research Journal22(1): 71–78.
14.
VulliamyG (2004) The impact of globalisation on qualitative research on comparative and international education. Compare31(3): 261–284.
15.
WalfordG (1987) Restructuring Universities: Politics and Power in the Management of Change. London: Croom Helm.
16.
WalfordG (1991) Researching the city technology college, Kingshurst. In: WalfordG (ed.) Doing Educational Research. London: Routledge.
17.
WalfordG (2001) Site selection within comparative case-study and ethnographic research. Compare31(2): 151–164.
18.
WalfordG (2005) Research ethical guidelines and anonymity. International Journal of Research and Method in Education28(1): 83–93.
19.
WalfordG (2007) Everyone generalizes, but ethnographers should resist doing so. In: WalfordG (ed.) Methodological Developments in Ethnography. (Studies in Educational Ethnography. Volume 12). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
20.
WalfordG (2008) Selecting sites, and gaining ethical and practical access. In: WalfordG (ed.) How to do Educational Ethnography. London: Tufnell Press.
21.
WalfordGMillerH (1991) City Technology College. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
22.
WillisP (1977) Learning to Labour. How Working Class Kids Get Working Class Jobs. Farnborough: Saxon House.
23.
WoodsP (1979) The Divided School. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
