MAPACA

Mid-Atlantic Popular &
American Culture Association

The social sciences are a landmine of ethical quandaries concerning almost every stage of the research process, particularly when – as with current American mourning and cemetery practice – investigations address controversial topics or evoke strong emotions. The American Anthropological Association (AAA) has issued statements about our need to study “the bases and the forms of human diversity and unity” and “to apply this knowledge to the solution of human problems” (1999). The AAA also articulates the importance of principles such as “do not harm” and, in an applied sense, “the promotion of well-being” of individuals and communities (2012). These documents nevertheless acknowledge the impossibility of issuing blanket statements equally applicable to all field situations, given their nuance and complexity; upholding ideal ethical standards might require making compromises, and “doing no harm” to one individual might inadvertently disadvantage another. Cemetery studies field work and interviews of the bereaved provide illustrative case studies of practical challenges related to upholding ethical and professional ideals. This paper describes complexities that I encountered researching current cemetery and mourning practices in a rural Virginia community. Interviewing the bereaved led to the airing of unresolved tensions within families, a process that unexpectedly ballooned with my production of a memorial video per a widow’s request. These experiences oblige a consideration of how to do research while doing no harm, how to negotiate relationships that are both interpersonal and professional, and how to respond when reflecting on the possibly mixed legacy that one’s research might have left in a community.