Abstract

Consistent with their treatment of individual participants, educational researchers regularly use pseudonyms to reference their study sites. The rationales, strategies, and implications of masking places may differ from those for masking people. However, both practices are so pervasive as to have become unexamined defaults, and they are assumed as methodological and ethical steps taken because little good can be imagined from actually naming our study sites or participants. Drawing on ethnographic work I conducted in Garden City, Kansas, I consider how unmasking the specific place I researched rather than referring to a place like this place mattered through my fieldwork, writing, and dissemination processes.

摘要

与他们对待个体参与者的方式一致，教育研究人员经常使用假名来引用他们的研究地点。掩蔽场所的原理、策略和含义可能与掩蔽人的原理、策略和含义不同。然而，这两种做法都非常普遍，以至于已经成为未经审查的默认做法，并且它们被假定为所采取的方法和道德步骤，因为实际上命名我们的研究地点或参与者几乎没有什么好处。借鉴我在堪萨斯州加登城进行的人种学工作，我认为通过我的实地考察、写作和传播过程，揭开我研究的特定地点的面纱而不是指像这个地方这样的地方是多么重要。