In preparation for going to Mexico this summer to work with Zapotec speakers in Teotitlan, I’m taking a Linguistics Field Methods course. The course deals largely with how to document a language. We will be working with a speaker of Aymara (from Bolivia) and practicing elicitation methods, phonological transcription, morphological analysis, etc. The goal is to produce a small lexicon and a minimal grammar. We will be using the data that we collect in the class to write squibs on interesting features of Aymara (assuming we get enough data).

Before we even get started working with our Aymara consultant, we have been working for three weeks on the ethics of conducting field research. We covered the typical “human subjects of research” kind of stuff: Don’t lie to your research subject, make sure you have consent from someone who is able to give consent, subjects have the right to pull out and remove their data from the research at any time, etc. What I found most interesting was our discussion of covert recording of subjects.

Covert recording is generally condemned, and with good reason. I had to ask though, what difference would it have made if Labov had recorded the subjects in his New York department store study? None of the subjects were known by name. The only thing that recording would have done is increased the likelihood of accuracy in transcription. Right? Admittedly the Labov situation is a bit tenuous, in that we as readers know a lot about the research subjects in this study: Approximate age, employer, and even the floors they work on. However, as far as I can recall, this information is only published in aggregate form. Tracking a specific response to a specific employee would be virtually impossible. What is the difference then, between recording and scurrying off to a corner to transcribe immediately into your little notebook?

I am against covert recording in general and I don’t expect to ever participate in it. However, I can see circumstances in which covert recording might be acceptable: If a research subject is unknown to the researcher, any names or other personally identifiable items are expunged form the data, and if the data are only published in a transcribed form, that is to say there is no access to the original voice recordings except to the original researcher. This limits what you can do with the data, but it does go some way toward preserving the privacy of the individual who has been unwittingly recorded.

Another question regarding covert recording was posed, much more specific, but also more ethically challenging: What if you are working with the last speaker of a language, and they tell you that they do not wish to be recorded? To add to that, what if they are dying? What if everyone in the community, including the subject’s children and spouse, want you to do the recording?

I find the second case to be far more clear cut and frankly far more important. You have asked a person if you can record them. Odds are good that you have spent some time with them, they are your only consultant for the research you’re doing into a dying language. They are personally identifiable at least within their community if not within your research. They have told you in no uncertain terms that they do not want to be recorded.

I was surprised to find that there were people in the class who would be willing to covertly record someone in this situation, having been expressly denied permission. Those same people would find anonymous recording in the Labov situation I described to be completely unethical.

The question that follows from this is: How do you balance the value of your work against the rights of your subjects? Obviously getting a recording of the last speaker of a dying language is extremely valuable, but is it worth personal betrayal? Keep in mind that in order to preserve your integrity as a researcher you’re going to have to lie about having permission. How far will that go?

Issues like this are difficult. We have to think about them. We may all come to different conclusions, and in the end, in the field, we can only rely on our own judgment.

We must remember that there is some science that is not worth the cost of doing.