---
name: amanthro-transparency-and-data
description: Use when handling research ethics, consent, community accountability, and data/transparency for an American Anthropologist (AA) manuscript — informed consent, anonymization, protection of vulnerable interlocutors, heritage and repatriation obligations, and what (and what NOT) to share. At AA this is an ethics-and-accountability skill grounded in the AAA ethics principles and an ethics of care. Plans the ethics and transparency; it does not grant waivers.
---

# Ethics, Consent & Accountability (amanthro-transparency-and-data)

At AA, "transparency" is not primarily a reproducibility package — it is **research ethics and
accountability**. The AAA's *Principles of Professional Responsibility* (do no harm; obtain informed
consent; be open and honest; weigh competing obligations to people, communities, scholarship, and the
profession) govern the work, and AA practices an explicit **ethics of care** in its editorial process.
The single most important rule: **protecting people can override sharing data.** Design ethics in from
the start (run this skill early *and* before submission).

## When to trigger

- Planning consent, anonymization, and accountability into a project (do this **early**)
- Working with vulnerable, criminalized, Indigenous, or displaced communities
- Handling human remains, sacred objects, genetic/biological samples, or cultural heritage
- Deciding what materials, transcripts, images, or data can — and cannot — be shared
- Preparing the manuscript's ethics statement before submission

## AAA ethics core (anchor every decision here)

1. **Do no harm.** Anticipate harm to interlocutors and communities — reputational, legal, physical,
   cultural — and design to prevent it. When sharing would endanger people, **do not share**.
2. **Informed consent** is ongoing, not a one-time signature: people understand what participation and
   publication mean, and can withdraw. For media, consent covers *that* use of *that* image/recording.
3. **Be open and honest** about your role, funders, and purposes with those you study and with readers.
4. **Weigh competing obligations** transparently — to people studied, to scholarship, to communities,
   and to the discipline — and explain how you resolved conflicts.

## Anonymization & protection of interlocutors

- Anonymize people and often places (pseudonyms, composite or masked details) where exposure could
  cause harm; state your anonymization strategy and its limits.
- For **vulnerable or criminalized** communities, treat confidentiality as protective, not optional;
  consider not collecting or not retaining data that could be subpoenaed or leaked.
- Images: blur/withhold identifiers per consent; some images should not be published at all
  (see `amanthro-tables-figures`).

## Heritage, repatriation & biological materials

- **Cultural heritage & sacred objects:** respect community authority; some knowledge/objects should not
  be reproduced or published. Follow NAGPRA and relevant national/Indigenous protocols.
- **Human remains & repatriation:** document provenance and descendant-community consent; align with
  NAGPRA/repatriation obligations; do not present ancestral remains as ungoverned data.
- **Genetic / biological data:** community consent (incl. group-level harms), benefit-sharing where
  appropriate; deposit only where consent and protocols permit.

## What about data sharing? (open-but-careful)

- AA's Wiley compliance row does not impose a journal-specific data-sharing tier; share what you
  ethically can (e.g., codebooks, non-sensitive materials, analysis details for quantitative subfields)
  and **document why** sensitive data are withheld with an access/contact path where appropriate.
- For biological/archaeological quantitative work, normal reproducibility hygiene applies: documented
  procedures, pinned versions, seeds — *subject to* the ethics constraints above. Sharing never trumps
  consent or community harm. Follow any Research Exchange data-availability prompt at upload.

## Anti-patterns

- Treating ethics as IRB paperwork done once, not an ongoing relationship of care
- Publishing identifiable details/images that endanger interlocutors to look more transparent
- Reproducing sacred/heritage materials or ancestral remains against community wishes
- Extractive research: taking knowledge/samples with no consent, benefit, or accountability
- A "view from nowhere" that hides funders, role, or competing obligations
- Sharing sensitive data for reproducibility credit when it exposes people to harm

## Output format

```
【AAA ethics】do-no-harm / consent / honesty / competing-obligations addressed? [Y/N]
【Consent】ongoing + covers publication & media use? [Y/N]
【Anonymization】strategy + limits stated; vulnerable interlocutors protected? [Y/N]
【Heritage/remains/biological】provenance + community authority + repatriation respected? [Y/N/NA]
【Data sharing】what is shared / what is ethically withheld + why
【Next】amanthro-review-process
```

## Supplementary resources

- [`../../resources/official-source-map.md`](../../resources/official-source-map.md) — AAA Principles of Professional Responsibility, AA ethics-of-care statement, Wiley data policy
- [`../../../shared-resources/empirical-methods/reporting-standards.md`](../../../shared-resources/empirical-methods/reporting-standards.md) — background reporting hygiene for quantitative (biological/archaeological) subfields only