Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-xfwgj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-03T23:34:21.188Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Good Faith, Bad Ethics: When Scholars Go the Distance and Scholarly Associations Do Not

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 December 2018

Abstract

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Commentary
Copyright
Copyright © American Bar Foundation, 1999 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

American Sociological Association (ASA). 1984. Code of Ethics. Washington, D.C.: American Sociological Association.Google Scholar
American Sociological Association (ASA). 1997. Code of Ethics. Washington, D.C.: American Sociological Association. Available online at http://www.asanet.Org/ecoderev.html Principle E: Social Responsibility.Google Scholar
Berger, Peter L. 1963. Invitation to Sociology: A Humanistic Perspective. New York: Anchor.Google Scholar
Scarce, Rik. 1990. Eco-Warriors: Understanding the Radical Ervironmental Movement, Chicago: Noble Press.Google Scholar
Scarce, Rik. 1994. (No) Trial (But) Tribulations: When Courts and Ethnography Conflict. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 23(2):123–49.Google Scholar
Scarce, Rik. 1995. Scholarly Ethics and Courtroom Antics. American Sociologist 26(1):87112.Google Scholar
Scarce, Rik. 2000. Fishy Business: Salmon, Biology, and the Social Construction of Nature, Philadelphia: Tempie University Press.Google Scholar
U.S. Senate. 1999. Thomas Jefferson Researcher's Privilege Act of 1999. 106th Cong., 1st sess., S 1437.Google Scholar