The DOI matches its Crossref record.
(NO) TRIAL (BUT) TRIBULATIONS: When Courts and Ethnography Conflict
Abstract
The author, a Ph.D. candidate in sociology, recently was jailed for 159 days after refusing to reveal the content of confidential research interviews to a federal grand jury that was investigating vandalism by an animal rights group. The case makes clear that social science researchers who gather original data, in general, and ethnographers, in particular, have little legal protection against compelled testimony or seizure of their data. For their own good and that of their subjects, it is incumbent on researchers to be aware of this and to prepare themselves for the worst case, jail, if they pursue risky research. It appears that the only feasible long-term approach for researchers to take is to seek congressional legislation affirming the freedom of the press, including academic freedom.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Likewise, those researching protests or social movements may come into contact with police (i.e. Scarce, 1994).”
From Information security for criminological ethnographers (2024) · cites this paper as Scarce, 1994
In the citing paper
“For example, Scarce (1994) spent 159 days in prison after refusing to identify his respondents (animal rights activists).”
From Information security for criminological ethnographers (2024) · cites this paper as Scarce (1994)
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 18
- American Sociological Association., Code of ethics.
- Black, Henry Campbell., Black's law dictionary.
- Bond, Kathleen., 1978, American Sociologist, 13, 144
- Branzburg v. Hayes. 1971. 408 U.S. 665. · DOI
- Comarow, Murray., 1994, Chronicle of Higher Education, 40, A44
- Dow Chemical Co. v. Allen. 1982. 672 F. 2d 1262. · DOI
- Hallowell, Lyle., 1985, Footnotes, 13, 1ff
- In re Grand Jury Investigation and Testimony of James Richard Scarce.
- In re Grand Jury Proceedings (James Richard Scarce). 1993. 5 F. 3d 397 (9th. Cir.)
- 10.1126/science.261.5119.284 · DOI
- Scarce, Rik., Eco-warriors: Understanding the radical environmental movement.
- Scarce, Rik., 1993, Northwest Journal, 58, 4
- Scarce, Rik., 1993, Spokane Spokesman-Review, 13, A19
- Scarce, Rik., 1993, Moscow-Pullman Daily News, 12, B 1ff
- Scarce, Rik., 1993, Lewiston Morning Tribune, 15
- Trammel v. United States. 1980. 445 U.S. 40. · DOI
- Traynor, Michael., Science and Courts.
- Wax, Murray., Contemporary field research, 288
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Information security for criminological ethnographers
Kindynis, T., & Fleetwood, J. (2024) · Crime, Media, Culture: An International Journal · doi:10.1177/17416590231219746 · Cited by 6
“Likewise, those researching protests or social movements may come into contact with police (i.e. Scarce, 1994).”
Metadata
- Authors
- SCARCE, R.
- Corresponding author
- SCARCE, RIK
- Venue
- Journal of Contemporary Ethnography
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1994-07
- Volume
- 23
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 123-149
- ISSN
- 0098-3039 (ISSN-L)
- 0891-2416
- 1552-5414
- OpenAlex
- W2007932336
- Cited by
- 73
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 13.73
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Contemporary Ethnography (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Qualitative Research Methods and Ethics
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Academic Freedom and Politics
- Social Sciences › Law › Law, Rights, and Freedoms
- Keywords
- research ethics, compelled testimony, grand jury subpoenas, data confidentiality, animal rights, ethnography, academic freedom, freedom of the press, congressional legislation
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: (NO) TRIAL (BUT) TRIBULATIONS: When Courts and Ethnography Conflict. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/089124194023002001
- The paper
- SCARCE, R. (1994). (NO) TRIAL (BUT) TRIBULATIONS: When Courts and Ethnography Conflict. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography. https://doi.org/10.1177/089124194023002001
