Alexandra Bobretsova

The questions concerning the sphere of research ethics have remained an object of discussion in social sciences for a long period of time. Discussions regarding the ethical side of social research became especially heated after the so-called "crisis of anthropology and ethnography", which occurred in the 1950s-1960s. This was the period when scientists considered it quite possible to create a uniform professional code including common ethical principles. The aim of the codes passed by the European and American social scientists (sociologists and anthropologists) were to evade the negative results of research. The researchers of that period were especially concerned about the scientist’s responsibility for putting the results of research into practice. The ethical principles declared in the codes of the associations of social science researchers were, in the opinion of scientific societies, to guarantee the ethical basis for the researcher’s work. In the 1970s-1980s, the emphasis in the discussions about ethical problems was shifted to the sphere of fieldwork methodology, whereas special attention was paid to the researcher’s ethical behaviour "in the field".

At the end of the 20th century, the issues of research ethics continued to be discussed both in western and native social science. Until the present time, no common ethical rules for cultural fieldwork have been formulated, and the existing viewpoints concerning this range from ethical absolutism to ethical relativism. At the period of "post-modern" science, the most widely spread opinion was that, in each case or in a concrete situation, it is the scientists themselves who are to solve the ethical issues brought into question. The existence of any common standards or rules was considered to be absolutely impossible. At the same time, there were also scientists who kept maintaining the position of "ethical absolutism", i.e., fought for the establishment of a common set of ethical rules and standards. Certainly, while being involved in fieldwork, the researcher has to face an entire complexity of ethical and professional obligations and experiences certain difficulties, encountering misunderstanding and conflicts. Each scientist has faced the necessity to make a choice between values that are often non-antagonistic. Discussions about the ethical issues in fieldwork should foster both the persistence of scientific discourse and the development of new notions in this particular field. Besides this, the exchange of scientific experience enables the distinguishing of the most common types of difficulties and outline methods for overcoming them.

Until the present day, no special works dedicated to the ethics of the researcher-propagator have been published in native ethnographical literature. In accordance with the traditions of presenting ethnographical materials, the researchers of culture did not mention their relationship with the studied culture in their works. In addition, the influence of personal identity on the process and results of the activity was not studied. In contemporary ethnographical science, works dedicated to the ethics of research can be found rather infrequently. Recently, quite a few publications have come out on this subject in a field new to Russian social science - qualitative sociology. Scientists, working in this sphere, have published a number of books revealing their point of view concerning the ethics of cultural research.

Western social science has quite actively discussed ethical issues. A few classical works can be quoted from scientists studying group culture through personal identity. For example, Edmundo Morales, who studied "cocaine economy" in Peru, conducted research in the area where he was born and brought up. He knew the local dialects and customs and was able to penetrate to the world hidden in the mountains, with cocaine laboratories and mountains paths along which local peasants transported the finished product. However, even his personal identity did not help much. He wrote, "When I arrived in my native town in the spring of 1980, I decided to follow the advice given to me by my professor at college: "Go home and see what kind of changes have taken place in the commune." Neither in my childhood nor later on, during my numerous homecomings, had I dared to travel beyond the borders of my native commune. In my youth, I belonged to the basic culture, but as an adult visitor I did not possess the necessary skills to understand the obvious. Although I was a local native, my conversion in order to become a researcher of the ethnography of the Andes was a long process. I realized that it was very difficult to observe the people whose culture and society represented your own roots; it was difficult to study under these people. This became possible only when I switched a more disciplined approach into everyday life" (Morales 1986, quoted in Devyatko 1998: 26).

Another example can be found in a book by Barbara G. Myerhoff, written on the basis of the research results conducted in a Jewish home for the aged in California. The author emphasizes the dual position of the researcher, whose personal identity, in its main features, coincides with the identity of the persons she is studying. According to Myerhoff’s words, her personal Jewish background and some experience in social work with the elderly people preceding her scientific career, on the one hand, facilitated her access to this field. On the other hand, these very factors created certain difficulties in retaining objectivity and building up the role of a researcher, which is different from the role of a member of the community under study. In addition, the partial coincidence of the personal identity of the researcher and those under study can not be complete. In this case, the person conducting research was a young healthy American, married and with children who was carving out her career. She was also studying the process of ageing and the means of overcoming the related problems among single elderly people, who had crossed over to America, fleeing from Nazism, and often speaking in Yiddish among themselves and preserving a special world view of the Eastern Europe galut (Myerhoff 1994, quoted in Devyatko 1998: 27-28). When analyzing the experience presented on the pages of her book, we can assume that Myerhoff encountered some ethical problems related to the necessity of keeping a balance between the researcher’s interests and the interests of those she was studying. Before making herself conscious of these problems, the researcher experienced an acute feeling of guilt, which periodically rose to the surface at different times. Myerhoff kept asking herself the following questions: "Am I competent enough, do I know enough about the traditions, the ways of keeping distance; should I work and give them money instead of studying them?" According to her words, the bright side of the guilt she experienced was the fact that she expressed the feeling of responsibility for the well-being of another person (Devyatko 1998: 28).

A third example of solving an ethical problem is given by the Adlers, husband and wife sociologists from America. The scientists conducted a research on the borderline of at least two sciences - sociology and psychology - the main research object being their own children. According to their words, the main problem to be solved was how to successfully adapt themselves to the roles of both parents and researchers, each of which had their own "arena": the public arena of a researcher and the private arena of a parent. They claim that all of their research is a search for a balance, like tight-rope-walking. When drawing conclusions of their research, they were confident that it was a success and yielded results only because they had stuck to the ethics prompted by their hearts (Adler & Adler 1996).

So we can see that scientists, making use of their own partial identity in their research, encountered the common problem of two intertwining roles: the one of a researcher and the other of a representative of the whole. The combining of these two roles brings us to the main ethical problem of the researcher-propagator: how to make compatible the ethics of the researcher and that of the propagator. It is probably up to the researcher-propagator to decide which actions are ethical for the researcher as a representative of a scientific community. His decisions must take regard of the actions, which are ethical for him as a representative of the group under study. How to overcome the contradictions arising as a result of taking these actions, and how to be a scientist and a member of a group simultaneously, and whether it is possible is all important.

Bearing in mind the experience gathered in social science of the treatment of ethical problems as well as my own research experience, I would like to draw the reader’s attention to some observations made concerning this matter. This article is an attempt to interpret my personal experience in solving ethical contradictions (the fight between two identities), which have arisen during fieldwork among a group of Russian Old Believers. The aim of this article is to introduce to the scientific public new facts revealing the difficulties encountered by the researcher who uses his own identity.

The aforementioned subject requires some knowledge of the author’s biographical data. Since 1993, I have been doing fieldwork among the inhabitants of the Ust-Tsilma district in the Republic of Komi, who are considered to be an ethno-confessional group of Russian Old Believers. The Ust-Tsilma group was formed from the 15th to the 19th century in the lower course area of the Pechora River (Lashuk 1958; Bernshtam 1983; Dronova 1999). In 1929, these territories were detached as the Ust-Tsilma district and incorporated into the Republic of Komi. At present, the Ust-Tsilma district is the only one in the Republic of Komi with an original ethnic Russian population (90%). The neighbouring territories, (Izhma district, the Nenets National Region (okrug)), are inhabited by the Izhma Komi and the Nenets. This is an agrarian area, with the population living in rural settlements and occupying themselves in agriculture, hunting and fishing. The preservation of the traditional land use system and culture has been supported by its geographical position being far from the centre, and the absence of roads.

I was born in Ust-Tsilma district, and graduated from the university there. I started reading for my MA degree at the Komi Scientific Centre and my research topic is "Traditional Material Culture: the Sphere of Subsistence of the Russian Old Believers on the Lower Course of the Pechora River in the 19th-20th C." So my situation is a good example of the intertwining of researcher and propagator in one person, and is ideal for tackling the aforementioned problem.

Old Believers have always been a rather secluded group not willing to let the "strangers" enter their private life. The conservatism and seclusion of the Old Believers have always attracted a great number of researchers. However, it has been difficult to gain access to the sphere of their traditional mode of life and religious practice. I am well aware of the fact that there are a number of researchers who gain access to the "sphere of the Old Believers" owing to their own identity. Therefore, when studying such a unique group, it is really important to keep the balance between the role of a researcher and that of being one of the group, as well as the respective ethics.

Before presenting some incidents from my expedition practice, I would like to draw the reader’s attention to some ethical matters, which, in my opinion, are obligatory for any social researcher. These are a few regulations from the "Code of Ethics of the American Association of Anthropologists", which were only translated into Russian in 1999.

The very preamble of this document already comprises the basic regulations and ethical principles of research. "Anthropologists have responsibilities concerning their family, religious associations and local communities as well as their own profession. In addition to this, they also bear responsibilities to their scientific discipline, and in a wider sense, also to society and culture and to the whole of mankind. And, apart from that, anthropologists doing fieldwork may establish close relations with the people and animals who they study, and this brings about still another level of ethical problems" (Code of Ethics… 2000).

If we tried to apply this quotation to the researcher-propagator, we could assume that he would have to be especially "ethically accurate", as the additional spheres of the family, science, culture, and local religious associations make the whole matter even more compact.

The researcher, irrespective of his subjective qualities, including his personal-psychological characteristics, research goals and methodology, has to follow the main principles determined by this document:

The researcher must not conceal his objectives, the possible influential factors and supportive sources of his research projects, his relations with funds and sponsors, his colleagues, persons under study, as well as those providing information.

The researcher is to plan the utilization and dissemination of the results of his work appropriately and timely.

The researcher has to perceive his responsibility for the people with whom he works, and whose life and culture he studies. He/she must avoid inflicting moral damage or incorrect treatment, have respect for their well being, provide for the long-time preservation of artefacts, and actively consult with those necessary about establishing working relations.

The researcher is to guarantee that his work does not inflict any damage on the safety, dignity and private life of the people towards whom the professional actions are taken.

The researcher is to find out if the persons providing information are willing to preserve their anonymity or achieve renown, and do everything they can to fulfil their wishes. The researcher is to present to the group under study all the possible consequences of their choice and explain to them that in spite of all his efforts, their anonymity might be revealed, or, on the other hand, their wide recognition might not be guaranteed.

The researcher is to be given informed consent by the persons under study who might be concerned with this research (Code of Ethics… 2000).

The researcher is responsible to science; he is responsible for the integrity and reputation of his discipline, science and research. He must not deceive or consciously mutilate, nor conceal incorrect behaviour or hinder his colleagues’ research activities. The researcher is to preserve the field and utilize the results of his work appropriately. The researcher is to consider all the reasonable requests for access to his research data and other materials with the respective aim in view, and guarantee the preservation of fieldwork data for descendants.

The researcher’s responsibility to the public consists of making the results of his research accessible to the sponsors, students, politicians, to those responsible for making decisions as well as others. The researcher has to be conscientious and carefully examine the social and political meaning of the information he is disseminating. He is to guarantee that this information will be understood correctly and in a respective context, and that it will be used with a sense of responsibility. The researcher is to elucidate the empirical basis of his reports and indicate the borders of his expertise, as well as present his ethical, ideological and political principles.

So, analyzing the circumstances determined by the codes, we could state the following. The researcher’s role requires adherence to the three main ethical principles: responsibility to the ones he studies, to science, and to society.

These are the three principles I have been trying to adhere to at all the stages of my research: from the theoretical construction and fieldwork to presenting the data in publications. The most difficult, however, has been the fieldwork stage when you have to come into direct contact with representatives of the group, and encounter the interaction referred to as "face to face, here and now".

It is necessary to briefly describe how I became a researcher-fieldworker. My first opportunity to do fieldwork was when I had to collect material on the topic "Traditional Clothing of the Russians on the Lower Course of the Pechora River". Proceeding from the theoretical positions of native ethnography, if you start work on such a subject, you are supposed, first and foremost, to analyze ethnographical and historical material and search for specificity conditioned by various factors, e.g., confessional belonging.

During the first periods of fieldwork, I was not interested in the ethical side of my actions. On my first fieldwork expeditions, I was collecting ethnographical material, making use of questionnaires and research programs, elaborated in accordance with the theory and methodology of native ethnography. However, it was quite often that I encountered difficulties. I acquired the role of a researcher in a difficult way: my parents, relatives and friends did not recognize me as a researcher. All my questions triggered an irrelevant reaction from their side. They were trying to realize the meaning of my activity, but, more often than not, failed.

Each time I went to an elderly woman for my first interview, I had to overcome a huge psychological barrier, even in spite of the fact that by that time I had acquired some experience as a journalist. During my life under the parental roof, I had not communicated much with the village people and did not know any elderly women. I first met most of my informants only during the first period of fieldwork. This time was quite difficult for me on the psychological level: mutual investigation was conducted - I was studying the elderly women and they were studying me. During my first visit, I tried to leave a favourable impression of myself in order to get another invitation.

After transcribing the first notes, it was customary for the young researcher to find incomplete answers, which brought up a great number of new questions.

In the beginning, I experienced strong unpleasant feelings when penetrating into the "intimate space" of a family or an individual, in order to record the everyday or ritual practices. At that time, it seemed as if it were imposing additional obligations on me. You unwillingly become a good friend of the household and you get included in the system of mutual agreements and obligations: fetch, take, show, and so on. When the first barriers had been removed, I first visited funerals and wakes. During the whole period I had lived at my parents’ place, I had never witnessed these kinds of events; at that time I was just not interested in them. It is really interesting to watch for the first time the traditional practices of your "own" group, already having "another point of view" yourself.

And these were not the only problems encountered in the role of a researcher. It turned out to be difficult to ask questions using the questionnaire and to keep the narrative under control. How to attune the informant to speaking about what you need and not the things he is eager to talk about; how to manage the technical side, and so on - this is the "set" of difficulties quite characteristic of young researchers and their first fieldwork period. These aggravating trifles often caused bewilderment and depression.

With time passing, most of the difficulties receded, I gathered experience and became acquainted with the people I was meeting; I knew what I wanted to learn from them, and mastered the methods of conducting an interview. During my postgraduate studies, when collecting ethnographical material for my dissertation, I did not experience any psychological discomfort. My parents, relatives and friends gradually got accustomed to the fact that I visited elderly women, practically did not meet my family or stay at home while on a business trip. They also got used to drinking tea with a dictaphone lying on the table, as well as calls from my informants enquiring when I was coming again. My relatives explained to their friends that I was studying the history of the village and the Old Believers, "collecting everything about the old", that I was doing my post-graduate studies. However, despite not realizing the aims of my scientific research, they seemed to understand me on a different level, and I constantly felt their support.

The members of my family became the representatives making access to the field possible for me. In order to "enter the field", it is quite enough if you come to Ust-Tsilma district and get into the "system of kinship relations". In almost each settlement there live some relatives who are ready to help me as a representative of the family or the kin. In this way, each trip to my parents or a visit to my relatives in town can become a field of study, especially when you bear in mind the specificity of my scientific interests (traditional food, identity, everyday life). On the other hand, it is my belonging to a certain kin that in some cases has denied me the possibility of meeting my informants. Sometimes, people have refused to meet and talk to me particularly for the reason of experiencing intolerance towards my kin.

From the ethical point of view, the most difficult aspects are participant observations and in-depth interviews (which are concerned with rather sensitive issues, discussion of which creates a problem in keeping distance), and recording funeral and wake practices when it is difficult to preserve impartiality.

The code or set of leading principles can not foresee all individual circumstances in the field. Reality offers a variety and abundance of situations appearing in the research process, and the solutions for them are not offered by any existing written ethical documents. For a long time, I already have obtained the most interesting information through the method of participant observation. The materials gained this way yield more thorough data testifying to the richness of the existing practices. So, I collected interesting material on the food preferences of the Old Believers living both in the countryside and in town, whereas the impetus for starting a research concerning most of the issues was given by the observations made inside my own family. Now, I use this method quite frequently. On the basis of an event inside my household, I formulate a hypothesis, which I afterwards check in a more neutral field.

During my trips to the district I keep diaries. However, in publications, I do not make use of the details, which, to my better understanding, might shake the confidence of my family or my informants. Sometimes, people tell me about extremely personal matters. I use this kind of information only for drawing up my research programs, which I can put into practice not violating the ethics of human relationships or the ethics of the researcher. At first, I felt inconvenienced by the fact that my home became a field and any moment my conversation with any member of the household could turn into an "interview with an informant".

At present, my family and informants do not mind my intrusion into their everyday life, especially if I do not disturb their habitual rhythm of life. On the other hand, I am also part of their world. During my previous expedition, one family agreed to sit for me for taking a series of photos on the theme "Food of Contemporary Old Believers. First Week of the Great Fast". During a whole week, I was taking photos of their meals and they patiently endured my presence. Elderly women participating in funeral and wake rituals did not protest against being taken photos of and recorded. My grandmother, a former preceptor of the Old Believers’ community, gave her consent to have herself photographed during the Great Fast, although Old Believers consider it a serious sin. My informants say about me, "Let her collect, let her go, anyway she already knows things better than we do." They discuss my comings and goings, my activity and the questions I ask them. Sometimes, informants from different villages phone one another to discuss the questions I have asked them. The carriers of traditional culture are happy about my visits, introduce me to their families, and tell me about their problems and illnesses. Certainly, everything does not always run so smoothly, sometimes they take offence when they find out that, while staying at my parents’, I did not visit them. Really, I frequently act on their requests to help them with getting a medicine, giving their regards to the daughter living in town, and so on.

Being "in the field", you develop a different understanding of the changes occurring in Russia. The impoverishment of people, increasing alcoholism, crime and unemployment, and declining morals hurt especially much: you develop an acute feeling of willingness to help and, on the other hand, perceive your own helplessness. Therefore, I am also influenced by my informants and the situations in which I happen to be changing my attitude towards the Russian reality.

Now we have come to another important issue - the problem of keeping distance when conducting research. When you do ethnographical research of one and the same group for years, it is rather difficult for you to keep distance, whereas excessive distance can also result in "closing" the field. Especially if you are regarded as "one of us", your attempts to keep distance seem to be more than unnatural. The role of a member of the group imposes additional obligations on you. Sometimes it makes fieldwork easier, sometimes more complicated. When I am "in the field", I am aware of the fact that my behaviour is undergoing a change: I subconsciously start speaking the local language, wear different clothes, and so on. Maybe I would not do all this if I had a "common" job and came only to my parents for holidays. I take advantage of the fact that I am the daughter of my parents, a member of the clan whose representatives live in settlements all over the district. My relatives help me move from one settlement to another, provide me with technical equipment. As a member of the family (daughter, grand-daughter, niece, aunt, sister) I participate in family activities (celebrations, haymaking, etc.), buy medicines, fulfil the tasks given by the other family members, consult children, communicate with the relatives who live in town, and so on.

The feeling of psychological discomfort, which followed me through the years of student fieldwork, is gone by now. It happened largely owing to reading literature describing the experience acquired by my colleagues studying their own groups. The role of a researcher is not to be in contradiction with the role of a propagator of culture. My education, my research practice, and experience create the situation of ethical choice, for which I am responsible, and I am well aware of that. I make my choice between different circumstances (where to go, to whom to ask questions, etc.), trying to keep a balance between the obligations determined by the professional code and the requirements set by my other statuses and roles.

Probably, an important ethical problem for a researcher-propagator is the fact that his/her work should really be of scientific value. In this case, one of the most dangerous things for the researcher is to be dependent on his personal subjectivity. Much has been spoken about the subjectivity of researchers-humanitarians. The very research procedure in social sciences requires close mutual contact between the object and the subject, and in this way all research becomes subjective, and all its stages are interpolated by ethical moments. The researcher-propagator still increases this subjectivity on several occasions, especially in the case of anthropological issues.

In order to avoid excessive subjectivity, I keep explaining to myself the logic of research, my each step, and make myself aware of my personal subjectivity. If you fail to do that, you face the danger of "drowning in the field". Scientific discourse treats this problem under "distance". How to preserve distance between the researcher and the object of his studies? What is the optimum distance between the researcher and the community and culture under study?

Scientists have reached the conclusion that this distance can first be achieved by the researcher’s level of theoretical preparation for the field. Second, the researchers have to assume a continuously critical attitude towards their own actions and observations. While collecting data, we have to constantly make critical notes and practice scientific scepticism. In other words, the researcher has to have several levels of perception and several levels of identity. It is the keeping of diaries and the analytical remarks made on fieldwork that make it possible to create a proper distance, raising the scientific standards of work.

There exists a point of view that the researcher has to penetrate the field as a sponge and absorb everything he observes; however, in practice, the researcher has a scientific mind, he reads books and reproduces ideas, extracts from his own experience, the qualities inherent in the subject under study. A contemporary researcher can hardly be called tabula rasa, but at the same time we cannot convert the subjective experience of a researcher into a scientific method. Therefore, the control exerted by the colleagues has to assist in making the research scientific and the inner validity of the research has to be confirmed by authentic evidence. The best affirmation of the scientific quality of an anthropological research is the precise recording of all of its stages, careful collection of the material and the logic, according to which the researcher has reached these particular conclusions. Then, we can have a good discourse with our colleagues.

Another matter, and not of less importance, is that the researcher-propagator has to be aware of the fact that his presence can change the field. Even if he conducts participant observation and does not present himself as a researcher, he changes the field space. This is a fact that has to be taken into account when drawing up a report. For example, during my previous fieldwork period, I received an invitation from one of my informants. It was the Saturday of the first week of the Great Fast. My grandmother wanted to accompany me, as the informant was her friend. As one chapter of my dissertation is dedicated to traditional meals, I noticed at once how the table was laid. In spite of the fast, we were treated to chocolates, sausage, three different salads, one of which was flavoured with mayonnaise, and vodka. "Dear guests have come, I have been waiting so long," our hostess said. This situation comprised several moments that caught my attention at once. First, why had my grandmother decided to accompany me? May she interfere in my conversation with the informant? Perhaps I should have rejected her request, fabricating some kind of a serious reason? Secondly, how to react to the fact that you are treated to vodka? Turn it down? Thirdly, how to ask why, during the fast, the table is modestly laid?

I decided that this case had to be solved in a natural way. I accepted the invitation, warned my hostess that I would be coming with my grandmother (my informant was happy when hearing that). We sat at table, poured vodka, talked. As a result, I recorded a wonderful conversation between two women - Old Believers, almost the same age, widows, the late husbands of whom had been cousins. I did not actually participate in the conversation myself, but was a passive listener. Besides that, being only a listener, I was provided answers to all the questions that had been brought up at the sight of the laid table.

The appearance of vodka on the table during fast was explained by the fact that this was an inevitable attribute of a guest meal. It turned out that the chocolates and sausage represented an "urban treat" for me (the two women did not touch them during the meal). The contemporary inhabitants of Ust-Tsilma consider sweets and sausage as festive food, and their appearance on the table is like a tribute to the honour of the guest. Quite frequently my relatives organize meals on the occasion of my arrival. In these cases prohibitions might be ignored - so at fasting-time meat can be cooked, and dairy products and spirits might be found on the table (although I myself do not eat meat, and, by the way Ust-Tsilma canons drink relatively little).

My presence at the funeral-wake rituals can also exert influence on the procedures. The participants change into their Sunday best, I received an invitation to take part in the meal, and so on.

Usually under research risks the harmful consequences of the influence exerted by the field on the researcher are treated. The researcher in the field is being continuously influenced by the culture and individuals under study, and is under great pressure when trying to record and analyze the current situation. The researcher-propagator, making use of his own identity, is subjected to the influence of the field even to a greater extent, and the exploitation level of his own psycho-emotional resources in this case is the highest.

In the process of communication between the researcher and the informant, it is not only the interviewer but also the respondent who sets certain goals. According to researchers-anthropologists, the researcher conducting interviews, conversations, or participant observations, spends a great amount of personal-psychological resources on them. For example, in the case of an interview, the situation is made comfortable for the informant, and he can speak at great length. In this way, the researcher treats him with a psychotherapeutic favour. In spite of numerous methodologies for conducting an interview aimed at obtaining the necessary information, in reality much in this process depends on the researcher’s charm and his personal peculiarities and resources.

Also, much depends on the research subject. Sometimes, it suffices to have just one ethnographical description of the observation results, sometimes the informants’ commentaries are necessary, sometimes we need to get viewpoints of the typical representatives of culture, experts and marginalia, sometimes we also need a verification of the information gathered. For example, research into such topics as the everyday life or identity of contemporary Old Believers requires much stronger intervention in the intimate space of an individual. A research into traditional food and recording of recipes for traditional dishes differs to some extent from the study of a topic dedicated to the identity of a contemporary group, which is impossible without in-depth interviews.

It is quite difficult to deal with all the issues necessary for the treatment of this subject, and it is even more difficult to make unambiguous deductions and draw the final conclusions. Other researchers-propagators might not encounter difficulties in solving these kinds of problems in their fieldwork and this might only be my personal subjective perception of the situation.

In any case, it is up to the researcher to decide how to proceed with his research and which methodologies to use in the first place. It is also beyond doubt that the biography, sex, age, the peculiarities of personal qualities exert influence on the conducted research as well as its results. In any case, the researcher has to try and make a carefully considered ethical choice, and know how to explain both to him or her-self and his colleagues, the facts and problems on the basis of which his choice was made. I also bear in mind the fact that I will encounter ethical choice at all the stages of my work.

References

Bernshtam 1983 = Òàòüÿíà Àëåêñàíäðîâíà Áåðíøòàì. Ê ïðîáëåìå ôîðìèðîâàíèÿ ðóññêîãî íàñåëåíèÿ áàññåéíà ðåêè Ïå÷îðû. – Ìàòåðèàëû ê ýòíè÷åñêîé èñòîðèè íàñåëåíèÿ Åâðîïåéñêîãî Ñåâåðî-âîñòîêà. Ñûêòûâêàð: Ïåðìñêèé óíèâåðñèòåò.

Code of Ethics… 2000 = Êîäåêñ ýòèêè Àìåðèêàíñêîé Àíòðîïîëîãè÷åñêîé Àññîöèàöèè. – Æóðíàë ñîöèàëüíîé àíòðîïîëoãèè. Òîì III, ¹ 1, 173–180.

Devyatko 1998 = Èííà Ôåëèêñîâíà Äåâÿòêî. Ìåòîäû ñîöèîëîãè÷åñêîãî èññëåäîâàíèÿ: Ó÷åáíîå ïîñîáèå äëÿ ÂÓÇîâ. Åêàòåðèíáóðã: Èçäàòåëüñòâî Óðàëüñêîãî óíèâåðñèòåòà.

Dronova 1999 = Ò. È. Äðîíîâà. Èñòîðèÿ ôîðìèðîâàíèÿ ýòíîêîíôåññèîíàëüíîé ãðóïïû “óñòüöèëåìîâ”. Ñûêòûâêàð.

Lashuk 1958 = Ë. Ï. Ëàøóê. Î÷åðê ýòíè÷åñêîé èñòîðèè Ïå÷îðñêîãî êðàÿ. Ñûêòûâêàð: Êîìè êíèæíîå èçäàòåëüñòâî.