Shiori Shakuto has posted “Equitable Obligations of Anthropologists” on SSRN. The abstract:

As most socio-cultural anthropologists participate in their subjects’ everyday lives during their fieldwork, they often form close, personal relationships with their subjects. While anthropologists may become ‘close friends’ with their subjects, they maintain their identities as ‘employees’ of a number of different organisations, such as universities, governments, and private firms. The dual identities of social anthropologists may potentially lead to a conflict between their professional goals and their ethical obligations to their subjects. Anthropologists have the power to adversely affect the interests of their subjects by serving their own interests or interests of their employers. The subjects of anthropological study are consequently ‘vulnerable’ to anthropologists taking advantage of their relationships. Given the subjects’ vulnerability to an anthropologist’s conflict of interests, this thesis will explore whether equity offers protection to them. The question will be considered in the light of the equitable principles as practised in Australia. My analysis will focus on Australian anthropologists who engage with indigenous Australians on a long-term and close personal basis. Amongst the available equitable causes of action, this thesis will examine the application of two doctrines suggested by the High Court in Western Australia v. Ward as having the possibility of affording some protection of non-land related rights of indigenous people, that is: (1) fiduciary obligations and (2) duty of confidentiality.